Politics And The Tea Party Movement

Mark Levin and Glenn Reynolds touched on some critical points for everyone interested in politics in this video interview. I wanted to follow them up with a brief item on politics, the GOP and the Tea Party Movement because the concepts are so important. Watch the video for the background.

In terms of politics today, common sense has been replaced by DC and, in some cases, Statehouse conventional wisdom.

My points are these: any reform for the GOP, or even DC as a whole, must come from outside the beltway; if the Tea Party Movement becomes a Third Party play, it would be especially disastrous and achieve the opposite of what it is intended to achieve; and to the extent it is practical, it should remain inter-partisan to some degree. My reasoning below.

As for reforming the GOP, the Reagan model was an insurgent, or grass roots model and is the only one that has produced a broadly popular President over time for the GOP in the last 30 years. The Northeastern GOP establish, both locally and at the Federal level, has all but conceded to the Democrats. And the DC GOP establishment is, by definition, of DC and just as broken as the overall politics of the town itself.

The above are all more interested in gaining the helm of a large ship of state at some point in time, than righting the ship. And the ship is in trouble. But the business of both establishment individuals and coalitions is now government. They are only interested in governing better than Democrats, not governing less, as government has become their power base, as well as their bread and butter, in some cases. At best, all they can offer are patch work solutions. In the end, they grow government with that approach, only perhaps more slowly, or in a different direction than Democrats.

As for a potential Third Party out of the Tea Party movement, that would both weaken any remaining conservative to moderate wing of the Democrat Party, while putting the Republicans into exile politically, perhaps for decades, if not forever. Building the coalition to establish a third party as a source of any genuine power would take years. By then, an even more Liberal Democrat Party would have led America so far Left due to an iron clad grip on Federal power, any notion of eventual reform would be pointless. It is simply not a viable option because of the current aggressive liberal agenda.

As for partisanship and the Tea Party movement, yes, it will most often find itself aligned with the GOP, to the extent they can be reformed. But we should remember the Reagan Democrat. Many of them may now define themselves as independents and they still represent a large part of America.

Said people are needed for any effective reform movement on a national scale. To alienate them by being hyper-partisan would be counterproductive to building the coalition that must emerge.

The way to build it is by advocating principles first, not personalities, or political parties.

Only a large movement of people interested in liberty, lower taxes and less government to the voting booths in 2010 and 2012 can turn back the big government, liberal tide currently sweeping DC. And everything and only those things that can be done to keep it excited, inclusive and growing going forward makes sense.

The Levin/Reynolds video is here.

Comments

[Steve C.]

Things really haven't changed so much over the years. At least 20 years ago, PJ O'Rourke described the Republican Party platform as "just like the Democrats, only with the death penalty". And that was in the age of Reagan.

I do think the Tea Party movement could be an invaluable grass roots force, pushing the Republicans more toward their original principles and as necessary making common cause with Democrat politicians. Much more influential "outside the tent pissing in" to steal from LBJ. Could it prosper as an issues based rather than ideological organization? Possibly. It would cut against the grain of history. Most issues based movements are either co-opted into the existing parties or die out when their issues are co-opted.

[IslamoLlama]

Shorter Dan:
Don't let your disgust with the last 8 years of failure keep you from voting straight ticket Republican. Because if we don't win the next few elections in a landslide, game over man. Game over.

"-- Only a large movement of people interested in liberty, lower taxes and less government to the voting booths in 2010 and 2012 can turn back the big government, liberal tide currently sweeping DC. And everything and only those things that can be done to keep it excited, inclusive and growing going forward makes sense. --"

That's why the key is to keep excluding and ostracizing as many impure RINOs as possible. Now that Specter has hit the curb, you need to keep kicking moderates out of the party. And don't bend on issues like gay marriage or civil rights or government regulation or budgets or immigration. If you only appeal to the homophobic white millionaires, you'll have that majority you are looking for in no time.

Keep telling yourselves, "This is a conservative right-leaning nation", but don't ask yourself what "conservative" or "right-leaning" actual says about any given individual voter.

Purity, purity, and more purity. That's the ticket.

Also, throw in a little more talk of secession and militant insurrection. That'll work wonders for you.

