Pouring the Tea into the GOP
First, those of us putting the session together had to demonstrate our thesis to ourselves. In our meetings with MNGOP activist Jonathan Aanestad, who was assigned by the party to coordinate the MLC breakout session, we discovered that there had been an ideological struggle taking place within the MNGOP between conservatives and moderates long before the Tea Party rose. Aanestad has been a leader in that debate. Along with Pat Strother, CEO of the marketing firm Strother Communications Group (SCGPR), Aanestad conducted extensive market research analyzing the state of the Republican brand.
Though it was not their objective, what SCGPR found was nothing less than an empirical explanation for the rise of the Tea Party. They found that Americans identify as conservative 2 to 1 over liberal. They found that while the Republican brand was stale or negative among many focus group participants, conservative principles and values were dominant. They concluded that the Republican brand had been critically weakened by ideological moderation. In order for the MNGOP to increase their effectiveness, SCGPR concluded they must rebrand the party as decisively conservative and committed to four “pillars” – fiscal responsibility, sensible government, free enterprise, and personal responsibility.
As a Tea Party activist, considering SCGPR’s research was tremendously validating. Particularly striking were those pillars. The three core principles of Tea Party Patriots are listed on their website as fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. Many local groups add individual rights to the list. These four are all but identical to SCGPR’s pillars. In essence if not directly, Aanestad and Strother are saying that the Republican brand is failing because it lacks what the Tea Party is preaching. Isn’t that precisely what the Tea Party has said all along?
The spring of the Tea Party can be traced back to 1994. After four decades of Democratic control in Congress, the Contract with America ushered in the Republican Revolution. For years, talk radio pundits had been preaching the conservative gospel, leading the faithful to believe that electing Republicans would affect conservative policy. The Contract aspired to bring “the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money.” It included such crowd-pleasing commitments as term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and tort reform. There was talk of eliminating entire federal departments and cutting spending in the true sense of the term, utilizing zero base-line budgeting. Virtually none of it happened.
Ten years later, not only did the Republicans retain the presidency for George W. Bush. They saw notable gains in both the House and Senate. With near total control of the federal government, there was nothing to stand in the way of the old Contract reforms. If there was ever a time when conservative principles would manifest into policy, that was it. Instead, “Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.”
The resulting lack of enthusiasm among conservatives enabled the Democratic gains of 2006 and 2008, the latter seeing the nomination of the uninspiringly moderate Senator John McCain. Conservative activists’ festering disillusionment metastasized into full blown apathy, allowing an unaccomplished community organizer to become president of the United States.
Lets make one thing clear, we of the TEA party do not plan on watering down our message….the Repubs will have to stop the straddling of the fence to appease the good ole boys of congress,…I see a massive sweep coming of new blood into the conservative ranks….people have had enough of ”the normal”, just going alone to get alone….We are demanding our nation be returned to its rightful owners, we the people….In closing, i do not belong to the TEA party, but their ideals is the same as mine….all in the heart, as Rush said….
Jimi: By no means should you water down your message. Just remember: movements are for getting the message out; parties are for winning elections.
This is an enormously interesting article to me as a politicla junkie. HOWEVER, both you–and me until this week–are leaving one factor out of the discussion.
There are TWO kinds of conservatives–standard globalists who prevail in and out of the Tea Party AND populists who we used to identify by saying they belong to Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican Party. They believe in free market capitalism to an extent, but identify themselves as economic nationalists.
I was sharply reminded of this few days ago when Buddy Roemer (my candidate in this cycle) criticized Cain for his response to the Occupy Wall Streeters, and declared his own support for some of their complaints. What happened then was this–the American Conservative magazine wrote an APPROVING article of Roemer’s stance on this, and it ends like this: “The interview ended there because Roemer had to get off the phone to go on the air. He still had a lot to say. Maybe it’s time the media and the GOP base — which demonstrably doesn’t want Mitt Romney — started listening. We don’t often hear old white Southern Republican bankers talking like that. I wish we did.”
What was banker Roemer saying? Basically that those Occupying Wall street had legitimate complaints against investment bankers and Wall Street and their role in this economic debacle. Pat Buchanan in his wonderful columns often took on both Wall Street and multinational corporations whereas Fox, Limbaugh and that whole tribe of talk show hosts virtually canonize corporate culture. What a mistake!!
