Restoring Common Sense to California
2021-05-02 · Guest: Tom Campbell (Former Congressman and Dean) · 52:36
Formation of the Common Sense Party in California
Bob Zadek interviews Tom Campbell about the formation of the Common Sense Party in California, a new political movement aimed at breaking the one-party monopoly in the state. They discuss the party’s core principles, the strategic use of California’s “top-two” primary system to elect independent-minded candidates, and the importance of restoring integrity and representative wisdom to the legislative process.
Topics: Common Sense Party, California politics, third parties, top-two primary, political monopoly, legislative supermajority, representative government, fiscal responsibility, party orthodoxy.
Speakers:
- Bob Zadek — Host
- Tom Campbell — Guest; Former Congressman, State Senator, and Law/Business School Dean
The Shot Heard ‘Round California [00:17]
Bob Zadek: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to The Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in all of radio. Thank you so much for listening this Sunday morning. We are this morning, and always, the show of ideas, never once the show of attitude. Thank you so much for listening.
A couple hundred years ago, a shot was fired that was, as they say, heard around the world. It was, of course, in Massachusetts. It was the start, or the assumed start, of the American Revolution. It started in a colony in Massachusetts. Massachusetts had little to do with the foreign countries of Virginia, and the foreign countries of North and South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, and New York. But it was significant nonetheless. And from that shot heard around the world, we have the country we love and live in.
Well, California is, of course, not Massachusetts. Sacramento is not Concord Bridge. But nevertheless, I dare say the country is about to hear and learn of another shot being fired that will be heard around the world. Only this is a bit more positive and a bit more life-affirming than a musket ball. It is the foundation of—and I wish I could pause for a drumroll—it is the creation of a new political party in California.
Now, it is significant, and there are lots of parallels between the creation of the Common Sense Party—thank you, Thomas Paine—the creation of the Common Sense Party and the creation of our country from the colonies. What both events have in common is that our country was the first and remains the only country ever formed around an ideal, around a set of principles. Principles first, and that’s the uniting force.
Our two political parties, the two major political parties in our country—neither political party has any semblance of a political philosophy. There are no great living or dead Democratic philosophers. You cannot be a Democratic philosopher if the Democratic Party has no philosophy other than self-preservation, getting re-elected, and getting the power over other people.
The Common Sense Party in California, which you will learn about and will, I dare say, create something simply resembling goosebumps as you listen—the Common Sense Party in California is a party which starts with ideals. Not one ideal; it’s not a single-interest party. It has a set of ideals that I dare say the overwhelming majority of Californians, the overwhelming majority of Americans, could easily and should easily embrace.
So, it’s principles first, and if you like the principles, support the party. I’m happy, I’m delighted, I am proud to welcome to the show this morning Tom Campbell. Tom Campbell is one of the driving forces in California behind the Common Sense Party. Now, Tom has spent a lifetime in public service in every aspect imaginable of important good government. Tom’s most recent accomplishments in a lifetime of accomplishments: he was the Dean of the Fowler Law School at Chapman University from 2009 to 2016. Before that, he was the Dean of the Haas School of Business at Cal University of California at Berkeley, one of the leading business schools in the country during Tom’s tenure as Dean and before and after. Tom also has been a professor at Stanford. He has a PhD in economics. He also has been a member of United States Congress and of the California State Senate, and he also served in the executive branch of the state of California. So, he has seen and thought about government from every aspect imaginable. And he brings that knowledge and that energy and that commitment to the growth of a new California political party, the Common Sense Party.
And this morning, we will spend the hour: what are the principles of the Common Sense Party? Why is its birth so important to Californians and indeed ultimately to all Americans? And we will pay attention to the dynamics of political parties in general. Why have they become so important in American life? After all, it’s just a marketing machine to get people elected, but political parties have exaggerated importance in our civic life. So, Tom, with that introduction, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
Tom Campbell: Bob, I’m so grateful to you. That’s the most generous introduction I’ve ever received, and I’m touched. I’m committed to the same principles that you are, I’m convinced, from knowing you. And it really touches me that we share a recognition that the present system is in need of substantial change for the benefit of the people of California. So, I deeply appreciate your giving me the chance to speak to your well-informed audience this morning.
