Thoughtful and well written, Brian. I am not involved in the issue and don't have a direct opinion on it - your discussion seems to frame the issues well. BUT, in my experience the worst time to reorganize is when there are dust-ups and power issues in an organization. Re-org should be done because it is needed and proper, not to fix a "rogue" player or power issue. Thus the question, would this be in front of us if "the meeting" had not happened and there were no similar issues in the Party?
To another point as we go into 2023. The Party has re-set, new platform and leaders, and by definition Chairwoman Dorothy Moon is now "the establishment. " And anyone who claims to be a "wing" of the Party (Liberty or otherwise) is not a Republican at all and only serves to divide. It is the exact identity politics you referenced and in opposition to Republican beliefs.
I know we disagree on this. I use "establishment" as an imperfect descriptor of the faction that is aligned with IACI, Melaleuca, and many other big donors, PACs, and veteran Republicans. I use "liberty" as an imperfect descriptor of those who are mostly outside this system. I know you don't believe in "wings" but there are clearly factions within the party, because we see the same groups of people coalescing around different issues over and over.
I don't think it's a bad thing necessarily - that's how political parties came about in the first place - so long as we can avoid ad hominem attacks and not burn our bridges.
We only disagree on the use of language. For many years as a strategic communications consultant and in my leadership book I have stressed with organizations the importance of precision of language. Say it right and accurately and don't back down from it. But our serial sloppiness has us always on the run from the left.
Regarding "establishment" vs. "liberty" it really comes down to IACI vs IFFaci. Who do the Republicans kowtow to? As I am simply a "Republican" I choose neither.
Very nice work presenting all sides of this issue, Brian.
As I understand it, PCs are elected and represent the people. Clubs represent the clubs and by definition special interests (and, yes, those special interests could overlap with the PCs too).
Your point about double representation is a good one. Anyone could form a club, demand voting rights, and then get a voting seat on the Executive Board of the State Central Committee under these rules.
As an old person, I’m not in one of these clubs, but I worked hard for Republicans and liberty candidates. (Just like Ryan Spoon, though not as effectively.) Should I form an Old Republicans Club and then be eligible for a voting seat on the Executive Board of the State Central Committee? No, I should not -- unless I begin as an elected PC.
Given what you’ve presented here and what I’ve seen with special interests taking over a party (and the government at large), the rule change should happen and no special compromises made. Idaho should follow the other states in this regard.
P.S. An “org chart” illustrating all these memberships and relationships would be most helpful.
Excellent analysis, Brian. One other argument that I hear is the lack of reciprocity. If these three affiliate organizations bring enough value the the EC that they deserve voting rights then would not their boards benefit from having a voting representative from the IDGOP? Would not YR benefit from having an experienced party member on their board? In the 50+ years that they have enjoyed voting privileges on the IDGOP Executive Committee, not one of the three have made the offer of reciprocity.
Halleluiah! Finally a professed conservative quoting one of the Inklings (G.K. Chesterton was a contemporary and inducted "honorary" Inkling admired by both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien). Your conservative cred just went up 1 point, Brian. However, you make the same flawed analysis others have made about the Idaho GOP "Executive" panel . . . it is NOT a governing Board. It is an interim "committee" created by the Central Committee solely for the purpose of decisions that do not merit a full convening - it has NO power to "govern" the Central Committee and its actions can be overturned by the Central Committee at any time. For decades the question of who "gets a vote" reflected who needed to be heard on those "interim decisions." Republican women make up a minimum of 25% of the Central Committee, and Republican "youth" make up another quarter (by rule) . . . so the organizations that represent those segments of Republicans have always been viewed as a good "check" on whether the Central Committee would support an interim action. College Republicans have also play an important role in some of Idaho's most D-leaning districts, so they're granted a vote. Teen-age Republicans (TARs) play almost no role, represent no one on the Central Committee, and therefore have NO vote. As far as your "compromise" of leaving their vote on the Exec. Com., but taking them off the Judicial Committee . . . I've always opposed the bureaucracy of a superfluous "Judicial Committee" in the first place. We're a volunteer organization: follow the rules or don't get asked to volunteer again. Simple. No quasi-judicial panel to police and compel "volunteers" needed.
Good article that covers the ground well. Some correction, the state central committee is made up of four people from each county, Chairman, State Committeewoman, State Committeeman, Youth Committee person, plus the chair of each legislative district plus the executive committee.
While you stated it correctly, some of those arguing against the rule change claim they will lose a seat at the table. The three groups remain on the EC and would still have a voice, not a vote if changed.
There are some additional issues such as internal conflicts within the Republican women who excluded some of their local chapters from participating recently.
These groups do contribute to the party and are valuable members, but they are privately organized outside of the party. This is not a new proposal. An identical rule change has been proposed at least twice over the years, so it is not a new response by the new "establishment."