That “Buchanan” Republican view has been all but forgotten in this cycle EXCEPT FOR BUDDY ROEMER’S entry into the primary. True, the Establishment Globalist Republicans who own the party these days HAVE kept him out of the debate. And TRUE the Tea Party allowed itself to be financed by Dick Armey and the Club for Growth thereby going globalist and giving up any claims to being populist.
But I, as an anti-NAFTA Ross Perot supporter, Pat Buchanan fan (for his economic nationalism) refuse to believe all those conservative populists have died off or changed their minds. For 10 years, I used to advocate, collect signatures, yak yak at state fairs and street corners in New Hampshire as an anti-NAFTA, pro-Perot activist. I must have engaged in hundreds of dialogs with Republicans (which I had been until then). I never met even ONE Republican who agreed with the official position of their Party in voting for NAFTA. Not one. Some would argue I was allowing Clinton to get elected (by supporting Perot) and when I would respond: But I just can’t go along with NAFTA. Invariable response would be–I don’t like that EITHER, but I want the Republican Party to win.
IMO that unwillingness to hold globalist Republican wing accountable for what NAFTA and THEIR trade philosophy has wrought is what will destroy the Republican Party at some point. Saddest thing to me, is that a potentially populist movement like the Tea Party allowed itself to be coopted by the likes of Club for Growth when in fact, Roemer (if given half a chance) probably has better possibility to beat Obama than any of the others.
You can restore your soul by making the Debate gurus include Buddy Roemer in their debates. If you don’t, this year there’s going to be Americanelects and us Roemer-ites can have another crack at creating a 3d party that could again guarantee Obama wins.
Take your choice.
Where did you get this notion that the “Tea Party” has been co-opted by Dick Armey and Club for Growth?
First of all, Tea Party Express is a Dick Armey operation (at least in part). They are a PAC IIRC. They are not a tea party.
This capitalization of the tea party as if it is an organization may be what has led to your confusion. Tea party is a mindset, not an entity.
Tea Party Patriots is an organization, representing thousands of tea parties across the nation. Most importantly, there are thousands more that have not agreed to have TPP speak for them to Congress.
Each tea party speaks for itself, and no others. This is why it cannot be killed or damaged or even more than slightly annoyed. There is no leader and there is no structure. Some tea parties have formed themselves into 501(c)(3) IRS groups but most are exactly the same as when this thing started – a group of disaffected people who are Taxed Enough Already and who all want government to stop borrowing and cut spending.
When people such as you and this author promote false memes such as tea party is co-opted, you help the enemy by giving those politically unsophisticated people the idea that they are still out in the cold. There is a place for all who want to stop the fiscal disaster — in the tea party.
I’m certainly not promoting the meme that the Tea Party has been co-opted. I’m acknowledging that the meme exists. There is a difference. If anything, I’m arguing against that meme. The Tea Party can never be co-opted for the reasons you cite; it is not centralized. It has no leadership. There is no head to cut off or throat to clutch.
I’ve never met a Tea Party globalist. To the man, every Tea Partier I know wants the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S. I’ve never meet a Tea Partier who liked central banking either. What you will find are free market advocates who don’t believe in trade barriers or trade wars. That is hardly globalist.
Our Tea Party group have had the opportunity to
work with Republican leaders at the county level.
They taught us the ropes in the political process.
As novices, this was very much appreciated and helped
many of our members becomes precinct delegates.
We continue a working relationship but have maintained
our Tea Party principles and identity.
This also gave the local Republican Party the opportunity
to see our dedication to our principles and we would not
except manipulation or choosing candidates for us.
The Tea Party has not gone silent, they have gone to work.
Here in New Mexico the conservative movement has made great strides. Years of Oligarchy by Dems in this most ‘fly over’ state is being challenged. With conservatives, for the first time, being elected to the biggest city and now the Governorship and many other elected positions even the local Dems approve of the simple values of conservatism.
