TAMPA I: The Way I See It … Still: An Open Letter to the Executive Committee, National Committee and Membership of the Constitution Party From Michael Anthony Peroutka
The Way I See It … StillIt has been about seven weeks now since the National Committee of the Constitution Party took a vote in Tampa, Florida, regarding the disaffiliation of the Nevada affiliate (known as the Independent American Party of Nevada).
This has been a painful time for many of us to say the least. I have not wanted to write about it and I really don’t want to write about it now, but I feel compelled that it is my duty to state my view on what has occurred and what it means and what I plan to do about it.
Only moments after the vote as I walked out into the hallway, I heard two ladies discussing the vote. These women were delegates and, though they were friends and ardent pro-life workers from the same state and had driven together to the meeting in Tampa, surprisingly, they voted opposite ways on the resolution to disaffiliate the IAP of Nevada. Their conversation caught my attention and I think you’ll see why. It went something like this:
Woman A (voted FOR disaffiliation): “Don’t you see what you’ve done today (by your vote)? Now the party has opened the door to allow for exceptions!”
Woman B (voted AGAINST disaffiliation): “Yes, but it’s only open a little crack.”
Woman A: “But that’s so foolish. Don’t you realize that every abortion is some kind of ‘exception’? If there were NO EXCEPTIONS, there would be NO ABORTION CLINICS!”
Right.
Just a few days before the vote took place, I wrote a piece entitled “The Way I See It”. The purpose of this piece was simply to let other National Committee members know what I believed the central issue to be and to suggest the course of action that I believed was the only honorable, truthful recourse for the National Committee.
The piece can be found here……
In summary, my position was that a vote to disaffiliate the Nevada party was proper and imperative for the viability of the National Constitution Party. As I saw it, Nevada had ALREADY LEFT the party and I gave reasons why that conclusion was mandated by the incontrovertible facts. This being the case, it was the affirmative duty of the National Committee to acknowledge and act upon that which had already occurred. Nevada had broken ranks and marched away. They were (and are) gone. To continue this military metaphor, it was our duty to close up the ranks and go forward with out them. Not, of course because we didn’t wish them to remain. We did so desire. But the matter had become quite clear that they were not in voluntary compliance with the national platform regarding abortion and despite requests, entreaties and a resolution requiring them to comply or be disaffiliated, they steadfastly refused to do so.
It is certainly true that arguments were made for a period of almost two years that sought to cover the Nevada situation in “states rights” language with the purported defense that the national party has no right to interfere in the internal matters of the state party. But as many have pointed out, a resolution for disaffiliation is not “interference” in the state party’s private matters. Rather, it is an acknowledgement and a declaration of what they (the state party) have already declared to be their internal policy.
At the Tampa meeting perhaps the most difficult thing for me to witness was the capitulation of my friend and mentor, Mr. Howard Phillips, to what is now the National Party’s compromise position on abortion. Mr. Phillips presented a tortured argument that it must have tortured him to present. Since I admire him so much for his previous “pure” position on the abortion issue, and for his mentoring of me and innumerable acts of friendship and many kindnesses toward me, I have approached him personally asking him to reconsider and repent of the unrighteous compromise he has made on this premier moral issue of our time. To date, he has not communicated to me his intent to do so. I continue to pray that he will.
Mr. Phillips’ statement and a refutation by Mr. Nathan Radcliffe can be found elsewhere on this page. I am persuaded that Mr. Radcliffe has properly articulated the central reasons why Mr. Phillips’ position is in error.
Recently, Mr. Jim Clymer, Chairman of the National Party and a man I have admired for his work and his generosity, published a piece in which he tried valiantly but vainly to defend his compromise on the pro life issue. He failed, of course, to convince anyone, including Mr. Chris Hansen, that the party, at the national level, can still claim to be totally clear and pure on the question of abortion. Mr. Clymer’s explanation is that only Chris Hansen, and not the Nevada party, holds views regarding abortion that are divergent from the national position. This premise of Mr. Clymer’s argument is demonstrably false and so his whole argument falls because of its false foundation.
In part, this is because the Chairman’s letter omits an important fact that was learned by me (and, I believe, him) near the time of the October, 2005 meeting in Columbus, Ohio. At that time it was revealed that Janine Hansen had run for office in Nevada on a platform that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape and incest. This was quite surprising to me and, in fact, I didn’t believe it when I heard it. I had to see it with my own eyes, which I did. At about this same time I heard from Mr. Howard Phillips that Janine was resigning from the Executive Committee and that it was his belief that the Nevada party would be withdrawing voluntarily. In addition, it was revealed that at least one other IAP candidate in Nevada also ran for office declaring that they would allow for abortions under certain circumstances. On this basis alone, the Chairman’s argument that only Mr. Chris Hansen’s beliefs are at issue here is unconvincing to me.
Moreover, I am at a loss to understand how the Chairman can vote in favor of a state party that has blatantly and demonstrably done nothing to comply with a resolution of the National Committee. This resolution allowed a full six months for them to make efforts toward compliance with the national platform. Not only did Nevada do nothing to comply, but they steadfastly stood up and declared that they would NOT comply and dared the National Committee to do something about it. The answer of our leaders to this situation was clear. The platform and its principles were not defended.
In Tampa, Janine Hansen approached me in a public area and forcefully told me she was very disappointed in me and that I should have spoken to her personally so that I could understand why she published the voters’ guide revealing that she favored exceptions in the case of rape, incest and deformity. Janine rebuked me in a very strong and public manner and yet did not deny the salient fact of my communication. To the contrary, she expressly confirmed that she had, in fact, published the voters’ guide in the way that I had understood and reported. Speaking of the murders she would allow she explained that these exceptions would “almost never occur”. I think she used the words “rare” and “negligible”. In fact, during the floor debate on this issue, she made the same argument from the podium. In effect, she said that these exceptions are so rare that they we should not consider them to be “exceptions” at all.
