WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The Texas Blue Tsunami and the Crisis of Conservatism
By James Scott Trimm
On November 3, 2026, something happened in Texas that many Republicans had convinced themselves could never happen.
Texas went blue.
Not just a little blue. Not merely a handful of competitive districts changing hands. We witnessed a political earthquake that swept Democrats into statewide offices Republicans had controlled for decades.
Greg Abbott lost the governorship to Gina Hinojosa. Dan Patrick lost the lieutenant governorship to Vikki Goodwin. Republicans lost the race for attorney general, and James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton for the United States Senate.
According to the Texas Secretary of State's unofficial election results, Hinojosa received approximately 5.23 million votes to Abbott's 4.52 million. Talarico received approximately 5.44 million votes to Paxton's 4.25 million.
See my recent analysis We Cannot Learn From a Defeat We Refuse to Acknowledge
These were not narrow victories that could be explained away by a few questionable ballots.
They were decisive defeats.
And yet, almost immediately, I began seeing fellow Republicans constructing elaborate theories about election fraud rather than confronting what happened.
I understand the disappointment. I share it.
But we cannot analyze what went wrong, reflect upon our mistakes, and determine how to succeed in the future if we refuse to acknowledge that we lost.
As a conservative, a former Texas legislative staffer, and someone who has worked within Republican politics, I believe we need to have a serious conversation.
Not merely about how Republicans lost an election, but about what has happened to the conservative movement itself.
Because I suspect that the two questions are closely related.
I. Did Texas Really Become More Liberal?
The first mistake we could make would be to assume that millions of Texans suddenly underwent an ideological transformation.
Did Texans suddenly embrace progressive economics, expansive government, and the entire Democratic platform?
I doubt it.
There is another possibility, and one that deserves serious consideration.
Perhaps Texas did not become dramatically more liberal.
Perhaps Republicans became less appealing to voters who still consider themselves conservative, moderate, independent, or libertarian.
Perhaps some voters who ordinarily support Republicans voted Democratic as a protest.
Perhaps others simply stayed home.
Perhaps Democrats treated this like a Presidential election, while Republicans treated it like just another midterms.
And perhaps Democrats did a better job of motivating their voters to participate.
These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed, I suspect that several things happened simultaneously.
To understand the election, we need to distinguish between two very different questions.
Why did some voters turn against Republicans?
And:
Why did some traditional Republican voters lack the enthusiasm to show up?
Those questions lead us toward a third, more uncomfortable question:
Has the Republican Party departed from the principles that once made it attractive to conservatives?
II. Why Did Voters Turn Against Republicans?
The Economy: The Cost of Living
There is an old political saying: It's the economy.
And while economic indicators can tell us one story, the family budget often tells us another.
Texans have faced years of rising costs.
Groceries, housing, insurance, electricity, and property taxes have placed enormous pressure on ordinary households.
Politicians may celebrate declining inflation, but declining inflation does not mean declining prices. It means prices are increasing more slowly.
For a family struggling to pay rent, buy groceries, or keep the electricity connected, that distinction matters.
And when voters are unhappy with economic conditions, they frequently hold the party in power responsible.
That does not necessarily mean the governing party caused every problem. It means voters expect results.
This economic frustration was undoubtedly part of the political environment in which Republicans entered the 2026 election.
But economics alone does not explain everything.
Public Education and School Vouchers
The school voucher controversy may also have contributed to Republican difficulties. This was a policy that was even unpopular among many Republicans who feared it would come with more government regulation of private and homeschools.
Texas Republicans spent years fighting to establish an education savings account program, arguing that parents should have greater control over their children's education.
There is a legitimate conservative argument for educational choice.
But there were also concerns about the program's effect on public schools, particularly in rural communities where private educational alternatives may be limited or nonexistent.
Teachers, school employees, and parents concerned about public school funding had reasons to question the priorities of Republican leadership.
The political problem was not necessarily that these voters had become liberal.