I agree with the idea that we need the GOP infrastructure to get the idea out. To change the preception that the Dems are ‘hard left’ and the Repubs are ‘light left’. We need to give what has freely been given to us and we need to give it to those who have given up hope. Minorities want to work and earn and gain property. They want their children to prosper and to be educated. All this crap about multiculturalism and ebonics and La Raza just doesn’t get them what they want but it might make some feel connected. Conservatism, if taken out to those areas, like California, without fear of the Democrat machine will be effective.
Sarah Palin wanted to go into Dem strongholds to ‘preach’ Constitutional values and the Repubs/McTwit saw it as a waste of money. This has to change.
Here in Minnesota, the Republican leadership appears to have realized what a mistake it has been to neglect Dem dominated districts. There is an effort now to reach out to those communities. The initial results are very encouraging. You would never expect it given the dominant narratives in the media, but the leaders of the minority communities reached so far are decisive conservative. They are anxious to develop a relationship with the party once APPROACHED. But they’re not going to come looking. They need to be engaged.
One way for Republicans to obtain meaningful input soon from Tea Party types is to actually have a Presidential nominating process that allows input from all in an orderly process. That would be a good thing. As opposed to this, what we have now is a sudden, out-of-the-blue mad rush for early primary states to move their primaries even earlier, for some unexplained reason. I live in Ohio and in 2008 Ohio had zero input to the nominating process, which had been designed to produce a candidate after about 4 states had voted. This process is one that destroys citizen participation and activism by it’s obvious manipulation by people favoring particular candidates. How about a real convention this year? Let’s have every state involved and forget this media and political insider driven process, which is designed to circumvent the people? That would be a fast way to get Tea Party input into the process. It would also be an event that would generate huge attention, thought, and debate on choosing the best nominee to unseat Obama. It would be more about the people and less about the political insiders. It would give due respect to every state. And while we are at it, let’s end the idea of open primaries where Democrats can infect our process. Let’s have a national convention. Forget the stale balloon filled halls – I say let’s have a real convention with real debate and real votes. This is the most important election in my life. I don’t want it decided by four early voting states and a bunch of TV pundits telling me who won.
Great idea, Kent. The only way to make it reality is to rise to leadership within the party and gain the ability to affect that change. That means attending caucuses or going through whatever process your state has for becoming a precinct committeeman.
Agreed. I’ve never liked the fact that the same states get to vote early in the primary process, effectively deciding for everyone who the candidate would be. If it were up to me, the party would rotate primary positions so that every four years a different set of states were first to hold primaries, with the first states from the previous election going to the end of the line.
One place the Tea Party needs to make its presence known is in the local arena,with school boards and the like. That’s where the left wing has been so successful, in our schools indoctrinating our children to think collectively liberal.
Nationally, the Republican party needs to shed the image of the being the party of the rich, country club type a la Bush and Romney. As more Tea Party candidates get elected, that will happen.
“The lesson learned from the past 15 years is that the function of ideological formation must remain separate from the function of political action.”
Above: This is the absolute essential ingredient that must remain in place for the Tea Party movement to survive.
The problem is that in large part it has already been lost.
A cursory examination into the recent evolution of the “official” structure of the Tea Party reveals what actually happens when ideology mixes with reality:
- The same local business big-shots and Chamber of Commerce gurus that have controlled the “system” for decades now run the local Tea Parties.
- Those nice little old ladies that attended early Tea Party rallies carrying American flags have turned out to be the “upper crust” socialites that have issued the orders out for their husbands to dutifully follow; or else for many, many years.
- You and your family can enjoy a full day at Disney World for about what it cost for you per person to attend one of the Tea Party events today; hosted by those SAB little old ladies.
But, the real kicker goes sort of like this:
“We will not water down our message..” means that we, the Tea Party run the show and you being whoever or whatever you are will do what you are told.
Going a little further Conservative means Tea Party means that whatever the issue or problem happens to be we; Conservatives, the Tea Party have the authority and the right to challenge you whoever, correct you whoever or even demand that you whoever immediately cease operation of whatever you’re doing that we; Tea Party etc. don’t approve of or like or else…!
The nature of politics has been the same since Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden.
2011 and counting: The body bulk of the Tea Party is in the game for themselves.
2011 add +23 years: Rush Limbaugh is in the game for himself; were he not his program would perish.
Republicans cleaned house nationwide in 2010 right? Name one set in concrete tangible thing that has been accomplished on behalf of our nation attributable to that victory..?
