ripon forum july 2016

www.riponsociety.org $6.95 U.S./$7.95 Canada

July 2016Volume 50, No. 3

Who better to shame Washington thansomeone who has no shame?

“It’s important we focus on what we’re for,rather than what we stand against.”

SUSAN BROOKS’ADVICE TO THE GOP NOMINEE:

SPECIAL PREVIEW

2016 Republican National Conventio

n

Why TrumpRESONATES

www.securitasinc.com | 877.281.5543

The Leader in Protective Services

At Securitas USA, we are always looking for innovative ways to provide the best security solution for both your business and budget. With cutting-edge technology and real-time reporting, we can enhance the effectiveness of security officers to deliver a security program that offers 24/7 coverage without 24/7 officer presence. Integrated Guarding combines On-site, Remote, and Mobile Guarding with technology solutions to create unprecedented efficiency to guard your business.

Complete coverage that uses less resources – this is the future of security.

Securitas USA is proud to support the Ripon Society

Volume 50, Number 3

RIPON FORUM July 2016

One Year Subscription:$35.00 individuals

$10.00 students

The Ripon Forum (ISSN 0035-5526) is published by The Ripon Society. The Ripon Society is located at 1155 15th Street, NW,

Suite 550, Washington, DC 20005.

Postmaster, send address changes to: The Ripon Forum, 1155 15th Street, NW,

Suite 550, Washington, DC 20005.

Comments, opinion editorials and letters should be addressed to:

The Ripon Forum, 1155 15th Street, NW, Suite 550, Washington, DC 20005

Or emailed to the Editor of The Ripon Forum at [email protected].

In publishing this magazine, The Ripon Society seeks to provide a forum for fresh ideas,

well-researched proposals, and for a spirit of criticism, innovation, and independent thinking

within the Republican Party.

“Ideas that matter,since 1965.“

Publisher The Ripon Society

President Jim Conzelman

Editorial Board Thomas TaukeMichael Castle

Billy Pitts Pamela Sederholm

Judy Van RestJim Murtha

John Feehery

Editor Lou Zickar

Editorial Assistant Stephen Jackson

Advertising Coordinator Janessa Lopez

© Copyright 2016 By The Ripon Society All Rights Reserved

Debate

4 Why Trade Keeps America Strong and our Workers Employed By Dave Reichert 6 Bad Trade Deals are Keeping Our Economy in Neutral By Rick Manning Politics & Perspective

9 The Future of NATO By Lamont Colucci NATO is at a crossroads of identity and purpose. It can either rest on 19th century alliance rules, based on reaction and diminutive diplomacy, or it can create the destiny of the 21st.

11 The Scalia Election By Elizabeth Slattery The death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February led to deadlocks and compromises in some of the biggest cases of the term, highlighting the importance of his replacement on the Court.

Cover Story

14 Why Trump Resonates By Lou Zickar Americans are ashamed of their government and ready to turn the tables on the governing class.WhobettertoshameWashingtonthan someone who has no shame?

16 Tradition and Novelty in Mr. Trump’s Running Mate Selection By Joel K. Goldstein The 2016 GOP vice presidential candidate is uncertain, but the selection process will likely beuniqueevenasithonorscertainpatterns.

Cover Story (cont’d)

18 PickingaVP:WhyRulesMatter By Billy Pitts The rules governing conventions have been used for political ends in the past. That is likely to continue in Cleveland, where the selection of the running mate will be critical this year.

20 Time for a New Start By Trey Mayfield As another Republican nomination process comes to an end, this constitutional attorney and GOP activist argues that it’s time to revisit the 40-year old tradition that dictates where the process begins.

23 Storm Clouds over Philadelphia By Susan Del Percio With many Republicans in Cleveland wringing their hands about the candidate they are about to nominate, it’s worth noting that many Democrats are doing the same thing.

26 From Reagan & Ford to Trump & the Reality Show 40 Years of Republican Conventions A brief summary of GOP Conventions over the past 40 years – the highs and lows and good and bad of each, and how they may compare to this year’s proceedings.

Sections

3 In this Edition

30 News & Events - June 22nd discussion with Senate hopefuls Reps. Todd Young, Charles Boustany and Joe Heck.

32 RiponProfile - U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks

Client: BP Campaign: BP One-Off Execution Ad #: BP-16-109

Ad Title: Focusing our energy on America.

Version/Revision #: V1

Date Modified: Mar. 31, 2016 Schawk Docket #:927477A02

Media Vendor / Publication:RIPON Society

Safety: 7.875’’ w x 10.375” Trim: 8.375’’ w x 10.875’’ Bleed: 8.625’’ w x 11.125”

Mechanical Scale: 100% Format: Full Col Printer:

Focusing our energy on America.BP has been working in the U.S. for 150 years. Over the past

10 years, no other energy company has invested more in

America than BP has, and we invest more here than in any

other country. We’re reinvesting 100 percent of our profits

made here back in the U.S. and are supporting nearly 190,000

jobs across the nation. We take great pride in honoring our

commitment to America. Learn more here: bp.com/EIR

© 2016 BP America Inc. All rights reserved.

RIPON FORUM July 2016 3

In this EditionTHE RIPON SOCIETYHONORARY CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY BOARDU.S. Senators:Shelley Moore Capito - Senate Co-ChairCory Gardner - Senate Co-ChairRoy BluntRichard BurrBill Cassidy, M.D.Susan M. CollinsJoni ErnstDeb FischerOrrin G. HatchJohn HoevenPat RobertsMike RoundsThom TillisRoger WickerU.S. Representatives:Pat Tiberi - House Co-ChairSusan Brooks - House Co-ChairRenee Ellmers - House Co-ChairMartha Roby - Vice Chair, SouthErik Paulsen - Vice Chair, MidwestBill Shuster - Vice Chair, NortheastGreg Walden - Vice Chair, WestMark AmodeiAndy BarrMike BishopDiane BlackMarsha BlackburnCharles BoustanyVern BuchananLarry Bucshon, M.D.Michael C. Burgess, M.D.Ken CalvertJason ChaffetzTom ColeBarbara ComstockRyan CostelloAnder CrenshawRodney DavisJeff DenhamCharlie DentBob DoldSean DuffyTom EmmerRodney FrelinghuysenChris GibsonKay GrangerSam GravesRichard HannaJoe HeckFrench HillRandy HultgrenDarrell IssaLynn JenkinsDave JoyceJohn Katko Mike KellyAdam Kinzinger Leonard LanceBilly LongFrank LucasTom MarinoKevin McCarthyMichael McCaulCathy McMorris RodgersPatrick MeehanCandice MillerJohn MoolenaarRandy NeugebauerKristi NoemBruce PoliquinJohn RatcliffeTom ReedJim RenacciReid RibbleTom RooneyPeter RoskamSteve ScaliseJohn ShimkusLamar SmithSteve StiversGlenn ThompsonMac ThornberryMike TurnerFred UptonJackie WalorskiMimi WaltersEdward WhitfieldSteve WomackTodd Young

“Why Trump Resonates.”When people see this headline on the cover, they may think it is an endorsement

of Donald Trump. It’s not an endorsement. It’s an explanation. An explanation of how someone

who displays so few of the personal qualities we look for in our leaders now finds himself the presumptive Republican nominee.

In public at least, he is not honest, is often times racist, and, in his business dealings, is reported to have taken people for a ride. He didn’t work his way up from nothing like Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln. He inherited a bundle and then tried to attribute his entire success to his own hard work and eye for the bottom line.

Thrift and industry are important. But so are honesty and integrity and respecting the rights upon which this country was founded. The fact that he defeated 16 other candidates in the Republican primary says as much about the anger and frustration of the American people as it does the power of his personality and strength of his ideas.

Almost eight years ago, millions of people descended on Washington for the inauguration of America’s first African American President. It was a hopeful time. It was an optimistic time. It was a time for the country to finally turn the page -- from an age of political dysfunction to an era of putting the interests of the American people first.

There are many explanations for why things didn’t pan out. Those on the right tend to blame the President. They say he didn’t do enough to reach across the aisle and build relationships on Capitol Hill. And rather than governing like the centrist he portrayed himself to be during his 2008 campaign, he handed his agenda over to liberal Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and governed from the far left.

Naturally, those on the left disagree. They say Republicans dug in their heels from the day Obama was inaugurated and opposed him at every turn. As proof, they point to Mitch McConnell’s statement in 2010 that, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” They also say that Obama was ready to work with Republicans; the problem was that then-Speaker of the House John Boehner was never able to get his Tea Party troops in line.

The fact of the matter is both sides are right. Republicans did dig in their heels, and Obama could have done more to cajole them. After all, that is what Presidents are supposed to do. Unfortunately, Washington these days is overflowing with functionaries and zealots -- those who go along to get along, and those who get in the way. What the country needs, and what the American people want, are leaders.

Over the past 12 months, Donald Trump convinced a record number of Republican voters that he was the strongest leader in the GOP field. He did it by rewriting the rules of modern campaign warfare. He was like the Minutemen fighting the British -- agilely picking off each candidate one by one, while they stood in formation clumsily trying to take him down.

His tactics were offensive. His behavior was objectionable. But in the end, he won. He is the presumptive GOP nominee. The question now facing Republicans and all Americans is -- are we so desperate for change that we want him as our President?

Lou Zickar Editor of The Ripon Forum [email protected]


Debate

DAVE REICHERT

The benefits of free trade to our economy are proven and easily seen: small business expansion, job growth, wage increases, lower consumer prices and an overall strengthening of the economy. But the overwhelming benefits of trade can also be tracked through the journey of tiny hay seeds planted in the fertile soil of Ellensburg, Washington.

Calaway Trading is a hay and agricultural exporter headquartered in my home state of Washington. Founded in 1987, it has successfully expanded because of trade with Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, and 11 other countries across the globe. Now one of the ten largest exporters of hay from the western United States, it has grown its employee base to over 100 workers. With export sales continuing to grow by 5 percent annually, the possibilities for this family-owned farm are endless.