[David R. Graham]

Strong concur, principles first, several obvious reasons. Suggest these, which include yours, those in WSJ yesterday and Tea Party sentiment, which is seeking polymerization of principles:

National Sovereignty

International Responsibility

Economic Liberty

Social Independence

Moral Participation

[southdakotaboy]

This is why it is so important now to work against Obama and the left winger's economic plans. Most conservatives are less dependent on the government for what they need. If we withdraw as much as possible from this economy it will make Obama's plans fail that much faster.

Obama and the left wing media can only cover up the failure for so long. Part of the reason Regan won was because of the economic destruction of Carter's policies.

It is important to remember Obama and the Dems need us on the right to keep working hard, buying stuff, and basically fix the leaks that start. If we stop doing all the bailing the Dems ship will sink fast enough that they won't be able to do that much harm.

[xiaoding]

Thank you for the post from irrelevant world. Your advice will keep conservatives out of power forever. No party...no representation. You present a choice that is death.

Only a third, and a fourth, and a fifth party can change the government. But, by all means, take the lazy way out, it costs less in effort, and you truly get what you pay for.

EPIC FAIL.

[drank]

A successful third party would become the "second party", and the Republicans would die a well-deserved death (exactly as happened in the 1850s, when the Republicans supplanted the Whigs). The US Constitution ensures that there will be exactly two primary political parties, although sometimes (as in Florida 2000) third parties can swing a very tight election.

So if you really think you can mobilize a large political coalition on Tea Party issues, and agree that those issues are very poorly represented in the current Republican coalition, then a third party seems like the best way to go. Perot did surprisingly well in 1992 on similar issues.

[Rick Pellicciotti]

I couldn't agree more with this analysis. It is a seriously bad mistake to even consider a third party. It is also very disappointing to me to see the politicians moving in and trying to take over the tea party movement. I also hate to see disagreement and dissention in the ranks of the tea party participants. As a group we need to focus on two issues. 1, smaller government. 2, stop the spending spree. Anything else is just a distraction. We also need to try to keep this to these core issues and away from anti-obama or anti-democrat as much as possible. Why? Because the news media will seize on the one anti-obama kook with a hateful sign at a tea party and miss the true message completely.

[Foobarista]

For my part, my reference voter is an Indian software engineer in Silicon Valley who has a couple of relatives running restaurants (or liquor stores, etc). This guy is probably a "lapsed Hindu" who pays attention to the rituals and such things, but isn't "hard core". He's basically libertarian, but not in a weird, extreme way. He's well-educated, makes a decent income, and is married to another software engineer, whose combined income puts them near the magic $250K income level, but they feel far from "rich".

This guy is caught between a "cultural" distaste for hard-core, red-meat, white Christians from far away versus "nice" Prius-driving vegan liberals who sound far more accepting (and who are nearby).

On the one hand, India is crawling with religious fanatics of all varieties, and he's hugely distrustful of "political religion". On the other hand, the very reason he's here is because free enterprise made Silicon Valley a far better place for him and his family than India, and he learned about the silliness of the License Raj at the dinner table at home. (And yet a third consideration: even though India is a booming place for some sorts of tech, SV is still the place to be if you really want to do serious innovation and invention as opposed to coding up other people's designs, which is why he doesn't go home.)

How do we get this guy's vote and get him to participate in the conversation?

[Dan Riehl]

"How do we get this guy's vote and get him to participate in the conversation?"

Hopefully by pointing out that the opportunities he came here for will be stifled by overly liberal policies. Along with that, if he understood that civil order based upon moral values is noptthe same as religious extremism, he might be more open to the Right. Really, just back to basic principles and staying away from divisive tactics used only to drum up the base. But we can still address the "moral," purely for the sake of civil order.

[jgalt]

This is a nice piece of status quo agitprop bullshit, but it's nothing more than a piece of propoganda.

There are already 3 parties - Republicans, Democrats ... and Non-Voters.

In the 2008 Presidential Election, only 138 million Americans voted. This represented just 56.8% of eligible voters. Roughly half voted Republican - meaning that Republicans are able to attract only about 30% of eligible voters. A formal third party would attract at least that many voters without even trying hard.

It is the non-voters, many of whom you see entering politics for the first time in their lives at the Tea Parties, that represent a potent political force for a return to Constitutional America. And it is what is required to end the political oppression we are facing at the hands of two parties that BOTH stand for huge government intervention in our lives.

