Time to Raise the Level of HCGOP Leadership

By Scott Lilly | Jun 05, 2014

As a right-wing, conservative, Republican, I like to see my interests represented well in the community.  When I see unfair criticism toward those that represent my views, I do not sit silent.  When I see people oppose my views with seemingly unreasonable, illogical, or unsustainable justifications, I want to dig deeper to find out what I might not understand, to help my opponent “see the light”, or just clearly understand where we agree to disagree.

So the more I get involved with like-minded people in Haywood County, the more I see a void in leadership of those that share my views.  Leadership is defined as: a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.  Seemingly, part of the problem seems to be the definition of “a common task” when talking about the HCGOP.

But let’s examine how effective the HCGOP is in their stated common tasks:

1) To elect the best possible candidate who provides the best possible service to citizens of Haywood County.

How is this measured?  How are we doing in this goal?  Does “best possible service” include some kind of commitment to supporting the protections of a republic over the urges of a democracy?  How does the HCGOP “elect the best possible candidate”?  I thought that was the job of the voters.

2) To hold current government officials accountable, not only for their actions, but to the residents of Haywood County.

Does “current government officials” include those that run the HCGOP?  If it did, how would we hold ourselves accountable for actions or inactions?  If the HCGOP cannot hold itself accountable for much of anything, how can it be expected to hold government officials accountable?

3) To promote a non-intrusive, efficient government that is pro-business and pro-individual-rights.

Now this one makes the most sense as these elements have roots based in the protections of a republic: the protection of the minority from the majority.  Now be honest, how much promoting is being done by the (dis)organized HCGOP?  What leadership is coming from the HCGOP that either enables or is directly responsible for this promotion?  Point to it!  The events page of the HCGOP list: a Christmas Party, a Christmas parade, and an Apple Festival.  Please point to how these events promoted a republic form of government.  What metric is used to measure how effective the HCGOP leadership is at this goal?

In the year that I’ve been paying attention, the HCGOP has been as coherent as Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First” bit.  Isn’t it time to elevate the conversation and leadership coming from the HCGOP?  Since I can't even pretend to understand the complicated politics within the HCGOP itself, does anyone have any ideas on how to raise the quality and conversation from the HCGOP and how it best interacts with Democrats?

Comments (19)
Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 09, 2014 10:57

             There is no constitutional requirement to be "pro-business".

             There is a constitutional duty to equally protect "All persons".

             A government that equally protects "All persons" will result in a prosperous environment for "All persons".


            Favoritism allows the ill-liberal seeds of discrimination to grow. No one is safe in such an environment.


Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jun 10, 2014 07:40

An environment is considered more "pro-business" when the business is taxed equally as other area businesses and less than businesses in competing markets.  As well, less regulation (government intervention in free commerce) is considered a pro-business environment.


A Republican likely would adopt an "equal protection" philosophy if that really means equality.  Succeeding in an environment that has equal opportunity (from hard work or luck or both) does not somehow mean society then needs "protection" from a company or individual who has succeeded in that environment.  Republicans also seek "protection" from the tyranny of the majority.  (That occurs when a democracy attempts to vote things and rights away from a minority.)


The LEFT believe government's job is to make everyone proper equally.  The RIGHT believe and an environment that provides equal opportunity which anyone can prosper.  Due to the intended constraints that the Constitution provides that limits government, that defining aspect of a republic means very few Republicans (if any) would agree with a Left point of view.


An area where we might agree is that favoritism is not good and when politicians show favor to those with money by favoring them in legislation, that's no good.


Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 10, 2014 10:16

          Thank God OUR Founders were liberals! Liberals that recognized that the proper time for government intervention in the affairs of man was when any person was injured by another. Most regulations on businesses exist to address such problems such as pollution and danger to employees. To allow any business to damage OUR environment puts OUR posterity at risk. To allow any business to put their employees in harms way is also unnecessary.

           Right-wingers embrace OUR Constitution as they want it to be. Not as it was intended. As long as OUR courts recognize and respect OUR history, Liberty will flourish despite the constant attacks.

            Presently one of the most insidious attacks is this notion that all must pay taxes equally. Nonsense!  To be fair and to meet the Constitutional demands of equal protection, all must pay in proportion to what they earn.

             "trickle-down" does not even meet the requirements you proscribe to. It shifts taxes from those in the middle/lower brackets to those in the higher brackets in the hopes that they will "trickle-down" as a reward. It was discriminatory from its inception. Even by your standards.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jun 10, 2014 14:17

So a Republican ought to promote the protections that a Constitution gives to We The People by limiting our government.  The NC Constitution says "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness."


