by John H. Horst
Candidate, California’s 52nd Congressional District
As the race for the Republican presidential nomination comes to a head, it occurs to many of us in California that we may likely have a crucial say – something we are not used to with these things usually being wrapped up by our June primary election.
Regardless of who gets the nod, the rift between the ‘rank-and-file’ voter and the Establishment has been thrust to the forefront. And no one has captured the rift better than Marco Rubio. It is puzzling how concession speeches are often the best speeches of a campaign. I suspect this is because they come from the heart instead of from the ‘profession’. This was certainly the case with Rubio. As I listened I heard him strike a theme I wish he had struck from the very start; things might have turned out differently. Here is the part of his concession speech that struck a chord:
In 2014, [the] voters gave Republicans a majority in the Senate and, still, nothing changed. And I blame some of that on the conservative movement, a movement that is supposed to be about our principles and our ideas. But I blame most of it on our political establishment… a political establishment that has grown to confuse cronyism for capitalism, and big business for free enterprise.
It’s that last line that I wish Rubio had built his campaign around from the start. He might have been able to give a different voice to the anger felt by the electorate. Instead that anger is voiced by Donald Trump – and here we are on the cusp of a fractured Republican party.
What we as conservatives have to remember is Trump is mostly a political personality. He is certainly not philosophical in any substantial way. Neither does he represent a recognizable point of view in terms of policy, be it fiscal, monetary, national security, or otherwise. Our problem is we are talking entirely too much about him and almost not at all about the underlying dynamic (the voters’ anger) which has kept him in the race.
We have created this problem for ourselves. We have created it by failing to understand the distinctions made by Rubio in his speech. I have called this the distinction between adding wealth to the economy and extracting “economic rent.” Rubio’s turns of phrase leaves me wishing: “Man, I wish I had thought of putting it that way.”
Nonetheless I remain encouraged and excited about this year. Great things are in store for us if we conservatives end up – even if we have to be dragged to this place kicking and screaming – asking ourselves whether Rubio has just put his finger right on the real problem.
And that problem has nothing to do with Trump and his antics. It has to do with why the voters are so angry that they are perfectly fine with Trump as their voice. For me, the source of that anger is simple. We are tired of being lied to.
We are told that unemployment is five percent. But that stat only comes by way of dropping those who have been out of work for more than four weeks. Once you pass that magic four week marker, you literally do not count to your government! An honest counting would put the unemployment rate at 9-12 percent! Do we really need any further explanation for the anger?
The broader labor force participation rate is at lows not seen since 1977. We are blithely told this is because of Baby Boomer retirements. Yet the labor force participation rate among those 55 and older is soaring! With interest rates at all but zero, this should be no surprise. Potential retirees look at their savings, interest rates, and come to the conclusion that the promise of retirement was nothing but a cruel joke. If the lies about unemployment were not enough, do we need more than watching retirees forced to re-enter the workforce to explain the anger?
The contretemps we are aiming at Donald Trump ought to be aimed at those running for Congress – including myself. Do we have the backbone to assume the mantle of conservative leadership in Congress even with a Republican president lacking in conservative convictions? There are a number of “hills” to charge in the coming years. Personally, I believe no hill is more important than the hill of the national debt. Do we have the courage to charge that hill on our own – with or without presidential leadership – even to our own political death? I am running to be part of that charge. And if I die my political death on the hill of the national debt, fighting for true conservative principles rather than a hot mess of corporatist, rent-seeker’s pottage, I will come home to my boys with honor, able to look them in the eye and say I left it all on that hill so they might have a prosperous future.