Young Guns : A New Generation of Conservative Leaders (19 page)

LYNN JENKINS

Everything that was difficult about the 2008 election was reflected in the 2008 race for the 2nd congressional district of Kansas. Five-term Republican representative Jim Ryun had lost in 2006 to Republican-turned-Democrat Nancy
Boyda. Ryun was running again but facing primary opposition from State Treasurer Lynn Jenkins. Jenkins ended up narrowly winning the difficult primary.

It was important that the party put the primary behind us and focus on taking back this district. Nancy Boyda called herself a moderate Democrat, but in Washington she supported the liberal Democratic majority and their policy agenda. In the general election she tried to hide from her own party knowing that it did not fit well with the Republican nature of her district. She even went so far as to skip the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

In contrast, Jenkins was a great fit for our program: a proven leader with the experience and track record voters could trust. Jenkins, a certified public accountant for over twenty years, was elected State Treasurer of Kansas in 2002 and reelected four years later. Prior to her service as state treasurer she had served four years in the Kansas State Legislature.

Lynn was clearly a talented and experienced statewide candidate who understood Kansas voters. And her background as a CPA and experience as state treasurer matched up well with the growing concerns about the economy and the lack of fiscal discipline in Washington.

Lynn campaigned on making tax cuts permanent, cutting spending to reduce the deficit, and providing additional smart tax relief to the struggling middle class. Kansans respected her experience and commitment to fiscal
responsibility, limited government, and political accountability. She went on to defeat Nancy Boyda 51%–46%, regaining a seat we had lost just two years before.

ERIK PAULSEN

In the 3rd District of Minnesota we faced a different problem in the retirement of Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad. Ramstad was serving his ninth term in Congress when he announced he would not run again in 2008. As soon as the announcement was made, the seat was designated by many prognosticators as a potential Democratic pickup. We knew we had to find a way to stem the tide and hold our own in open seats like this one if we were going to change the momentum.

The Democrats had what they thought was the perfect candidate to win the seat given the so-called “Blue Wave” that was believed to be sweeping the country. Ashwin Madia was an attorney and Iraq War veteran whose parents had moved to Plymouth, Minnesota, from Mumbai, India. Madia had beaten the Democratic establishment candidates in the primary thanks to strong liberal support and his antiwar views. He was a first time candidate but seemed well suited to the political environment and raised over $2 million.

Madia was a good candidate, but we had one better in
Erik Paulsen. Erik and I had a lot of similarities, having both been a businessman and a public servant (and later, during the campaign, I also learned something else—we were born in the same Bakersfield hospital just three months apart). He had served in the state legislature and had been chosen to serve in leadership (in his case as majority leader in the Minnesota House of Representatives). He had also worked for Congressman Ramstad as legislative director and director of his home office in Minnesota. In addition to his public service experience, Erik also brought sixteen years of business experience to the campaign.

And while Erik campaigned for the ideals we all supported, what made him stand out was his hard work. Erik in many ways simply outworked his opponent to win by eight points in a very tough environment and a district that Democrats had targeted as a potential pickup.

AARON SCHOCK

Another state legislator who worked hard and found a way to win in a tough environment was Aaron Schock in the 18th congressional district of Illinois. Aaron brought a unique combination of youth and enthusiasm and yet a surprising amount of experience to the campaign.

Aaron began his political career when he was nineteen by running for the local school board in Peoria, incredibly
defeating the incumbent board president as a write-in candidate. Two years later he had risen to board president himself—the youngest in its history. This would begin a pattern.

Aaron went on to become state representative at age twenty-three—again making him the youngest member of that body. In an interesting twist, Schock shared the 2007 Illinois Committee for Honest Government “Outstanding Legislative and Constituent Service” award with then-Sen. Barack Obama. After two very effective terms as a state representative he decided to run for Congress in 2008 after moderate Republican Ray LaHood announced his retirement.

Running for an open seat in Barack Obama’s home state with a struggling state party and an unpopular national party was a big challenge. The open seat was even dubbed a “once-in-a-century” opportunity for the Democrats to pick up.

Schock went on to win nearly 60 percent of the vote in a three-way race. And once again he was the youngest member—this time of the United States House of Representatives.

A lot has been made of Aaron’s youth but what is remarkable about his career is the way he has connected with voters at every level and gone on to achieve success. He understands the hard work involved and he brings not only the enthusiasm of youth but also the communication styles and tools of a younger generation. It is exciting to see this generational change begin to remake the Republican Party.

So while 2008 was still a very difficult year we felt like we were making progress. Our Young Guns candidates proved that Republicans could—with the right focus, commitment, and strategy—still field great candidates and win tough elections.

Another lesson Eric, Paul, and I have learned over these years in the minority is the importance of using technology and the latest communication tools to educate, communicate, and build relationships with each other, the voters, and potential supporters.

I have always been an avid reader, even more so now that I travel cross-country every week. Since I was the Republican leader in the California State Assembly I have recommended reading material to my colleagues. And one way I found to get more members reading and absorbing new ideas was through listening, to material on an iPod. One of the first things I did was to make sure every Assembly Republican had one. I wanted our members to interact with technology and culture in the same way their constituents did—and at the same time take advantage of these tools to better learn different perspectives and communicate our message.