This addresses that other people do not have a right to the fruits of my labor.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 11, 2014 08:01

             Paying for OUR governance in proportion to what is earned is not a violation of this.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jun 11, 2014 16:56

"Paying for OUR governance in proportion to what is earned is not a violation of this." -- That is debatable.  Also more debatable is how government uses the fruits of my labor.  When those that produce no fruit vote to take my fruit instead, that becomes an argument that Republicans ought to make a convincing case.  When government wants to take more of my fruit because they want to pay for things that have little to do with necessary organization and administration of society and public property, (tourism, corporate welfare, public art or investment into private art, etc.) a Republican Party ought to show at least concern and interest in how some in society have to pay "more" for that than others.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 12, 2014 07:44

           You really don't understand the "Social Contract, do you!



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jun 13, 2014 11:48

I understand a government-imposed "social contract" cannot trump natural law or commonly understood laws of humanity.  And our social contract cannot expand beyond the protections of our constitution: I am entitled to the fruits of my own labor.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 14, 2014 10:03

               You have shown no knowledge of the Founding Principle of The Social Contract or Natural Law nor a republic.

                The " Social Contract exits starting at birth or Naturalization whereby "All persons" become a citizen of US whereby they agree to be represented by an elected body of people while maintaining their Naturally inherent or otherwise inalienable rights known as civil rights. Most certainly any person may challenge any law passed by their duly elected representatives. If they can show harm created by the law towards them, and can convince a court of such unconstitutional action, then the law is revoked. Such as unnecessary voter restrictions, laws curtailing women's rights, teacher pay and/or tenure issues, etc, etc.

              As it is the duty of OUR Govt. to equally protect "All persons" from oppression whereby an accumulation of too much power/wealth results in harm to US, it has long been recognized that all must pay in direct proportion to what they gained. In fact any true patriot will willingly pay in such manner to support the cause of Liberty.

                It is the anti-liberty anti-US who deviates from their responsabilities of supporting US. The very idea that all should pay the rate is a regressive idea that will lead to repressive tyrannical results. In fact We are seeing some of that now. As several studies have shown, the top earners have enjoyed most of the gains in OUR economy since bushishito's great recession, while the middle and lower brackets have seen little gain whatsoever. This cannot stand. If OUR representatives do not correct this tyranny of economic oppression, We the people will. We have done so before. "No taxation without representation!"



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jun 14, 2014 13:19

Mr. Zimmerman, I see your point that using appropriate controls and programs can and should be supported by all.  My point is that these programs are way too ambitious.  Any well-founded Republican (and even 99% of right-wingers) should support a bare-minimum safety net.  Since our country obviously cannot sustain government as we know it ($17T in debt), we need to lower these safety-net programs to provide less.  Those who need it should have it.  No debate there.  The debate comes from defining "need".  I will make the argument that someone spending money on tattoos and beer does not need a safety net program; instead they need a "slap-in-the-face" (so to speak) to get their spending priorities in order.


That being said, if our "entitlement" programs and social welfare programs were greatly reduced, I would have much less heartburn paying taxes.


I am watching with great interest the project that will convert the prison to a social welfare facility.  Those that stay there must: (1) be in some kind of education program, (2) be working, or (3) volunteer for some kind of community service.  That kind of arrangement would be a program even right-wing folks can get behind.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 15, 2014 11:53

              Lets get something absolutely clear. george WAR bush inherited a surplus. A large surplus. He squandered it by tax refunds to the mostly well-off with no strings attached whereby most of OUR money which was taken from OUR treasury Department, was not used here to support US, but was spent out of country. bushishito initiated a Medicaid subscription program he refused to pay for. he started two WARS he refused to pay for. he and his ilk initiated OUR banking crises. he and his ilk legalized "harvesting" of OUR businesses and outsourcing of OUR jobs. ETC, ETC, ETC. Obomanator as a responsible person was forced to put bushishito's record keeping failures on his books. Wala, there is most of the debt. He was forced to approprietly act to save OUR economy by initiating a stimulus program. More debt. He was forced to continue topay for WARS not of his making, one of which he ended. More debt.


                 "Entitlement programs" are those any person so qualified are entitled to have. They are like Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare mostly paid for by We the people OURSELVES by payroll deductions or in my case as an independent businessperson at tax time.

                   All govt. programs exist because OUR duly elected representatives have at OUR insistence created them. No one is an island unto themselves. Established as a republic whereby "All persons born or naturalized are citizens of the United States of America and the State wherein they reside...", you may challenge the Constitutionality of any law or program you believe causes you harm. Until you succeed you are obligated to pay what is owed.

            What I cannot understand is your clear bias toward the less fortunate while "trickle-down" has caused the greatest shift in wealth in this country ever. This must be corrected or the people themselves will take it upon themselves to do so. July 2, 1776 was no distant dream.