Calaway Trading’s story of expansion through increased international trade is a narrative that is shared across industries for many American companies – both large and small. America’s agriculture, manufacturing and services sectors have seen their production increase, sales grow, and revenues rise as they tap into the vast consumer base that lies across oceans and outside of America’s borders. With 95 percent of the world’s consumers living abroad, opportunity and trade have become linked.

This is especially true for small to medium sized companies, which make up 98 percent of America’s exporters. Like Calaway Trading, they have discovered that consumers outside our borders are willing to pay for high-quality American-made goods and services. But the extent consumers abroad are willing to pay for even the finest American products has its limits – and that is why strong trade agreements are critical for our job creators to remain competitive globally.

The connection between strong trade agreements and economic growth in the United States is simple, basic math. When we negotiate a trade agreement between the United States and a partner country, we break down tariffs and other

barriers that country had in place to limit American businesses from reaching consumers inside their borders. That was the case when we negotiated a trade agreement with South Korea. Prior to that agreement, U.S. cherry growers faced a 24 percent tariff when they sold their cherries in Korea, but our agreement with Korea eliminated this tariff.

In the year after the agreement took effect, our cherry exports to Korea nearly doubled and have continued to grow, making Korea our third largest market for cherries. This is not our only success. Take for example the reduction of tariffs

and other barriers that were limiting U.S. exports of pork to Colombia. Because of our trade agreement with Colombia, American pork producers can better compete with their foreign competitors and their exports have tripled in value, increasing the number of Americans they employ right along with it. These are just two examples of how trade agreements result in more jobs and more revenue here at home.

These facts have been confirmed by the independent International Trade Commission (ITC) in a recent report. According to the ITC, trade agreements have positively impacted our trade deficit, increased U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), and increased U.S. employment and wages. And for middle and lower

income Americans looking to provide for their families, trade agreements have offered greater consumer choice and lower prices. Further, workers seeking a pay raise also benefit as U.S. trade jobs pay 13 to 18 percent more than non-trade related jobs.

It is not just American workers and families who recognize trade is the key to succeeding in the 21st Century economy. Our competitors across the globe are tapping into foreign markets too and are -- and will continue -- negotiating trade agreements with or without us. If we fail to implement trade agreements while our competitors race ahead to aggressively knock down trade barriers for their own benefit and increase their own

Why Trade Keeps America Strongand our Workers Employed

The connection between strong trade agreements and

economic growth in the United States is simple, basic math.


market share, we will lose our competitive edge as our costs go up and opportunities drop. Sitting on the sidelines also means countries like China, not us, will be writing the rules and setting the standards the rest of the world will be forced to play by. Trade agreements give us tools to enforce our rights and make sure our trading partners are living up to their obligations.

Critics of trade often blame trade agreements for any negative development in manufacturing. I certainly acknowledge that sometimes trade can displace workers in particular sensitive sectors. I also agree that we should help these workers. In fact, I introduced bipartisan legislation last year, which became law, to provide cash benefits and training for workers affected by trade to give them the tools to remain in the work force. However, the majority of U.S. industries and their workers strongly benefit from trade agreements. Blaming trade agreements for any and all negative events ignores the dramatic influence technology and current economic environments have had on different sectors around the world. What once was done by many hands is now often done by machines and smart devices. Are opponents of trade willing to give up their cell phones to reignite the switchboard industry? Just as carriage makers

surely took a hit with the invention of Henry Ford’s Model T, technologies evolve and industries, workers and economies must adjust.

The best way to help our companies grow is by removing burdensome tariffs and opening up new markets, allowing us

to generate new jobs, design and create more products here in the U.S., compete on a global scale, establish our standards abroad, and bring home more profits. American workers, businesses, and producers create and make the best products and services in the world – don’t we want to give them the opportunity to sell in markets around the globe?

When we knock down barriers for our exporters, they always compete and win.

Free enterprise and competition pave the way to prosperity. These principles do not change when you cross national, regional, or party lines. If America is to remain the world’s economic leader, we must embrace trade and all it has to offer. RF

Dave Reichert represents the 8th District of Washington in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves as Chairman of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on Trade.

The best way to help our companies grow is by removing burdensome tariffsandopeningup

new markets.

Job Number 3UA459

Publication Ripon Society Event

Event Language English

Trim 7.375 x 4.875

Bleed .125

Safety/Live .25

Client United

Art Director DC

Copywriter UA

Traffic BG

CMYK RGB B&W SPOT (PMS)

Vertical/PortraitHorizontal/Landscape

Headline whatever it takes-friendly

Ad Style SMILE

[email protected]

16858 Royal CrestHouston Texas 77058281-480-3660

August ‘12

10/21/2013Half page bleed


RICK MANNING

Standing beneath a statue of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam earlier this year, U.S. president Barack Obama bragged about his ability to ram a rigged, crony capitalist trade deal through a lame duck U.S. Congress.

“Nothing is easy in Washington these days,” Obama said. “But despite the lack of cooperation with Congress, I seem to be able to get a lot of things done anyway.”

The result of Obama’s imperial presidency? Anemic job growth, lackluster GDP expansion and shrinking income levels. This ongoing economic decline has eviscerated the middle class and dramatically weakened our nation’s position in the world — making us less prosperous and more vulnerable.

As Obama prepares to leave office, his final legacy item — and quite possibly the final nail in the coffin of our free market — is the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This proposed global agreement should not be confused with the traditional idea of “free trade” being based upon a mutual lowering of tariffs to increase the flow of goods between two countries. Instead, the TPP is a managed trade deal that rewrites the rules for the world’s economy, seeking to flatten our nation’s regulations and laws, effectively ending economic sovereignty for signatories, all the while ignoring the de facto tariffs that will remain on U.S. goods.

While the specific ramifications are still unclear as Congress awaits the presentation of implementing legislation, it is clear that Congress’ ability to make changes to some intellectual property laws and at least some aspects of immigration law would be ceded to the new treaty.

What benefits would ostensibly be derived in exchange for our leaders making these debilitating concessions? Prior to Obama’s visit to Vietnam, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) released a report outlining the “positives” associated with passing TPP. Specifically, the report cited a 0.23 percent increase in

annual real income, a 0.15 percent increase in GDP and a 0.07 percent uptick in employment — over the next decade-and-a-half.

Obviously these are not real economic gains, they are rounding errors. Even worse than these status quo stats, though, was the dubious math used in engineering them. For example, the ITC report assumed every American job lost to outsourcing would be replaced and that foreign currency manipulation intended to disadvantage American goods would not undermine the deal, as it has the Permanent Normal Trade Relations deal with China, and the Korean-US free trade deal. The ITC projections also presume that foreign governments will honor the terms of this agreement — and that America will be able to enforce its provisions when they don’t (which Americans won’t).

These are not just flawed assumptions — they are pure fantasy.

No wonder ITC dramatically missed the mark in projecting outcomes for the 2011 Korean-U.S. (KORUS) free trade deal — which has doubled our nation’s trade deficit with Korea in the span of four short years (costing

an estimated 50,000 U.S. jobs in the process).Obama’s response to this damning data is to ignore

it — saying he had “not yet seen a credible argument that once we get TPP in place we’re going to be worse off.”

Bad Trade Deals are KeepingOur Economy in Neutral

As Obama prepares to leaveoffice,hisfinal

legacy item — and quite possiblythefinalnailinthecoffinofourfree

market — is the passage oftheTrans-Pacific

Partnership.

Rick Manning


He’s either lying or he’s not looking very hard.This deal is clearly not about helping America’s

economy — or the workers who derive their livelihoods from it — it is about providing select U.S. companies with access to cheap, overseas labor. In Vietnam, textile workers make roughly $100 a month. By hiring them — or by indirectly benefiting from slave labor in countries like Malaysia — apparel and shoe companies will be able to replace U.S. workers. Just ask the 900 New Balance employees in Maine who will get priced out of their jobs if this deal goes through.

Companies outsourcing American positions claim they will make up for the carnage done to our economy by lowering consumer prices — but this promise has proven illusory, too.

“U.S. workers without college degrees have lost roughly 12.2 percent of their wages — even after accounting for the benefits of cheaper imported goods,” columnist Leo Hendrey, Jr. wrote recently for Reuters.

Along with government overtaxing, overspending and overregulation — trade deals like TPP are why the U.S. economy remains stuck in neutral. Growth hasn’t exceeded 4 percent in a decade-and-a-half, and hasn’t eclipsed three percent since 2005. This

is the worst economic run since the Great Depression, and recent data points to things getting worse before they get better — even without hanging this millstone around the necks of our workers.

Such is the sad legacy of government-negotiated, centrally planned “free” trade. Frankly, it is past

time America’s leaders rebuked it — and stood up to the imperial president looking to foist it upon us as the capstone of his own failed legacy. RF

Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government.

Along with government overtaxing, overspending and overregulation — trade deals

like TPP are why the U.S. economy remains stuck in

neutral.

HELPING DRIVE OUR COUNTRY FORWARD EVERY DAY.Day after day, thousands of Con-way employees proudly deliver the freight that keeps America’s economy running strong. As a leader in the transportation and logistics industry since 1929, Con-way has a track record of providing lasting careers, being environmentally responsible and leading the industry in safety. From supporting our employees deployed in the military to working with our government to create a stronger transportation infrastructure, Con-way is making the American way a reality.

Learn how Con-way Inc. is helping power the economy: www.con-way.com

CWCM-18545.RiponForumAd.2014.FR.indd 1 1/24/14 1:31 PM


CREATING JOBS The business of chemistry supports nearly 6 million high-paying jobs for hard-working Americans.

ENHANCING SAFETY The products of chemistry—from bike helmets, to life-saving medicines, to a strong defense—keep us safe every day.

DRIVINGINNOVATION American chemistry drives the innovations that create a healthier, safer and more sustainable future.

Helping to solve the biggest challenges facing our nation and world.

AmericanChemistry.com


Politics & Perspective

LAMONT COLUCCI

The sword of Damocles hangs over NATO: What role does the alliance have in the 21st century? Events in Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic demonstrate Russian use of salami tactics (slicing bits and pieces of influence and territory) has accelerated. NATO must create relevancy and power if it is not only to survive, but to thrive.

