The Liberty Hawk

Full transcript of the episode and link for direct download – Justin discusses his decision to leave the GOP in detail while also discussing Trump’s impeachment, the state of the Republican Party, and also briefly addresses the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

This is the 4th Episode of The New Centrist Podcast. You can listen to the episode on the player below or read the transcript. Want to listen to more episodes? Click here or search for The New Centrist Podcast on any major podcast app.

Intro

Welcome to the New Centrist podcast, I’m your host Justin Stapley. 

In my first episode, I warned that my podcast episodes might be at irregular intervals at times, but I did not intend to have as much of a break from the last episode to this one.  

A lot has happened since the airing of my last episode. In broader news, the impeachment concluded and the nation has come under the grips of the COVID-19 crisis. In personal news, I made the difficult decision to leave the Republican Party.  

I plan on touching a little bit on all of these topics, but my main focus is to take you on a journey of my political affiliation and explain why I left the Republican Party. I’ve been able to discuss this topic on several other podcasts in the past weeks, including on the 180cast as well as on the Saving Elephants Podcast. I encourage you to check them out. But I wanted to discuss the topic one last time on my own podcast and really lay out where I was, where I’ve been, and what’s brought me to where I’m at today. 

I Didn’t Leave Because of Trump, But Because of Republicans Under Trump

If you’ve listened to any of my previous episodes, my guest appearances on other podcasts, or read any of my work, you no doubt fully understand my clear position on Donald Trump. Though I’ve always endeavored to call balls and strikes as I see them, and still do, I’ve never supported him and I never intend to.  

However, though the President has never impressed me and the rabid following he has gained among my fellow conservatives has greatly disturbed me, it was only recently that the current situation led me to question my affiliation with the Republican Party.  

Until Recently, I Wanted To Stay in the Party and Fight

Even as recently as a year ago, I asserted that if the goal of principled conservatives is a resurgent conscious conservatism, we would have to deal in the realm of what’s possible regardless of what would be ideal. For conservatism to have a place in our nation’s near future, Donald Trump doesn’t just have to be removed from office, he must be removed as the face of the conservative movement. My argument was that that could only be done from within the Republican party. 

I even chided other Trump skeptical conservatives for leaving the Republican Party. I argued, and quite frankly still believe, that the mass exodus of Republicans from the party has accomplished nothing but an easier path to the dominance of the GOP by President Trump and his allies.  

I believed and said these things because I recognized that political parties aren’t built in a day, nor do they diminish easily. The Democratic Party, once upon a time, committed treason and engaged in a shooting war against the federal government. Yet, even after the war, they were not overtaken by a new party. Due to the civil war, and generational connections to slavery and Jim Crow, the Democratic Party was a historical symbol of racism. But even with this history, they not only remain a viable political party but are able to achieve the perennial support of 80-90% of African American voters. 

Donald Trump, all told, is a far less damaging force to the Republican Party’s long-term legitimacy than many believe him to be. 

Now, I was open to a new party. I have been supportive of several efforts to form new viable political parties. But each of these efforts have either already failed or remain in infancy.  

So, given the realities of the two-party system, I felt being a member of the Republican Party was the only logical choice. While the Democrats would gladly accept my support and the support of others like me, they have voiced no plans to reconsider their positions. Positions that remain mostly hostile to centrist values.  

My view until only recently was that there simply was no present path towards resurgent conscious conservatism, in the here-and-now, outside of staying in the GOP and fighting to reclaim it. 

Impeachment and Partisanship

But, while I often made such arguments leading up to the primary season, there were too few willing to stay in the party and fight. And, the support for Trump within the party only became more solidified. While there had been some signs of growing opposition last fall, the impeachment of Donald Trump ended up solidifying the party as his.  

While an impeachment inevitably pushes the people into their partisan corners, this one did so even more vigorously. The Democrats share no small portion of the blame for the way the impeachment empowered President Trump. But I’ll discuss that later. 

The point is, too few independently minded conservatives stayed in the Republican Party to fight for it. The party now belongs to Donald Trump for the time being. And, even when he’s gone, I fear the spirit of Trumpism will be strong in the ranks of Republican voters for quite some time.  