Some may simply have concluded that Republican leaders were not adequately addressing their educational concerns.
The Delta-8 Controversy: Whatever Happened to Personal Liberty?
Another issue that deserves examination is the effort to restrict Delta-8 and other hemp-derived THC products.
Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick became closely associated with efforts to prohibit these products.
Whatever one thinks about cannabis, the controversy raises a fundamental conservative question.
What business does government have dictating what an informed adult may choose to consume?
I understand the government's responsibility to prevent fraud, protect children, and ensure that products are accurately labeled.
But that is different from treating competent adults as though they are incapable of making their own decisions.
For chronic pain patients and others who use these products, restrictions can have very real consequences.
For small businesses operating within the existing legal framework, the threat of prohibition creates uncertainty and potential financial ruin.
And for libertarian-minded conservatives, the issue raises a familiar concern: nanny state-ism.
It is entirely possible that some voters who supported Republicans on taxes, firearms, and other issues became disillusioned when Republican leaders began restricting their personal choices and their relief from chronic pain.
Christian Nationalism and Religious Liberty
Another development within the contemporary right is the growing prominence of Christian Nationalism.
I am a religious man. My faith informs my understanding of morality, justice, and the proper relationship between individuals and government.
But religious conviction and government-imposed religion are not the same thing.
Conservatives have traditionally defended religious liberty.
That liberty belongs to everyone, including those whose religious beliefs differ from those of the political majority.
When government begins promoting particular religious doctrines, mandating religious displays, or using public institutions to advance a preferred religious identity, it raises questions about the proper limits of government.
Consider the controversy surrounding displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Which Ten Commandments?
The Jewish numbering differs from some Christian traditions, and Christian denominations themselves do not all number them identically.
Who gets to decide which religious tradition the government will favor?
Texas Republicans did, when they passed a law requiring that a unique version of the Ten Commandments be placed in Texas classrooms and that no other version was valid. They literally passed a law that makes it illegal to display the King James Version of the Ten Commandments in a Texas classroom, because it is not the State approved version.
A government powerful enough to promote your religion today may be powerful enough to promote someone else's tomorrow.
Religious liberty means something more than freedom for whichever religious group happens to control the government.
The Rise of the Woke Right
For years, conservatives criticized the political left for identity politics, cancel culture, ideological conformity, and collective blame.
Yet some elements of the contemporary right have increasingly embraced similar methods.
This phenomenon has come to be called the Woke Right.
Instead of judging individuals by their character and conduct, some activists increasingly judge them by racial, ethnic, or religious identity.
Instead of defending freedom of speech, they seek to silence those who disagree.
Instead of opposing cancel culture, they practice their own version of it.
And perhaps most disturbing is the growing visibility of antisemitic conspiracy theories within certain far-right circles.
This is not conservatism as I understand it.
Individual responsibility means judging individuals as individuals.
Freedom of speech means defending the right to speak even when we dislike what is being said.
And equality before the law cannot coexist with racial or religious collectivism.
If these practices were objectionable when associated with the political left, they do not become acceptable merely because they are now being practiced by people who call themselves conservatives.
Perceived Corruption and the Trump Administration
Another possible source of voter dissatisfaction was the perception of corruption and conflicts of interest within the Trump administration.
Trump originally campaigned on promises to clean up Washington.
Yet his second administration became associated with controversies involving family business interests, cryptocurrency ventures, possible conflicts of interest, and questions about government oversight.
The administration and its defenders have disputed allegations of improper conduct.
And allegations, of course, are not proof of criminal wrongdoing.
But public trust does not depend exclusively on criminal convictions.
The appearance of conflicts of interest can itself damage confidence in government.
Conservatives have traditionally insisted that public officials must be accountable to the people.
That standard cannot depend on party affiliation.
If we would condemn questionable conduct by a Democratic president, we should be willing to scrutinize comparable conduct by a Republican president.
Otherwise, our concern is not government accountability.
It is partisan loyalty.
