The Empire Page

Background: In our series of interviews focusing on the state of political parties in NYS, we interviewed Shaun Marie, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party of NYS.

 

Q#1: The most recent Board of Elections party enrollment figures show the Conservative Party down about 10,000 from four years ago at 146,328 registered voters.  Why is the Conservative Party shrinking and not growing?

A: While enrollment numbers are important, the actual vote is what really matters.  The Conservative Party has consistently garnered more votes on its line than the number of enrolled voters.  Many voters stay in a “major” party to influence the outcome in a primary. As the major parties tend to “go off message” voters will re-enroll in that party to bring them back.  And, of course, people have moved into states with a lesser tax burden.

 

Q#2:  Remind us about the origins of the NYS Conservative Party:  when was it founded and why did its founders see the need for a "conservative" party in New York?

A: The first stirrings of the Conservative Party were brought to life in November 1960 when J. Daniel Mahoney was having lunch with a group of Republican lawyers from Wall Street law firms who were quite concerned with the direction the NYS Republican Party had taken.  Nelson Rockefeller had just managed to deliver New York’s 45 electoral votes to President John F. Kennedy; the first time since 1944 that New York went Democrat in a Presidential year.

Two years prior, in 1958, both J. Daniel Mahoney and Kieran O’Doherty had considered starting a new political party as the only politically effective course open to conservative voters in what was  one of the most powerful and populist states at that time in the Union, albeit concededly a liberal state.  Since New York already had a Liberal Party, why not a Conservative Party?  An idea that with almost impossible odds as New York, itself, was the headquarters of the Liberal Establishment with the major newspapers and television stations located in Manhattan.  However, in New York, it was the American Labor Party in 1936 that provided Herbert Lehman the winning margin in the 1938 gubernatorial contest that first showed the influence of a third party.  So why not have a conservative alternative?

The New York Republican Party had been, since 1940, the single most important force thwarting the efforts of Taft Republicans to make the Republican Party offer sharp, clear alternatives to the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Adlai Stevenson.  Even though New York was considered a liberal empire, the congressional delegation had a largely conservative bent, reflecting the conservatism of upstate and suburban Republicans, including Staten Island and Queens Counties.

The time was ripe for a conservative movement and two years later, October 1962, after bruising battles with Governor Rockefeller, David H. Jaquith, our gubernatorial candidate, tallied 141,877 votes and the Conservative Party was viable. 

 

Q#3: The lifeblood of any political party are the young people who will become its future leaders.  What are the positions of the Conservative Party that you feel most resonate today with young people?

A: Taxes, Taxes and Taxes!  Our young people will be burdened with a debt of approximately $38,000 (prior to health care reform) before they even begin working.   And I would venture to say this is before interest and any more bailouts.  The Conservative Party stresses the need to cut taxes by cutting spending which will benefit the youth of our country as well as all taxpayers.  With spending out of control in Washington and in Albany, young people should be flocking to the only political party that is looking out for their interest...by reducing the interest (and principle) they will have to pay by out of control spending.  We are also the only political party that believes in the sanctity of life, from the very beginning to the natural end, and I believe that with today’s medical advances (Sonograms etc.), our youth understand that life begins at conception and must be protected.

 

Q#4: Third parties often play a spoiler role in elections -- dividing the vote and allowing the candidate they most disagree with to win.  Isn't there a danger your candidate will do that in the 23rd Congressional Race?

The intention of the Conservative Party is to win this election.  The 23^rd Congressional District does not need, nor does it want, a Congressman or woman who will not reflect the values and ideals of its constituents.   The people who live in the district overwhelming support traditional marriage, do not want to be taxed by a big-spender and certainly do not want a Congressman/woman who will not vote to reflect their values the way Congressman Eric Massa indicated he would recently in Pittsburgh.  Spending by Congress (and Albany) has been out of control for far too long  and the residents  in the 23^rd Congressional District will be represented well when Mr. Hoffman is sworn in.  Mr. Hoffman is the 21^st century Jim Buckley.  The danger is not having Mr. Hoffman on our line. The danger is having the major parties not recognize what the people want. 

 

Q#5:  To run for Congress or any statewide office these days takes enormous amounts of money.  Don't your candidates have a hard time raising sufficient funds to compete with the Democratic and Republican candidates?  If so, does the Conservative Party support placing greater limits on campaign donations and/or public financing of elections?

A: Every candidate has a hard time raising money in today’s economy.  Part of the reason is because taxes are too high!  Government takes to much of our hard earned money to redistribute the way it deems best.   One of the ill-conceived ideas is public financing of campaigns.  While the Left would like you to believe it “levels the playing field” (if a candidate is capable of self-financing) in my opinion, it does the exact opposite.  By using “matching funds”, the candidate does not have to reach out to the voting public as much.  If people donate to the candidate, the candidate is more responsive to the people. If government is the provider, then the candidate is apt to keep taxes high to keep money available for public financing.  Besides removing candidates from the voter, public campaign financing is ripe for abuse.  We believe everybody should be able to donate to a campaign and fully disclosing the contribution within the shortest amount of time as reasonable, certainly within 24 hours, is the best solution.

 

Q#6: Some people believe the New York's elections law discriminates against challengers of all kinds -- whether it's someone who wants to primary an incumbent or a 3rd party seeking a line on the ballot.  Does the Conservative Party have any complaints about the current elections law and if so what changes would you make?

A: Compared to when I first collected petition signatures, today’s petition process is very easy.  While many complain about the process and would prefer something simple, for example paying a fee, to be on the ballot, New York’s way of getting on the ballot is preferable.  I can hear the groans..., so let me explain why I support the petition period.  When petitions are gathered properly...going door to door...(rather than standing at a mall or some other large area) you communicate with the voter.  You hear their concerns, what is on their mind, they ask you questions about the candidate and feel a part of the system.  Once they sign the petition, they are more likely to go out to vote, in a primary or in the general election.  It is a “hands on” project.  To get on the ballot in any other fashion, removes the candidate from the voter.  If the candidate cannot convince enough people to help them in the petition process, how will they convince enough people to vote for them?  Petition gathering is tedious, must be meticulous and certainly cuts into our precious time with our families, but it is rewarding and keeps you grounded!  By the way, Conservative Party petitions are seldom disqualified.

 

Q#7: Final question: The Republican Party in New York today appears both to lack direction and strong leadership. Last fall it lost control of the State Senate -- its last power base.   Is this an opportunity for the Conservative Party to replace the Republicans as the number two party in the state?   If so, will the Conservative Party run its own candidate for governor in 2011?

A: I think it is an opportunity to grow, but on a realistic basis, it would be an “Impossible Dream” to become the number two party in New York State.  As you may recall, in 1990 we ran Herb London for Governor, when the Republican Party ran Pierre Rinfret and did quite well.  Many believed Row B (at the time) was possible and it would have been interesting, however, unlikely.  Voters want a clear, concise message that is consistent, precisely what we offer.  Unfortunately, the major parties keep changing.  Our Founding Fathers created a document that gave birth to the most awesome country ever. By being agents of change, modern day politicians are destroying the very core of what made America the country everyone wants to be a part of.  Where else can you come from the poorest neighborhood, a “broken” family, or have an incomplete education and be a resounding success?  Our Founding Fathers discussed and disagreed on many topics, yet they managed to write a Constitution that has served us well.  Today’s politicians should take a long hard look at what drove our Founding Fathers to write the Constitution the way it is written and learn the greatest lesson from it:  Government must be minimal in our lives.  Until that lesson is learned, the NYS Conservative Party will be around to teach it and run their own candidates to give voters a voice.