Media coverage about Europe has been dominated by the European Union and Brexit. However, it is highly unlikely that the fate of the EU is tied to the fate of NATO.

Readers should be reminded that NATO served as a bulwark against communism and the Soviet threat during the Cold War and serves as a guarantee for peace in Europe and abroad today. In an age where the American people are less likely to endorse unilateral American action, NATO can serve as the best conduit for American national security and by being a united front for the democratic West. NATO has been left to stagnate as events in the Middle East, issues of tactical counterterrorism and the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” have dominated the few media centers and policymakers still devoted to foreign affairs. The alliance increasingly runs the risk of what former Secretary Robert Gates called a “two-tiered alliance”: a minority of NATO partners who can engage in serious 21st century combat operations and the majority whose contributions are likely to be more symbolic or humanitarian. Only 5 percent of our European partners have the ability to deploy outside of their borders and only four of the 28 members spend the

required 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Where does this leave the alliance in the 21st century?

Like all organic healthy bodies it must adapt and grow on its foundations. There needs to be a streamlined approach that blends old and new into a new, vibrant, proactive alliance. The defensive nature of the alliance was dictated

by the rules of the Cold War. A shield of defense must now be transformed into a sword of offense.

The first issue arises out of the democratic electorates that NATO serves. These populations need to be invested in NATO as a bulwark of Western civilization, not merely a technocratic treaty system. NATO, with American leadership, must promote a message to the electorate beyond an attack upon one is an attack upon all. It must create a narrative that describes the alliance in terms of protecting and enhancing democratic civilization and human rights.

Second, United States leadership is not only critical, but fundamental. This means that America is always out in front of policy and practice. Our European and Canadian partners are unwilling to go to the mat without us. The tired sentiment that the “Europeans should understand their own interests in a stable world

order” was never accurate. America is the indispensable partner and leader of the alliance and should be bold in its leadership - leading from the front.

Third, NATO expansion eastward has happened. There is no turning back, and, as a result, the United States and NATO are in a position that they must defend Eastern

TheFuture of NATO

In an age where the American people are less likely to endorse

unilateral American action, NATO can serve as the best

conduit for American national security and by being a united front for the democratic West.

Lamont Collucci


Europe and the Baltic. Putin’s recent actions serve as stark reminder that he is willing to use whatever tactics are necessary to achieve Russian expansion into the so-called “near abroad.” NATO forward basing into these new partners is the only thing that will deter war. The debates over NATO expansion into existing partners is over, and is now counterproductive.

Fourth, NATO partners must keep pace with modern military and technological innovation and training. The alliance must be truly integrated so there is no problem of joint, large military operations. The 2011 operations in Libya again exposed the dependency on the United States. Afghanistan is even more telling. Just as the United States must lead from the front, so do the Europeans need to keep pace through their currency, soldiers and commitments. NATO does not have to be as strong as its weakest link, but it does have to be as strong as the middle core. This is especially a problem when looking at power p r o j e c t i o n and overseas deployment.

Fifth, NATO must have a clear and streamlined plan and organization for integrating allies outside of NATO to ensure western diplomatic and military success. NATO should work toward a real resurrection of ANZUS as well as greater coordination with Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

Sixth, NATO integration with Russia was always a fantasy. Russia seeks strategic dominance, and will attempt to manipulate Western division for its own ends. A discussion of NATO partnership with Russia is not only unrealistic in the extreme, it also creates a fiction that Russian interests and NATO interests coincide. As a matter of fact, they neither correspond regionally or globally. This fantasy brought us the events in Georgia in 2008 and now Ukraine and the Baltic.

Seventh, NATO must adopt a cohesive counter-terrorism plan that is both united and aggressive. NATO countries must recognize that the enemy is jihadism and that unless their power centers are removed outside of

Europe, in places like Iraq and Syria, alliance countries will continue to be reactive and devastated.

Eighth, and most importantly, NATO needs a geostrategic mission that does not react to one crisis after another. This mission must meld the grand strategies of the nation states that comprise it, headed by the United States. This mission must combine the promotion of democratic civilization, human rights and realist interests. NATO’s shield that surrounds Europe, the United States and Canada is a given; the sword that collectively deals with tyranny, genocide and illegal conquest would be the goal. This will not only deter war and atrocities, it will unite the West and relieve the singular burden from one nation, or a small group of them.

C o n c u r r e n t with this is the need for NATO to develop and enact joint strategies for assisting democratic forms of government that replace tyrannies, since it is no good to merely defeat tyrants. This will require the ability to create security, civil society and market economies in those same countries. Fewer tyrannies like those in Iran, Syria and North Korea are likely to believe that state sponsored terrorism, ethnic cleansing or

using weapons of mass destruction are good ideas if they fear a massive, collective Western response spearheaded by the United States. Great power actors like Russia and China will be constrained within their own borders if they see demonstrations of Western unity, in league with other democratic allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

NATO is at a crossroads of identity and purpose. It can either rest on 19th century alliance rules, based on reaction and diminutive diplomacy, or it can create the destiny of the 21st. RF

Lamont Colucci is chair of politics and government at Ripon College, a former Fulbright scholar to the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna and author of “The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How they Shape our Present and Future,” among other books.

Meeting of NATO Ministers of Defense in June

United States leadership is not only critical, but fundamental.


ELIZABETH SLATTERY

The just-concluded Supreme Court term starkly makes the case for why the Court should be at the forefront of every voter’s mind this November. The sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February led to deadlocks and compromises in some of the biggest cases of the term, highlighting the importance of every seat on the Court.

Whomever the next president selects as Scalia’s replacement will be crucial to either preserving or eroding our rights, given the fact that the Court routinely hears cases involving just about every aspect of Americans’ lives. Consider the following cases:

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-school teachers who opted out of union membership challenged the requirement that they subsidize the costs of collective bargaining. The teachers objected to being forced to pay for the union’s lobbying the state over teacher salaries and benefits, arguing that this violates their First Amendment free speech and associational rights. This case was seen as the best chance of reversing a bad precedent dating back to the 1970s that allowed the government to force employees to pay a “fair share” for collective bargaining, even if they opted out of union membership. Scalia was considered a likely fifth vote for the teachers, but following his passing, the case ended in a 4-4 tie.

In Zubik v. Burwell, numerous religious organizations, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, colleges, and charities challenged Obamacare’s requirement that religiously-affiliated non-profit employers provide employee health insurance that covers potentially life-ending drugs and devices. The Court issued a short, unsigned opinion instructing the lower courts to reconsider these claims in light of the government’s belated admission that it could provide the mandated coverage without forcing the employers to violate their religious beliefs. While this

was a victory for the Little Sisters and other challengers, the justices did not rule on the merits of their claims. It’s hard not to imagine the full-throated defense of religious freedom, like in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Court might have issued had Scalia still been on the Court.

In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Abigail Fisher sued the school after she was denied admission, arguing

that the school discriminated against her because she is white. The case reached the Supreme Court twice, with four members of the Court ruling this term that the school’s race-conscious admissions program does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, so the case still may have ended up tied 4-4 had Scalia been on the Court. It’s possible, however, that Scalia could have persuaded the author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, to write a different sort of opinion. Kennedy’s opinion in Fisher II betrayed two-and-a-half decades of his own equal protection jurisprudence and gutted his prior opinion in the case, leaving many Court watchers scratching their heads.

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, abortion clinics and doctors challenged Texas’ law updating the health and safety standards for clinics and requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. They claimed that

these regulations were intended to limit women’s access to abortion, while the state argued that its common sense regulations advanced women’s health and safety. Five members of the Court concluded that neither provision advanced the health of women and instead placed an “undue burden” on them. In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court rejected its longstanding precedents to rule in favor of the clinics and doctors. Once again, all eyes were on

Whomever the next president selects as

Scalia’s replacement will be crucial to either preserving or eroding

our rights.

TheScalia Election

Elizabeth Slattery


Kennedy since he was the only justice to join the majority decision who also was on the Court at the time it decided Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), setting up the undue burden framework. Likewise, he authored Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), finding that such regulations are subject only to rational basis review—the lowest standard of review. Scalia’s absence seems to coincide with a change in Kennedy. Though he has long been considered the “swing” vote on the Court, now he is rejecting his own precedents. Perhaps it was Scalia who kept Kennedy from going off the rails in areas where he traditionally had been more conservative.

In United States v. Texas, the Court split 4-4 on the Obama administration’s authority to unilaterally change the law and give legal status and work authorizations to almost 5 million illegal aliens. Since the justices were unable to reach a result, the preliminary injunction issued by a district court judge in favor of Texas and 25 other states stands as the case continues. This likely means that the program is dead for the reminder of the Obama presidency, and the next president may decide to rescind the program or not defend the prior administration’s actions in court. Thus, this is a win for the separation of powers because at its core this case underscored the importance of each branch of government respecting the limits of its authority. Scalia was a strong

defender of the separation of powers, and he was not shy about chastising members of any branch of government when they stepped out of line. Imagine the harsh words he may have had for the administration had he been on the Court when it considered this case.

These cases demonstrate the magnitude of issues the Supreme Court regularly considers each term. That’s why every justice matters, and why voters should consider what kind of justice the next president will put forward to replace Scalia. Another Obama justice likely would have ruled lockstep with the Court’s liberal block, allowing the administration to violate the separation of powers and trample religious freedom; restricting states’ ability to ensure women’s safety comes before the abortion industry’s profits; limiting public employees’ speech and associational rights; and permitting race-based discrimination at our nation’s colleges.

Scalia’s seat is not the only one at stake. The next president may have the chance to appoint several justices over the course of the next eight years. This November, voters should think about why the Supreme Court matters. RF

Elizabeth Slattery is a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

AEP.com

Powerful possibilitiesWe stretch to touch the stars and plan for

tomorrow. Our eyes dance as we uncover

nature’s mysteries. We position ourselves

to strike a win and fit together life’s little

pieces. For all of our possibilities, AEP is

here to power them.