It is startling for me to think that a majority of the delegates there present heard this and, like the lady above (Woman B), were comfortable in allowing the Constitution Party to become compromised in this way. (After all, were only opening the door a little crack, aren’t we?) More startling to me is the fact that so many people who had helped in the Presidential campaign – people whom I admired and worked closely with, were making arguments meant to cover Janine’s (and Chris’) obvious departure from the national platform. I began to wonder why they had joined the Constitution Party in the first place. In my mind, if we allow exceptions to our position on abortion I really don’t see why we shouldn’t fold it up and join one of the parties that do a little better at the polls.
If I may be allowed a personal gripe here, I would like to point out my disappointment in Janine Hansen’s running on an exceptions platform when she knew that I, at the very same time, was running for the highest national office on a pure 100% pro life platform. Inasmuch as I had repeated our national platform position on hundreds of talk shows and interviews, she presented a significant risk of embarrassment to me and to the party. All of this was in her knowledge. She was a member of the campaign team and knew what we were doing and saying. She was aware of this conflict and didn’t disclose it. Even if one might accept her claim that she was bound to follow the decision of her prophet ( a position that is problematic for other reasons), this conflict of positions should, I would think, require her to disclose the conflict to me and to the rest of our campaign committee. She did not.
An interesting side note. In my conversation with Mr. Phillips about two weeks after the Tampa meeting, he told me that Janine Hansen had decided to resign personally and to seek the voluntary withdrawal of the Nevada party and would have proceeded to do so but for the fact that Mr. Bill Shearer of California talked her out of it. If this is true, I wonder what motive Mr. Shearer might have had in so influencing Janine Hansen and the IAP of Nevada.
So…Where Does That Leave Us?
In my view, the events in Tampa leave the (national) party hopelessly compromised on the pro-life issue. Although many claim that the party platform is still 100% pro-life, this bare statement is now meaningless. It’s like a man who says he loves his wife but then stands by idly while she is assaulted. His “love” for her is meaningless or irrelevant. Howard Phillips is trying to hold on to a position that is untenable. Jim Clymer is trying to do damage control by claiming that no damage has occurred when it clearly has. My dear friend, Dr. Curtis Caine is imploring those who leave to leave quietly, but why should they? Many are leaving because they feel betrayed by their leaders. Some are leaving loudly, but for my part, it is sadly. I thought these men would stand and defend the principle that EVERY unborn child has a right to life.
They did not. They compromised.
Why did they compromise?
Well, these are the reasons I’ve heard (along with their principle spokesman):
We must be loyal to the Hansen family since they helped us build the party. This loyalty trumps all other considerations. (Shearer).
We can’t get bogged down in this abortion matter, we must continue to build the party. (Holmes)
It’s not really the Nevada Party, it’s just Chris Hansen who has strange views and we (the National Party) are not going to support him. (Clymer)
The real issue before us is the constitution of the Constitution Party. Nevada has always technically complied with the application rules. So, they are untouchable even if they are, de facto, deviating from the platform. (Phillips)
The Ohio folks and the Oregon folks and the Maryland folks and the Montana folks and those South Carolina people and some folks in Illinois and Florida and Michigan and Minnesota and Mississippi and New York and a few other places are all religious zealots who think this party should be a church and we can’t give into their wacky views. We can’t dance around the cauldron with these cannibals/Nazis/ravenous wolves because they have big teeth and will eat us all up if we let them get their way on this issue. (Sorry to get carried away here. My point here is that these are all ad hominem and therefore logical fallacies.) (Shearer)
Whatever the stated reason, these arguments have been used to cover up or divert from the fact that Nevada is not and has not been for sometime in harmony with the national platform on the abortion question. More to the point, they have demonstrated clearly that they are not going to rectify this situation. Even more to the point, when presented with a resolution introduced by Vice Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and approved by the National Committee, that required them to make changes toward compliance, THEY DEFIED the resolution. In my view, the National Committee, therefore had no recourse but to recognize the disaffiliation that is apparent before us, declare the obvious, and move on.
Instead, our executive leadership, seeing all these facts and circumstances, decided to do nothing about it and were able to convince a sizeable amount of members to agree with them.
What will Michael Peroutka do, personally?
Well, for starters, I think I need to declare that the position adopted by the National Committee with respect to the resolution to disaffiliate Nevada is wrong and needs to be rectified immediately. That is why I am writing to you now.
I will continue to discuss this issue with the men whom I have loved and admired toward the end of convincing them to repent of their compromise and join me in reuniting the party behind a true 100% pro-life platform that is lived out and not just given lip service.
I will pray for the Constitution Party and hope it can one day become the vehicle that I thought it was. A vehicle to restore the American Constitutional Republic.
If, within a reasonable period of time, movement toward these ends is not forthcoming, I will be forced to leave the CP National Party and look to the Maryland Constitution Party as a method to accomplish these ends. If the Maryland Party leaves the National Party, I will work with whoever shares the American View to restore the Republic.
At this point I could not, in good faith, represent the Constitution Party nor endorse any of its candidates. Unless serious changes occur, I could not run for President in 2008.
I will concentrate my energies and resources toward Institute on the Constitution (www.IOTC online.com). This program, first begun in 2000, helps Americans to reconnect with the history and heritage of Liberty under Law.
I will support men like Alabama Justice Tom Parker and former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore who, in my view, understand The American View of law and government and have the courage and conviction to apply it in the civil body politic.
And I will go home and hug my wife and kids. (And my dog, Jackson).
Blessings,
Michael