Thoughtful and well written, Brian. I am not involved in the issue and don't have a direct opinion on it - your discussion seems to frame the issues well. BUT, in my experience the worst time to reorganize is when there are dust-ups and power issues in an organization. Re-org should be done because it is needed and proper, not to fix a "rogue" player or power issue. Thus the question, would this be in front of us if "the meeting" had not happened and there were no similar issues in the Party?
To another point as we go into 2023. The Party has re-set, new platform and leaders, and by definition Chairwoman Dorothy Moon is now "the establishment. " And anyone who claims to be a "wing" of the Party (Liberty or otherwise) is not a Republican at all and only serves to divide. It is the exact identity politics you referenced and in opposition to Republican beliefs.
I know we disagree on this. I use "establishment" as an imperfect descriptor of the faction that is aligned with IACI, Melaleuca, and many other big donors, PACs, and veteran Republicans. I use "liberty" as an imperfect descriptor of those who are mostly outside this system. I know you don't believe in "wings" but there are clearly factions within the party, because we see the same groups of people coalescing around different issues over and over.
I don't think it's a bad thing necessarily - that's how political parties came about in the first place - so long as we can avoid ad hominem attacks and not burn our bridges.
We only disagree on the use of language. For many years as a strategic communications consultant and in my leadership book I have stressed with organizations the importance of precision of language. Say it right and accurately and don't back down from it. But our serial sloppiness has us always on the run from the left.
Regarding "establishment" vs. "liberty" it really comes down to IACI vs IFFaci. Who do the Republicans kowtow to? As I am simply a "Republican" I choose neither.
Very nice work presenting all sides of this issue, Brian.
As I understand it, PCs are elected and represent the people. Clubs represent the clubs and by definition special interests (and, yes, those special interests could overlap with the PCs too).
Your point about double representation is a good one. Anyone could form a club, demand voting rights, and then get a voting seat on the Executive Board of the State Central Committee under these rules.
As an old person, I’m not in one of these clubs, but I worked hard for Republicans and liberty candidates. (Just like Ryan Spoon, though not as effectively.) Should I form an Old Republicans Club and then be eligible for a voting seat on the Executive Board of the State Central Committee? No, I should not -- unless I begin as an elected PC.
Given what you’ve presented here and what I’ve seen with special interests taking over a party (and the government at large), the rule change should happen and no special compromises made. Idaho should follow the other states in this regard.
P.S. An “org chart” illustrating all these memberships and relationships would be most helpful.
I thought I had an org chart somewhere but I couldn't find it. If it turns up I'll add it to the post!
🙏👍
Excellent analysis, Brian. One other argument that I hear is the lack of reciprocity. If these three affiliate organizations bring enough value the the EC that they deserve voting rights then would not their boards benefit from having a voting representative from the IDGOP? Would not YR benefit from having an experienced party member on their board? In the 50+ years that they have enjoyed voting privileges on the IDGOP Executive Committee, not one of the three have made the offer of reciprocity.
Halleluiah! Finally a professed conservative quoting one of the Inklings (G.K. Chesterton was a contemporary and inducted "honorary" Inkling admired by both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien). Your conservative cred just went up 1 point, Brian. However, you make the same flawed analysis others have made about the Idaho GOP "Executive" panel . . . it is NOT a governing Board. It is an interim "committee" created by the Central Committee solely for the purpose of decisions that do not merit a full convening - it has NO power to "govern" the Central Committee and its actions can be overturned by the Central Committee at any time. For decades the question of who "gets a vote" reflected who needed to be heard on those "interim decisions." Republican women make up a minimum of 25% of the Central Committee, and Republican "youth" make up another quarter (by rule) . . . so the organizations that represent those segments of Republicans have always been viewed as a good "check" on whether the Central Committee would support an interim action. College Republicans have also play an important role in some of Idaho's most D-leaning districts, so they're granted a vote. Teen-age Republicans (TARs) play almost no role, represent no one on the Central Committee, and therefore have NO vote. As far as your "compromise" of leaving their vote on the Exec. Com., but taking them off the Judicial Committee . . . I've always opposed the bureaucracy of a superfluous "Judicial Committee" in the first place. We're a volunteer organization: follow the rules or don't get asked to volunteer again. Simple. No quasi-judicial panel to police and compel "volunteers" needed.
A solution would be to have the three groups remain on the executive committee to retain influence and input but have them be nonvoting members.
Good article that covers the ground well. Some correction, the state central committee is made up of four people from each county, Chairman, State Committeewoman, State Committeeman, Youth Committee person, plus the chair of each legislative district plus the executive committee.
While you stated it correctly, some of those arguing against the rule change claim they will lose a seat at the table. The three groups remain on the EC and would still have a voice, not a vote if changed.
There are some additional issues such as internal conflicts within the Republican women who excluded some of their local chapters from participating recently.
These groups do contribute to the party and are valuable members, but they are privately organized outside of the party. This is not a new proposal. An identical rule change has been proposed at least twice over the years, so it is not a new response by the new "establishment."