The Political Monopoly [04:02]
Bob Zadek: Now, you have had a lifetime immersed in the intricacies and the complexities of government, and you have made a lifetime commitment to the study of economics as well as the study of government. So, here you are with a lifetime of accomplishment, and yet you felt compelled—and you can correct me if “compelled” is too dramatic a word, or is not dramatic enough of a word—you, with Quentin Kopp, who’s been on my show several times, most recently about seven or eight months ago (I commend my listeners to listen to that interview where we discussed a bit the Common Sense Party)—so, here you are. You can look back upon an entire life, full, intellectually satisfying, the good life. And what compelled you to put together all the energy that you have and do this somewhat tough job of giving birth to, creating, and now encouraging the growth of the Common Sense Party? What was so wrong with California—and I’ll say California, but California is simply a microcosm of the rest of the country, more or less—what compelled you, because it had to be a driving force, to create a new political party, and what did you envision to be the goal of this party?
Tom Campbell: Well, you were kind to mention my economics as well as my government service background. Economics teaches that monopoly is inefficient, that monopoly results in less output, less opportunity. And when I apply that economic learning to the world of the government, I find that we have a monopoly. It’s a self-perpetuating monopoly. So, people who have good ideas have no place to express them.
And in order to perpetuate the monopoly, the dominant political party in California insists that candidates adhere to an orthodoxy that doesn’t admit of sensible other points of view. And that’s the Democratic Party. And the Republican Party has become, in my judgment, largely irrelevant. Originally, when I was a State Senator, it served a role as a check that the majority party had to consider, and that’s all gone now. The monopoly party has 77.5% of the Assembly and 75% of the State Senate, and every state office.
And so that is what compels me, Bob. Individuals should be allowed to be heard. And I thought there was a need for a party for the rest of us. And if you take any particular important public policy issue and ask, “Are you satisfied with the way this is being addressed?” the overwhelming majority of Californians say no, they’re not.
To that point—not that this drove me, but it was certainly supportive of my effort—the Public Policy Institute of California polled the people of California, registered voters in California, I should say. This was in their most recent polling of political preferences. 56% of Democrats said a third party was needed because they felt shut out even of their own party, what I’ve called the monopoly party. 53% of Republicans and 75% of independents think a third party is needed. So, I’ll repeat that: 56% of Democrats, 53% of Republicans, and 75% of independents. So, it’s a party for the rest of us. It’s driven by love of country, love of our home in California, and the perception that people with tremendous amounts to give and to advise don’t have the means of doing so because of the monopoly political structure.
The Top-Two Primary Strategy [07:10]
Bob Zadek: California was—remember, folks—Ronald Reagan was one of our prior governors. So, California has not always been as dark blue as it is now. And we had a Republican Party which—“dominant” is too strong a word, but it was comfortably in control. It was in and out of power, but it was in control. We’ve had in recent memory, in my lifetime, Republican governors, putting aside Schwarzenegger, who was probably neither—he was just a pop figure who got to be governor. Putting him aside, he wasn’t significant as an elected official.
So, what did—and I dare say that the voting control that the Democrats have in California, that 76%, whatever the percentage is—is that reflective of the political makeup of the state? If you were to analyze the large number of citizens, 38 or 39 million Californians, are 76% of them extremely progressive? And if not, how do we get to a position that the legislature is so unrepresentative, if I’m right, of the political makeup of the state as a whole?
Tom Campbell: You have the control of the parties by those who are most active in the party structure. And up until the time when we had the “top-two,” which is going to be a major factor in changing all this—so, up until four years ago, the way that primaries decided candidates was: Democrats would run in their own primary, and Republicans in their own primary, and the other parties as well. And then the winner would run in November. As a result, you had the most active in each party, which would be to the left in the Democratic Party and to the right in the Republican Party, winning the nominations for a large part, if not exclusively for a dominant part.
And thus you had a legislature composed of that. When I was a Congressman, I found that to be the case with the congressional representation, our delegation from California in the House. You had Bob Dornan and Maxine Waters. You had people from the far right and the far left. And it made it difficult for folks to get together and find something that they could work on together for California. In the Bay Area, I was fortunate. I was the only Republican elected—in those days I was a Republican—from the Bay Area. But I got along fine with Zoe Lofgren and Anna Eshoo and Tom Lantos—particularly Tom Lantos, may God rest his soul, a real hero on human rights. But that centrist tendency of “let’s not drive to the extremes” has become much more pronounced since I left Congress.