But even as I gained a recognition that the party had presently lost its mind and there was little I could do to influence it, I was still reluctant to abandon it. Even now, I tend to believe the GOP is the only effective platform for conservative principles. It wasn’t until the second shoe dropped that Trumpism forced me to leave the Republican Party. Despite the vulgarity and unprincipled reality of Donald Trump, it was the actions of Republicans in the Senate that I couldn’t share affiliation with.  

How I See the Power of Impeachment

Before I discuss the difficult decision I was faced with as the impeachment concluded, I need to explain just how I view the importance of impeachment as a constitutional mechanism and the duty I believe members of Congress have when it comes to the impeachment process. 

A lot of people are extremely wary of impeachment, fearing its damage on the institution of the presidency. But I feel impeachment has not been nearly used enough in American history. And, based on my understanding of founding intent, I think they would share my sentiment. 

In Federalist No. 65 and 69, Alexander Hamilton talked extensively about the impeachment power. He considered it “a bridle in the hands” of Congress. His writings suggest that the impeachment power draws a clear line of separation between a President and a King. While a king is above the law and any standard of conduct, the US President, because of the power of impeachment, is rendered answerable to the law and answerable to Congress for his behavior.    

Many other founders voiced similar ideas. When arguing for the importance of impeachment, George Mason asked, “Shall any man be above justice?” William Davie argued that it was “an essential security for the good behavior” of the President. Elbridge Gary went so far as to assert that while a good president would have no fear of impeachment, a “bad one ought to be kept in fear.”   

I don’t think any of us can honestly say that impeachment in current use and definition resembles in any way a bridle upon the executive, an essential security for good behavior, or a power that keeps a president in fear. 

Some narrowly define impeachment as an almost purely criminal consideration. Many even place a requirement of near absolute certainty of conviction and removal before they even consider impeachment. These developments are in direct contrast to the purpose of impeachment, as laid down by the founders.   

Hamilton stated in no uncertain terms, “The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately upon society itself.”   

Like we all heard over and over again during the impeachment, it’s a political process. But that’s not just a punch line. It means something. Impeachment’s jurisdiction isn’t only criminal acts. It’s misconduct and breach of public trust.  

As James Madison said, impeachment is “indispensable…for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.”    

Edmund Burke adds, “It is by this tribunal that statesman [are tried] not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality.”   

And Thomas Jefferson asks us, “How to check the unconstitutional invasions of rights?” and answers first “by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress” and then, if there is a “relapse into the same heresies,” to “impeach and set the whole adrift.” He concluded by saying, “For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpation.”   

Benjamin Franklin is perhaps the most frank of all when it comes to the expectation that impeachment would be a regularity, for he called it “a regular and peaceable inquiry” that could allow the guilty to be “duly punished” while the innocent can be “restored to the confidence of the public.”    

The process of impeachment not only provides a mechanism for censorship and removal but the preservation of the honor and dignity of the office. An acquittal can benefit the accused. Impeachment provides an open and public inquiry to clear their name and assure the people that the President is not above the law nor beyond reasonable demands for moral and just behavior.   

Defining High Crimes and Misdemeanors

But, you say, a president should only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. But what are high crimes and misdemeanors? They aren’t quite what you think. 

Before a US President assumes his authority and responsibility, he takes an oath of office. This is much more than a formality. This oath is a legal and binding act required to assume executive authority. By constitutional decree, the President takes an oath and remains under oath as they exercise the office. This requirement and responsibility define high office in the American Republic.    

Because the actions of the chief executive carry higher weight and consequence than the actions of any other government officer, the expectations of someone who fills that office should be higher than any other government responsibility. Any misconduct committed by someone in high office has demeaned not only their self but the office they hold.

They have demeaned themselves while under oath, an act that should be more consequential than other violations by other citizens, not less. High crimes and misdemeanors are defined by the nature of the office, not by the nature of the act. To reference the words of Hamilton, they are political crimes and answerable to the political body of Congress. 

Now, let’s be clear about something. There was a lot of talk during the impeachment about what actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. The idea was always that, this is a big deal, so the actions better be pretty substantial. But I think this is a backwards way of thinking. 