Republican Infighting and Political Exhaustion
Republican politics has also become increasingly dominated by internal conflicts, personality disputes, and accusations of ideological disloyalty.
Instead of debating policy, activists often find themselves debating whether someone is sufficiently loyal to a particular politician.
Instead of building consensus around conservative principles, factions compete to define who is a legitimate Republican.
This can exhaust ordinary voters.
Not everyone wants politics to become a permanent civil war.
And not everyone who disagrees with a Republican officeholder is a liberal, a RINO, or a traitor to the movement.
Sometimes disagreement is simply disagreement.
Sometimes it is a matter of principle.
III. Abbott's Endless Campaign Promises
There is another issue that I believe deserves special attention.
For years, Governor Greg Abbott repeatedly campaigned on major initiatives that seemed never to reach the finish line.
Consider the Texas border wall.
Abbott made construction of a Texas border wall a signature political issue.
There has been construction, and substantial public money has been spent.
But the wall remains far from the comprehensive barrier that many voters imagined when the project was announced.
Then there are property taxes.
How many election cycles have Texans heard promises of dramatic property tax relief?
How many times have we heard proposals that seemed to suggest property taxes might finally be eliminated?
And yet homeowners continue receiving substantial property tax bills.
To be fair, the Legislature has enacted significant property tax relief measures.
But reducing a tax burden is not the same as eliminating it.
In late 2025, as Abbott began another reelection campaign, he again advanced a proposal to abolish school property taxes on homeowners.
An election approaches.
A major conservative objective becomes the centerpiece of the campaign.
Promises are made.
The election passes.
The objective remains unfinished.
Then another election approaches, and the cycle begins again.
At some point, voters begin asking whether they are being offered a serious plan or another campaign slogan.
Republicans have controlled Texas government for decades.
How long should voters be expected to wait for results?
A political party cannot indefinitely campaign as though it were the opposition when it has been the governing party for a generation.
Eventually, it must be judged by what it has accomplished.
IV. Tarrant County: When Constitutional Principles Collide With Party Loyalty
Perhaps nowhere is the conflict between conservative principles and Republican partisanship more clearly illustrated than in my own county.
Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare became embroiled in a series of controversies involving restrictions on public comments at Commissioners Court meetings.
Citizens were removed from meetings. Some were arrested. Lawsuits were filed alleging violations of constitutional rights.
O'Hare defended the need for orderly public meetings, and government bodies do have authority to establish reasonable rules governing public participation.
But that authority is not unlimited.
The First Amendment does not disappear when a citizen enters a government meeting.
The controversy became particularly significant because opposition to O'Hare did not come exclusively from Democrats.
CJ Grisham: A Conservative Endorses a Democrat
Conservative gun-rights activist and attorney CJ Grisham filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against O'Hare and Tarrant County.
His lawsuit alleged violations of constitutional rights arising from his treatment at Commissioners Court meetings.
The federal district court dismissed his lawsuit in April 2026, and Grisham appealed.
But Grisham did something else that illustrates the larger political problem.
He publicly endorsed O'Hare's Democratic opponent, Alisa Simmons.
In a Facebook statement, Grisham wrote:
“I am endorsing Alisa Simmons for Tarrant County Judge. She is the only one willing to stand up to the current Tarrant County Judge Tim O'hare.”
He then acknowledged something important.
He knew Simmons was a Democrat.
He did not agree with all her political positions.
But he believed her actions were more consistent with his understanding of constitutional rights than O'Hare's.
Grisham specifically cited his objections to O'Hare's treatment of First and Second Amendment rights.
Think about the significance of that.
Here was a conservative Second Amendment activist, someone deeply involved in defending constitutional rights, publicly supporting a Democrat over a Republican incumbent.
Not because he had suddenly embraced progressive ideology.
Not because he had abandoned the Second Amendment.
But because he believed a Republican officeholder had failed to respect constitutional principles.
That is Grisham's assessment, and his allegations against O'Hare should not be confused with established judicial findings.