So, if you were to look at the registration in California, Democrats are dominant at 46%, Republicans at 24.1%, but independents are at 23.7%. And that has switched back and forth over the last couple of years with independents, or “no party preference,” actually being higher in registration than the Republican Party. So, the parties move to the extremes in their primaries, and that then results in more leftist and more rightist incumbent legislators. The result being that it’s more difficult to admit of helpful centrist discussion.
Now, the solution, it seems, is to empower the rest of us. And one of the steps in that regard was the top-two primary, which we adopted only in recent memory and has not yet fully had its effect. But the way it will is if you run as an independent and have—or as a Common Sense Party candidate, which is the name of our party—and you make it to the runoff in November, there’s only two people on the ballot in November for a state legislative district. So, if the Democrat is on the ballot and the Common Sense Party candidate is on the ballot, well, the Common Sense Party candidate ought to be able to pick up all of the support that the Republican might have had, and the Libertarian might have had, and the other independents, and have a real chance of winning. Whereas in November, under the old system, there’d be a Democrat and a Republican and a Libertarian and a Green and a Peace and Freedom, and the Democrat would win or the Republican would win.
So, what really makes this possible in California is the top-two. If we can identify just seven Assembly districts—seven Assembly districts out of 80—where an independent-minded candidate, someone who thinks for herself or himself and doesn’t genuflect before the requirements of the major party—then we can undo the chokehold. Because seven Assembly members out of 80 will bring the monopoly party below two-thirds. And as long as they have two-thirds, they can and have put ballot initiatives to amend the Constitution to change Prop 13 without having to pay a dime to gather signatures. And they can raise taxes without having to get the people’s approval. Two-thirds vote can raise taxes; two-thirds vote can put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. So, we have a very achievable goal. It reflects the fact that most of Californians overwhelmingly want another voice, and it provides the rest of us with that voice.
Principles Over Pandering [12:38]
Bob Zadek: Two thoughts. First of all, a quick thought: it sounds like you want to elect seven Joe Manchins—one tie-breaker kind of elected official who will have more power. I was smiling, Tom, just as an aside, now that the Senate is welcoming back earmarking. I heard somebody comment that Joe Manchin will end up with more bridges in West Virginia from earmarking than West Virginia will have houses, and more airports than houses, and more federal buildings doing federal chores. Joe Manchin is going to put West Virginia on the map. I wouldn’t be surprised if the District of Columbia moves to West Virginia in the next four years. But that’s only an aside; I thought I’d sneak that in.
But you mentioned your comment about monopoly because you have studied and have an advanced degree in economics and it’s been a focus of much of your life. And that had also occurred to me. And I noticed that our country allows and indeed embodies in strong statutory protection—locks in this monopoly, this anti-competitive environment in politics, which if they did the same thing in business, the Sherman and the Clayton Antitrust Act would come down on them, the FTC would be on their back. That something we abhor because we want to give Americans a choice in breakfast cereal; we don’t want to give them a choice in ideas. It’s astonishing to me that we value breakfast cereal diversity more than we value political diversity. It is astonishing in a country that so cherishes democracy to do so little to encourage the sound functioning of democracy.
And we could spend a whole show, I guess, Tom, on the tools—from the debate commissions to ballot access—that the political parties have been so unbelievably efficient at locking in the market. So, talk about barriers to entry—oh my goodness, the barrier to entry of a new political party is infinitely stronger than the barrier to entry of any business into a business activity. It’s astonishing to me, and Tom, as I said, we could do a whole show just on the tools that the political parties have put together to guarantee their monopoly.
So, that’s why this movement is so important. Now, the two major political parties are not drawn together—people who are Democrats or Republicans are not held together by a set of principles that they all sign on to. As you have pointed out, because of the primary system, the extreme elements of each party basically control, which means the majority of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans basically are orphans. They’re along for the ride, but the majority who is more centrist, they don’t get a vote, they don’t get a choice. So, they are all orphans.
And you have built this orphanage—political party orphanage—for all of the people who now have been abandoned by their political parties. And everybody who is self-identified as Democrats or Republicans are doing so absolutely as a lesser of two evils rather than as an affirmative voice. And voting for the lesser of two evils is, to use a technical phrase, kind of yucky. I mean, who wants to vote for the person who is less horrible? That’s no way to use your vote, to have to be forced to vote.