Instead, consider that under the Constitution, impeachment is the only thing the President answers to, short of an election. That means that every act we choose to consider beyond the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors is an act we grant the President carte blanche to commit.  

I think it makes perfect sense to point out the damage done to our Republic by the narrow definition of high crimes and misdemeanors as purely criminal. When we add the words of the founders to the clear consequences of the imperial presidency, we should be able to arrive upon a definition of high crimes and misdemeanors as any act that demeans the office, violates the public trust, or betrays the oath of office.   

This is my understanding of the impeachment power. It has nothing to do with Donald Trump. I believed this way under Obama and I will believe this way under future presidents from either party.  I truly believe that impeachment has been used far too rarely in the history of our republic and that too many people approach the subject of impeachment with trembling knees.  

The Democrats – Impeachment Half-Baked

Now, I’m not saying the Democrats impeached President Trump for the reasons or for the purpose that I would have. We can be frank for a moment and admit that the Ukraine scandal was only one in a long list of abuses and unscrupulous actions engaged in by our current president and that it was simply the one that raised a loud enough cry from the Left that Democrats decided to do what they’ve long wanted to do. 

It’s my unfortunate analysis that the Democrats were far too calculating in the way they went about impeachment. They went about it in a way seemingly designed to say “they did it” without really engaging in the full process that would have actually constituted doing it. Impeachment was really just part of the resistance checklist.  

Yes, I’ve heard all the arguments about proceeding as quickly as possible. There were concerns about how quickly the news cycle would move on from the scandal, and that the courts would take too long to hear congressional cases. No one wanted to have a major distraction going on throughout the primary process and into the general election, especially with quite a few Democratic Senators in the race.  

But here’s the kicker. That’s what an impeachment is. It’s an all-consuming process that takes time to do right. Precisely because it’s such an important and monumental undertaking. Removing the elected executive from office wasn’t designed to be easy, politically expedient, or even a popular thing to do. 

Anyone who undertakes to impeach the president without the willingness to see it through and do it right should probably not impeach the president.  

But as I’ve said from the very beginning of all this, the Democrats have proven to be the worst possible opposition party in the age of Trump, and much of the media has failed to act any better. At almost every step along the way the Democrats and the Media have done more to help Trump win the hearts of Republican voters than Trump ever has. 

When the House Votes…

But regardless of any of this, despite the half-baked impeachment inquiry conducted by the House, and despite their unwillingness to truly capitalize on the Obstruction of Congress undertaken by the President and his administration, which, by the way, I always felt like was the more solid charge. Despite all of that, the House took a vote and a majority of the people’s representatives voted to impeach the president. 

And, once the House votes, it becomes the Senate’s duty to adequately prosecute a trial. The facts behind the articles of impeachment could be paper thin. But a majority vote by the House still represents a crisis of legitimacy, and the Senate’s job is to restore that legitimacy. They do this by either convicting or acquitting the President in a manner effective to convince a very divided public of his innocence or guilt. 

Failure by the Senate to prosecute a convincing case, one way or the other, is a failure of a singular duty. A Senate that fails to achieve to reach one or the other result believably, or worse, doesn’t even try, damages the health and vitality of the American Republic. 

That was precisely the failure the Senate was willing to engage in. This willingness to sully the institutional integrity of the US Senate was what struck such a chord with me and my political affiliation.  

A Viral Tweet

In a tweet that would go viral, I said on January 30^th,  

“Through it all, through thick and thin, I have maintained my Republican membership. But if Republicans block witnesses, if they lay the institutional integrity of the US Senate on the altar of Trump, that will likely be the final straw for me. I could be #ExGop very soon.” 

And that’s exactly what Republicans in the Senate chose to do. When they voted against witnesses, when they chose to place their loyalties to Donald Trump over their consideration of constitutional duty, I became faced with a difficult decision.

I was admittedly livid. If there are any central planks to my vision for American politics, it’s that we should roll back the imperial presidency and that Congress needs to reassert its proper constitutional place in the federal government. The integrity of the institution of Congress is very important to me.   