10581829-10477593-GMMM4356000-8.375x10.875-4C.indd GMMM4356000

1--

8.375” x 10.875”8.375” x 10.875”

8.125” x 10.625”8.5” x 11”100%

GM-Commonwealth Detroit10477593

5-25-2016 6:26 PM5-25-2016 6:27 PM

Rodrigues, Pedro (TOR-MCL)

NoneNone

Tim MattimoreJohn FiebkeNone

1Looks that stop

Louis

Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black

NoneNoneJen SamraLillian Sooloo

Jenine RhoadesEric Singer

Jeff Wilson

CH-BRND-MAL

Tiffany.Punnett

Ripon Society------------

1st_Assembly 05/25/16CP SWOP 189986A01

LOOKS THAT STOP TRAFFIC. AUTOMATIC BRAKING THAT HELPS YOU BE READY FOR IT.

1 MSRP. Tax, title, license, dealer fees and other optional equipment extra.

With available Low Speed Front Automatic Braking, the all-new 2016 Chevrolet Malibu can automatically apply the brakes to help avoid a collision when traveling at speeds up to 50 mph.

STARTING AT $22,5001 AS SHOWN $34,8301

THE ALL-NEW 2016 CHEVROLET MALIBU

S:8.125”S:10.625”

T:8.375”T:10.875”

B:8.5”B:11”

GMMM4356000__189986A01.indd 1 5/25/16 8:27 PM


Why TrumpRESONATES

Who better to shame Washington thansomeone who has no shame?

by LOU ZICKAR

Cover Story


2016 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION PREVIEW

In July 2008, the top political story in America was the rise of Barack Obama from relative political newcomer to presumptive Democratic nominee. Eight years later, a similar political story has taken hold.

Donald Trump has gone from political novice to presumptive Republican presidential nominee in 12 short months. It’s too early to tell if Trump’s story will end the same way as Obama’s. But one thing is certain – Trump is the anti-Obama of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Where Barack Obama promised to change Washington by bringing people together, Donald Trump promises to change Washington by blowing things up. He is a cruise missile aimed at our nation’s capital. And in this year’s presidential primary, a record 13.4 million Republicans decided to launch him on his way.

For all their differences, though, it is worth noting that Trump’s rise is being fueled by much of the same discontent that fueled Obama’s rise in 2008. The discontent is a product of the past decade of dysfunction in Washington, DC. From Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to the Great Recession of 2008 to the VA scandal of 2014 to the rise of ISIS today, the federal government has repeatedly been unable to ward off threats and deal with problems effectively after they arise.

What makes Americans even angrier is that the governing class in Washington appears to be profiting from this dysfunction. Between 2000 and 2012, the income of the typical household in our nation’s capital increased by 23.3%, while the median household income for the nation as a whole dropped by 6.6%. Washington was the only large metropolitan area in the country to make it through the recession virtually unscathed. Today, five of the 10 wealthiest counties in America are in the DC metropolitan area.

As a result of this disconnect and because of this dysfunction, voter trust in America’s government – and America’s governing class -- is now at or near an all-time low. And when voters are asked to identify the main problems facing the country, they increasingly rank government at or near the top of the list. This dissatisfaction is not surprising. The average American worker pays over $17,000 in payroll and income taxes each year. They want to know their money

is being well spent. This is especially true in tough economic times, when budgets are tight and dollars are few.

Unfortunately, it often seems like the only time that “value” is mentioned in Washington is when there is an “s” at the end of the word. Make no mistake – qualities like honesty and integrity are important in our elected leaders. But so is making sure that taxpayers get something back for the hard-earned tax dollars they send to DC. In this election, it’s about value, not values. And therein lies the appeal of Donald Trump.

Despite questions about his record, concerns about his positions, and misgivings about statements he has made that would put any other candidate to shame, many taxpayers are giving the billionaire businessman the benefit of the doubt because they believe he will bring an end to government dysfunction and make government work. Whether it’s

building a wall along our border or rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads, the taxpayers who are supporting Donald Trump are doing so because they believe he will provide them with a return on their federal investment by putting their tax dollars to good use. In short, he will provide them with value.

As for the criticism that Trump has not issued any position papers and has no interest in public policy, these same taxpayers would also point out that America has had a decade’s worth of position papers from presidential candidates. Where has it gotten the

country? There is no silver bullet when it comes to public policy. The only silver bullet is political courage, and that has been in short supply in recent years.

Theodore Roosevelt once said that the American people are “slow to wrath, but when their wrath is once kindled, it burns like a consuming flame.” In 2008, voters elected Barack Obama to change Washington with a message of unity. That didn’t work, and now the flame of their wrath is burning bright.

Americans are ashamed of their government and ready to turn the tables on the governing class. Who better to shame Washington than someone who has no shame? RF

Lou Zickar is the Editor of The Ripon Forum.

There is no silver bullet when it comes to public policy. The only silver bullet is political courage, and that has been

in short supply in recent years.


JOEL K. GOLDSTEIN

Recent vice presidential selections have blended tradition and novelty. Presidential candidates usually follow similar selection procedures and criteria. Yet each selection presents different options, in a different context, considered by a unique selector. These factors always introduce variation amidst continuity. The 2016 Republican vice presidential candidate remains uncertain but the selection process will probably be unique even as it honors certain patterns.

Vice presidential selection changed in 1976. The move to presidential primaries and caucuses resolved presidential nominations earlier (although not on the Republican side that year) and created a pre-convention vice presidential selection period of weeks to months. Intensive vice presidential vetting preceded the convention (including by President Gerald R. Ford in 1976) and most candidates engaged an experienced lawyer to scrutinize prospective running mates and report either to the presidential candidate or a small circle of trusted advisers. As the second office became more important and as a vice presidential debate became a standard campaign feature, most presidential candidates recognized that choosing a presidential running mate was politically wise. Ticket-balancing diminished but did not disappear.

Recent Republican vice presidential selections have followed several patterns. With one exception, Republican presidential candidates have chosen plausible presidents as their running mates. These include Senator Bob Dole, Ambassador George H.W. Bush, Senator Dan Quayle, former Secretary (of HUD) Jack Kemp, former Secretary (of Defense) Dick Cheney, and Representative Paul Ryan. The one exception was Senator John McCain’s choice of Governor Sarah Palin; with less than two years in high governmental office, her experience was far less than any running mate since Governor Spiro T. Agnew and she soon proved a campaign liability. Other Republican vice presidential nominees have

had considerable experience in high governmental positions: Bush (10), Quayle (12), Ryan (14), Cheney (16), Dole (16) and Kemp (22).

Republican presidential candidates who are D.C. outsiders always choose D.C. insiders. Thus Governors Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Mitt Romney chose George H.W. Bush,

Cheney and Ryan respectively. Not since 1948 has an outsider (Governor Tom Dewey) run with another outsider (Governor Earl Warren).

Republican vice presidential candidates generally are chosen in large part from, or to placate, the more conservative wing of the party. That tendency holds true for every selection since 1976 except Bush who Reagan, the conservative icon of the 20th century, chose. It also explains every selection from 1952 to 1976 except Henry Cabot Lodge, Richard M. Nixon’s 1960 choice at a time when Nixon’s conservative credentials were not contested.

Donald Trump, this year’s presumptive nominee, has followed past practice by engaging A.B. Culvahouse, a respected Republican lawyer, to again vet prospective running mates (although Trump’s process was somewhat erratic in initially suggesting that Dr. Ben Carson, then Corey Lewandowski, would be heavily involved in the process, decisions soon reversed).

In other respects, Trump faces challenges which may cause deviation from these past patterns. Whereas few Republican luminaries have declined to be considered for the second spot in recent years, Governors John Kasich, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, and Rick Scott and Senators Marco Rubio and Rob Portman are among the otherwise plausible running mates who have come close to issuing Shermanesque statements this year. Senator John Thune has publicly wondered whether being Trump’s running mate would be a good option for many potential candidates.

Tradition and Novelty inMr. Trump’s Running Mate Selection

Republican presidential candidates who are D.C. outsiders always choose

D.C. insiders.

Joel K. Goldstein



Trump accordingly starts off with some “A” and “B” listers apparently removing themselves from consideration.

Whereas prior Republican nominees have reached out to opponents -- Ford chose Dole partly based on Reagan’s recommendation, Reagan courted Ford and Bush, and Dole chose Kemp even after the latter endorsed Steve Forbes when Dole’s nomination was a done deal -- Trump has publicly criticized leading Republicans and has made statements which many, including some vice presidential possibilities, have denounced.

As the first presumptive presidential nominee since Wendell Willkie in 1940 without experience holding public office, Trump, appears the consummate political outsider. Past practice would suggest he would seek someone with experience in Congress and/or the executive branch and who would compensate for his lack of a national security credential.

Trump has some apparent options, like former presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Governor Chris Christie, Governors Mary Fallin and Mike Pence, Senator Jeff

Asthefirstpresumptivepresidentialnominee since Wendell Willkie in 1940 withoutexperienceholdingpublicoffice,

Trump, appears the consummatepolitical outsider.

Sessions, and perhaps Senators Tom Cotton and Joni Ernst, among others. But Gingrich and Christie carry baggage, Sessions has never been considered a national candidate, Ernst has less experience than any recent nominee other than Palin, Cotton just a touch more, and Fallin helps little with the national security imperative.

Whereas past nominees used the second spot to energize the right, Trump has critics among Senator Ted Cruz’s supporters but also among establishment Republicans. The second spot will not mend all his fences.

The most unusual Republican presidential candidate in recent history thus faces a challenging context with constricted options, all of which may introduce even more novelty into 2016. RF

Joel K. Goldstein is the Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law at Saint Louis University School of Law. He is also the author of The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden (Kansas, 2016).


Coal brings affordable, reliable energy to communities and businesses, and helps produce the steel needed for roads, bridges and buildings. As one of America’s leading producers of coal, we look forward to filling this vital need for generations to come — both at home and around the world.

Learn how we fuel progress at alphanr.com.

Alpha Natural Resources | P.O. Box 16429, Bristol, VA 24209 | 276.619.4410

Powering the future.


BILLY PITTS

It was a race like no other.The Republican establishment had supported several

candidates as their nominee for President.The early long shot was a well-heeled New York CEO

of a major corporation who not only had never run for public office, but at one-time had supported Democrats and many of their social programs.