Nevertheless, the political significance of the endorsement is unmistakable.
It demonstrates that at least some conservatives were willing to cross party lines over disputes involving constitutional rights.
And on November 3, Alisa Simmons defeated Tim O'Hare.
We cannot know from this example alone how many voters shared Grisham's reasoning.
But it illustrates something that Republicans would be foolish to ignore.
Being a conservative and being a loyal Republican are not necessarily the same thing.
A political party cannot assume that conservatives will support its candidates regardless of how those candidates govern.
V. Why Did Traditional Republican Voters Stay Home?
So far, we have considered reasons some voters may have turned against Republican candidates.
But that is only half the story.
The other question is why some traditional Republican voters may have lacked the enthusiasm to participate.
Trump Voters Are Not Necessarily Republican Voters
Donald Trump developed a political following that extends beyond traditional Republican Party loyalty.
Some people vote because Trump is on the ballot.
That does not necessarily mean they will show up for every Republican candidate in every election.
In 2024, Trump received more than six million votes in Texas.
In 2026, Republican statewide candidates received substantially fewer.
Those numbers cannot establish precisely how many Trump voters stayed home, because different elections have different electorates and turnout patterns.
But they demonstrate why Republicans must examine turnout rather than simply assume that everyone who voted for Trump will automatically vote Republican.
A political movement built around a personality may discover that enthusiasm for the personality does not automatically transfer to the party.
The Pro-Life Movement and Abortion Abolitionists
Another source of potential dissatisfaction lies within the pro-life movement.
For decades, the Republican Party presented itself as the political home of Americans committed to protecting unborn human life.
Yet the 2024 Republican National Platform substantially changed the party's traditional language on abortion.
The explicit call for a Human Life Amendment disappeared.
The platform emphasized state authority and expressed opposition to late-term abortion while supporting access to contraception and IVF.
For some pro-life activists, particularly abortion abolitionists, this represented a retreat from longstanding commitments.
Abortion abolitionists generally seek legal recognition and equal protection for unborn human life from conception.
They may regard a political platform that focuses primarily on late-term abortion as an unacceptable compromise.
I am not suggesting that such voters suddenly became Democrats.
The more relevant question is whether they remained sufficiently enthusiastic to participate.
A voter who believes his party has abandoned an essential principle may not switch parties.
He may simply stay home.
Second Amendment Voters
Something similar may have happened among gun-rights activists.
The 2024 Republican National Platform affirmed the right to keep and bear arms, but offered relatively little detail concerning additional firearms legislation.
For voters who had spent years advocating broader Second Amendment protections, that may have been disappointing.
Texas already has permitless carry, and some activists may have concluded that the Republican Party was offering little new progress.
Again, this is a hypothesis requiring further evidence.
But it raises an important question.
What happens when a political party assumes that its traditional supporters have nowhere else to go?
Some may vote for another party.
Others may stop participating.
And still others may become politically active against Republican incumbents, as CJ Grisham's example demonstrates.
Complacency
For decades, Republicans could generally assume that Texas would remain red.
That assumption may have become one of their greatest weaknesses.
When political leaders believe victory is inevitable, they may stop listening.
When activists believe their votes are taken for granted, they may stop showing up.
And when a political party begins treating its traditional constituencies as captive voters, it risks discovering that loyalty has limits.
VI. Has the Republican Party Lost Its Conservative Principles?
This brings me to what I believe is the deeper issue.
The election may have been about more than individual candidates, unpopular policies, or economic dissatisfaction.
It may also have exposed a growing philosophical contradiction within the Republican Party.
I became a conservative because I believe in certain principles.
Limited government.
Individual liberty.
Personal responsibility.
Fiscal restraint.
Free enterprise.
Constitutional government.
Separation of powers.
Freedom of speech and conscience.
Religious liberty.
Equality before the law.
These are not merely campaign slogans.
They are the philosophical foundation of conservatism as I understand it.
And they should not change depending on which political party controls the government.
