Rather, each organization should strive to leave no doubt about where each candidate stands in its perspective. They should issue what amounts to thoughtful, explanatory voter guides, coordinating their timing with one another. The effect, I said, would be stronger than mere endorsements, and more concentrated on fewer individuals, because, fact is, persons who are truly conservative on one issue tend to be more or less that across the board. The prospect of such intervention by the people who have earned the right to say who is pro-economic freedom, pro-life, etc. would be another incentive for candidates to converge on good policy.

Most were respectful to a senior citizen. Only David McIntosh, who was about to take over the Club For Growth, was enthusiastic about the idea. My DC friends hit my naiveté. By now, they said, you should know that these organizations are really in the business of self-perpetuation and of securing fancy salaries for their directors. They are not going to spend any money publishing truths about candidates that may alienate core contributors. That is why they will continue to show measurable progress in their field, enough to stroke their constituencies, but no more.

Should it not be plain to each and every one of them that the entire establishment is ever ready to focus all its resources to quash each of their causes, to erase in an instant whatever gains each may have made laboriously over many years? Why do they continue to neglect that a single presidential election, a single Supreme Court appointment, can ruin their causes? Do they not see their long-term interest?

Alas, with one honorable exception, so far these guard dogs have kept close guard only around their little dog houses.