From the new book by Sam Carpenter, a chapter from Making Oregon Great Again: Guide to the Grassroots Revitalization of the Oregon Republican Party (and the Defeat of the Ruling Class).
Download the entire book for free at www.makeoregongreatagain.com/book
CHAPTER 12
One Layer Deeper: It’s Not About Money. It’s About Votes.
The concept of “one-layer-deeper” is a fundamental thread within my writing and public presentations, and it’s the root reason I have done well in the private sector. My various business teams’ strategy is simple: understanding that “the world is a collection of systems,” we carefully analyze conventional wisdom about how a particular system unfolds over time – in its own 1-2-3-4 linear sequence – to reach its particular end-point.
Once we thoroughly understand the separate elements and the sequence of steps in a process, we burrow “one layer deeper” to see if there is a hidden and more fundamental system-element that is actually determining the end-result of that process – a system-element that has gone undetected or has been purposely hidden.
The status quo belief about how a system unfolds into an end-result is very often substantially wrong, (e.g. PERS, forest fires, gun control…socialism, etc.).
This systems-inquisitiveness is something all good CEOs possess, with Donald Trump being the prime example.
So, in business, we look at a systematic problem, determine exact reality (whether we like that reality or not), and then act in accordance with that reality. And typically the best solution is simple, inexpensive, fast, and invariably that solution only requires one or more minor tweaks in that system…and in our daily and business lives, that systems-solution most often does not involve big-brother government intrusion.
In fact, social or economic problems are too often generated by complex and asinine government involvement.
Note Ockham’s Law: “the simplest solution is invariably the correct solution.”
Big government is convoluted. That makes it inefficient. (I love the term “limited government,” the primary thread of the Constitution; the ultimate aim of our Founders.)
For leaders, sometimes the process of one-layer-deeper analysis is learned. Most often, it’s innate.
On the competitive business stage, the emphatic status-quo assumptions of one’s opponents are a good thing: we quietly watch them continue to believe what they believe about a particular process, while we use system-thinking to go deeper to find the actual hidden driver of the end-result. Then we quietly act on that reality.
For the typical political candidate, systems-thinking too often takes a back seat to fear, personal ambition, the fire-killing of the moment, and/or intimidation from insiders and outsiders. Only occasionally do these factors have anything to do with the actual down-and-dirty mechanical protocols necessary to drum up a majority of votes in an election.
So our first and most important one-layer-deeper conclusion regarding winning the Oregon 2018 gubernatorial primary race, was that what mattered most was…votes! Votes are the primary goal, not money, as our main opponent Knute Buehler, the mainstream media, and virtually every campaign consultant insist.
With this understanding, we decided that our strategy was not to spend our time and energy seeking cash contributions. Instead, we would amass a winning number of votes, one-by-one. Yes, Oregon is a physically big state, but we knew the nomination could be won in this way if we were willing to travel hard and to use some of the traditional media tools, but critically important would be to also employ the new online social media platforms as they are meant to be used: to communicate back-and-forth with voters; not to deliver sales-pitches.
As part of this focus on actual votes, we would not kiss the rings of the Oregon political elite in the ORP hierarchy, the legislature, the donor class, or anyone else. We would spend our time communicating with everyday Republicans. Then, after winning the nomination we would continue our heavy voter-communication efforts, but leave enough room in our schedule to make the necessary connections with political movers-and-shakers, raising money and looking for endorsements.
Of course, there would be no compromise in our beliefs. We would not put-a-finger-to-the-wind to determine our positioning. We knew for sure there were enough voters out there, of all political stripes, who felt the same way we felt about the issues. We would just be ourselves, warts and all. Voters immediately pick up on political duplicity.
Yes, there would be single-issue voters who perhaps would reject me based on one particular stance, but we still believed we could amass a majority of votes in the primary election and then in the general election.
A secondary benefit of not compromising one’s beliefs is that the candidate will be consistent in his or her positions, simply referring back to core beliefs without having to try to remember, issue-by-issue, some clever consultant/polling/focus group-generated stance. In this way, the candidate does not get caught up in identity politics…and can’t get tripped up in self-inflicted stance-contradictions.
And here was our further one-layer-deeper calculation: because front-runner Buehler’s fundamental positions were mostly opposite that of the Republican base, we knew we could win a majority of votes by just pointing out his positions to voters. So, in addition to proposing to Republican voters that, “Sam Carpenter will be an excellent governor, and here’s why…,” the task was to inform those voters of Buehler’s stances: that he was anti-Trump, pro-choice/pro-taxpayer funding of abortion; that he advocated single-payer healthcare, was pro-gun restriction, pro-carbon tax, pro-sanctuary state, pro-big government… and he clearly was not an advocate for campaign finance reform (as confirmed by his later acceptance of a multi-million dollar donation from a single donor.)
No lies. Just the truth.
So, in our strategy there was no need for us to attack Buehler personally; to stretch the truth, or to tell fibs. This was a Republican primary election and he clearly held progressive beliefs. All we had to do was point those beliefs out, issue by issue. No need for us go to the gutter. Good thing we didn’t have to resort to that because we would have never gone there anyway. (You can see some of our ads in Appendix R.)
Our game plan for landing a winning majority of votes by May 15th by talking to individual voters was in stark contrast to Buehler’s. He avoided county Republican meetings in favor of raising money, and many say, in order to avoid hostile “Country” Republican voters who didn’t care for his decidedly non-conservative stances.
But our primary task on the campaign trail was to convince Republican voters that there really could be an Oregon turn-around; that regular people – all across the state, and across all political ideologies – could finally take back controlling power in Salem.