Yet increasingly, I see Republicans defending policies that appear inconsistent with the principles they once championed.
From Personal Responsibility to Government Paternalism
I remember Rush Limbaugh criticizing government efforts to dictate how Americans should live in regards to health when certain blue jurisdiction sought to regulate a limit on the size of fountain drinks.
Whether it involved smoking, diet, or other personal decisions, the underlying conservative argument was that adults should be responsible for their own choices; Personal Responsibility.
Government could inform people about risks.
But it should not assume responsibility for making every citizen live according to an officially approved lifestyle.
Now we have the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, brought into the Republican coalition by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Let us remember that Kennedy originally ran for president as a Democrat. He subsequently became an independent before endorsing Donald Trump and joining his administration.
There is nothing inherently wrong with welcoming former Democrats into the Republican coalition. Nor does someone's former party affiliation automatically invalidate his ideas.
But we should ask whether those ideas are consistent with the conservative principles we claim to defend.
There are legitimate public health concerns involving food safety, transparency, environmental hazards, and misleading information.
But there is a fundamental difference between ensuring that Americans can make informed decisions and using government power to make those decisions for them.
The same principle applies to the Delta-8 controversy.
At what point did the nanny state become a conservative virtue?
If personal responsibility means anything, it must include the freedom to make personal decisions that government officials may consider unwise.
From Fiscal Conservatism to Trillion-Dollar Deficits
Republicans spent decades criticizing "tax and spend" Democrats for excessive spending and increasing the national debt.
Fiscal responsibility was supposed to be one of the defining characteristics of the conservative movement.
Then came the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Whatever its merits in other areas, the legislation carried enormous fiscal consequences.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2025 reconciliation law would increase federal deficits by trillions of dollars over the following decade.
Republicans may argue that tax reductions encourage economic growth or that particular spending priorities are justified.
Those arguments deserve consideration.
But fiscal responsibility cannot mean opposing deficits only when Democrats are responsible for them.
The national debt does not become less dangerous because a Republican president signs the legislation.
If we believe that government should live within its means, that principle must apply regardless of who occupies the White House.
From Free Trade to Protectionism
For much of the modern conservative movement, free enterprise and free trade were central economic principles.
Ronald Reagan generally defended international trade and warned against protectionism, although his administration sometimes adopted trade restrictions.
The Republican Party's earlier history included a strong protectionist tradition, but the Reagan-era conservative movement generally emphasized competition and open markets.
Now tariffs have become a centerpiece of Republican economic policy.
A tariff is a tax on imported goods, generally paid initially by the American importer.
The economic burden may then be distributed among businesses, consumers, and foreign producers.
Tariffs can sometimes serve strategic or national-security purposes.
But broad protectionism raises fundamental questions about the proper role of government in the economy.
If conservatives oppose government picking winners and losers, why should Washington decide which industries deserve protection from foreign competition?
If conservatives oppose higher taxes, why should taxes on imports be treated differently?
And if affordability is a major concern among voters, should Republicans not examine whether their own trade policies are contributing to higher costs?
Economic nationalism and free-market conservatism are not necessarily the same philosophy.
We should be willing to acknowledge the difference.
From Constitutional Restraint to Executive Government
I remember Republicans criticizing Barack Obama for attempting to govern through executive orders.
The argument was straightforward.
Congress makes the laws.
The president executes them.
The Constitution establishes a separation of powers precisely to prevent excessive concentration of authority.
Yet many of the same Republicans who criticized Obama now celebrate Trump's extensive use of executive orders.
Not every executive order is unconstitutional.
Presidents possess legitimate executive authority, and executive orders can be appropriate instruments for administering existing law.
The issue is whether executive action exceeds constitutional or statutory limits.
But the standard should be consistent.
If unilateral executive policymaking was objectionable under Obama, it should be objectionable under Trump.
Constitutional principles do not change when the presidency changes hands.
From Religious Liberty to Christian Nationalism
Conservatives have long defended religious liberty against government interference.