At first, he was just a minor blip in public polling. But his candidacy was fueled by endless favorable media attention. And after a protracted fight at the Republican National Convention, he was voted the Republican nominee. The year was 1940. The candidate was Wendell Willkie.

Given the “never before” quality of the 2016 presidential race, it’s worth recalling that Republicans – and America – have seen their share of electoral drama before. It’s also worth recalling that much of this drama has occurred at party conventions, where candidates are considered, platforms are parsed, and rules are debated that have an impact beyond the convention’s three or four days.

Take 1940. After Willkie won the nomination following a protracted fight at the convention, the big question was who his running mate should be. The New York businessman had apparently given the question very little thought. Perhaps he recalled John Nance Garner’s observation from eight years earlier that the office was “not worth a bucket of warm spit.” Whatever the reason, he delegated the decision to House Minority Leader Joe Martin.

Martin also served as Chairman of the Convention. In what was likely one of the more intriguing decisions of his career, Martin selected Charles McNary as Willkie’s

running mate. McNary not only served as Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate, but was also the leader of a “Stop Willkie” movement at the Convention. Despite this earlier disloyalty, Willkie accepted Martin’s recommendation, and McNary was officially selected as the Vice Presidential nominee on the first ballot.

The Willkie-McNary ticket would go on to lose the election to Franklin D. Roosevelt and his running mate,

Henry Wallace, by a vote of 55-45%. It would be another 12 years before Republicans won the White House.

During that time – and, in fact, over the next three decades – rules were adopted that formalized the nomination process at GOP conventions. These rules shortened the length of nominating and seconding speeches. They also required two calls of the roll for each state during the Presidential and Vice Presidential nomination. The first call was intended to allow states to formally place names in nomination; the second call was intended to provide a vote to select the actual Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees.

At the 1972 convention, a new nomination requirement was added. For the first time, any candidate for President was required to have the majority support from three state delegations in order to be formally nominated. The rule was put in place at the time to prevent the anti-war candidate, Pete McCloskey, from being nominated. There was no such requirement for the number two

spot.In 1976, the rules were changed again. Three weeks

before the Kansas City convention, then-candidate Ronald

Picking a VP:WhyRulesMatter

Wendell Willkie

Given the “never before” quality of the 2016 presiden-

tial race, it’s worth recall-ing that Republicans – and America – have seen their share of electoral drama

before.



Reagan announced that he was selecting Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Reagan’s announcement was part of a gambit that included an attempt to change the rules to force Gerald Ford to announce his choice. Ford had already tried to stack the deck against any opponent by adding rules that not only required formal nominations to have the support of five states, but also required delegates to abide by the results of their respective state primaries. Reagan’s rules gambit in response failed. Ford captured the nomination and selected Senator Bob Dole over Nelson Rockefeller for Vice President. Many of the Reagan delegates were upset over their candidate’s hard-fought loss. To demonstrate their ire, they placed Jesse Helms’ name in nomination, and voted for over 30 other people, as well.

When Reagan finally won the nomination in Detroit four years later, he chose George H. W. Bush of Texas. Many conservatives were still angry about Bush’s primary run against their idol. To demonstrate their ire, when the balloting began for Vice President, a number of delegates did not vote for Bush. Rather, they threw their support behind Phil Crane, Jesse Helms, Jack Kemp, Henry Hyde and three other conservative favorites.

At the 1984 convention in Dallas, unity prevailed as Republicans coalesced behind the reelection of Reagan and Bush. The party adopted a rule that required a majority of five states to formally nominate both the candidates for President and Vice President. The rule for a first call of the roll of the states was also dispensed with, a practice that has continued at every convention since. A motion to suspend the rules was also adopted, allowing the delegates to vote for the nominees for both President and Vice President on the same ballot. This has never been done again.

In 1988, on the second day of the convention, George H.W. Bush announced that he had selected Senator Dan Quayle as the choice for his Vice President. His choice was unexpected, and there was talk of the possibility of a Jack

Kemp candidacy for VP. A challenge never materialized, in large measure because the convention had adopted a temporary rule. The provision would allow a motion to nominate by acclamation if there was only one candidate who had demonstrated the required support of the majority of five states. No roll call was required, and Dan Quayle was chosen in a matter of minutes.

This temporary rule was made permanent in 1992, and every nominee since then has been unopposed and selected quickly as the nominee.

In 2000, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney -- one of the supporters of the acclamation rule in 1988 -- was chosen by acclamation even before the convention had finally selected George W. Bush as their candidate for

President.In 2012, sweeping

changes were adopted, including the new requirement that candidates for both President and Vice President must now demonstrate the support of eight states. These rules were made on behalf of the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, in large measure to prevent Ron Paul from being nominated. They also made any convention challenge to a second term bid more difficult.

Some have questioned whether future Republican conventions should continue with such requirements for formal nominations.

This year in particular, many are questioning whether delegates should be bound to vote according to their respective state primaries.

While it remains to be seen how these questions will be answered, one thing is certain -- the rules governing political conventions have been used to obtain political ends in the past.

That is likely to continue in Cleveland. RF

Billy Pitts is a former Officer and Assistant to the Chairman at past Republican Conventions and former top aide to the House Republican Leadership. He currently serves as a member of The Ripon Forum’s editorial board.

The rules governing political conventions have been used to obtain political ends in

the past. That is likely to continuein Cleveland.



TREY MAYFIELD

In addition to officially selecting their Presidential nominee for 2016, Republicans attending this year’s convention in Cleveland will also be setting the rules that will govern the GOP nomination process in 2020.

For 40 years now, this process has started in Iowa. But given the inordinate amount of time and money that candidates spend in the Hawkeye State leading up to its first-in-the-nation contest, and given the fact that the winner of the Iowa Caucus is almost never the eventual GOP nominee, perhaps it is time to make a change.

After all, Iowa became first-in-the-nation not because of a grand political plan, but because of a fluke. The year was 1972. When national D e m o c r a t s decided that year to democratize their presidential selection process with a nominee selected by voters, Iowa Democrats decided to use the state’s traditional caucus system to choose their delegates to the national convention, instead of the primary system most states implemented.

In order to get the national delegates selected in time for the summer convention, the Democrats had to hold their precinct caucuses in the preceding winter so that there was time to complete the subsequent county, district, and state conventions. Because Iowa’s process took so long, it had to be started long before other states.

The 1972 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses garnered unexpected media coverage when the then-relatively unknown Senator (and eventual nominee) George McGovern of South Dakota made an unexpectedly strong showing against then-front-runner Senator Ed Muskie of Maine.

Time for a New StartAs another nomination process comes to an end,it’s time to consider changing where it begins

Given the fact that the winner of the Iowa Caucus is almost never the eventual GOP

nominee, perhaps it is time to make a change.

Sensing a chance to share the first-in-the nation limelight, the Iowa GOP decided to copy the Democrats, and hold its own presidential caucuses in 1976. As a result of this series of historical curiosities, the nation now finds itself descending on Iowa every four years to begin the nation’s primary season. But why should Iowa continue to occupy first in the nation status 40 years later? At least from a Republican perspective, it should not. Iowa’s caucuses are simply lousy at predicting the Republican

p r e s i d e n t i a l n o m i n e e . Indeed, they aren’t even p a r t i c u l a r l y adept at winnowing the field.

In fact, since the modern GOP p r e s i d e n t i a l primary system debuted in 1976, there have been eight c o m p e t i t i v e R e p u b l i c a n contests (1984, 1992, and 2004 all featured i n c u m b e n t

GOP Presidents with no meaningful challengers). In those eight nomination cycles, the Iowa winner went on to win the Republican nomination just three times. Put another way, Iowa’s GOP caucus-goers picked the same candidate as the national party only 37.5% of the time.

How does this compare to other early states (defined as one of the first ten contests in a given primary season)? New Hampshire, home of the nation’s first primary, picked the eventual winner five out of eight times, a success rate of 62.5%. South Carolina has picked correctly six out of seven times -- 86%. Other early states also have better track records. Wyoming, with five early contests, picked the winner 40% of the time. Nevada and Michigan, with four early contests apiece, have batted 50%. And Florida has correctly picked the ultimate



Republican winner all four times it has held an early primary.This track record is often excused by asserting the caucuses

perform a winnowing function in the primary process, or, as the saying goes, “there are three tickets out of Iowa.” But even this rationale hardly withstands scrutiny. In the seven election cycles with four or more candidates, Iowa has picked the eventual top three contenders just twice -- in 1988 and 2016, a 28.5% success rate.

Iowa’s most egregious failure to discern what the nation’s Republican voters considered presidential material came in 2000 and 2008, with the same candidate: Senator John McCain of Arizona. In 2000, McCain came in fifth place in Iowa’s caucus, with less than five percent of the vote (behind Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer). McCain went on to become George W. Bush’s only meaningful adversary that year, winning seven states. Eight years later, McCain came in fourth, behind Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Nonetheless, McCain became the GOP’s 2008 standard-bearer.

McCain’s problems in Iowa illustrate two key factors causing the state’s GOP electoral failures: ethanol and evangelicals.

The federal government’s Renewable Fuels Standard (“RFS”) of ethanol (and to a lesser extent biodiesel) mandates accounts for $4.6 billion (3.5%) of Iowa’s GDP. The industry creates approximately 43,000 Iowan jobs, accounting for about 3% of the state’s total employment. The RFS also happens to be one of the worst public policies ever designed, harming consumers, agriculture, the poor, energy efficiency, and the environment. Absent the federal mandate, the industry would not exist. But because Iowa is first, presidential contenders swear fealty to the RFS in order to maintain their political viability in Iowa’s caucus. To his credit, Senator McCain consistently opposed the mandate, rendering him persona non grata in Iowa politics, where he then barely campaigned.

While some may point to Senator Ted Cruz’s Iowa victory this year as proof that ethanol’s interest has waned, the opposite is true: Cruz was able to win with 28% of the vote only because there were eleven active candidates in the race. His next two closest competitors were pro-RFS candidates Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, who garnered nearly half the Iowa vote between them. Cruz and Rand Paul (the only other anti-ethanol candidate) received only 33% of the vote combined. In 2012, anti-RFS candidates got 37% of the vote; in 2008, 24%, and 5% in 2000. Cruz’s success came from his assiduous cultivation of social conservatives, and the fracturing of the 2/3 pro-ethanol vote among nine other candidates.