Now, what are the principles? Because after all, as I said in my introduction, your party has founding principles other than “How do we put together 50.01% of the voting public?” That’s not a principle; that’s a survival tool, that’s a way to achieve power. So, give us a sense, because you have the task of drawing people to your party. And while there is strong dissatisfaction by Democrats and Republicans of their party, what is the positive motivation? What does one get by supporting the Common Sense Party that you don’t get by supporting the other two?
The Five Principles [18:20]
Tom Campbell: Bob, that’s a very good question. Here’s the answer then. We have put together principles of our party, starting with the fundamental importance of the individual—that the individual should be heard, should be given an opportunity to participate in political activity in America without having to sign on to a list of orthodox points of view. Number one.
Number two: local decisions are better. The more local the government, the more decisions can be made by folks close to the people, the better. And particularly empowering parents in decisions regarding education. That’s as local as you can get.
Number three: spend no more than you get. The federal government and the state government are different. The federal government can print money; the state government cannot. Local units of government cannot. So, for the state of California, spend no more than you have, and to the maximum extent possible, make do with what you have. It’s intellectually very lazy to say, “Well, here’s a problem, so what we should do is just spend more money to solve it.” It’s far more challenging to say, “If we have a set amount of money that we are prepared to give to solve our common problems, how will we allocate it?” Then you have to make trade-offs. Then you have to be a thoughtful manager. And so that’s our principle number three: spend no more than you have and try to spend within our means as opposed to simply adding taxes. So, take what taxes we have and try to allocate them wisely.
Number four: protect the environment and other public goods that we received from our parents and pass along to the next generation. A good economist realizes that there are what are called externalities.
Number five: efficiency of government and transparency of government. So, those I think are sorely in need as we discover checks intended for the stimulus of business after COVID going instead to prisoners in state penitentiaries—the billions, that’s with a ‘B’, of dollars that are unaccounted for in state government. And no-bid contracts—incredible that substantial amounts of government expenditures are allocated on the basis of contracts that are not bid in the competitive manner.
So, those are the five fundamental principles. And I’ll recur to my first one: give the individual the maximum opportunity to participate. And when I look at the two major parties, I’ve seen that the individual is squeezed out. And one can identify any number of issues where there’s a reasonable point of view, but you have to choose from all from column A if you’re a Democrat and all from column B if you’re a Republican.
My best illustration of that is: I happen to be pro-choice for a woman to make that decision regarding abortion or not in their own particular case, and I’m for charter schools—that the parents should be allowed to have choice for their children’s schooling even if they don’t have a lot of money. The wealthy parents can choose where their children go to school; folks who aren’t that wealthy should have that same right. So, I’m pro-choice in both schools and in a woman’s decision over an abortion. But I tell you, there’s no more pro-choice Republicans in the House of Representatives. When I was there, they used to be some; there are no more. And if you’re a Democrat and you favor school choice, you’ll not receive the support of the teachers’ union, and that’s enough to kill you politically in California.
So, why not just let an individual put forward what she or he thinks is best and not be scared of losing the endorsement of the monopoly party? And you can go right down the list on environmental issues—should there be a cap and trade or a carbon tax? Minimum wage, earned income tax credit, outsourcing, reasonable gun control—all of these issues should invite people who have their own thoughts. But as it is now, Bob, if you want to get the endorsement of the Democratic Party, you essentially have to be pro-choice on abortion, anti-choice on schools, against charter schools, in favor of a cap on emissions, in favor of increasing the minimum wage rather than the earned income tax credit—the earned income tax credit is a much more efficient way to help people of low income. You cannot possibly support outsourcing even for less expensive and more efficient government. And on gun control, you pretty much have to support any gun control measure that comes along. And on the Republican side, I could go through the list—I won’t out of time concerns—but you’d see the same sort of orthodoxy. Never, ever mention the word “tax,” even though a carbon tax is a much more efficient way to control greenhouse gases than cap and trade, and virtually all Chicago school economists will tell you that.
So, that’s what we stand for, and empowering the individual is the dominant guiding principle.
Representative Wisdom and Integrity [24:18]
Bob Zadek: I believe, citing no particular authority other than my own little gray matter to quote Hercule Poirot, I believe that almost every voter in the country is, when it comes down to it, a single-issue voter. The issue will vary, but they’re all a single-issue voter. It may be, as you said, public service unions, it may be abortion, it may be a robust, muscular foreign policy, it may be immigration. Everybody has one—the brain has to focus on one thing that’s important to you, and you say, “This is most important to me, and I will support the party that feels the way I do about this, my most important issue.”
