The division within the Republican Party of Iowa is caused by tension between conservatives and moderates. Establishment moderates have a tendency to want all the seats of political power. It’s our Iowa version of Britain’s House of Lords and House of Commons. It is what gives RPI a police state image while trying to paint a picture of liberty. Most Republicans have the same philosophy as our founders, but politically, not all think as our founding fathers. The establishment wing of RPI leans more toward a compromising centrist philosophy and is tied to the British Accreditation Registrar (BAR). Draw whatever conclusion you wish from that.
The Republican Party will soon nominate a governor. But how can we differentiate a candidate in solidarity with the BAR and Federal Reserve banking system and one who is a conservative? Nominating an establishment candidate means nothing will change, even though promises of change are made. What we get is compromise with liberal democrats, more government regulation, and increased debt with less liberty and private property confiscation. An establishment individual works with liberal democrats for the system, not meeting platform objectives. He is the status quo and a political centrist. He had already been chosen as the establishment’s nominee before the primary election. An establishment candidate will act like they’re working for the people, but secretly protect the aristocracy. He doesn’t show up for fear of exposure but is loaded with campaign cash.
A plank submitted by Jason Unger at District 1 convention, to wit, “We oppose the use of majority funds by Iowa House and Senate leadership to favor candidates, influence outcomes, and undermine platform principles through non-transparent processes. We call for a transparent, accountable, and fair system for the allocation of such funds, including clear rules and public disclosure.”
Jason Unger may have exposed a crack in the establishment’s armor. When Jacob Hall covered this plank on The Iowa Standard Facebook page, the comments were everything from for, to against, to unaware of the current practice. Many supported the plank at the convention; however, it was approved only by a razor-thin margin. Hopefully, the state platform committee will advance the plank and allow it to be addressed by the delegates to the state convention.
When Republicans elect their representatives, we do not need the establishment’s approval. We elect them to represent us, not the establishment. But all too well we know about the secret backroom deals being made. It’s a lot like officers of the Court holding a secret trial and determining a verdict before putting on the show of a ‘live’ trial for public consumption before a jury – or an RPI legislative caucus meeting in closed-door secrecy before putting on a ‘live’ show for the casual spectator. We talk the talk of transparency in RPI but walk the walk of secrecy in choosing our representative leaders.
My observation is that the people elected by the people in their districts to the House (and Senate) “pay” money to the House (or Senate) Majority Fund to be appointed a committee chairmanship. This almost looks like “buying” a seat for the chairman. What about appointing the most qualified person in their field of expertise by merit instead of paying the establishment to play?
I think we need to hear from RPI Chairman Jeff Kaufmann and Co-Chair Linda Upmeyer on where they stand on this issue before the June 2 primary election. Iowa Republican voters need assurances and to be convinced that the leadership will not undermine the grassroots selection of candidates – especially in our important election for governor. We already know Randy Feenstra has been coronated by the RPI establishment to be the nominee, but he may not be the grassroots choice. He’s a no-show and unavailable to the public.
If the Chairman and Co-Chair are not willing to address grassroots concerns, then it may be time for some party leadership changes. We do not have the luxury of time to play establishment politics with our state’s future. Many feel Feenstra has been chosen by the RPI establishment to win the nomination but then throw it to Rob Sand, thereby intentionally losing the governor’s office to the Democrats. We are at an inflection point where we need our best people on the front lines. Randy Feenstra’s withdrawal from the governor’s race would provide the best assurances with the leadership’s persuasion. It’s time to set aside vanity, ego, and pride.
Let’s hope Chairman Kaufmann and Co-Chair Upmeyer will assuage the fear of grassroots Republicans and redeem themselves by addressing the House Majority Fund issue and election concerns of Randy Feenstra before the primary. In the event they don’t, I would nominate Edward ‘Ted’ Hee as chairman of RPI and Jason Unger as co-chair. I don’t know anyone with more parliamentarian by-the-book experience and integrity as they. This would be a principled dynamic duo, transparent, fair and an open book for RPI. Neither Hee nor Unger was aware I was going to write this letter.
- Rick Phillips
Pella
