Of all the rumored candidates for Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) was clearly the most beloved by Trump’s base and the one perceived as the furthest right by the media and political establishment. Which is exactly why I didn’t think Trump would select him. So, I was pleasantly surprised when he got the call. It demonstrates that the base still has influence with Trump. It’s past time to use it — or lose it.

From the standpoint of a consultant, such as Trump campaign officials Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, Vance brings nothing to the table. If the campaign is not concerned with base ideology, which many of its decisions would suggest, then Vance doesn’t attract a new demographic, state, or additional funding. The perception is that the more right-wing you are, the less electable you become in a general election. Adding up Trump’s issue positions, personnel choices, platform changes, and down-ballot endorsements, they all point to a pick more in the mold of Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), or North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — typical establishment Republicans.

If we don’t seize the moment now, there better be a plan to hit the ground running the day after Election Day.

So, at a time when Trump appears to be unifying behind social liberals and GOP donor interests and candidates, why did he pick someone viewed as the fly in their punchbowl?

Trump realized his choice of running mate would be his most publicized endorsement and, in some ways, his most important, given its implication of anointing a successor. While not every Republican voter follows his Cabinet picks, notices his issue positions, or pays attention to his congressional endorsements and choice of advisers, everyone will be focused on his running-mate selection. Trump understood this. Although the base wouldn’t have revolted over a pure establishment pick, people would have felt betrayed and expressed their displeasure.

The choice of Vance over other options is a positive development for influencing Trump in future endeavors. It shows that Trump does not want a tsunami of conservative pressure against his key decisions. It also indicates that Trump’s slide to the left over the past six months did not have to happen and could have been mitigated after the first few poor endorsements. Yet, nearly every influential voice chose to remain silent.

Instead of top conservative figures and organizations respectfully but firmly warning against Trump’s establishment endorsements and his move to the left on several issues, there was a code of silence. This silence persisted during the general election, primary, and governance. They believed it was never a good time to give Trump tough love and exert their influence. Without any pushback, there was no backstop to his slide into the hands of Lindsey Graham and company, resulting in the re-election of every RINO to Congress and the downfall of the House Freedom Caucus chairman.

In many conversations with conservative members of Congress, I heard constant excuses about not having enough clout with Trump and how dark forces had taken over. That might be true, but there is no reason they couldn’t have banded together and demanded better. The Vance pick demonstrates that. Trump’s first term also consistently proved that conservatives reaped benefits commensurate with how loudly they asserted themselves. They failed to resolutely shoot down Trump’s liberal trial balloons whenever they stood down.

Too many dismiss concerns about changes to the Republican Party platform as irrelevant, arguing that no one reads it. However, it's not about any single endorsement, policy, personnel choice, platform plank, or convention speech. The overall shift in Trump’s associations and assignments in recent months paints a disturbing picture beyond any individual concern. It’s time to get on the playing field and build a movement with policy outcomes. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for Trump, but it does mean we must build a powerful parallel movement that stands on its own two feet to push for our prerogatives when they are jeopardized.

What happened with the RNC platform is a harbinger of what is to come in terms of governance. Richard Grenell brags about the Log Cabin Republicans having the distinction of sponsoring the only fundraiser held in Trump’s penthouse. Do you think the strategy of silence will not result in these same forces torpedoing any effort to remove the homosexual agenda from government programs?

There are 110 organizations signed onto the Project 2025 transition plan that Trump lambasted. Don’t tell me that between the Heritage Foundation, Claremont Institute, and Turning Point USA, there isn’t a critical mass of personnel with extreme influence over voters and Trump’s orbit who could draw red lines against these darker forces latching onto Trump.

The idea that enduring an almost daily beatdown on policy and personnel until the election will suddenly inspire courage on the right to push back afterward is a fantasy. If Trump wins despite everything thrown at him, he will be seen as walking on water. There will be no appetite to undermine “unity” and push back against bad personnel picks, such as Doug “Net Zero” Burgum for interior secretary. There will be no appetite to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who will never fight for us. It will all be about unity, which invariably shifts leftward.

Fast forward to the presidency, and there will always be drama and WWE-style fights with the left, for which we’d be labeled disloyal for raising concerns about policy and personnel choices. Later in the term, we will be admonished about the “most important midterms of our lifetime” and the need to remain unified. All the gubernatorial candidates we plan to run in red states to implement our agenda will be carpet-bombed by Trump endorsing those whom he feels indebted to from the election, usually the old-guard Republicans. We will be told that ruffling feathers over primaries isn’t worth it because beating the Democrats is all that counts.

In other words, there is never a good time to assert ourselves in the eyes of people who value nothing but raw soap opera politics. This means it’s almost always a good time to push back strategically and respectfully against subversive plans and ideas within our own tent. The good news is that Trump often responds positively to pressure from his base. But silence is not golden and will not produce conservative/nationalist victories on its own. If we don’t seize the moment now, there better be a plan to hit the ground running the day after Election Day. The original transition plan was savaged without a whimper of protest from influential people on the right. The very woke venture socialists running this country into the ground are already angling for key cabinet positions.

We could have more JD Vances or we could have the likes of JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon running the Treasury Department if we value servile silence over strategic principle. The choice is ours.