But religious liberty is not the same as government-sponsored religion.
The state should protect the right of individuals and religious communities to practice their faith.
It should not determine which religious tradition deserves government preference.
A government powerful enough to favor Christianity today may be powerful enough to favor another religion tomorrow.
Or to suppress religious practices altogether.
The conservative answer to religious diversity should not be government coercion.
It should be religious liberty.
From Individualism to the Woke Right
Conservatives traditionally rejected identity politics because it treats people as members of groups rather than as individuals.
Yet portions of the contemporary right have embraced racial and religious collectivism, ideological purity tests, and cancel culture.
Some have even entertained antisemitic conspiracy theories.
These developments deserve criticism on their own terms.
But they also reveal a philosophical inconsistency.
If we believe individuals should be judged by their conduct rather than their ancestry, that principle must apply universally.
If we believe in freedom of speech, we must defend it even for people with whom we disagree.
And if we oppose collective blame, we cannot make exceptions for groups we happen to dislike.
The principles either apply to everyone or they are not principles at all.
From Government Accountability to Partisan Loyalty
Perhaps the most troubling development is the tendency to treat criticism of Republican officials as disloyalty.
A Republican president can be criticized.
A Republican governor can be criticized.
A Republican county judge can be criticized.
Their party affiliation does not exempt them from constitutional limitations, ethical standards, or public accountability.
The example of CJ Grisham and Tim O'Hare is particularly instructive.
Grisham's public endorsement of a Democrat did not require him to renounce his conservative principles.
In his view, it was precisely those principles that motivated his decision.
One may agree or disagree with his assessment.
But the broader question remains.
Are we loyal to principles?
Or are we loyal to politicians?
VII. Where Do We Go From Here?
I do not believe the answer is to abandon conservatism.
Quite the opposite.
I believe the first task is to distinguish conservatism from Republican partisanship.
The Republican Party is a political organization.
Conservatism is a political philosophy.
The two have often been closely associated, but they are not identical.
A political party is a vehicle for advancing principles.
It is not an end in itself.
When the vehicle begins moving in a direction inconsistent with its stated purpose, the appropriate response is to examine the direction.
That does not mean every conservative must agree on every policy.
Conservatives can reasonably disagree about the best methods of achieving legitimate objectives.
But there must be a recognizable philosophical foundation.
Limited government cannot mean limited government only when Democrats are in power.
Fiscal responsibility cannot mean opposing deficits only when Democrats propose them.
Freedom of speech cannot mean protecting speech only when Republicans approve of the speaker.
Religious liberty cannot mean liberty only for the politically favored religion.
Free enterprise cannot mean free markets only when government approves of the results.
And individual responsibility cannot mean personal freedom only when government approves of the choices individuals make.
These principles are not negotiable.
They are what make conservatism conservatism.
We Must Be Willing to Examine Our Own Leadership
One of the most destructive habits in contemporary politics is the assumption that criticizing one's own party helps the opposition.
Sometimes criticism is necessary precisely because we care about the principles the party claims to represent.
Republican leaders should be judged by their actions.
Not their speeches.
Not their campaign advertisements.
Not their promises.
And certainly not merely by the letter following their names on the ballot.
If a governor repeatedly promises to eliminate property taxes, voters are entitled to ask what has actually been accomplished.
If a county judge claims to defend constitutional rights, citizens are entitled to scrutinize how he treats people who criticize him.
If a president promises fiscal responsibility, voters are entitled to examine the fiscal consequences of his legislation.
And if a political party claims to stand for limited government, its supporters are entitled to question policies that expand government authority over individual decisions.
That is not disloyalty.
That is accountability.
We Must Understand the Republican Coalition
The Republican Party has long included several different philosophical constituencies.
Economic conservatives.
Social conservatives.
Libertarians.
Religious conservatives.
Constitutional conservatives.
National-security conservatives.
And, increasingly, populists and economic nationalists.
These groups do not always agree.
Indeed, some of their fundamental assumptions about government's proper role are in tension.