All concerns and debates over whether or not Trump should be removed, or whether he should have been impeached in the first place, are secondary to my agitation over the Senate sacrificing its integrity, and the Senators violating their oaths, in order to voice their loyalty to Trump and maintain the support of his followers.    

It was maddening, it was disheartening, and it made me wonder if the GOP is beyond redemption, at least in the present and near-future.  But did that mean it was time for me to leave the Republican Party? Even in the midst of my frustration, I was still hesitant to leave. 

A Reluctant Independent

People were pulling their hair out. Those that were already #ExGop couldn’t believe my reluctance to leave the Republican Party. And their disbelief was joined in symphony by the cackling howls of Trump-supporting Republicans who were thinking I couldn’t get out of their party fast enough. In fact, just about everyone across the board was wondering why I didn’t leave the party years ago.    

But I had good reasons to stay. Many of those reasons were still compelling. But those reasons were starting to be overwhelmed.  

The day after the 2016 election, Evan McMullin called for principled conservatives to leave the Republican Party. Since then, there had been many conservatives who did just that, including several I highly respect like George Will, David French, and Justin Amash. But I had several concerns about abandoning ship.    

First, I didn’t want my political affiliation predicated upon the actions of one politician. In 2016 and 2017, at least, Trump did not define the Republican Party. I didn’t want to set myself politically adrift as a knee jerk reaction. I didn’t want to be part of the cults of personality and anti-personality, that I deride, by overreacting to the words and actions of a single petty and vulgar man. I didn’t want to surrender my ability to support principled conservatives in the Republican Party and encourage an alternate vision from within the party.   

Second, there’s more about political affiliation than just the President. In Utah, I have Senators that I mostly agree with and support. Under the direction of Utah’s Republican Party, my state has become a bastion of economic growth, limited government, and free society. Being involved with the Republican Party in local and state-level affairs has mostly been positive. I didn’t see the point of surrendering my place at the table here, where I live, in a protest against the President that was unlikely to ultimately make any real difference.   

Third, I was trying to play the long game. I felt that, regardless of Trump, the Republican Party was still the institution best situated to reassert the values of American governance. I saw value in putting my efforts towards reclaiming the GOP. Or, at least, holding fast as a remnant of principle within the party, staying prepared to reassert traditional conservative values when Trump finally left the scene.   

Lastly, I believe in the importance of party affiliation, coalition building, and healthy institutions. I want to be part of the conversation and not just a member of the peanut gallery. If I left the Republican Party, I didn’t want it to be a quixotic gesture. I didn’t want such a personal shift to be a jump into the open sea. Absent the ability to step from one wholly established and relevant platform to another, it didn’t make sense to abandon the platform that still had the most potential for asserting my values in the future.   

I felt I had sound reasoning for my decision to stay in the Republican Party. But year by year, outrage after outrage, and Republican acquiescence after Republican acquiescence, my will and determination began to weaken. And, with each mounting act by the President, the intraparty opposition to his behavior grew less and less. By the end of the impeachment, it’d almost become non-existent. It’d grown to be almost inescapable that the Republican Brand was the Brand of Trump.    

But I was a Republican for a reason, and I wanted to remain a Republican if I could in good conscience. But what had the new reality of the Republican Party become? How much had its enabling of Donald Trump tarnished the party? Was this a political institution I could remain part of without tainting myself through association? 

As I considered what to do, I asked myself four questions:   

1. What had the Republican Party become?   

2. Had my membership actually accomplished anything?   

3. Would my continued membership have only served to offer assent to the party’s new direction?   

4. Would independence better serve my personal goals and political vision?   

But I Was Already in Exile

For nearly a week, I pondered those questions. I was able to have a lot of conversations with people on Twitter, Facebook, through email, and through articles submitted to The Liberty Hawk. I gave the question earnest thought and prayer. 

In the end, I couldn’t hide from the truth. I no longer had a place in Trump’s Republican Party. For however much I didn’t want to leave the GOP, the GOP had clearly left me.  

I had raised my voice and penned countless articles over the last four years, trying to reassert traditional conservative values. My repeated petitions had been answered only by repeated injury. When I raised my opinions to fellow Republicans, I had been met with anger, hostility, and derision.    

