The State of the CRNC
When Paul Gourley and Michael Davidson squared off in a battle to become CRNC Chairman, emotions ran high, promises were made and broken, and alliances were formed and reformed, and then reformed again. Most of all, each candidate showed every CR in the country why they rose to positions of leadership within the organization. Whichever candidate you supported, you no doubt felt that the other side was playing dirty, but secretly you wished you had thought of and employed their tactics before they did. When the chips were finally put on the table, Paul Gourley was victorious.
Regardless of his loss, Michael Davidson (or rather, his following) has changed the CRNC landscape. Essentially, Davidson’s vision was for the CRNC to move away from its traditional role as an enabler, and begin asserting more direct control (and assistance) at the State and even Chapter level. So what has happened since? Well, what was once an idea has now become an expectation for many State Chairmen.
A fundamental shift in thinking has occurred in many states. State Chairmen no longer say “the success of my State is my responsibility alone, the CRNC can help me, but its main purpose is to assist, represent, and coordinate.”
The old structure/expectation was much like the structure of a successful State Federation. The State Federation provides assistance to chapters, serves as the unified spokesperson for the chapters, and coordinates activities between the chapters to maximize cooperation and efficiency. The nitty-gritty, real work (campaigning, canvassing, etc.) is done at the chapter level. No State Chairman, no matter how prolific, can personally run every chapter and oversee every aspect of the chapter’s activities. Further, as Republicans, we know that governance is best at the local level where leaders know the situation on the ground, have a personal relationship with the players, and can devote themselves to the cause. In fact, this decentralization is the very reason that CR’s have been so successful in years past. Everything the CR’s do keep with this theme: from the campus canvass (where dorm leaders, then floor leaders are established as “local” leaders) to any successful communication system (the CRNC communicates to the State Chairman, the State Chairman to the Chapter leaders, the Chapter leaders to the individual members). So why has this traditional (and proven) system become clouded?
When Michael Davidson decided to run for National Chairman, he faced an uphill battle as an outsider candidate. Much of his ability to garner the necessary votes rested on his ability to bypass the established communication system. The establishment had the communication infrastructure advantage and Davidson’s chances of overcoming something that had been built and developed over the course of many years were slim. As a tactic, Davidson sought out individual delegates, chapter chairmen, and even individual CR’s. Even the most ardent Gourley supporter would admit that Davidson was very effective with this tactic. However, even the most ardent Davidson supporter should admit that this action, for better or worse, caused factions to develop in State organizations. These factions have continued to battle long after the National election has been decided.
The legacy that Michael Davidson left is one that has seen the emergence of a new view of the CRNC’s role in the various states. While few would admit this or even realize that their actions indicate this, many expect the CRNC to do each State Chairman’s job from Washington, DC. Many State leaders have developed a sense of entitlement, from demanding that the CRNC provide chapter websites to believing that Field Representatives are a right and not an added bonus. The State Chairmen clamoring the loudest for what amounts entitlement programs are the same Chairmen who are not leading their states. Coincidence? I think not. The situation is reminiscent of the welfare state… as soon as welfare recipients begin to believe that someone else is responsible for their own well-being, they stop doing the things that are in their own best interest. Likewise, as soon as State Chairmen start expecting the CRNC to do their job for them, they stop, well, doing their job. - TG
Regardless of his loss, Michael Davidson (or rather, his following) has changed the CRNC landscape. Essentially, Davidson’s vision was for the CRNC to move away from its traditional role as an enabler, and begin asserting more direct control (and assistance) at the State and even Chapter level. So what has happened since? Well, what was once an idea has now become an expectation for many State Chairmen.
A fundamental shift in thinking has occurred in many states. State Chairmen no longer say “the success of my State is my responsibility alone, the CRNC can help me, but its main purpose is to assist, represent, and coordinate.”
The old structure/expectation was much like the structure of a successful State Federation. The State Federation provides assistance to chapters, serves as the unified spokesperson for the chapters, and coordinates activities between the chapters to maximize cooperation and efficiency. The nitty-gritty, real work (campaigning, canvassing, etc.) is done at the chapter level. No State Chairman, no matter how prolific, can personally run every chapter and oversee every aspect of the chapter’s activities. Further, as Republicans, we know that governance is best at the local level where leaders know the situation on the ground, have a personal relationship with the players, and can devote themselves to the cause. In fact, this decentralization is the very reason that CR’s have been so successful in years past. Everything the CR’s do keep with this theme: from the campus canvass (where dorm leaders, then floor leaders are established as “local” leaders) to any successful communication system (the CRNC communicates to the State Chairman, the State Chairman to the Chapter leaders, the Chapter leaders to the individual members). So why has this traditional (and proven) system become clouded?
When Michael Davidson decided to run for National Chairman, he faced an uphill battle as an outsider candidate. Much of his ability to garner the necessary votes rested on his ability to bypass the established communication system. The establishment had the communication infrastructure advantage and Davidson’s chances of overcoming something that had been built and developed over the course of many years were slim. As a tactic, Davidson sought out individual delegates, chapter chairmen, and even individual CR’s. Even the most ardent Gourley supporter would admit that Davidson was very effective with this tactic. However, even the most ardent Davidson supporter should admit that this action, for better or worse, caused factions to develop in State organizations. These factions have continued to battle long after the National election has been decided.
The legacy that Michael Davidson left is one that has seen the emergence of a new view of the CRNC’s role in the various states. While few would admit this or even realize that their actions indicate this, many expect the CRNC to do each State Chairman’s job from Washington, DC. Many State leaders have developed a sense of entitlement, from demanding that the CRNC provide chapter websites to believing that Field Representatives are a right and not an added bonus. The State Chairmen clamoring the loudest for what amounts entitlement programs are the same Chairmen who are not leading their states. Coincidence? I think not. The situation is reminiscent of the welfare state… as soon as welfare recipients begin to believe that someone else is responsible for their own well-being, they stop doing the things that are in their own best interest. Likewise, as soon as State Chairmen start expecting the CRNC to do their job for them, they stop, well, doing their job. - TG
posted by Tiberius | 12:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home