People may not say they are single-issue voters, but otherwise, individuals are required to have this political algorithm in their brain where they can give a weighted average degree of support to the myriad of issues and see which candidate or party comes out ahead. No one can do that; it’s impossible. So, therefore, they’re single-issue voters.
And the Common Sense Party, as it grows, has as its single issue just the country first and the founding principles of the country first—principles first, even if that means on a particular sub-issue, you, the voter, might not be happy. You, the public service teacher, might not be happy on a single issue. You, the pro- or anti-open borders, might not be happy. But in balance, you will embrace the process.
So, do you think I’m right? And is that kind of, whether it’s stated or not, the calculation that the Common Sense Party makes? And the opposite, of course, of what you’re doing is pandering. The Democrats and Republicans have no single founding principle; they have a bunch of principles which have been carefully calculated to combine to produce 50.001% of the population, and they get elected. So, there’s no unifying principle; it’s simply a marketing cooperative that accumulates a majority. Is that a fair summary? Is that an unfair summary of how you see the role of the party?
Tom Campbell: It’s thought-provoking, Bob. I’ve never heard it explained before that way, so compliments to your insight. Let me speak quickly to the Common Sense Party and then to your more general point. Common Sense Party wants to empower the rest of us. People who believe on particular issues differently from others or the same as others are welcome. There is no obligatory adherence to a preset menu.
And as I just went through, you can pick any issue and go to the two parties and you’ll see whether it’s on their orthodoxy list or not. And how they came to those, you are critical that they came to them from a position of popularity as opposed to commitment to fundamental principle. I’m not sure I would completely agree because I—and I’m sure you don’t mean it for everybody—but come down to it, every representative in Congress who is a Democrat is going to say, “I’ve got to stick with these basic issues or I won’t get the support of my party.” And the same in Sacramento. And on the Republican side, the same, whether Sacramento or Washington. Whereas they should say, “I’ve thought this out, I’ve listened to the evidence, and I’ve listened to my constituents, and my best view on this happens to be Y or Z, not X, even though X is on the party list.” So, that’s why we don’t emphasize the party list of issues in the Common Sense Party.
Now, your general point that everyone’s a single-issue voter is a sad artifact of that. It’s a sad artifact that you have a choice of menu A or menu B. You consider the single most important issue to you and so you go with that party, probably knowing very little about the individual candidate. You just vote because of the ‘D’ or the ‘R’ after somebody’s name. I think that’s sad. I think that’s very sad. And if that characterizes voters, then they’re forced second-best, probably third or fourth-best, just because of the single most important issue.
The concept of representative democracy in a republic, which is what we have—a democratic republic—is that we entrust individuals for a short period of time to make decisions on the basis of their judgment for the benefit of all. And if you pander to the party in order to get re-elected, you’re betraying that trust.
Bob Zadek: And in the Common Sense Party, what draws me to the Common Sense Party is I just get the feeling—now, it’s very young, and we are talking about principles and we’re talking about an ideal—but what made it so easy for me to associate myself with principles such as the Common Sense Party is just what you have said about representative government. And you have to ask yourself, “What is my relationship to my representative?” And I see it as a dichotomy. You have a binary choice.
Number one: I am sending this representative to represent me. That’s an important assignment. To give somebody the power to speak for you—you shouldn’t make that decision lightly. That’s important, because when that elected official speaks, it is you speaking. And if you are uncomfortable, if you wince at what your representative is saying or doing, well, then it’s uncomfortable because it’s you doing something that makes yourself wince. So, that’s an important relationship.
Now, the core principle to me is: when you have a representative, do you pick somebody and say, “Okay, I am selecting this person to represent me because I trust their wisdom. They will be smart. I cannot go to Washington; I have a life. And therefore, there are lots of decisions, and I have to find the person who much more often than not will do what I would do if I had the time to do it.” So, you’re voting for a person and a set of principles rather than voting for immigration, or abortion, or taxation, or public service unions, or right-to-try, or legalizing drugs. You’re not voting for an issue; you’re voting for a person.
