Everything

The Federalist Party decoded: An interview with activist JD Rucker

Published

2 years ago

July 17, 2017

“I decided that somebody’s got to do it, if nobody else will, then I must.”

I had the pleasure of speaking at length with head of the Federalist Party, political activist JD Rucker. I became intrigued by Rucker after I learned of the Federalist Party’s existence and their fundamentally different approach to challenging the two-party system. In our current climate of political mayhem, could a third-party be a feasible alternative for the somewhat ideologically homeless conservative? I thought speaking with Rucker would be a good place to begin.

From start to finish, the conversation with Rucker was both enlightening and heartening. Rucker’s understanding of what fundamentally plagues our political system is in congruence with many disillusioned conservatives—the Right’s disappointing failure to fight “big government” has morphed into a growing fondness for bloated bureaucracy. And therein, Rucker defines what he believes to be the purpose of the Federalist Party: “Our third party is designed in particular to essentially pull them [GOP] back to the Right, if that’s even possible. And if not, then we are prepared to take over.”

He sees the Federalist Party as a “reminder” that the GOP can no longer take the conservative vote for granted. But Rucker isn’t obtuse on how we got here—he’s direct and forthright when he flatly states, “We have allowed the government to do this to us.”

He’s also not naïve about the abysmal success rate to which third parties typically fall privy. However, he does identify the Federalist Party strategy as decidedly different, proclaiming “the primary difference for us is that we are going to build this from the local level, up.” He coins the Federalist Party’s approach as “bottom-up” in nature, focused on creating an initial footprint in everything from sheriff elections to city council elections to state legislative elections. And indeed, for a party focused on returning power to communities, this approach is refreshingly organic.

Rucker wrote a piece several weeks ago discussing how federalism isn’t about protecting states but rather about protecting the individual. When I asked him about this particular message, he expounded in detail on the government’s general failure to serve the “primacy” of the individual, who has now been belittled by the ever-expanding state. Rucker then admits that Americans now are looking for “leaders to save them,” and this desire is fundamentally flawed: “Government should enable the people to find a solution—government was never designed to be the solution.”

In Rucker’s eyes, “the individual can solve problems for him or herself better than any government action.” And Rucker believes the Federalist Party is geared towards reintroducing the long-lost individual back into the political sphere, specifically by enabling and encouraging people to take more active roles in their communities.

The Federalist Party’s main goal is to demonstrate how genuinely small government—manifested as the “localization of efforts”—can benefit people’s causes more than a larger federal apparatus can. From Rucker’s point of view, federalism or “taking care of your own local area” is much more impactful than tackling a wide range of issues on a global scale. Given this metric holds true for both the conservative and the liberal, he envisions the Federalist Party as appealing to a variety of figures from across the political spectrum.

And baked into this understanding of federalism’s appeal is Rucker’s conception of what the party’s approach should be. Indeed, his vision for the Federalist Party is one prudently defined by longevity, rather than by capturing a few seats in 2018. In fact, he could not have emphasized to me more strongly the importance of 2032 over the impending midterm elections.

But perhaps the most interesting part of my interview with JD revolved around his entrance into politics. It wasn’t a foray marked by a prestigious law degree or longish stint at a private equity firm. Rucker described himself as simply a politically engaged person who realized about fifteen years ago that the Republican Party had approached a stage beyond saving and that it would be far better to structure a new party around a truly conservative perspective. Rucker succinctly explained his own involvement by stating, “Nobody else was doing it and I felt somebody needed to.”

What struck me as most impressive about Rucker, beyond his assessment of the current political climate and his prescription for reform, was his depthless humility. I am ending with his own words because I don’t believe I could do them quite justice. Needless to say, my interview with JD Rucker gives me hope that the citizenry is still capable of producing selfless and thoughtful leaders. In a time of an ever-expanding federal apparatus, made fat by unabated spending, I am encouraged by thinkers like JD who not only diagnose problems with poise but also have the drive to tackle them. In the words of JD Rucker:

“I want to be clear. People like to put me down as ‘cofounder’ of the Federalist Party. I look at myself as specifically just a caretaker. Just to get this up and running until more people—better people, smarter people—can get involved. That is all.”

If you are interested in learning more about the Federalist Party and what Rucker and others are doing on behalf of conservatism, feel free to visit thefederalistparty.org. You can follow JD Rucker on Twitter at @JDRucker.

Related Topics:federalism Federalist Party jd rucker

5 Comments

David Oslin (@hyperion5182)

July 17, 2017 at 4:14 pm

Well said and written. An excellent read.

Reply
JC

July 17, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Great article! Hope to see more from you!

Reply
Judith Irlacher

July 18, 2017 at 5:38 am

Knowing nothing of the Federalist Party, I am impressed with the opinions of J D Rucker, thank you for sharing his ideas!

Reply
Susan Sylvia

July 28, 2017 at 4:22 am

I have been with JD (by email!) since Day One when he asked on his website The New Americana, ‘Should we do this?’ and I can say that everything the author says about him is true. He takes a Democratic approach to decision making and is an excellent team leader, while still very humble. He also has a very smart plan, using the latest technology and social media, to make this go, and he is savvy enough to observe what other parties have done wrong and to sidestep those pitfalls. I think that this third party, vs. others that have come and gone or simply languished, has a real chance to take off. And what better name for a party? I’m a member, and I hope others will join!