We need, donations are appreciated, we must or else lightning will strike us, we are doomed and will all die remains the same above the fold headlines message that have been there since time began.
Bottom Line: If you’re going to pour something into the Tea of the party try using more sugar and stir like hell. Everyone knows the end result will be the same old spoon & glass clanking noise we’ve always listened to. And maybe, if we are really lucky, it will be loud enough that it gets rid of Obama and his sorry ass Chicago crew.
“Republicans cleaned house nationwide in 2010 right? Name one set in concrete tangible thing that has been accomplished on behalf of our nation attributable to that victory..?”
1. Extended the Bush tax cuts. Otherwise, our taxes would be higher.
2. The increase in national debt would have passed a Democrat Congress without debate.
3. Put the old school Repubs on notice that compromise for the sake of compromise is no longer acceptable, which got us, little by little, without notice, where we are today.
4. Prevented a cap and trade bill.
Thes are just off the top of my head. Some research would find more benefits.
- Milk costs more.
- Gasoline costs more.
- COLAS are frozen.
- Clothes cost more.
- Shoes cost more; and they never fit.
- Heating fuels cost more.
- Food, all of it costs more.
- Electricity costs more.
- Medical insurance costs more.
- Medicines cost more.
- Sales taxes cost more.
- Everything is made in China.
- There are more bankruptcies in process throughout our country than there has ever been.
- Huge parts of many of our major cities homes, neighborhoods and commercial property are boarded up. Some have already been bulldozed down.
- There are more homeless people living on the streets in the cities throughout our nation than there has ever been.
- Fruits and vegetables are imported from Mexico or Africa at the same time our own farmers are being starved to death by the enormous restrictions of our own government.
- Property saleability is the lowest it has ever been, yet property taxes cost more.
- School tuition’s cost more; unless you’re an illegal immigrant.
- Illegal immigrants hold 95% + of the domestic jobs in the USA.
- Walmart almost exclusively hires illegal immigrants.
- Wendy’s almost exclusively hires illegal immigrants.
- McDonalds almost exclusively hires illegal immigrants.
- Local, state and federal agencies almost exclusively hire illegal immigrants.
- Police departments and security companies almost exclusively hire illegal immigrants.
- Hospitals and medical facilities almost exclusively hire illegal immigrants.
- A huge percentage of mortgage foreclosures are against illegal immigrants.
- The value of one dollar is the lowest it has ever been.
- International respect for the United States is the lowest it has ever been.
You have your list jarmo and I have mine.
My question then becomes, “How much beneficial personal comfort have you received that derives out of your list?”
With respect I think that my quick list is an accurate, reality based barometer of the mess that we all have been forced to live with.
- Today Obama told the union members that he has directed his staff to proceed with his jobs plan with or without Congress’s approval.
- Today we are told that Herman Cain in less than one week has magically zoomed from next to last place into a dead even tie with Mitt Romney.
These few things said, I fail to see how the evolution of the (conservative) Tea Party has produced anything more than more of the same crap we’ve heard from all sides of the aisles since day one.
What’s your solution?
I sure hope Axelrod is paying you well. Every post you have made on this thread is designed to demoralize and divide. Your “facts” aren’t true.
You are a good agent but not good enough. You’ve been outed. Go back to whatever leftist place you came from.
‘Constitutionally limited gov’t'…Ah, would that any politician/movement/party who actually has a chance at being elected would really espouse that. What would a Constitutionally limited gov’t look like? Anyone who actually reads the Constitution and is not in denial knows: vast swathes of existing Fed bureaucrazies would disappear, including OSHA, EPA, FDA, ATF, Depts of Labor/Education, etc, etc. These agencies throw not sand but boulders into the gears of the economy. Eliminating them would cause business to boom, wealth to spread, the poor to greatly benefit from increased employment and entrepeneurial opportunities they long have been unjustly denied. Freedom would reign.
But We the People, the lazy and wicked sovereign of this nation, don’t WANT a Constitutionally limited gov’t. This does not end well.
Doc: I don’t think I want to “throw out the baby with the bath water,” as you espouse. The EPA, FDA, OSHA; to name just three; perform some important & vital services. For me, the issue is not eliminating all regulation, but having smart regulation.