And the Common Sense Party, what touched a nerve with me is it says, “You can trust us. We will not embarrass you.” It’s like when your child or somebody who speaks for you or who indicates your values does something that embarrasses you. It indicts you as well. And you will be comfortable a much higher percentage of the time with a representative who adheres to your principles—the broad principles—and that’s what I found so appealing to the Common Sense Party. It is a party that will—when the party has its elected officials representing people—the electorate is not going to wince, is not going to be embarrassed, is not going to say, “I know, but…” You don’t have to say, “I know, but…” when you have an elected official who adheres to your first principles as opposed to how they feel about a particular issue. And it’s that integrity—you are really promoting, Tom, it seems to me, integrity as a founding principle. You can trust us, we will not let you down, we will not embarrass you, we will not have you have to make apologies for us because we have taken a position that’s painful to you on so many issues. So, that’s what really drew me almost immediately when I read about the Common Sense Party.
Tom Campbell: Bob, I deeply appreciate your words and your perception. I think you’ve described it quite accurately. I’ll add to what you said that having been a Congressman and having been a State Senator, having been Finance Director of California, thousands—thousands—of decisions are made by elected officials about which the public never hears. It’s just a fact. You make a thousand decisions in the course of a two-year term for Congress or a four-year term as a State Senator, and a very small percentage of those ever get public attention. So, what you do when no one’s looking becomes critical, doesn’t it?
And that’s conscience, that’s integrity. You used the word and I’m grateful for it. What you do when no one’s looking: will you do that which you think is the very best for the state, for the country, on the basis of the evidence, or will you do that which is necessary to continue to get the support of your party, which is how you perpetuate your monopoly? And the decisions that are made when no one’s looking are far outnumbered by the decisions that get public attention. So, thank you for that. I think you’ve encapsulated the concept of the Common Sense Party as being the one that promotes the individual and particularly those with integrity.
How to Join the Movement [40:55]
Tom Campbell: Now, I do want to emphasize we’re not officially recognized yet. The Common Sense Party is in the process of getting registered under the state law of California. We need 73,000 registrations. That’s not a huge number when you consider we have almost 40 million people in our state. But 73,000 registrations, and then we will be an official party. We’re right now—and that’s why our interview today is so timely—going back to gather those registrations because we had to stop during COVID. We announced our party, we got started, we were getting 10,000 registrations a month, and then COVID hit and we had to stop the in-person registration. And we’re not just now in the month of May getting back to it. So, you may very well see folks sitting outside a grocery store or a shopping center with a sign saying “Register here for the Common Sense Party.” We will succeed; I’m quite optimistic that we will receive 73,000 registrations before the end of the year. That’s our deadline, the beginning of next year. And then we’ll be in a position to matter for the Assembly elections, the State Senate elections, congressional elections in 2022.
Bob Zadek: One of the principles—of the published principles of the Common Sense Party—is that you believe that compromise is good, and you further believe it is not a sellout to principle. I’m now going to invite myself to the marketing analysis meeting. And I am one who, to my profound detriment, I believe—man, do I believe in black and white. Everything is black and white. There is an answer for everything. There is an answer which is the best answer. That makes—means I spend a lot of my meals eating by myself because people have no patience for somebody who says, “You’re thinking like a lawyer. There’s not only one answer.” Of course there’s one answer.
So, I am not—I don’t embrace compromise warmly because I’m convinced that the point of view that I’ve arrived at is the right answer. So, how do I deal with your party which says you believe in compromise? In reading your principles, I don’t find any compromise. The fact that your principle in many areas—and you picked abortion because it’s a hot-button issue, we could pick almost any issue—and the fact that your position might be midway between two other extreme principles doesn’t mean your principle is a compromise. It’s simply a free-standing, its own principle, which has similarities to other principles, but it’s not a compromise. To say it’s a compromise is almost to say, “Well, it’s not quite the ideal, but it’s good enough.” No, I found your principles to not be compromises at all. The others are extreme versions of your principle, but yours is the starting point, not the compromise point. So, just a marketing observation. And you don’t try to compromise; you are standing for—you have free-standing principles, all of which are easily defendable and probably appeal to a voting majority. I don’t find anything you have written about to be a compromise. It’s a full-blown principle on its own.