Which brings us to McCain’s second problem: Iowa Republicans are unrepresentative of the party at large. Forty percent of Iowa Republicans describe themselves as “Very Conservative” compared to 25-30% nationwide. While white

evangelical Protestants are roughly 64% of Iowa’s Republican voters, they’re only about 35% of the GOP’s nationwide electorate. As Ted Cruz discovered this year, a Republican candidate who frames himself to win Iowa is unlikely to travel well in the rest of the country.

Finally, the caucus process itself discourages turnout by Iowa’s electorate. Unlike a primary, where voters have all day to cast their ballot, or even mail them in, caucuses require that everyone seeking representation show up at a set time and day. Iowans, however, must show up in person at 7:00 p.m. on a winter weekday night. Even though Iowa has twice as many eligible voters as New Hampshire, it has less than a third of the turnout. In 2016, 28% of eligible voters participated in the New Hampshire, compared to 8% for Iowa.

A couple of changes in the GOP’s rules would significantly ameliorate the problems created by Iowa’s caucuses. First, the national GOP’s delegate allocation rules should be keyed to each state’s Republican voter turnout. The current rules already provide bonus delegates for Republican presidential performance and electing Republican officials, as well as sanctions for states that violate timing and delegate allocation rules. The rules should also incentivize Republican voter turnout.

If states wish to keep their caucus (or convention systems), that should be their prerogative, but the delegate allocation system should prioritize the system that best reflects the preferences of Republican voters: primaries.

Second, no state should have a sacrosanct position in the

primary calendar. There is much to be said for letting the primary process begin in small, low population states in order to give candidates with smaller budgets and/or low name recognition a chance to make their case to the voters. A tiered system of regionally dispersed primaries based on state population, with the order chosen randomly by the RNC, could significantly mitigate the practice of candidates trying to curry favor in a particular state in order to vault their candidacies into contention (e.g., ethanol and social conservatives in Iowa; protectionism and secularism in New Hampshire), as well as favorite-son advantages. For instance, in a given year, Wyoming and Delaware could go first on the same day, followed two weeks later by Maine, Hawaii, and Montana, and two weeks after that, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, and South Dakota. And so on.

Iowa’s Republican caucuses have overwhelmingly failed to correctly identify the eventual GOP nominee, and the Hawkeye electorate doesn’t reflect the views of GOP voters nationwide, who are more ideologically diverse, and not beholden to a government welfare program. Having demonstrated its electoral ineptitude for over 30 years, Iowa’s undeserved first-in-the-nation reign should end. RF

Trey Mayfield is a constitutional litigator with the Washington, D.C. –area firm of Juris Day.

Afterall,Iowabecamefirst-in-the-nation not because of a grand political plan, but

becauseofafluke.



SUSAN DEL PERCIO

With many Republicans wringing their hands when they think about the candidate they are about to nominate in Cleveland, it is worth noting that many Democrats are doing the same thing when they think about the candidate they are about to nominate in Philadelphia.

This year’s Democratic National Convention was supposed to be a coronation of sorts for Hillary Clinton. She was the heir apparent -- running as a Vice President normally would with the full support of the White House behind her. But the challenge by Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders exposed her for who she really is – a deeply flawed candidate.

She does not have an inspiring message like former President Bill Clinton’s “Putting People First” or President Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In.” In fact, as we enter the general election campaign, her strategy appears to be geared around a simple premise -- “I’m not Donald Trump.” This is an undeniable premise, but is hardly an inspirational message for winning votes.

As Secretary Clinton seeks a connection with Senator Sanders’ supporters, she faces three challenges. First, she is viewed as part of a broken system. As Jeff Greenfield wrote in Politico, “Her public life -- the posts she has held, the positions she has adopted (and jettisoned) -- define her as a creature of the

‘establishment’ at a time when voters regard the very idea with deep antipathy.”

Second, she has fundamental policy differences with Sanders. Brian Hanley outlined 15 of them for the Huffington Post earlier this year. The differences range from her opposition to a single payer health

plan (something Sanders supports) to his belief that the nation’s biggest banks should be broken up, something Secretary Clinton (who made millions giving speeches to Wall Street) opposes.

The third and perhaps the most daunting challenge she faces revolves around the issue of trust – or lack thereof. Jonathan Chait summed up this challenge in an article for New York magazine last month. “His supporters trust Clinton far less than hers trust Sanders,” Chait wrote. “A significant chunk of his base tells pollsters it won’t vote for

Clinton over Trump, leaving the polls precariously close.”

Even if Secretary Clinton makes some policy shifts to placate Senator Sanders’ followers, will they actually believe her? In all likelihood, many will not. Furthermore, it is also likely that Senator Sanders will continue to advocate for those issues that he campaigned on and has long believed, leaving Team Clinton with the distinct possibility that Sanders’ supporters will decide to stay home with their “Bernie or Bust” signs.

The challenge by Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders exposed

Hillary Clinton for who she really is – adeeplyflawedcandidate.

Storm Cloudsover Philadelphia



If her support among Sanders voters is not concerning enough, Secretary Clinton also faces a challenge among women voters. As Courtney Weaver wrote in the Financial Times last month: “On paper Clinton should have the support of most liberal or moderate female voters in America. In reality, she is struggling. Early polls suggest that the gender gap actually works in Trump’s favor, with Trump’s support from men outmatching Clinton’s support from women. And Clinton currently has worse numbers among women than Bill Clinton did in his 1992 presidential race against George H.W. Bush. Bill won the female vote by 17 points; Clinton has just a 13-point lead among women in a matchup against Donald Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.”

For millennials, many of whom are not familiar with her past, Mr. Trump’s attacks labeling her an enabler during her husband’s time in the White House have been effective. Similarly, the controversy surrounding her private email servers while she was Secretary of State has taken a toll across women of all ages. As we now know, she lied to the American public about sending and receiving classified emails, a practice which FBI Director James Comey scathingly characterized as, “extremely careless.” As a result, a majority of the American people do not trust her. A May survey conducted by the New York Times and CBS News bears this out, finding that 64% of registered voters do not find either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump to be “honest or trustworthy. Writing about the survey, NYT reporter Amy Chlozick concluded, “Ask voters why they don’t trust Mrs. Clinton, and again and again they will answer with a single word: Emails.”

The playbook for the Democratsistodefinethe

Republican Party as the party of Trump. Now is the time forRepublicanstofightbackanddefineHillaryClinton.

The only reason Hillary Clinton will likely not lose the female vote is because Donald Trump’s negatives among women are even higher. This is very concerning for Republicans in down ballot races. There are many issues on which Mr. Trump could make inroads, but he has squandered away opportunity after opportunity.

For this reason, Republicans must stop defending and explaining Mr. Trump’s proposals and start going after Mrs. Clinton’s positions. The playbook for the Democrats is to define the Republican Party as the party

of Trump. Now is the time for Republicans to fight back and define Hillary Clinton. With the balance of the Senate at risk and concerns of a smaller majority in the House of Representatives, let’s use our best weapon of attack -- Secretary Clinton’s record and her desire to continue President Obama’s failed policies.

Under President Obama’s tenure, the economy is faltering with little growth and labor force participation rate is at a 40-year low. And let’s not forget Obamacare. It will be nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to defend health insurance rates going up an average of 10%. Then, there is the disastrous foreign policy of the last seven and a half years. The Iran deal. Benghazi. Syria. And, of course the infamous reset button that Secretary Clinton presented to Russia.

It is critical for Republicans not to lose sight of the massively

flawed candidacy of Hillary Clinton. There are serious issues to jump on, and now is the time to pounce. RF

Susan Del Percio is a New York-based Republican strategist and founder of Susan Del Percio Strategies. She previously served in the administration of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Susan Del Percio

Subscribe to The Ripon ForumOne year - Six editions for $35www.riponsociety.org

“Ideas that matter,since 1965.“



Facebook tips for elected officials and campaigns

Be authentic: post your personal reaction to current events. Bring your audience behind the scenes with spontaneous photos and videos. Engage with your audience: reply to comments, answer questions, and discuss current issues with your audience. Go Live: tell your story as it happens by going Live on Facebook. Make an announcement, start a Q&A, or just show your fans what’s happening. Write quality long-form content: break news, share something creative, and help people understand your position on complex policy issues. Find your voters: organize supporters, raise money, and persuade and turn out key voters on Facebook. Learn how at facebook.com/politics. Stay up to date: develop the skills you need to be successful on Facebook with Blueprint, our new online learning tool: facebook.com/blueprint.


1976:TheBattleofKansasCity Few conventions have been as contentious as the

battle between President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan in America’s bicentennial year. One was an outsider -- a former actor and governor who had electrified the conservative movement. The other was an establishment Republican and unelected incumbent who had risen through the ranks.

Both had campaigned in the shadow of Watergate. Neither possessed enough delegates to win the nomination outright. Reagan’s supporters argued that their candidate brought a lot of people into the party. “The fact that we’ve had competition is a plus.”1 As the convention began, many warned that the proceedings will “be unlike any Republican National Convention you ever watched. It will be full of passions, conflict, gamesmanship, and suspense. It will be untidy. It will be fascinating.”2

1. Cannon, Lou an Broder, David “Battered Grand Old Party” Washington Post June 27, 1976: Print

2. “A Guide for Convention Watching New York Times August 16, 1976: Print

The media responded by providing unprecedented levels of television coverage. One Republican official lamented that “the prime-time factor dictates that the convention’s

proceedings will start just after cocktail time on its penultimate and ultimate night.”3 With Reagan’s supporters issuing rules challenges and so ardently opposing Ford’s nomination, many feared a potential split within the party, questioning if the contested convention was “a prophecy that this year, as so long threatened, the Republicans could go the way of the Whigs.”4

The warnings did not prove prophetic. Ford won the nomination and went on to lose the election to Jimmy Carter, but the party survived – as did Reagan, who, in part on the strength of an electrifying concession speech on the

convention floor, emerged from Kansas City not only alive but politically stronger than ever.