Th duties of the national departments would be taken over by the individual state agencies. Foe example, most states, if not all, already have an EPA that could be expanded, if necessary, to incorporate “smart” national regulations. Granted, state taxes would need to be raised to fund the larger state EPA, but that then becomes a state matter.
makes me want to move to minnesota.
here in illinois we have probably the most outstanding example of the ‘party of stupid’ in the nation, the lovely folks who gave us alan keyes for the senate after obama’s character assasination of ryan.
Ah yes, the lovely Ryan ploy! No opening of sealed divorce records = no Senator Obama = no President Obama! I still cannot stand the sight of Jeri Ryan on her new TV show, though my wife enjoys the program.
I, too, cannot stand the sight of her. Ditto that McCain staffer and pal of Katie Couric who set up that Palin interview with no prep.
I think Jeri Ryan thought those divorce records would never see the light of day so she went all out with phony charges in the custody battle. It’s an old story.
The ideological divide in the Republican Party is between Progressives (Teddy Roosevelt Republicans) who don’t have a conservative bone in their body (think Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Bush) and actual conservatives.
With its razor focus on individual responsibility and economic selfishness, I don’t think the Tea Party is compatible with the basic Christian credo of loving one’s neighbor. The movement will fizzle when people realize this.
Ayn Rand was an atheist.
Come on, troll. “Render unto Caesar” does not mean “Caesar must administer what is God’s,” and any actual Christian knows that.
For most of Christian history, “Caesar” in the form of Christian kings and rulers (both Catholic and Protestant) did administer what is God’s. The relatively recent rise of the nation-state put an end to that. Gee, that’s worked out really well; WWI, Russian Revolution, WWII, genocide, etc. etc.
Sorry you think I’m a troll; a troll is defined as someone someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community. I guess for the insecure, anything that does not agree with their preconceptions would be inflammatory.
Did you learn your basic Christian credos from reverend Jeremiah (God damn America) Alvesta Wright, Jr.?
No, from the Bible:
Prov. 19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.
Luke 14:12-14. “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
There is much good to be said of voluntary giving and I doubt that any tea party person would disagree with it. Involuntary giving is a perversion of Christianity preached by the likes of fallen angels.
You made a basic mistake of confusing Christian “kings and rulers” with what a Christian should do. The two are very very far apart.
I know this is probably hard for you to understand, so I will boil the concept down as simply as possible.
Christians give to the poor of their own free will, from what is theirs. This is charity, and Christianity at it’s purest form.
Government gives to whoever it feels like, by forcibly taking money from people because it has none of it’s own. This is completely anathema to Christian thought.
Christianity is governed by free will and free agency.
Government is governed by force. Try not paying your taxes.
Tea partiers would give freely of their own possessions, while limiting the ability of government to take what is yours by force and redistribute it to whoever government pleases.
The concept is purely, innately Christian. I hope you can understand the difference now.
Thanks, John and Ceteris,
I agree that limiting the power of government to take what is ours by force is a good thing. Most of the people here are probably worried about their tax dollars going to what you like to call “parasites”, defined as welfare types, government workers, old people etc. I’m more concerned about the government-sponsored transfer of wealth to Wall Street via TARP; what does Wall Street produce? Aren’t they parasites also?
First, the Christian “kings and rulers”: In the Middle Ages, the biggest long term external threat was Turkey. To defend their lands, the rulers had to levy taxes to pay for arms, soldiers etc. The church also demanded a tithe (1/10 of the peasants’ crop) to run itself and provide alms to the very poor. What alternative did the rulers or the church have but to levy taxes with the threat of force?
Second, in our time, let’s look at a hypothetical Alzheimers patient. This person is completely unable to care for themselves and must have 24 hour supervision. There is no immediate family, and the patient has minimal assets. Who should pay?
Master of Disaster -
Thank you for your comments.
First of all, the Tea Party is not a theocratic movement. So there’s no need for it to comport with a Christian ethic or any other religious ethic.
