Once upon a time, Republicans ran for office as moderates or as prototypes of Nelson Rockefeller. Now, every Republican running for Congress or president campaigns as a Reagan conservative…in the primary. Yet, as we have painfully witnessed over this past generation, almost none of them even fight for the few conservative issues Rockefeller believed in, much less Ronald Reagan.

We are living through a political crisis precisely because conservatives have become victim to their own success. As conservatives, our arguments have become so compelling that no GOP political hack has the courage to stand on the veracity of their views during a primary, so they fervently run as unvarnished conservatives. Then, upon assumption of office, they are unwilling to hold the line against Democrats even on the most fundamental issues – ideals for which even Democrats would have supported just one generation ago. Democrats have transformed themselves from the party of just socialism to a cult advocating for illegal immigration, transgenderism, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, and social coercion in violation of religious liberty. Yet Republicans are unwilling to pursue a righteous fight on any one of these issues.

How have we gotten to this point and why do we lack a political party filled with ranks of those willing to fight such radicalism, even when public opinion is on our side? How have we sunk to the point where few elected officials other than Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and a handful of House conservatives are willing to use the power of the purse to stop the most pernicious forms of lawlessness?

It’s because nobody is willing to campaign on their true virtues during the primary, and often, even the general election. It’s because, as Cruz noted in the debate, we have a lot of campaign conservatives and few consistent conservatives who are willing to fight when it actually matters.

Few Republican voters would disagree with this premise. After all, the November elections and the subsequent betrayal by GOP leadership in the face of Obama’s increasingly malignant and lawless policies is a painful reminder of the campaign conservative phenomenon. But as the presidential election commences in earnest, some voters might be lured into various flavors of the month and attracted to performances and theatrics that sound conservative while lapsing into the same mistakes of the past. This is precisely why Conservative Review created the 2016 presidential profiles – a comprehensive dossier chronicling what each candidate has said and done on the important issues of the day when it really mattered, and when the cameras of a Fox News spectacle were not focused upon them.

After watching the debate performances by the candidates, it must be said that most of them sound impressive and refreshing, especially when compared to the banality of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). That’s why some concerned GOP voters have asked me why our profiles are so tough on the candidates. I’ve especially gotten questions about Carly Fiorina’s mediocre scores in light of her debate performance, which was universally heralded as stellar. However, the reality is that many of these candidates have either been missing in action or downright on the other side of some of the most critical battles of our time before they made the decision to run for the GOP nomination and pander to conservative voters. In 2013, after running a failed senatorial campaign in California as a moderate, Carly Fiorina stood with John Boehner against Ted Cruz in 2013 during the conservative-led effort to defund Obamacare.

You might be wondering, is there no place for converts in the conservative movement? Are there no second chances? Don’t we welcome those who matriculate through the political process to eventually support our way of thinking?

Absolutely yes. But at a time when GOP voters have been appallingly betrayed by phony conservatives and campaign promises, there are several factors that are needed to give conservatives the confidence that the adaptation in political posture is indeed sincere; namely, transparency, specificity, and passion.

For the purpose of this thought exercise, let’s use the issue of immigration as a case study. There is perhaps no issue for which there is a greater dichotomy between campaign rhetoric and implementation of policy than immigration. As someone who has vetted candidates for PACs and worked on the issue of immigration enforcement for many years, I can confidently say that I have never met a candidate who will propagate the liberal talking points on this issue during a GOP primary. Yet, once they are elected, when it comes time to actually fight for immigration enforcement in a meaningful way, there are only a few brave souls willing to fight through the media narrative and the open borders lobbies in both parties.

So through what prism should a campaign conversion be judged?

Transparency

The first step in repenting for previous sins is confessing the errors of your ways and owning up to the mistakes of the past. Governor Scott Walker, for example, has flatly rejected his past position on amnesty and has been transparent about his change of heart on the issue, at least after a few months of vacillation. This alone is certainly not enough to convince voters that this is a sincere conversion (see the next two factors below), but it’s at least a start. Many other candidates seamlessly glide into their new positions when on the debate stage without ever owning up to their previous actions.

Has Carly Fiorina ever vouched for her previous support of the DREAM Act amnesty and opposition to ending unconditional birthright citizenship before she smoothly and articulately inveighs against the “career politicians” for failing us on immigration?

Has Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) ever owned up to the extent of his involvement in not only drafting the main amnesty bill of our time but starring in ads for Mark Zuckerberg, even after every detail was proven to be fictitious? Recently, Rubio has hinted at a change of heart and the need to implement the enforcement first, but during the time of the Gang of 8 bill he emphatically stated that the legislation did exactly that. Without taking full responsibility for such a colossal mistake – one that helped embolden Obama to thwart our laws and encourage a new wave of illegal immigration – it is hard to believe that he will not suffer another relapse of Zuckerberg syndrome the minute the primary is over.

Specificity

A candidate who had previously taken specific stances contrary to important conservative priorities would inspire a lot more confidence in their conversion by reversing course in a specific way rather than resorting to conservative platitudes.

To continue with the case study of Carly Fiorina and immigration, imagine if she were to come out and say she opposes the DREAM Act, birthright citizenship policies, supports repeal of DACA, plans to close the refugee and asylum loopholes, and promote any number of other verifiable enforcement measures? That would inspire confidence that the candidate not only understands the issue but is willing to go out on a limb and stake out specific positions against their previous circle of donors and friends. To merely toss in some throwaway lines about “securing the border” and the failed career politicians without disavowing the previous positions and articulating new specific solutions is a recipe for pandering to conservatives without actually alienating these very political class lobbies and donors.

