Opinion: Division Among Conservatives Continues To Harm Us In The Game of Political Chess

Screen Shot 2015 09 21 At 11.12.42 PM
FacebooktwitterredditmailFacebooktwitterredditmail

We Could Learn A Thing or Two from The Left About Winning Elections.

At the end of his keynote speech at CPAC in February of 2012, Andrew Breitbart urged all conservatives across the country to put aside their differences and rally behind the unknown GOP candidate who would later turn out to be former Gov. Mitt Romney.

They try to portray you in the worst possible light… and when I travel around the United States meeting people in the Tea Party who care — black, white, gay, straight — anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker ’cause you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you. You’re on the other side.

—Andrew Breitbart.

The above quote is from the final speech Breitbart gave before his tragic death less than a month later. Sadly it seems that Breitbart’s final words at that speech fell upon deaf ears. An estimated 3 million pairs to be exact. That’s the number of registered Republicans that didn’t vote in the 2012 presidential election and therefore indirectly gave their votes to Barack Obama. To be honest, I’m still pissed every time I see that number and the excuses from people who did not vote for him are just as infuriating; ranging from “he is too moderate” all the way to the ridiculous notion that “his mormon values are dangerous for the country”. The fact of the matter is, there was no valid excuse for a registered republican not to vote.

I fear that the scenario mentioned above is going to repeat itself in the upcoming presidential election, only this time the consequences will be much worse.

As it stands right now, there are 15 presidential candidates running on the Republican platform. Gov. Scott Walker may have just dropped out but there are still way too many candidates. More will continue to drop out as the race continues, but my primary concern is their constituent body. After Texas Gov. Rick Perry dropped out of the race a few weeks ago, a few individuals that I know via social media stated that they’d be staying home on election day because they feel that none of the other candidates have the integrity or principles that Perry himself possesses and therefore, none of them are worth voting for.

I personally find this to be foolish logic and believe me when I say that that’s putting it politely. In case any Perry supporters are worried that I’m singling them out, don’t worry because I’ve encountered the same behavior from individuals in every candidate’s constituency. Likewise, I’ve encountered individuals who refuse to vote for a certain candidate if he or she gets the party nomination, which is also a bad position to take.

I understand that we have freedom to participate in our political system however we want, even if that means not participating at all. However, just because we have that choice doesn’t always mean it’s a good choice. I can choose not to take Cold medicine when I get a cold, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a good choice. The same concept applies to voting/not voting.

Another subject I feel the need to address, is this notion of “the lesser of two evils” when referring to political match ups such as Romney versus Obama, or Jeb versus Hilary as examples. In either scenario, I always scratch my head wondering how someone could say that Jeb is only “the lesser of two evils”. The notion is so ridiculous, you might as well say that James Bond is the lesser of two evils between him and Hannibal Lecter.

As far as I can tell, Jeb Bush’s only major “sin” is his support of Common Core. Compare that to either of the Clinton’s who have repeatedly been involved in one type of scandal or another ranging from fraud, rape, and possibly even the murder of Vince Foster. Even with all of (Jeb) Bush’s flaws, remind me again why he’s “the lesser of two evils”? This is yet another example of an idea that will only cause conservatives more harm than good.

In order to win, we must act like The Democrats! (Well, sort of).

I’m sure some of you are about to stop reading (or already have), but in case you’re still sticking with me, I really appreciate it and you’ll be glad you did. Ever heard the term “Yellow Dog Democrat”? It’s a humorous term, but it also one of the main reasons why the Democrats are so successful at winning the elections. The basic premise is that if a literal yellow dog were to run for president as a Democrat, the entire voting base would pull the lever for the yellow dog, just to keep The Republicans from winning.

This scenario may seem ridiculous and absurd, but it is actually how the Democrats won the last two presidential elections. I personally know of quite a few Democrats who don’t like Obama and yet, they still voted for him because their dislike of Republicans outweighs their dislike of Obama. As much as I hate to admit it, I have to secretly admire The Democrat Party for this concept. Like or not, it works. Andrew Breitbart understood this concept as well, and I believe that he was trying to communicate this concept to conservatives when urging us to stand side-by-side in the proverbial bunker without Republican candidates.

There are those who would say that adapting the “yellow dog” strategy would force us to compromise our principles as conservatives. In response, I ask the following question of conservatives: What good do our principles do to serve this country if we are unable to win presidential elections that will allow these principles to be the foundation of our government as intended by The Founding Fathers?

This is not about morals, values, or standards, but rather about playing and winning the necessary game of metaphorical Chess in the political world. The Democrats have checkmated us for far too long. I’ve provided my strategy guide in the form of this opinion piece. I’m ready to win the game in 2016! Are you?


As a bonus, I’ve included Andrew Breitbart’s 2012 CPAC speech. We would all be wise to watch it and learn. Although it was a different election cycle, his ideas remain just as relevant today and perhaps forever.


Sam Whitfield is the creator and host of The Whitfield Analysis, and an all around good guy! Conservative Journalist and Radio Host, Political Thriller Author #WARadioShow #tcot


Return to Home Page for more news

Check us out on Facebook at Conservative Daily

Share this article if you like it!

FacebooktwitterredditmailFacebooktwitterredditmail

FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter

1 Comment on "Opinion: Division Among Conservatives Continues To Harm Us In The Game of Political Chess"

  1. What i do not understood is if truth be told how you’re no longer really much more neatly-favored than you may be right now.
    You’re very intelligent. You know therefore significantly relating to this subject, made me for my part
    imagine it from a lot of varied angles. Its like women and men aren’t involved
    unless it’s one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your own stuffs outstanding.
    All the time care for it up!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.