[Ben]

Foobarista,

If your guy is like the Indians I know, he may find the Prius-driving liberals "nice," but he is also utterly disgusted by their hedonism. He may be turned off by hardcore fundamentalist Christians, but he also does not want his kids going to school and being indoctrinated on issues like homosexuality and transgender issues.

In fact, the Indians I know are not bothered at all by most of the Republican social issues positions, and they really like Bobby Jindal. Their main problem is that having lived in the hell that is India, they are attracted to the Democrats' income redistribution and "free healthcare" plans. So the key is to educated such folks on why these are really, really dumb ideas.

[Pete Peterson]

The Libertarians have been hearing this same argument since Ron Paul was a baby in the manger and Russell Means was tasting his first fire water. It's tired. IMAO I think it would take less time to start fresh with this new momentum than to try to "fix" the Republican Party. For this reason And that we welcome disaffected Democrats, Independents And Libertarians we're in the streets 'without' the Republican imprimatur.

It's over. As the man said, "they won."

[Jim]

I don't buy the idea of reform. I don't care how far left the Democrats take the country, reform will never work because that just means slowing the Democrats. Take a goal such as abolishing the income tax. Run on that every single election. Who cares if you lose 9 out of 10 elections. The one win erases every Democrat tax hike in the past 100 years.

[readerer]

@Jim

But Jim ... Republicans aren't against tax hikes. Ronald Reagan lowered the top tax bracket down from 90% and the result was a flood of new government revenue. That's why he lowered tax rates! He wanted more revenue!

Republicans hate high tax rates, but they love tax dollars. They want to raise them in what they perceive is the most efficient way - by lowering tax rates. But as to government spending? Hell yes they want government spending same as Democrats because that is how they get rich stealing from us and it is what they derive their power from.

Democrats and Republicans BOTH want higher government receipts and spending. It's only a matter of degree. Which is why it's pointless from a fiscal conservative perspective to spend much time debating which party to vote for. They're both for the same evil - big government.

Republicans = Big Government
Democrats = Bigger Government Than Republicans Want

[mark l.]

"Republicans = Big Government
Democrats = Bigger Government Than Republicans Want"

sad but always true.
neither party can be trusted.

the best we could hope for is gop in house only. Newt sure whipped on clinton.

[unseen]

education and primaries votes are the answer. look at what the threat of a primary election did for Spector. If we can get people to run as reps in the primary that are not beholden to the Rep party then we break that control. Palin is a good example. I think if the rep party gave her nothing not one cent she would still be able to raise the money needed to run a national campaign. I know if a fiscal conservative ran within the party but not of the party I would vote for him.

[Bob]

Q: How do we get this guy's vote and get him to participate in the conversation?

A: Hopefully by pointing out that the opportunities he came here for will be stifled by overly liberal policies.

He's given the choice of models between the rampant prosperity of the Clinton years versus the Bush era of corruption, ineptitude and economic collapse. He would now be better off had his investment portfolio been put in the deep freeze for the entire Bush administration, so effectively did Bush-era economic policies negate any gains he might have made. And you have so little respect for his intelligence that you think he'll sell out to you over petty concerns about income tax rates?

----------------------

"if he understood that civil order based upon moral values is not the same as religious extremism, he might be more open to the Right."

In other words, just ignore the inherent religious extremism and xenophobia of the conservative movement, and pretend that the same people who excuse lawlessness, torture and systematic and widespread lying to the American public might by any distant stretch of the imagination be considered to have "moral values."

[Foobarista]

Personally, I'll admit that I think that neither party can be trusted with Washington-level power. Maybe the thing is just too darn huge and has to be decentralized in a big way, since there's no way any large collection of humans can be that close to trillions of dollars of other people's money without being entranced by it and wanting to wet their beaks. I don't think D or R (or Socialist or Libertarian) would matter much here...

One crazy idea I've been playing with is to abolish the idea of direct federal taxes. Let the states collect all the taxes, and have the federal government publicly bill the states for their share of its services. This would restore the states to their rightful place as the main actors in government.

States dominated by left-liberals will have high taxes, and states dominated by others will have lower taxes, and the "Washington royal tithe" would be hotly debated - and would be made very visible to all. Let the tax competition games begin!