I had attempted to be patient and humble. I had tried to be prudent and pragmatic in my approach. I had tried to demonstrate my conservatism and my loyalty to the Republican Party in hopes my arguments might soften the hearts of fellow Republicans.   

Above all, I had endeavored to encourage a truly transactional relationship between the party and the President, the transactional relationship so many claimed undergirded their support for him. But Donald Trump, ostensibly a “lesser of two evils” in 2016, had become championed as a greater good. There was no longer any independent thought or any deviation from Trump’s wishes allowed in the ranks of the Republican Party.   

The impeachment process demonstrated in stark clarity the truth of my words. We watched the US Senate, once considered the most deliberative body in the world, assent and acquiesce to an unrestrained executive.    

Look, I didn’t expect the President to get removed. I only expected the Senate to perform its duty. I expected them to discharge their oaths as impartial jurors. I expected them to execute a fair and thorough trial, to follow the truth to where it took them. A partisan acquittal reflects poorly enough upon Republican Senators, but to do so after suppressing witness testimony and further evidence is a damnable offense.   

And just to be sure I had understood the writing on the wall, there was more. I had to witness an unrepentant President parade himself before Congress and bask in the adoration of total party devotion. I watched as the highest civilian honor went to a talk show host who amounts to little more than a propaganda arm of the President. Worst of all, I witnessed angry and hostile attacks from the top to the bottom of my own state’s Republican Party against Mitt Romney, one of the only members of Congress to demonstrate he still operates on a set of principles and values.   

I had discovered I was already a Republican in exile. It had been made abundantly clear there was no room in the Republican Party for an independent voice, for a voice unconverted to Trump’s regime. So, a declaration of independence was simply an embrace of reality.  

I had answered the four questions I had been considering. 

1. What had the Republican Party become?  It had become a nationalist party, a party that had come to see itself only as an extension of its leader. 
2. Had my membership actually accomplished anything?  No, despite my every protest and every attempt at reason, my membership accomplished nothing in regards to the direction of the party. 
3. Would my continued membership have only served to offer assent to the party’s new direction?  Yes, I felt like it would. If I had maintained my affiliation, it would have demonstrated I was unserious in my protests, that my values and principles don’t matter as much as I say. 
4. Would independence better serve my personal goals and political vision? I determined that it would. The only thing I need in order to champion my political vision is truth. In the words of George Washington, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.” I will plant myself like a tree beside the river of truth and, since the Republican Party no longer resides there, I will stand there alone and independent.   

There It Is

As Limbaugh might say, there it is folks. Now, I’m not only a new centrist, but I am an independent voice. As I’ve said several times recently, though, I pray this is only a separation and not a divorce. I hope that those declaring independence, as I have, are communicating through action that the Republican Party is going where many of us can’t follow.

If conservatives and Republicans want to be a viable force for founding principles, they need to reel themselves back to the sphere of natural law. They need to find their way back from the margins. I’ll be here, waiting, and ready to stand side-by-side with them once more as we fight for the ideal that, I know, in their hearts, they still believe in. 

Briefly, On COVID-19

Before I conclude this episode, I mentioned at the beginning that I would touch briefly on the COVID-19 crisis we are currently faced with.

These are difficult times for most of us. Many of us have either lost jobs or fear losing their jobs. Some of us have had to isolate ourselves from those we love. We’ve had to spend Easter cooped up in our houses. We scrounge for basic necessities, I even wager there’s been a few who’ve made pacts with the devil for a roll of toilet paper. 

Perhaps worst of all, many of us are boiling over with anger, wondering how this could have happened to us. Who failed us? Who’s responsibly for allowing a disease to bring modern society to complete stand still? 

I don’t pretend to have answers to such questions. I don’t know how this happened. I can’t say for certain who failed or by how much. 

What I can say is, we are still able to make sure that we don’t fail each other. We can make the small but important decisions that can protect ourselves and our loved ones. And, we can spread happiness and good will to our neighbors, our friends, and our families.  

We can make it through this America, pull together, hang tough, have Faith, in God and in each other.

And, as always, stay free my friends.