That said, I would argue as others have that there is nothing antithetical to the Christian ethic among Tea Party principles. Church history is irrelevant, as the church as in institution is not indicative of Christianity according to scripture. In scripture, you find no admonition to steal from your neighbor (either directly or through proxy) and give to the poor. You find admonitions for your own personal conduct. To impute the Christian duty upon government is to make the same mistake many Jews did in Christ’s time, expecting the overthrow of the Romans – a temporal military salvation. The Kingdom of God is not of this Earth. Part of being “in the world but not of it” is rejecting delusions of theocratic grandeur. We will not create the Kingdom of God on Earth before He does.
To answer your hypothetical about the Alzheimers patient is simple. The patient should pay. He is the one receiving the service.
Obviously, the intent of your question is to follow-up with something akin to, “But he has no money.” That’s an unfortunate circumstance. However, it places no claim whatsoever upon anyone else.
You might say, “It’s not his fault he can’t pay.” Whether that’s true or not, it’s certainly not my fault, or yours, or anyone else’s. So why should anyone else have to pay? By what moral claim is a patient entitled to care?
Anticipating your reply, let me say that it is both likely and appropriate for individuals to value the life of someone in such need. That value may and often does translate to charity. However, there is no obligation to be charitable. Nor is it charity when extracted by force. One can only be charitable with that which is theirs. Beyond that, they are a common thief.
Do you mean “invite” to be the same as voting for Obama ? What has resulted doesn’t resemble invitations.
It’s your kind of thinking, that ignores unintended consequences, that caused LBJ’s Great Society programs to fail. The dispensing of money to the “deserving” or poor without accountability created today’s situation where 50% of black families subsist without a male presence. Blacks have the highest illegitimate birth rates, created by government policies rewarding for having children. How is that “loving ones neighbor”? In the 60s, a higher percentage of blacks were married than whites, and black divorce rates were lower. This is just one example of the failed policies of the “social justice” proponents like yourself. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, makes sense. Personal responsibility – don’t bring children into a world if you can’t take care of them. Our government rewards such irresponsible actions. Problem? Throw money at it. Poor? Give them more money, buy their votes, no need for accountability. “We” can always raise more money in taxes. “We” are like Robin Hood – take from the “rich” and give to the poor. After all “we” are not heartless. It’s those Tea Partiers and conservatives that demand “personal responsibility”. How dare they? And on, and on, and on.
I agree with you that welfare as presently administered encourages fatherless families. It is an insane policy that results in multigenerational dysfunction. Welfare workers actually search apartments to find evidence that a man lives there (clothing, shoes) and will reduce or eliminate benefits if they find that evidence. However, that does not mean that all government programs are evil, just stupidly administered. Almost any human action has unintended consequences; smart people adapt. Unfortunately our bureaucrats basically ignore men, much the same as the family courts.
Robin Hood took from the (rich) government because the tax burden was excessive, and returned the money to the people.
Yes and the Medellín cartel took money from the rich gringos and built soccer stadiums for the poor in Medellín. Real heroes, right? And Robin Hood distributed every farthing he stole from the rich to the poor, right? Hey, you should vote Democrat because they really care about the poor just as much as all the billionaire Democrat donors do too.
We The People must remember: every time WE(main street) tried to work within the confines of We The Elite People [RNC (GOP), DNC, MSM and Wall Street] WE have been frustrated with a smothering of Our principles (main street), Our mission, Our Vision and Our goals.
Tea Party is a “brand.” It should remain as such. Having said that, WE(main street) must never, ever succumb to RNC’s and GOP’s lullaby of “inclusion.” The Tea Party “brand” is a force to be both reackoned and dealth with. Raprochment – politk of We The Elite People has an American name =co-opt.
After all, goes the argument: We The Elite People (RNC, GOP) are structured, organized, and have individuals at all levels of State, County and Municipal levels able to “pull levers” as need be. Question: How’s that “pulling of levers” worked so far, HUH?
No, We The People (Tea Party) have waited since the Contract for America in 1994…most of which has yet to be implemented. Why? one asks, wasn’t ALL the Contract Implemented? Because We The Elite People co-opted both House and Senate with their same ‘ol, same ‘ol. In other words, Congress “lost its way.” Ask Newt, he’ll tell you exactly what happened.
No, We The People have worked long and lonely nights for this opportunity to make a new “brand” (Tea Party)designed to bring a new beggining to America, one that addresses four fundamental, structural problems facing Our Beloved America, to wit:
1) Government reform (possibly; Cut,Cap,Balance?)Tort and Term limits.
