I’ve taken a few days to collect my thoughts, so hopefully this has slightly tempered my rant from being too discouraging or negative. I still see Unity as the best possible option, but my enthusiasm and ability to promote the movement have been on a decline this past week. I hope that in voicing these concerns some of you might be able to demonstrate that they’re unfounded or address them, but, if not, maybe this message will serve as an outlet for anyone else sharing similar concerns.
We still don’t have tangible candidates that we can promote. My thoughts with our election were, regardless of the outcome and glitches in the process, we’ll finally be able to move forward. Now we’ve selected our two, but we’re still waiting to move forward until there’s a groundswell. Even though I’ve assured friends that there’s no harm in supporting the concept of this movement, they’re reluctant to entertain the idea without knowing who they’re signing up to support. It might be Tulsi and Dan, but no one really knows and we’re waiting to even ask them until a substantial number of people are willing to show support in hopes it might be those two. I think people would rally in huge numbers if we had someone step up and say “I’m willing to take a stand”, but we’re not even giving candidates an option to do that and campaign for the movement. Instead we’re comfortably staying at this impasse of, “we need to get a groundswell to get candidates”, without acknowledging we need candidates to get a groundswell.
Has anyone bothered to ask what Tulsi and Dan require to sign on? Maybe their requirements are much different than what we’ve assumed. They might love nothing more than to run on this platform and just need to be asked. They might say, “I’ll do it, but here are my terms”, and those might have nothing to do with a groundswell. Through their military careers they’ve both displayed a willingness to sacrifice so much for their countries, even their lives. Why are we assuming they’re not courageous enough to take a risk with their political careers for the sake of saving our country?
This may have been discussed in other topics, but I’m a bit baffled by the voting and implications. Ticket 1 is Dan & Tulsi, then ticket 2 is Yang and McRaven. So, if Dan excepts and Tulsi declines, or vice versa, does it automatically pass to Yang and McRaven? This is somewhat beside my point in this post, but I think it would have made much more sense to rank the three left-leaning choices and rank the right-leaning choices separately. I don’t think many people were thinking, “Jesse would be great with Mcraven, but a terrible fit for Jocko” leading up to voting day. I assume most people were thinking, “This is my top pick for the left, this is my top pick for the right” then did their best to rank them with their top picks toward the top. Ranked voting is great, but I think the process of pairing candidates in this made it difficult for voters to effectively communicate their preference.
I think Dan Crenshaw is absolutely wrong for the Unity ticket, and a dealbreaker for a significant number of people who might have otherwise considered Unity. I sincerely hope he proves me wrong (And accepting the draft would go a LONG way in proving me wrong), but I find having him as a candidate throws the integrity of the ticket out the window. I’ve listened to numerous podcasts, and what comes through is how critical he is of almost everything to do with the left, and how blind he is to any hint of corruption or wrong-doing on the right. I believe the only thing he conceded in the campfire episode was that Republicans are poor communicators and that must be why not everyone subscribes to their superior ideas.
Dan is a great guy. He’s young, charismatic, and a zealot for the Republican Party. These are great qualities, but why would we expect him to be an answer from the problems in our parties when he’s oblivious to his party’s share of those problems?
Compare Tulsi to Dan. I haven’t listened to Tulsi nearly as extensively, but when I hear her speak she is remarkably insightful of the shortcomings in our government across both parties. By most people’s criteria, she barely qualifies as a democrat, and some even accuse her of being Republican. They’re not sure how to place her, but her good-nature, good-will, confidence, and seeming incorruptibility make it entirely insignificant to confine her to a side. She represents great qualities from both sides, while Dan represents great qualities from one side. I can promote Tulsi to Democrats and Republicans alike with the confidence that anyone and everyone can get behind this candidate because her message resonates with Americans on every and any side.
I find I’m unable to promote Dan with any enthusiasm, and hopelessly unable to do so to anyone left-leaning. If someone is considering voting Democrat, is a dynamic non-partisan candidate paired with a staunch, status-quo Republican going to seem a better option? Maybe, but I’m at a loss of how to field that argument. I can say that Dan isn’t Trump, but so can anyone. Any progress I make might be lost when they listen to one of Dan’s podcasts or google him and stumble upon articles of his Dan’s typical Republican talking points, even going so far as spreading Covid misinformation. They might applaud him for being well-spoken, but this is not a candidate for Unity.
I don’t see anything unique about Dan that separates him from the politicians that have lead us into this divided mess in the first place. Jesse Ventura pointed out that politicians tend to put their party’s intentions first. Dan seems to embody that, while Tulsi and other candidates give the impression that they would put the American people before their party (if they even have a party). Dan is extremely critical of democrats, which could be fair and possibly insightful if it weren’t so one-sided and blatantly steeped in bias.
I keep listening to more episodes of his podcasts and other interviews in hopes that I’ll see those open-minded, non-partisan qualities people have convinced themselves he possesses, but all I find is more conviction that he is perfect for the Republican Party but entirely wrong for Unity. With the potential of having Dan on the ticket, the foundation of the Unity movement risks being jeopardized. We might become a “lesser of three evils” ticket. All evidence I’ve encountered in listening to his own words suggest he’s just more of what we’ve been dealing with up to this point. Can anyone point me to specific podcasts or examples of Dan transcending the Democrat/Republican divide in a compelling way?
To conclude, I do still view the Unity movement as the best course, but I’m finding my enthusiasm to be losing out to my frustration. I will still support the movement personally, but these concerns of mine have crippled my ability to tell every single person I encounter that they need to get behind this.