Tom Campbell: I appreciate your point, and it’s a complementary one. Maybe I can improve the phrasing, and you’re right, you said it was marketing. And here’s how I’d come at it. Take an issue—let’s say gun control, it’s—as you said, we could choose any one. So, I think—my view, not necessarily that of the party, and I’m not—the whole idea here is I don’t declare the party’s views; we welcome people to think for themselves. But I think reasonable gun control makes sense, but the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. You cannot ignore that, nor the principles that were behind it. But an AK-47 while walking down the street of San Jose—I’m not in favor of an individual walking down the street in downtown San Jose with an AK-47.
So, is it compromise to say limit the capacity of the magazine in a firearm that you’re allowed to own and carry, particularly carry in an urban setting? I don’t think that’s a compromise, so I agree with you; I think that’s the right solution. But the Democratic and the Republican parties have increasingly gone to the edge, so that any gun control is anathema on the Republican side, and if you don’t oppose gun control, you run the risk of being primaried. And on the Democratic side, any confiscation of guns, including what the District of Columbia proposed—that you could not own a handgun—which the Supreme Court eventually struck down—well, heaven help the Democrat who didn’t endorse that because then you were soft on guns.
So, when I speak of compromise, I speak that the two major parties have this list, and you’ve got to adhere to every point on the list or you’ll be driven out of the party. And the best answer is oftentimes one that’s not on the list. You mentioned Joe Manchin, and I think that’s a good example of who a Common Sense Party candidate might be. He’s probably the most powerful person in Washington right now short of the President. So, if we could empower more people like that—he’s not choosing from the Democratic list; his own history and popularity in West Virginia allow him to step aside from the orthodox list. But that’s not true for California. Most people don’t know the name of their Assembly member or the name of their State Senator, the name of their Congressperson. And as a result, they’re going to vote ‘D’ or ‘R’. And that to me is a tragedy. You shouldn’t vote for ‘D’ or ‘R’; you should vote for a person of integrity, and that person might not choose from list ‘D’ or list ‘R’ on any given issue.
Bob Zadek: How do you woo away—since I observed, maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong—passionate single-issue voters: members of the teachers’ union, passionate and somewhat extreme Second Amendment advocates, open borders advocates who are passionate about it, or closed border advocates, etc., all of the issues, abortion. To them, that’s the most important issue. How do you get them to, in effect, support a party that doesn’t feel as passionately as they do about this issue? They would be doing so in favor of some greater good of its better government. But how do you design the appeal to them?
Tom Campbell: You focus on the individual candidate, Bob. And it could be the individual candidate who is running as a Common Sense Party candidate for State Senator, let’s say, or State Assembly, happens to be on the same issue as you that you’re most passionate about. Now you no longer need to vote Democratic if you’re in favor of taxing carbon for climate change purposes. I happen to be in favor of taxing carbon for climate change purposes. So, you don’t have to vote ‘D’ in order to get a candidate who does that because I happen to be such a candidate if I were running—I’m not, but if I were running.
So, the key is to focus on the individual candidate. And suppose your issue is individual parents get to choose where the children go to school. Well, that’s generally identified on the ‘R’ side, on the Republican side—school vouchers originally, maybe school choice now. Well, you don’t have to vote Republican for that because here’s an individual candidate who believes in the choice to be exercised by parents and who wants to see monopoly control of schools contested by charter schools and individual alternatives.
So, the key, Bob, is to build this party from the local level up, from focusing on individuals. So, if we get a candidate who’s—Tom, I have to interrupt, I’m sorry, but I have to only because we’re running out of time. And I want to tell people: how do our listeners learn more about the Common Sense Party? And before you answer, Tom, as soon as we’re off the air, I’m going to Home Depot, I’m going to buy a folding table, I’m going to find the nearest Vons, and you will see me there in about an hour, probably with a straw hat and a sign-up list. So, how do we find out about the Common Sense Party?
Tom Campbell: Bless you, bless you. cacommonsense.org. CA for California, commonsense.org. On that website, you can register. You actually don’t have to go see Bob Zadek out in front of Home Depot, although that would be a great thrill for anybody. And you can also learn more about supporting the party’s registration effort by helping us get folks out to sit at those tables and to register. So, that’s the website.
Bob Zadek: Thank you so much. We have fired the shot heard around the world. Thank you so much, Tom, and thanks all my friends out there for giving us an hour of your time. Have a good day.
Tom Campbell: My pleasure. Thank you, Bob.