2) Religion. Unfettered strenghtening (first amendment rules)
3) Financial sector organization for 21st Century and beyond
4) Education review, overhaul, and streamlining methodologies
Discard We The Elite People…their voodoo politics hasn’t worked, isn’t working and simply won’t work no matter how much pretzle twisting, hand wringing one does. Go it alone. Don’t dare listen to We The Elite People’s swan song…because it is just that, dying of a failed 19th century politik.
Tea Party must innovate by melding both “ideology” and “political action.” This is the birth of a new beggining, new “brand” and new ideology…The Tea PARTY.
Vote massively 2012 because massive fraud will befall this wonderful experiment known as The USA. Cain Can.
What – specifically – are you advocating? A third party? How do we take political action outside of the political infrastructure?
I have a different attitude about coddling RINOs.
What do we always say about Obama upsetting his base? We say, “he doesn’t have to pander to the kooks at Daily Kos or Moveon.moron; where else can they go? They’ll be back and vote in force come 2012 no matter what Obama does.”
I say, “We don’t have to pander to the RINOs at Rove.com or the Weekly SubStandard; where else can they go? They’ll be back and vote in force come 2012 no matter what the Tea Party does.”
The answer to “where can they go” is either out of the party or deeper into it. Those are the only two options. Conservatives have historically gone outside the Republican Party as a protest. That has proven an ineffective strategy. Instead, we ought to go deeper into it, rising to leadership. Then we set the agenda.
There is a strange-sounding potential solution (in principle) to achieving constitutional government: Extract the truly necessary/useful parts, if any, of the many superfluous agencies and departments and collect them into one agency we could literally call “Other” to accurately signify its relative status. Put hard annual growth constraints on it, perhaps only inflation adjustments. Require every piece of congressional legislation or Presidential edict to address the expected impact on “Other.” And who gets to decide “necessary/useful”? Aye, and there’s the rub.
Notice that none of the pillars of the Tea Party address social conservative issues. That is what makes them truly distinct from the repubs, and also what may allow them to recruit Tea Party dems. Find some libertarian orientated dems that are fiscally conservative, but socially moderate or liberal, and back them from the Tea Party in primaries. And if those fiscally conservative dems win their primary and end up running against a socially conservative but fiscal RHINO repub, the Tea Party should even back them in the general. We could even say we support the Occupy Wall Street call for an end to bailouts and Obama style crony capitalism, and only oppose their call to end honest middle american capitalism and free enterprise.
In a way the defeats of 2006 and 2008 were good for the long term. First the shock of defeat finally impelled the repub leadership to listen to the Tea Party faction, and purge the Bush/Buchanon/Rove style repubs. The Bush/Buchanon/Rove brand, where they were only truly conservative on useless social issues, and RHINO on fiscal and big gov issues, were ruining the repub brand. Now that most of the fiscal RHINOS are finally purged, the repub party has a real chance to form a lasting majority. The election of the uncontested Obama majority also allowed the whole country to realize that dem style big spending leftism was not the answer.
The final challenge for the repubs is to realize that supporting capitalism and free enterprise does not mean unconditional support for big corporations and the rich. If the corporations and the rich just want gov to leave them alone, and not be oppressed by stupid big gov policies, like Boeing and Gibson Guitar, then we should definitely stand by them.
But if the rich or corporations are practicing crony capitalism by lobbying for special tax breaks, special favors from gov, or bailouts, or regulations that screw their compeditors but not them, then we must vigorously oppose them. The Tea Party and repubs should try to bolster small business, instead of going along with the rich country club wall street faction. One good way to do this is ending special interest tax deductions in exchange for a revenue neutral lowering of overall rates. Another is by deregulation, especially by targeting regs only against the truly risky practices of the big guys, while leaving small and medium local businesses completely alone. Remember that most of those wall street types supported Obama anyway, what do we owe them? Supporting capitalism does not necessarily mean suporting all capitalists, most especially not supporting the kind of crony capitalism that both Obama and Bush practiced.
Amen, Walter!
What a wonderful article. I’ve never read a better summary of why the Tea Party and GOP need each other.
So for those of us who are socially conservative what exactly do we do?