It always seems that whenever I write a post (here) I find myself layin’ the smack-down (here) focusing on things people should be doing, but aren’t or are doing, but shouldn’t (here)… Overall, it’s an M.O. I’m happy to take on.

Today is no different…

Lately, I’ve been in contact with several folks interested in running for office or who are currently running that are relatively new to the process.  Shocker, I know! Especially since I work for an organization that looks to identify and train first-time candidates!  The majority of them are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, are sick and tired with the ‘politics as usual’ and the ‘establishment’ (and understandably so).   They are inspired to their candidacy by a desire see the commonsense conservative principles of limited government, individual liberty, and a free market championed from their city hall to the Whitehouse in Washington.  These are the best types of raw candidates: principled and informed.  On top of that, they want to reflect this dedication to the principles in their campaign (and I’m all for it!).

A serious divergence of opinion develops, however, when one of these starry-eyed neophytes (terms applied lovingly) starts telling me about their grand strategy to win their election by being the “anti-political” candidate, staking out what they believe to be a pure and moral high ground to win solely on the merits of their idealism.

I’m not saying that in theory they are wrong or that this type of political positioning is wrong… quite the contrary.  Ideally we would have candidates not heavily influenced by invasive special interests or those not so obsessed to play the game of appearances that they become an empty suit having no real commitment to the issues.  We absolutely need candidates of substance.  But we also need candidates that want to win.

When a potential candidate approaches me with their scheme to be “anti-political” by deemphasizing the value of a comprehensive GOTV precinct strategy, swearing off all large donations from wealthy individuals or PACs, or even refusing to leverage the plethora of name-id tools like signs/ads/mail to promote their campaign, I obviously question their tactics, but more importantly question their actual motivation and dedication to win.

I’ve actually had a conversation go something close to this.

Anti-political candidate:  “I really want to run a campaign of the people.  I’m not raising any money (especially from PACs!), won’t be doing the whole ‘yard sign thing’, and don’t really think that door-walking makes that much of a difference.  I think I will seriously influence the debate and resonate with voters by making this statement.  What do you think?”
Me: “So… you don’t want to win then.”

Mind you, up to this point, this candidate has been a rockstar on the issues and their type is sorely needed at all levels of government.  But come out and tell me you want to win an election by not executing a strategic campaign, and all that build-up goes flat and I’m left frustrated and rolling my eyes.

Let’s be straight:  Money is a very important aspect of any political campaign.  Simply refusing to accept it from large donors or PACs out of hand is a blunder.  I’m certainly not saying one should whore their campaign for influence.  But accepting large donations from individuals and PAC organizations that represent a natural alliance with one’s principles and beliefs is a highly strategic and beneficial decision.

At the very base level, what bothers me the most about this type of anti-political candidate is not their scruples regarding donations and not even their unwillingness to run a proper campaign, it’s their obsession with enthusiastically  sacrificing such solid, principled potential in order to “make a statement” which history has shown will fall on deaf ears.

Politics is policy and the winners make the policy. If we have a true desire to influence the direction of this nation then we must win.

Conservatives in America are in need of winners not whiners.