Reply
Kim Gallagher

July 28, 2017 at 6:14 am

Ditto Susan.

Reply

Judiciary

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

Published

6 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

There is an unnecessary amount of controversy surrounding whether or not a citizenship question can be added to the upcoming United States census. But now that it’s here, the outcome of the case will say a great deal about the makeup of the Supreme Court and whether or not it has become a body that is driven solely by politics despite the intent of the founders to make sure it never would be.

On the surface, this case seems rather mundane. It’s just a question about the citizenship status of individuals. Some may be wondering what the big deal really is. In reality, it’s a very big deal. Census data is used to determine pretty much everything as it pertains to the relationship between the federal government and the states. Grant money, House of Representative seats, and district allocations are among the many changes that will all be determined by the census.

From a purely political perspective, this should be a no-brainer to conservatives. Of course the question should be included. It’s unfair for states who allow a higher level of illegal immigrants to gain more power as a result. These are not voters (at least they’re not supposed to be). It’s idiotic to give states a great incentives to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible, so if the presence of a censorship question lowers the numbers reported, that’s not a bad thing.

Politically, the citizenship question is a winning play for conservatives.

But here’s the problem. The judiciary is not supposed to be driven by politics. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law of the land to determine how it’s to be enforced by the executive branch and whether the legislative branch is in line with the intent of the Constitution through the laws they establish. By those criteria, the Trump administration has a major problem with the citizenship question. The Census Act clearly states Congress is to be given notice of changes to the census three years in advance. They were not. The citizenship question was not part of the original list sent by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in March, 2017. It was sent in the March, 2018 list, but that’s not enough time for Congress to review if we’re going solely based on the letter of the law.

This is an insanely stupid aspect of the law; it shouldn’t take Congress three years to read a question and determine whether or not they need to make new laws as a result. But it’s the law nonetheless and Ross broke it by not including the question in his original list. It was a rookie mistake made by someone who really shouldn’t be in his position, but what’s done is done.

Part of my heart says the censorship question is righteous and does not violate the Constitution, therefore it should be allowed. But the other part of my heart longs for a judiciary that is truly apolitical, one that does its job as laid out in the Constitution. If that’s the measure of this case, then the Administration clearly did not meet the standards set forth in the law to add the question to the census.

Where I take solace is knowing the balance of political bias within the judiciary favors the left. If it’s impossible to completely remove politics from the judiciary, then any win for conservatism is acceptable just as any loss for conservatism is unwelcome. I desperately want the originalist perspective to prevail in our judiciary, but if such apolitical adherence is only possible when convenient or in a robotic utopia of a truly impartial judiciary, then I’m forced to defer to the side of my heart that says, “Take the win and move on.”

We need the citizenship question in the census, and though I would have preferred to have seen it handled properly by the Commerce Department, I’ll accept a victory on it even if it comes by the hand of conservative bias.

JavaScript required We are sorry but without JavaScript enabled, this widget does not work. Please enable JavaScript in your browser’s settings and reload this page. Reload

Culture and Religion

Matthew 22:37 – ‘love the Lord thy God’

Published

8 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. – Matthew 22:37 (KJV)

We’ve all heard this verse, but have we really contemplated it? This is a verse that sits in the middle of many different things happening. The Pharisees and Sadducees were questioning Him. His answers were profound and defining.

This important portion of this message is echoed three times: all. Love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the most important Commandment according to Yeshua.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Opinions

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

Published

8 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

It’s time for term limits. This has been on my heart for some time, but I have held back because there are so many other important issues to cover. Today, I realized if I wait until more pressing issues are solved, I’ll be waiting forever. There are always going to be more pressing issues than term limits, but here’s the thing. Our representatives realize this, too, which is why it’s never given the attention it deserves. They use these other issues as cover to prevent them from having to address the one issue that will affect them the most.

This is my first petition on Change.org. I’ll admit I’ve never been a fan of the site because it is mostly progressive topics on the table, but this is an issue that even progressives should be able to acknowledge as a problem.

Here’s what I posted:

Set term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators

Corruption is rampant in Washington DC. One of the biggest reasons this is the case is because lifetime politicians have become power brokers, making them the beneficiaries of favors, payoffs, and under-the-table deals. They live in a perpetual state of campaigning rather than focusing on addressing the problems that face Americans.

Term limits were never included in the Constitution because it was expected by the founders that those serving as our representatives in the legislative branch would do so as a duty to be fulfilled rather than a luxurious position of excess. They did not anticipate the electoral benefits of incumbents, nor did the realize the two-party system would polarize the nation to the point that positions could be made essentially permanent.

Power should not be accumulated over the length of a long career. It should be earned through action and earnestly held for a brief period of time. Today, too much power is consolidated in Washington DC, partially as a result of the extended lengths in which our representatives enjoy their tenure.

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be there because they want to serve their country, not because they enjoy being part of the DC Country Club. Term limits are very popular among the people, but Capitol Hill continues to ignore our will by failing to address it. Why should they? Only they can be hurt by it, and it does not behoove them to hurt themselves.

Instead, they continue hurting us.

We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Imagine Capitol Hill without the perpetual campaigning. Imagine forcing our representatives to work within a time limit instead of working to stay in the DC Country Club forever. It’s time for term limits in the House and Senate.