https://www.facebook.com/share/p/gRtambvoa2T3axAi/
Last week, there was a column written in the South Dakota Searchlight, by Joe Kirby, one of the big advocates for Amendment H, the open primaries amendment that we’ll be voting on in November. I would like to take a few minutes and give a different viewpoint on some things that he pointed out in that column.
I understand the frustration that some may have and why they may want to change the current system, but going to an open primary type of election is not the best thing for South Dakota. Instead, one can look at some other options such as supporting a good candidate and helping them win in a party primary or backing an independent candidate and helping them win in the general election. If the frustration lies within the way the primary is funded, we can change that issue with some legislation and create a different funding mechanism, instead of going down the road of forcing political parties to allow all voters to vote in their primary. This will dilute the reason for even having a political party and it will create, in a way, a double general election, and be a squandering of taxpayer dollars. In addition to this, there are two states who have this type of election system: California and Washington. Hardly shining examples of how we want South Dakota to operate.
A question I have for the advocates of Amendment H: with a 17% voter turnout in the last primary, why didn’t the Republican voters get out and vote for those “RINOs” (Republican in Name Only) that ended up losing? And why couldn’t you inspire more Republican voters to get out and vote? Could it be because many voters are sick and tired of the “RINOs”, so they decided that it wasn’t worth coming out to vote? That would be my read on the situation.
Now, about the labels that were used in the column. For some reason many who see themselves as traditional Republicans, whom others would call “RINOs”, think that a traditional Republican is someone from the 1970s, 1980s, or the 1990s. It seems they fail to look back much further in history, and I would argue that many of these individuals are early 20th century progressives, who love things like FDR’s New Deal, the Federal Department of Education, and the Affordable Care Act. More times than not, it seems like they really enjoy these big government/big business ideas, and they want federal handouts whenever they can get them.
Keep in mind that a Republican party in this country goes back much further than half of a century. It goes back even before the Whigs transferred to the current day Republican Party. Yet, these “RINOs” call the other faction of Republicans, “wackadoodles” or “populists” when we try to follow originalist ideas. If you look at the way the so called “populists” in this state vote, they’d be closer to being Old Republicans, also known as Jeffersonian Republicans, or similar to the Old Right from the early 20th century. This group, which I align with, supports individual property rights, the right to life, states’ rights, a miniscule federal government, subsidiarity, a non-interventionist foreign policy, sound money, low regulation markets, and the forgotten man.
We all support business, but what we don’t support is selling out the South Dakota taxpayers to big corporations that are looking for government handouts through some bogus ESG (environmental, social, and governance) credit system. If the state’s business climate has a large dependency on government intervention and handouts, maybe we should take another look at how we do business. Maybe we should be a little more ethical about it and refrain from continuing to pile debt onto the backs of our grandchildren. We aren’t simply populists that are tapping into a few random frustrations from the public. We’re trying to support our constituents, while following Jesus Christ, the state and federal constitutions, and the state GOP party platform. Traditional values are the aim, not crony capitalism.
If the reader has questions on the truth here, I point you to two very reputable scorecards that are known on our state level (South Dakota Citizens for Liberty scorecard) and larger multi state level (CPAC/American Conservative Union scorecard).
This November let’s vote to keep our primary system the way it is, and vote no on Amendment H. A yes vote will turn this state over to more big government, but a no vote will be the best choice for the hard-working taxpayer of this state, and the generations to come.