Even if a candidate doesn’t stake out a specific policy stance but is willing to say something definitive and “controversial” (at least in the eyes of the media), that is also a huge step in obtaining credibility for a conversion. When Governor Bobby Jindal says “immigration without assimilation is an invasion,” he is making all of the open border donors squirm and is forcing himself to defend a position that, while popular with the public, will elicit incoming fire from the ruling class. Remember when Fox News’ Megyn Kelly gave Jindal a hard time for those comments?

Specific policies and definitive statements matter because it costs the candidate support with the establishment in order to stake out those positions. This is not the case with broad conservative platitudes. Coined conservative clichés during a GOP primary cannot and should not countermand specific liberal policy positions of the past in the eyes of primary voters.

Passion

It is sometimes said that the most passionate practitioners of a religious faith are those who converted to the faith later in life. They will look for every opportunity to preach their newfound truth from the rooftops and encourage others to join them.

Applying this truism to political conversions, and specifically as it relates to immigration, that would mean the candidate would make this issue a centerpiece of the campaign and travel the country holding rallies with victims of illegal immigration. They would make sure that every American knows the name of Marylyn Pharis, yet another women who was brutally raped and murdered by an illegal alien because of Obama’s amnesty policies. They would demand that Republicans block all funding for DHS until the Secure Communities policy is reinstated, pursuant to laws duly passed by Congress.

How many of these candidates have been fighting against DACA, demanding a defund of amnesty, and raising awareness about the crisis of criminal aliens resulting from Obama’s policies – other than when prompted to do so by a media interview?

Generally speaking, when a candidate never felt passionate about an issue prior to running in a GOP primary, rest assured they will drop it like a hot potato the minute they win the primary. This is the enduring and painful lesson of the past. And this is why it is so important for all of these candidates to undergo a thorough vetting process. After 8 years of Obama, our nation cannot afford another campaign conservative. (Re-posted with permission from the author, “Political Conversions: Campaign Conservative or Consistent Conservative” HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

We’ve experienced a national tragedy recently with the Supreme Court redefining a few different terms. Like a legislative body legislating against gravity, they are ultimately showing their arrogant denial for what is, in order to try and create their fantasy of what is not. It’s a progressive, utopian agenda, based on the belief that all men should be servants to government, instead of the sovereign individuals that God created them to be, with government’s duty being to serve the citizens and protect their rights.

This in itself is not the moral decline that has been affecting our country for three hundred years; it is just a shocking reminder of that ongoing decline. It is a sign of the advancing thought process that sees government as the god who will watch over us and demands submission from us. The next step, as so many thoughtful commentators have pointed out, and as testified to by government lawyers in the latest case, is the trampling of religious liberty.

Nationally, we’ve had not only Supreme Court decisions, but have been betrayed by our Senators in their approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership fast track, with the TPP being the largest public surrendering of US Sovereignty ever contemplated. However, I’m only talking about what’s happening nationally to bring focus on the fact that real political change will only come about by starting at the local level.

While I participate in elections for our national representation and send occasional emails about what needs to be done, I certainly don’t believe that I, or most individuals, have much influence on what goes on in Washington, D.C. At the State level, especially in Alaska, we can exert more influence, and that is certainly worth putting some effort into. What I’ve seen though is that we can really have an effect on the local level.

History has often shown that a small percentage of vocal hard-working people can have a large influence on our culture and in politics. Historical numbers have shown that it is really about 3% of the population that makes a difference in elections. Just last year in Fairbanks we had a local election turnout of 16.9%, and a major ballot issue was decided by 355 votes, which was about half a percent.

Let’s look at consequences of local elections to see the long and short-term impacts they make. The negative consequences of not participating are huge as our local borough learned with a last minute tax increase of half a mill taking school district funding to record levels. A note about that funding is that the mill rate increase later went down to a quarter mill when assessments increased, but the school district had saved half of the money instead of using it, so the increase in taxes ended up only putting money into the school district’s savings accounts. The loss of property rights are another easy way to see negative results of not participating in the local elections, and in our borough specifically the loss of ability to be able to cost-effectively heat your home.

Now let’s look at some benefits of participation. A big one is the principle of interposition. This is based on a core principle of the American system where individuals are sovereign and more local layers of government are more sovereign than less local ones. This is a principle that has been used by states to stop federal government encroachment in the past. It also applies to local government vs the state or feds. This is why county sheriffs are the most powerful law enforcement agent in their local jurisdiction, and can dictate to federal or state agents. This local power has been used even here in Fairbanks to revolt against the MTBE additive the federal government tried to push on us some years ago with its usual lack of science and research. That push got the State to interpose and declare they weren’t going to obey that edict, and we ended up winning and stopping that awful agenda. As the EPA has now even decided to regulate ditches on roads, it is a ripe environment for local governments to protect their citizenry from out-of-control federal regulators.

Another aspect of local elections is that many, many state and federal politicians get their start on the local level. Ben Franklin was on the City Council, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson both began on local bodies (House of Burgesses), Sam Adams was elected Tax Assessor/Collector of Boston, and the list goes on. By taking a long-term view of politics, it is a good investment to pay attention to local elections, and helping conservatives get elected, so that in the future you can have those conservatives fighting tax increases at the state level.

Conservatives not going to the polls leaves the selection process to those who have a vested interest in increasing government spending. Two-thirds of FNSB assembly members elected in the last three years voted for the completely unnecessary tax increase. Ultimately, modern politics is a war between those who believe that we should be economic slaves of government and those who feel we should be able to lead our lives as we see fit. When you don’t show up for the largest battle every year, then you are just ceding ground to those who seem to despise individual, economic and religious liberty. Rome fell to barbarians even though there were plenty of men to defend its walls. The citizens of Rome just gave up and left their positions because of apathy, not caring anymore about their city being destroyed, but the end result of that was their own property and lives being decimated. The strategy of local participation is what can protect our rights, staying home on voting day is how to lose them.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.