Red States and Governance: A Misunderstanding

Many conservatives tend to think that winning an election in a state translates to having actual control over the government. This notion, however, is misleading—and frankly, it’s risky. For too long, the Red States have mixed up these concepts. The belief that political success equates to political power is one of the significant misconceptions that linger on the right. This is why Republican-led states sometimes mirror Democratic ones, albeit sporting different bumper stickers.

While frustrating, it’s crucial for conservatives to absorb this reality. The Red State is currently grappling with a significant governance issue.

The newly released state leadership initiatives Index Report categorizes evidence into two main areas: widespread and prevalent. The fundamental characteristics of accountable, ideologically driven governance reveal that many red states are falling short. The policies backed by their representatives and signed into law are frequently at odds with voter expectations. Take Texas, for instance: seven out of ten of its most dependent sectors on federal aid proudly display Republican labels.

The core issue is that not only are red states underperforming, but they are also nearly indistinguishable from blue states when it comes to crucial metrics.

This isn’t true conservative governance; rather, it resembles branding layered over a progressive management framework. Governors might cut ribbons, sign bills, and post catchy slogans, but within the fabric of their operations, they may be no different from California.

The Bureaucratic Cartel

Delving into the underlying reasons for this troubling situation can be found in the second report from the state leadership initiative, The Shadow Government Report. It highlights how national bureaucrats have quietly and systematically been taken over by unrecognized national associations and professional guilds.

These associations don’t function like traditional think tanks or industry groups. They wield considerable power, crafting standards and delivering training, organizing meetings, and facilitating grants, all while dictating what constitutes “best practices” for their respective fields.

Legislators seldom read the fine print of the laws they endorse, allowing these organizations’ blueprints to effectively dictate legislation. If you’ve ever wondered why states suddenly adopt similar terminologies or metrics, it’s often because these associations are directed to do so.

The extent of ideological influence within these groups is surprising—sometimes to the point of parody. For example, the National Finance Association asserts that environmental, social, and governance investments are a fiduciary duty, while it trains personnel in diversity, equity, and inclusion finance roles.

Similarly, the National Association of Medicaid Directors claims that the principle of Medicaid reform should prioritize equity over health outcomes and emphasizes racially based service priorities.

Furthermore, the health departments’ associations label “structural racism” as a public health crisis and coordinate narratives around topics such as abortion and climate change with the White House.

Interestingly, the National Association of Governors, which brands itself as a bipartisan network of leaders, essentially serves as a conduit for leftist ideas and promotes DEI and ESG toolkits aggressively.

This list is far from exhaustive.

These national associations operate outside the purview of democratic oversight, exerting more influence on national policies than most legislatures. They are essentially Trojan horses for progressive governance. While legislators debate local issues, these associations bundle sets of policies ranging from procurement guidelines to regulatory standards.

Protect Your Progressives

The rules governing civil servants help to insulate progressive careers from political scrutiny. The flow of decisions is often rubber-stamped by validation from accreditation bodies related to these associations. Procurement teams, for instance, frequently follow templates provided by the National Procurement Association. Medicaid officials are guided by directives from their national association, not their state governor.

Republican governors trained in the doctrine of these associations are often molded by their accreditation processes and culture cultivated at conferences. The language used by these officials—words like “restoration,” “inclusion,” “climate preparedness,” and “public-private partnerships”—comes from the presentations circulating in Washington, D.C.

Our opponents have erected a shadow government that now effectively runs the state. The pressing question is whether conservatives will find the resolve to confront it.

You might want to consider being a conservative governor. However, if your health agency continues to send staff to training with the state health department’s association, if your Medicaid office still adheres to the templates of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, and if your Treasury Department follows guidelines set by the National Association of Treasurers, then what does that make you?

Even if personnel are swapped out, new staff will likely adopt “best practices,” model regulations, and, perhaps, undergo training led by professional associations that feign neutrality. But this so-called neutrality is a sham.

What results is a form of political theater. Voters believe they’ve chosen their leaders, while governors feel they are in charge. Yet, the machinery of government operates on autopilot, programmed by external entities, often leading to arrangements shaped in teacher lounges and federal offices. It’s governance on autopilot, where the settings are influenced from the left.

Addressing the Cartel

In order for the Red States to thrive, there needs to be a confrontation with the pervasive cartel among national associations. The remedy lies in a comprehensive structural overhaul rather than minor adjustments.

First, states must audit and limit their association memberships. Transparency is key: all institutions should disclose their membership fees, training costs, and grant pathways.

Second, government agencies ought to stop adopting association policies without legislative consent. If a procurement agency wants to use a particular rubric from the National Procurement Association, they should justify it to elected officials in an open forum.

Third, DEI training led by associations needs to be entirely banned, as they are more aligned with bureaucratic indoctrination than with genuine professional advancement.

Fourth, it would be beneficial for rival associations to form, like the State Treasurer Foundation, to offer training in alignment with the principles of Republican autonomy.

Finally, and most importantly, political influence must permeate the bureaucracy. This requires restructuring state agencies to reduce appointed positions and reinforce accountability through stronger sunset provisions.

Some may argue that this sounds radical. But isn’t it the essence of autonomy? The true extremism lies in the current dynamics. Under this system, anonymous guilds dictate what a sovereign state should look like, dictating Medicaid’s guiding principles. It’s radical to have a constitutional basis for Republican governance yet outsource daily operations to entities that are virtually unidentifiable.

This transformation is not optional if we want to ensure conservatives govern effectively.

Shifting the Machinery

The Index shows the barriers ahead, while the Shadow Government Report elucidates the causes. Together, they provide valuable insights: Red States are building a conservative identity on progressive frameworks. They talk about Jeffersonian ideals but regulate akin to Albany. They express their commitment to freedom while paying dues to organizations embedding equity measures into employment guidelines.

If this trajectory continues, conservatives will find themselves winning hollow victories, confusing slogans with governance. Meanwhile, the opposition is gearing up, launching verbal skirmishes while controlling the critical resources and logistics. The future demands more than just rhetoric; it necessitates true governance. This involves dismantling the existing scaffolding of association rules and erecting institutions that serve the populace. Until then, all red states risk masquerading as blue states.

Governance isn’t automatic. It’s not simply a byproduct of winning an election. It requires being in tune with the people’s will, disciplined, and methodically constructed. Our adversaries have understood this for years—crafting a shadow government that now directs state operations. The lingering question is whether conservatives will muster the courage to confront it.