3. Lelyuld, Joseph “Networks Face an Opportunity – and a Risk” New York Times August 16, 1976: Print

4. Cannon, Lou an Broder, David “Battered Grand Old Party” Washington Post June 27, 1976: Print

From Reagan & Ford toTrump & the Reality Show:

40 Years of Republican Conventions

Few conventions have been as contentiousasthebattlebetween

President Gerald Ford andRonald Reagan.

Forty years ago this summer, Republicans gathered in Kansas City for the Republican National Convention of 1976. It would be the last time the GOP entered a convention without a clear nominee. It would also be the last time the party allowed an air of uncertainty to hang over the proceedings.

In the years since, conventionswould become set, staid affairs,where nothingwas left to chance andthe outcome was already known. Many began questioning whether conventions were even needed. The major networks were no longer covering all four nights, and what they did cover was limited to speeches and interviews in the 10-11 pm time slot.

The expected nomination of Donald Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland will likely change that. If GOP conventions since 1980 have followed a script, this one may well turn into a realityshow–whichisbefittinggivenTrump’syearsashostoftheApprentice,butisconcerningforthosewhoremember the chaotic convention of ’76 and the result at the ballot box later that fall.

What follows is a brief summary of Republican Conventions over the past 40 years – the highs and lows and good and bad of each, and how all of it, and none of it, compares to what we may see in Cleveland this year.



1980: The Reagan RevolutionA mere four years after narrowly losing the nomination

to Ford, Reagan returned to the GOP Convention as the presumptive nominee. Whereas chaos and rules challenges were the order of the day in Kansas City, order and party unity were the rule of the day in Detroit. In fact, things were so orderly that some were worried that people would lose interest.

“Reagan’s only problem in Detroit next week will be stage management, trying to stir some excitement in what promises to be one of the dullest GOP conventions in memory,” wrote Steve Neal of the Chicago Tribune. “The biggest question, of course, is the vice presidential nomination. To keep everyone guessing, Reagan probably won’t announce his choice until Thursday morning.”5

And that is exactly what he did. After seriously considering the idea of forming a unity ticket with his 1976 rival, former President Gerald Ford, Reagan settled on his rival from that year’s campaign – former CIA Director, George H.W. Bush. With the ticket set, Republicans left Detroit “with the hope that 1980 would be the breakthrough year for a born-again Republican Party, just as the 1932 election helped establish the Democrats as the pre-eminent party.”6

Over the next four years, Republican hopes would be realized. A new era was born.

1984: Morning in America

“It’s morning again in America. Today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country’s history. With interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes, more than at any time in the past four years. This afternoon 6,500 young men and women will be married, and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. It’s morning again in

5. Neal, Steve “This show will be all Reagan’s” Chicago Tribune July, 8, 1980: Print

6. Smith, Hedrick “GOP Hopes Go Beyond 1980 And Beyond the White House, NY Times, July 20, 1980: Print

America, and under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?”

Those who were around at the time can still hear legendary ad man Hal Riney saying the above words in the commercial that came to define the 1984 Reagan reelection campaign. The tone of the commercial – upbeat, positive, optimistic – was reflected in that summer’s GOP Convention in Dallas, as well. The Keynote Address was delivered by Katherine Ortega, the U.S. Treasurer and the daughter of Mexican immigrants, who – addressing not Republicans, but Democrats -- urged those in the opposing party to “join us now,” telling them, “Nuestra casa es su casa … Our home is your home.”7

After another masterful speech by Reagan to officially accept the nomination on Thursday night, Ray Charles

performed an improvised rendition of “America the Beautiful” to close the convention and send Republicans off on their way to a 49-state landslide victory that fall.

1988: Passing of the Torch

After defeating five other candidates in the Republican Party primary, George H.W. Bush traveled to the GOP Convention in New Orleans with one goal in mind – to officially accept the mantle from Ronald Reagan as the 1988 Republican presidential nominee. “The vice presidency is not really the big story here at all,” GOP strategist John Sears said at the time. “It’s how Bush does, it’s how he comes across, particularly Thursday night.

As it turned out, the number two pick did end up being a big story when Bush surprised everyone by selecting Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his running mate. But the surprise gave way to wistfulness when Reagan gave an emotional farewell address on Wednesday evening, and by the time Bush outlined his vision for a “kinder, gentler nation” in his acceptance speech

7. Gerstel, Steve “Katherine Ortega sent two messages in delivering the Republican” UPI August 24, 1984


After defeating five other candidates in the Republican Party primary,

George H.W. Bush traveled to the GOP Convention in New Orleans with one goal in mind – to officially accept the

mantle from Ronald Reagan as the 1988 Republican presidential nominee.


the following night,” Republicans had begun to turn the page and look toward victory in November, which they achieved.

1992: End of an EraIt could be argued that the face of the Republican Party

began to officially change at the party’s 1992 convention in Houston. For even though Reagan came out of retirement to deliver one more hopeful speech on behalf of his successor, a darker mood descended upon the party’s gathering as well. The mood stemmed from an ailing economy, which had seen unemployment rise to nearly 8% over the previous two years, and by an uneven economic record during Bush’s first term, which had seen him going back on his “No New Taxes” pledge.

The mood was reflected outside the convention hall by the candidacy of Ross Perot, a billionaire businessman who had launched a third party bid for the White House earlier that year. Inside the hall, the dark mood was further reflected by the speech of Pat Buchanan, who mounted a populist challenge against Bush in the primary and spoke of a culture war in remarks that would best be described as being off script.

Bush still managed to leave the convention with a 6-point bump in the polls, but the surge didn’t last, and on November 3rd, he went down to defeat.

1996: The War Hero & the QuarterbackWhen Republicans traveled to San Diego for the GOP

Convention in 1996, they not only knew who their nominee was going to be, but who his running mate was going to be, as well. Bob Dole and Jack Kemp brought years of experience to the Republican ticket. They were the Senator and the Secretary; the common sense conservative from the heartland and the bleeding heart conservative from New York; the war hero and the quarterback.

In addition to the acceptance speeches of the two running mates, one of the highlights of the convention was the speech by Elizabeth Dole, who captivated those in attendance with an Oprah-like performance that saw her leave the podium and, wireless mike in hand, stroll among the delegates on the convention floor telling them about the virtues of her husband, his lifetime of service to America,

and why he was prepared to lead the party – and the nation – as President over the next four years.

Despite her bravura performance, network ratings were down overall. The reason was simple: in selecting Kemp the Friday before the convention began, Dole took away the last bit of suspense that came with conventions of recent years. And in doing so, he took away one of the last reasons for the networks to provide three hours of coverage of the conventions for all four nights. “I can’t imagine devoting as much time or as many resources to convention coverage in the year 2000,” said CBS News President Andrew Hayward after the event.8

2000: New Vision for a New Century

By the time the Republican National Convention kicked off in Philadelphia four years later, Americans were ready for a change. Since the last election, the country had seen a President impeached, a Speaker of the House step down, and a disturbing increase in terrorist attacks on U.S. interests overseas. The new century called for a new vision, and that’s just what George W. Bush offered when he took to the convention stage to formally accept the GOP’s nomination for President.

“This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation,” the Texas

Governor declared. “Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, like times of crisis, are tests of American character … Big government is not the answer. But the alternative to bureaucracy is not indifference. It is to put conservative values and conservative ideas into the thick of the fight for justice and opportunity. This is what I mean by compassionate conservatism. And on this ground we will govern our nation.”

2004: In the Shadow of 9/11Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in 2000 in one of the

closest and most contentious contests in election history. But if hard feelings existed after his victory, they were set aside at least temporarily on September 11th of the following

8. Bennet, James “Few Tears for the Death of the Network Convention” NY Times September 1, 1996: Print


The9/11terroristattacksreorderedBush’s priorities. He was now a War

President. The 2004 Republican National Convention in New York

Cityreflectedthat.


year. The 2001 terrorist attacks changed America and the world for good. They also reordered Bush’s priorities. He was now a War President. And while there can be no doubt that he remained a compassionate conservative at heart, the main focus of his administration became keeping our country secure.

The 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City reflected that. Held in Madison Square Garden just over three miles from Ground Zero, the convention was meant to remind people of the pain and suffering the country had gone through, and the considerable threats and challenges that still lie ahead. National security leaders such as Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain spoke, as did relatives and victims of the terrorist attacks.

Like the two conventions before it, there was little suspense at the GOP convention in New York. But there was a lot of emotion. And at the end of the day, it can be argued that emotion – particularly as it relates to the fear of terrorism -- helped carry Bush through to victory later that year.

2008: The War Hero & the Hockey Mom

When John McCain astonished the political world by picking the then-relatively unknown Sarah Palin as his running mate on August 29, 2008, one of the biggest questions surrounding the following week’s GOP convention in Minneapolis became -- “How will she do?” As it turned out, the self-proclaimed hockey mom and one-term Alaska Governor hit it out of the park, delivering what Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post later called the best speech of her career. “She slayed,” Cillizza wrote.9

Her remarks, along with tributes to McCain’s long record of military service and the nominee’s formal acceptance speech the following night, helped propel the Republican ticket to a 5-point lead in the polls coming out of the convention. The lead didn’t last though. Two wars, a bad economy, and the promise of electing the nation’s first African American President proved

9. Cillizza, Chris “Seven years ago today, Sarah Palin gave the best speech of her career” Washington Post, September 3, 2015

too much for the War Hero and the Hockey Mom to overcome in the end.

2012: Make My Day If one were looking for a reason why organizers

like to follow a tight script when planning a political convention, then look no further than the 2012 GOP convention in Tampa. From having to delay the opening of the proceedings by one day because of a hurricane to having to contend with Clint Eastwood’s decision to carry on a conversation with an empty chair on the convention’s final night, the importance of proper

planning and execution should be apparent for all to see.