            The use of OUR prison to rehabilitate prisoners is fine except there should be no clergy envolvement whatsoever. Every one of the listed clergy have their own place of business that is alreddy supported by US the taxpayer(No Taxation Without Representation!) that is available for their use. They need not commandeer OUR prison. Most certainly no proselytizing shall be allowed!!! The North Carolina Religious Clause strictly forbids it.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jun 15, 2014 13:33

"Entitlement programs are those any person so qualified are entitled to have." -- True.  But it is my argument that government is not entitled to create, administer, and expand programs while we cannot pay our bills.  ($17,000,000,000 in debt)  So the "entitlement programs" that We The People unwisely created are doing harm to our society.


My bias is not about the less fortunate -- it is the government programs that harm society and the less fortunate.  Well-intended safety net programs were created -- but have been expanded and exploited over the years to the point that "living on the system" is too common.  Take the unemployment situation for the classic example.  People only went back to work in mass when the extended unemployment dried up.  When people are properly motivated, most are capable of being productive.  The less fortunate I feel is just as capable as the fortunate given the same opportunity.  Republicans want the same opportunity for all and the freedom to participate as much or as little as anyone likes.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 16, 2014 09:52

                 There is no such thing as "living on the system" anymore. Can't happen. Temporary US assistance is that. Temporary.

                  Before mccrory, etc, workers paid into their own unemployment benefit account an amount as a percentage of what they earned such that if they were unemployed they would receive an amount such that they would not have to suffer unnecessarily. mccrory.etc, cut the maximum amount and also the amount of time it could be received. Akin to changing the rules in mid-contract or just plain breaking the contract altogether. The mccrory supporting bureaucrats would have US believe that these folks were forced to go get jobs. Really? What jobs? Where is the proof? Most certainly many perhaps did. But how many were removed from the unemployment roles because their unemployment ran out? Where is the answer to that? How many were thrown into bankruptcy unnecessarily? Which we all pay for. Etc. Etc.

             When too much wealth accumulates in too few hands oppression can occur whereby the alreddy well-off can dictate job availability and payroll. We are seeing this happen. And the results thereof. Less disposable income by the lower and middle income brackets. More crime.

               When 1% of We the people own/control over 80% of OUR assets, there is little opportunity for the lesser 99% to compete.

                 The actions of mccrory, etc belie their stated intentions by you.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jun 16, 2014 10:08

"When too much wealth accumulates in too few hands..." -- This is the part of your position which I can support.  MORE competition is healthy.  LESS competition results exactly in the problems you describe.  It is my opinion (as a Right-Wing, Conservative, Republican) that the term "monopoly" should be more aggressively defined.  When a big-box hardware store comes into a town, what happens to the independent hardware stores?  How feasible is it to have an independent grocer anymore?  When is the last time you filled up a tank of gas without one of the big gas company logos on the pump?  If you want to find common ground, I believe increasing competition is where common ground can be found.  Republicans could in theory embrace the idea that making our nation more equal in opportunity means the "small business" model ought to be slightly favored with antitrust legislation.  I've been seeing activity with this among those with my political persuasions.


I'd love to see the local HCGOP have these kinds of discussions -- not only preaching to their choir, but openly to others outside their membership. 

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jun 16, 2014 10:39

                Most certainly We need more competition. The anti-US saga of Walmart is proof of that.

                Many years ago I applied for a commercial drivers license to drive over the road. Even though I owned a semi and three other farm trucks, I was denied. I obtained part time work at a small locally owned fuel oil company driving a tanker. Every morning the owner would call the other local owners and confer on what the price would be and what owner would be the low price. There were 6 local owners some having ties to National oil companies. No Nationally owned fuel stops. They all got their fuel from Ashland Oil whereby there was Mobil Oil, Sunoco, Shell and Ashland. The difference between the Ashland Oil terminal and the others was that they all added certain and particular items to their fuel at certain and particular rates. to make their fuel a unique blend.

                By a recent search, Shell is the best quality fuel today.


                 Most certainly anti-trust anti-monopoly laws must be reinstated. There is no Constitutional prerogative to be "big business". Quite the opposite, if the requirements of a republic dedicated to equal protection is to be maintained.





Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jan 08, 2015 10:48

Case in point: I have a niece-in-law that receives food stamps and subsidized housing.  She just bought a brand new 2015 Mustang car.  Now someone explain how this is possible that I pay for her food and housing while she rides around in a new car?  I ride around in a car that has more than 180,000 miles on it because I can't afford a new car!  I'm the one paying taxes and she's the one with the new car!

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jan 08, 2015 12:26

                Blame the car companies/lending institutions.

                Ain't really none of your business anyway.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Jan 30, 2015 14:37

My business is that someone is taking public funds claiming they don't have enough money to survive.  Their claim is unbelievable since they can afford a car -- a new one at that!  It's people being told to mind their own business that has our public funds in such a mess!  No more I say!

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Jan 30, 2015 16:02

       The only thing that is your business is whether or not she is gaming OUR system. If she is then it is your obligation to report her. Private transactions are none of your business.



If you wish to comment, please login.