But for Congress it has turned out—surprise!—that the
absorption of emerging technologies and communication tools happens very slowly. The technological advances that have occurred over the past two decades have provided a lot of efficiencies and accountability in the private sector, where on-time inventories and online publication of information has improved business productivity and transparency. I am a strong advocate of adapting with technology to make government more effective, more transparent, and more accountable.

One area where Congress has a lot of room to improve is legislative transparency. Why must the public and, frankly, many members of Congress and their staffs, have to wait until the day of the vote to read the text of spending bills? These bills can and should be posted on the Internet at least a week before the vote. And why must the powerful Rules Committee, which sets the ground rules for debate and amendments to bills, be one of the few committees to not regularly televise its hearings? Shining sunlight on the process promotes accountability and public trust in government.

Technology can also be used to improve direct communications between the people and their government. From my first months in Congress, I quickly adopted tele–town hall technology in order to provide an ongoing and convenient way for my constituents to share their concerns and ideas with me, and for me to listen to what their priorities were.

I also wanted to expand communication outreach beyond the normal press statements and snail mail letters, and tailor news updates to the different ways more
and more people were getting their information, such as through social media networks like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. As it happens, mass communications between members of Congress and their constituents is controlled by something called the Franking Commission. And the Franking Commission is part of the Committee on House Administration, a committee of which I am a member. But the Franking Commission, like so much of government, is clearly not orientated toward the latest technology and was reluctant to change. It took me eighteen months of battling the bureaucracy to bring communications between members of Congress and the American people into the twenty-first century.

To me the issue was simple: if our constituents are using these tools to communicate and to receive information, why shouldn’t Congress use them to stay in touch? Congress should be as open and transparent as possible, and adapt to changing times in order to engage with all Americans, and these tools were additional ways to do it.

In the same way I fought for Congress as a whole to be able to use modern communication tools, I wanted to be sure that our Republican members and leadership were using this technology effectively.

For example, Eric and I unleashed something called WhipCast, an application crafted for the iPod and the Blackberry that allows members and the public to keep more closely in touch with what is happening in Congress and on the House floor.

And it isn’t just about pushing information out. A critical aspect of regaining trust with voters is listening. We have to listen to voters and prove to them that we hear their concerns and are taking action based on the principles we have committed ourselves to.

When I was appointed by Republican leader John Boehner to be chairman of the Republican Platform Committee for the 2008 National Convention along with my good friend from North Carolina and fellow cochair, Sen. Richard Burr, I made getting input a high priority. Working with the party’s e-campaign director, Cyrus Krohn, we developed an interactive online platform tool so that everyone could contribute their ideas for consideration and could do so from the convenience of their homes and at their own schedules. Previously there had been occasional town halls or regional meetings but that structure ended up limiting participation.

Using the power of the Web we ended up attracting over 130,000 viewers on the site in less than two months and had thousands of submissions. The eventual platform that was created and approved unanimously was built with the ideas of America, and can be viewed at
www.gop.com/2008platform.com
. We received national media coverage for this innovative and interactive approach. The Democratic Platform Chair, then-Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, even pledged to follow our lead and open up her party’s process (a promise she failed to keep).

And in the party platform, we agreed with many people
that felt that energy prices, our economy, and fiscal accountability in Washington were important priorities by proposing “accelerated exploration, drilling, and development in America” through an all-of-the-above American energy plan, advocating “lower taxes, reasonable regulation and smaller, smarter government,” and imposing “an immediate moratorium on the earmarking system,” something I am pleased that my House Republican colleagues agreed to do in March of 2010.

The world is changing and Republicans are changing with it. Eric, Paul, and I are determined that the GOP be the party of innovation and new ideas in both policy and technology. To this end we have been experimenting with technologies that will allow us to more effectively interact with constituents and voters in our districts and on the campaign trail; from handheld PDA applications for door-to-door campaign activities and phone banks to interactive tools that allow voters to give feedback and for us to sort and prioritize their suggestions and ideas.

It is an understatement to say that we Republicans were on our heels after the 2008 election. For the first time since 1992, there was unified Democratic control of both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue and President Barack Obama won a
historic election. One of the first things we knew we had to tackle was changing our defensive mindset and insisting on the best solutions for America. From a legislative front, the stimulus bill in January 2009 provided our first opportunity to go on offense. We offered the president our cooperation by providing him an alternative proposal that would create twice as many jobs at half the cost of the Democratic bill, and when the Pelosi-led Congress rejected our proposal and dared us to resist the president’s first signature legislative initiative, we stood united on principle and opposed the stimulus because it was bad policy. And based on the jobs that the stimulus promised but has failed to deliver, we were right. As the months passed, we continued to see Democrats vote for bills that spent too much, taxed too much, and borrowed too much. We needed to hold them accountable for their votes—especially vulnerable Democrats who promised fiscal sanity to the conservative districts they represented.