One mistake can overshadow a good message. Just ask Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. They received no bounce from the convention, and went on to lose a tough but very winnable race in the fall. Which brings us to…

2016: Trump & the Reality Show

… t h e Republican National Convention this year in Cleveland. Donald Trump certainly has beaten the odds. An outsider with no political experience, he stands on the cusp of being formally named the GOP nominee. Despite this, a growing

number of delegates have launched an effort to stop him in Cleveland.

The effort conjures up memories of 1976 and raises the likelihood that this year’s convention will potentially stand in stark contrast to the relatively uneventful coronations of the recent past. It is unclear what will unfold in Cleveland; however, America’s love of reality television promises high ratings and possibly even a twist ending – an environment in which Donald Trump has always thrived. RF

This report was prepared with the research and assistance of Hannah Shepherd and Jesse Jacobs. Hannah is a rising junior at Miami University in Ohio, while Jesse is a rising junior at Georgetown. Both are serving as Michael G. Oxley Interns with The Ripon Society this summer.


If one were looking for a reason why organizers like to follow a tight script when planning a political convention, then look no further than the 2012 GOP

convention in Tampa.


News & Events

WASHINGTON, DC – With the general election just over four months away, The Ripon Society held a breakfast discussion yesterday morning with three Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are running for the U.S. Senate.

The Members were U.S. Rep. Joe Heck (NV-3), U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany (LA-3), and U.S. Rep. Todd Young (IN-9), who kicked off the discussion by talking about his impressive victory in the Indiana primary on May 3rd, the challenges facing the people of his home state, and some of the issues that will be important in the upcoming election.

“We ended up winning 72,000 more votes than our presumptive R e p u b l i c a n nominee for President,” Young stated. “We also won among Cruz voters and Kasich voters. The reason I bring that up is in part to preempt any questions about what I read into the presidential race, because it’s difficult for us to tease out of that data really much useful information other than to continue doing what we have been doing -- continue to raise resources, continue to offer a solutions-oriented agenda, and also acknowledge the frustration of folks on account of this dynamic 21st century service-based economy,

which has disproportionately and adversely impacted so many Hoosiers.

“Indiana is the most manufacturing-intensive state in the country. It’s understandable that people are disaffected, as they have been outsourced and their jobs have been automated and so forth. But nonetheless, I think our job as legislators and even as candidates is

to go out there and continue to make the argument for things like free trade, tax reform, and regulatory reform, rather than embrace superficial solutions. And I’ll be doing that on the stump.”

Young was elected to the House in 2010. A graduate of the Naval Academy, he spent a decade serving in the military before returning to Indiana to work as a management

consultant for public and private organizations in his home state.

He concluded his remarks by talking about the tenor of his upcoming race, and some of the necessary distinctions he plans to draw with his opponent this fall.

“I will be running a positive campaign,” the Indiana lawmaker stated. “But of course, I have to draw some distinctions. I’m a U.S.

Marine. He’s done different things in his life, most of them involving elected office for a long period of time. He voted for Obamacare. He voted for the stimulus package. He voted for Cap and Trade. I hope this doesn’t sound negative – these are just the facts. And they’re unpopular facts among most Hoosiers.

“With that said, my aim is to ensure that we are sufficiently resourced and

focused between now and the end of the summer, so that the Democrats will perceive Indiana to be out of reach – irrespective of what happens on other spots on the ballot.”

Boustany opened his remarks by talking not about his upcoming race for the Senate, but about his background – both as a boy growing up in Louisiana and as a medical professional later in life – and some

Young, Boustany & Heck Point to Economic Growth and National Security as Key Issues in Fall Campaign

“I think we are at an inflection point. The future will depend on this election.”

Charles Boustany


of the qualities he hopes to bring to the job.

“I am the oldest of 10 kids,” he stated, “so I had to learn responsibility. My father would look at me and say, ‘You’re responsible for getting us all in one place at one time.’ In that context, we always had a lot of people at the dinner table, friends coming in and out. If you didn’t show up on time, you often missed a meal. So I learned you have to settle your differences and compromise. Otherwise, you may not get a meal if you showed up late.

“Then as a heart surgeon, I learned three important things. One is trust. If you can’t earn trust as a heart surgeon, you are going to be very unsuccessful. Second, I learned to make decisions under life and death circumstances multiple times a day. So I am not intimidated very easy, and I am used to dealing with pressure. And third, I learned to be decisive -- make decisions based on the information that you have.

“What I didn’t learn was patience. And I am very impatient with this place even now in my 12th year of serving. People are angry and frustrated across Louisiana and across the country. My message is: a) it’s worse than you think; and, b) it’s time to get serious about real solutions to problems. Don’t give me a 15-point plan about how you are going to change the world. Give me a problem and let me fashion a solution and take it from concept to legislation to law. That’s how I’ve tried to conduct myself in Congress, and that’s what I intend to do as a U.S. Senator.”

Boustany was elected to the House in 2004 after spending more than 30 years as a cardiovascular surgeon. Recognized as one of Washington’s foremost experts on health care, he said that economic growth and national security will be key issues in the upcoming campaign, along with defending individual liberty and promoting innovation.

“I am worried that this may be

the first time in the history of this country that if somebody has an idea and they try to launch a small business out of their garage, they’re going to fail,” he stated. “And if you fail, then you may not come back. Who’s going to give you credit? In the past, this country always valued entrepreneurship and risk taking. If you failed, you could come back and be successful. Abraham Lincoln is a prime example of that. But the fact is, I am worried.

“I think we are at an inflection point. The future will depend on this election. We have to sustain a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. Louisiana will be the last race, likely, in the country. Depending on the calculus, it could be the determining factor of whether there is a 51 seat majority or not. It could come down to that, and I am ready for that fight.”

Heck echoed his colleague’s remarks.

“I don’t think anybody in this room would doubt how important it is to have a Republican majority in 2017,” he stated. “I talk about it primarily from the perspective of Supreme Court nominations. The next President will have the ability to nominate two, three, maybe four Supreme Court Justices, which will allow for a generational impact that will far surpass the four or eight years that that occupant might have in the White House. So think about who you want conducting those confirmation hearings, regardless of who is making that nomination.”

“As I’ve travelled around the state of Nevada, it’s pretty clear that after eight years of Barack Obama and 30 years of Harry Reid, both Americans and Nevadans are ready for a change. Because they do talk about the frustration, the anger, the disappointment that they’ve experienced – not just in the last eight years of this administration, but really in the last 30 years of Harry Reid holding this seat.”

Heck was elected to the House

in 2010 after spending more than 35 years in public service as a physician, small business owner, Army Reservist, and community volunteer. In his remarks, he talked about visiting with people across his home state, and how four main areas seem to top their concerns. The areas are national security, jobs and economic growth, health care, and education.

“I have lived and worked in every one of those four areas,” Heck observed. “So when somebody wants to talk about national security, I can go back to the fact that I am in my 26th year in the Army Reserve. I was honored to be promoted to brigadier general in 2014 and honored to command some of the finest men and women that this country has to offer. I was deployed three times – so I can talk about national security more so than probably anyone else currently serving.

“If they want to talk about jobs and the economy, besides being a physician and working in a hospital emergency department, I had my own business. I had a homeland security consulting firm, so I know what it takes to run a business. My business during the 2008 recession, like most consulting firms, was the first to see hits. But I learned how to keep my doors open and make sure people got their paychecks, even though I went without the paycheck so we didn’t have to lay anybody off. So I know what it’s like to run a business in today’s economy.

“On health care, I’ve had 25 years working in inner-city hospital emergency departments. If you want to know what works and doesn’t work in the health care system, come spend some time in an inner-city hospital emergency department. And lastly, on education, my undergraduate degree is actually in education.”

Noting that he requested a seat on the Education and Workforce Committee when he was elected to Congress in 2010, the Nevada Republican concluded by declaring: “Education policy is important.” RF


Name: Susan W. BrooksOccupation: Representative of the Fifth District of IndianaPrevious jobs held: Senior Vice President of Workforce Development and General Counsel at Ivy Tech Community College, U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of Indiana, Deputy Mayor of Indianapolis, Criminal Defense Attorney

Book(s) on my summer reading list: The Magnificent Mountain Women: Adventures in the Colorado Rockies by Janet Robertson

Proudest achievement since coming to Congress: I continue to be proud of the work my colleagues and I are doing to address the heroin and opioid epidemic that is claiming 78 Americans every day. This epidemic is sweeping across the country, and as a member of the conference committee tasked with developing a final, comprehensive package of solutions, I’m confident that we can help people struggling with addiction and their families, and ultimately, save lives.

Challenge facing your District that you’re working hard to address: Curbing heroin and opioid addiction is critical to the future of our country, and to my district. I’ve been focused on finding the root of the problem, which I believe is the culture of over-prescription that exists in this country. More than 80 percent of heroin users start with a legal prescription opioid, and we have to change patient expectations, prescriber guidelines, and pain management strategies to make sure that people are getting the care and treatment they need without creating an environment that can, in many cases, lead to addiction.

Finish this sentence: “If I could give the Republican nominee one bit of advice, it would be…” Policies and ideas that isolate us or discriminate undermine our leadership in the world and divide our country. As we look towards November, it’s important we focus on what we’re for, rather than what we stand against. Our ‘A Better Way’ policy agenda is a great start, and I hope it’s an agenda where we can all find some common ground on the best way forward for our country.


WE’RE PUTTING DIGITAL TO WORK FOR TODAY’S LEADING GLOBAL ENTERPRISES.COGNIZANT IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE RIPON SOCIETY

• Cognizant Technology Solutions is a leading American multinational corporation providing innovative information technology, consulting, and business process services, dedicated to helping the world’s leading companies build stronger businesses.

• Our investment in innovation is helping clients address the Future of Work — providing solutions for an environment being reshaped by globalization, virtualization, a millennial mindset, and evolving technologies such as social networking, mobile communications, big data analytics and cloud computing.

The Ripon Society1155 15th Street, NWSuite 550Washington, DC 20005

Millions of citizens. Fifty States. Four time zones. All on the same page.

When everything works together it creates the unlimited possibilities of the American way.

That’s why we’re honored to support the Ripon Society.

investing in America

© 2016 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved.

ripon forum july 2016

Documents