What should a conservative voter do?

Create and oppurtunity for change.

Greg Nash

Kamala Harris announced her Vice Presidential pick on Tuesday, disappointing “Never-Trump conservatives” like Matt Lewis and David French and exciting Trump supporters who will paint the ticket, as Ron DeSantis put it, the “most left-wing ticket in American history.”

Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who used his first opportunity to address a crowd as the Vice Presidential nominee to make a low-brow joke based on a rumor about his counterpart, J.D. Vance. This continued the strategy of when one side goes low, the other side goes lower.

Harris could have picked Josh Shapiro, who electrified the crowd last night speaking about his faith, which would have given conservatives something to support. However, as Lewis points out in his recent article in The Hill, the Walz pick signals that Harris is more interested in motivating her base than building a diversely represented political coalition. This type of political maneuvering has, Lewis says, “tremendously harmed America.”

What will conservatives do if Harris won’t throw them a bone?

Heath Mayo, the founder of Principles First, challenges Harris to do just that. Well, actually, Mayo wants her to throw four bones. He lays out four points that, if followed, could “win [the Harris-Walz ticket] the percentage of principled conservatives and independents that they’ll need to make the difference in close states like PA, MI, WI, and AZ.”

His four points are:

1. Support Israel

2. Support Capitalism

3. Support the Rule of Law

4. Secure the Border

(Click here for more details.)

What if Harris agreed to Mayo’s terms? Why should conservative voters believe her words when her actions say something else? Wouldn’t her agreement be nothing more than empty promises? I am unsure empty promises are enough to sway conservative voters who have lived through a very progressive era of politics with few conservative wins other than a Supreme Court that has arguably held the line.

What should a conservative voter do?

Conservative Thomas Howes, Reagan Caucus director, tweeted, “I'm done with this election. I hope you all enjoy it.” Maybe that’s the answer; maybe we should sit out the presidential election. The idea might sound crazy at first, but when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

I consider myself a conservative Republican, which, at its foundation, means I support a divided, separated, and balanced government with a multiplicity of checks and balances. I believe a Republican government is the best way to prevent the concentration of power. I want to conserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which outline the division and limitation of federal power.

Republican government is about dividing power, and modern-day politics is about concentrating it into the controlling faction’s hands. Why should conservative Republicans like me support Harris or Trump when it’s clear they do not support Republican government?

If we step back from fighting over who’s in charge and analyze why we are fighting, we learn that structural issues are plaguing our republic. Leading scholars like Kevin Kosar, James Wallner, and Philip Wallach believe many of our issues stem from an overwhelmed Congress. Congress was designed as the supreme authority of government. However, over time, the executive branch has dwarfed Congress. Congress lacks the capacity to check the executive properly regardless of whether the President is red or blue.

When citizens go to the ballot box, they exchange their power in return for representation. The return of representation, however, is, at best, fifty percent. When citizens vote for the President, whether red or blue, they empower the executive.

Citizens, including conservative Republicans like me, who feel left out by partisanship, should forgo the presidential election and focus their time on state and congressional races. This would transfer their power and representation back to Congress. It’s not that they should not vote; it’s that they should not vote for the President but instead vote for Congress.

With this strategy, whoever is elected President would be immediately handicapped, and Congress would be empowered. So, if a citizen doesn’t like Harris or Trump, instead of taking the coin flip at the ballot box, they could instead concentrate their power in Congress.

A strategy like this needs two things for it to work: something to unite voters and a plan of action.

Speaking with Republicans, Democrats, MAGA supporters, progressives, Principle Firsters, and readers of the Dispatch, Bulwark, and The Blaze in breweries, coffee shops, and hotel lobbies, there is one issue on which they can all agree. Like the scholars, they believe Congress is broken and desperately needs reform. If given the opportunity, citizens would support reforms like term limits, expanding the House of Representatives, raising congressional pay, and campaign finance reform. They may disagree on which reforms must be adopted, but they agree reforms are needed, and it’s time to debate them.

A coalition of engaged voters focusing on electing representatives who advocate for congressional reform could elect a congress with the power to get things done and hold the executive accountable by the midterms of 2026.

Sometimes, the greatest power a person has is the power to walk away from a bad situation. If you are in a fight with someone who is screaming and yelling at you, refuses to listen to your concerns, and demands you act as they see fit, the best course of action is not to sit there and scream back or rationalize their bad behavior but to walk away.  

We can keep fighting over the executive branch and feeding it power, allowing the conversation to be dominated by politicians who crave that power, or we can walk away and start a new conversation about Congressional Reform. Power is positive or negative, 0 or 1, on or off. It can be accumulated and concentrated. By redirecting the people's power and concentrating it in Congress, it creates an opportunity for change.