The challenge is not merely finding campaign slogans broad enough to appeal to everyone.
It is determining which principles genuinely unite the coalition and where its members disagree.
Those disagreements should be discussed openly.
A coalition held together only by opposition to Democrats may find itself struggling to explain what it actually stands for.
And a movement defined primarily by loyalty to a political personality may find that its support does not transfer automatically to other candidates.
We Must Stop Taking Voters for Granted
Republican leaders should not assume that conservatives will vote Republican simply because the alternative is a Democrat.
That assumption may have worked for a long time.
But political loyalty is not unlimited.
Voters expect their elected officials to represent their principles, address their concerns, and deliver results.
Some voters may express dissatisfaction by changing parties.
Others may support particular candidates across party lines.
Still others may simply stay home.
The election results alone cannot tell us precisely how many voters acted for each reason.
But the possibility that Republicans alienated portions of their own coalition deserves serious examination.
We Must Become the Adults in the Room
There is something else we need to do, and perhaps it is long overdue.
We need to become the adults in the room.
Frankly, too much of our political behavior has resembled that of twelve-year-olds.
Somewhere along the way, we allowed our political priorities to shift from defending limited government, individual liberty, and constitutional principles to simply “sticking it to the libs.”
And that is not a political philosophy. It is a playground mentality.
When Democrats governed through executive orders, we condemned executive overreach. But when our own president does the same thing, too many of us respond with the political equivalent of a twelve-year-old saying, “Well, they started it!”
Since when did someone else's misconduct become a justification for abandoning our own principles?
If executive overreach is wrong, it is wrong regardless of who occupies the White House.
If excessive government spending is wrong, it is wrong regardless of which party controls Congress.
If government censorship is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether the people being silenced are conservatives or liberals.
And when we lose an election, what do we do?
Too often, rather than examining why voters rejected our candidates, we behave like sore losers on a playground, pointing at the other team and shouting, “He cheated!”
Certainly, credible allegations of election irregularities should be investigated. But allegations require evidence. Losing an election is not itself evidence of fraud.
We cannot learn from defeat if we refuse to acknowledge it.
We cannot correct our mistakes if we insist that we made none.
And we cannot expect voters to take us seriously if we behave as though political victory is more important than the principles we claim to defend.
Conservatism is supposed to be about limiting government, not about getting even with liberals.
The purpose of winning an election should not be to acquire the power to do unto our political opponents what we complained they did unto us.
It should be to govern according to the principles we profess.
That requires maturity. It requires consistency. And sometimes it requires the courage to tell people on our own side that they are wrong.
We do not need to become better at playing the same partisan games.
We need to grow up and remember what we believed in before politics became a contest to see who could stick it to the other side.
VIII. Principles or Party?
The 2026 election was a political earthquake.
Texas Republicans lost offices they had controlled for decades.
There will be endless debate about the reasons.
Some will blame the economy.
Some will blame Trump.
Some will blame particular candidates.
Some will blame Republican infighting.
Some will blame Israel or the Jews.
Others will point to unpopular policies, demographic changes, Democratic mobilization, or Republican complacency.
There may be truth in several of these explanations.
But I believe we should also confront a deeper question.
What does it mean to be a conservative?
Is conservatism a commitment to limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, free enterprise, and constitutional government?
Or has it become little more than a political identity defined by opposition to Democrats and loyalty to Republican politicians?
I know where I stand.
I was a conservative before many of today's Republican leaders entered politics.
My principles did not originate with Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, or any other elected official.
And they will not change because those officials win or lose an election.
The Republican Party has been an important political vehicle for advancing conservative principles.
But the party is not the principles.
And if we confuse the two, we risk sacrificing the very things that made us conservatives in the first place.
So where do we go from here?
Before we can answer that question, we must be willing to ask another.
Are we committed to conservative principles, or are we merely committed to the Republican Party?
Because if our principles change depending on who holds political power, they were never really principles to begin with.
------
