~ by Lee Cary
The Tea Party will not be perceived as, nor in reality become, a thoroughly authentic movement until it declares its independence from the Republican Party. And then demonstrates it.
Three-four million Republicans didn’t visit their assigned polling place November. And, as the autopsy of the Romney campaign winds down, all explanations for Romney’s defeat must face this fact:
Millions of Republican voters didn’t deem his candidacy worthy of their vote.
Why?
We can blame low-information Obama voters (an exercise in futility); a feckless Romney campaign that played softball in a hardball league (a 2008-like train wreck that spanned months); a Fourth Estate that is a loyal adjunct of the Obama Administration (so what’s new?); voter fraud (gee, that’s totally unexpected); and lay some blame on the Republican Governor of New Jersey (who once said that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street had a lot in common).
For its part, the Republican Establishment now blames the quality of candidates supported by the Tea Party movement, implying that the Tea Party shares responsibility for their loss in November.
But that doesn’t explain the reality of millions of Republicans not voting.
In the room of excuses, those millions are the big elephant.
Elsewhere, in the halls where the big political pachyderms gather, it’s been decided to delineate a separation between the Party and that movement that began February 19, 2009, on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, when CNBC Business News Network editor Rick Santelli described the government’s plan to refinance mortgages as “promoting bad behavior” and suggested holding a Chicago Tea Party in July.
Today, at the terminus of the initially ill-advised strategy to keep a cautious and cordial distance between the G.O.P. and the Tea Party – whose members and supporters were largely rank-and-file Republican voters – the pachyderms have decided to eat their own, again.
Another Republican circular firing squad added to a long list of precedents.
Had the professional operatives, consultants and politicians of the G.O.P. chosen, back in 2009, to tact into the wind of offering encouragement, and when the liberal media viciously attacked Tea Party people, voiced their full-throated support for the movement, who knows where we’d be today?
It’s too late now.
Now the G.O.P. Establishment clearly perceives the Tea Party movement as a liability going forward.
(One wonders: Had Obama lost the election, would the Democrats be blaming it on the Occupy Wall Street people?)
Meanwhile, how the movement perceives itself these days isn’t clear.
Did it reach its nadir on Election Day in November 2010, and die in 2012?
So what comes next? Perhaps this:
It’s time the Tea Party movement re-commits to its principles, and de-commits to being an ex-officio, auxiliary function of the Grand Old Party…for love of country.
Excerpts from George Washington’s Farewell Address 1796:
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty…
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
From Poyntz C. on Facebook
I have said that it would be the death of the GOP if the TEA Party split from the Republicans. Im still not willing to say thats what needs to happen, yet, but it may be the time to start the discussion. A serious discussion because the party establishment is showing us the door.
The signal is being sent – loud and clear – that the GOP establishment believes the opposite; namely, that a perceived alignment between the GOP and the Tea Party has damaged it, meaning the GOP. To admit that the two are not currently “split,” illustrates an opportunity.
Should the Tea Party be recognized as a free-standing, non-partisan movement (which doesn’t mean it isn’t fixed on a firm ideology, because it surely is that), it gains strength. And when it stands with selected GOP candidarents, it lends independent strength to their candidacy.
I agree with your statement that it may be time to start the discussion. The GOP establishment, though, has already made a decision.
From Major D. on Facebook
And I would simply disagree for many reasons. This is a golden opportunity for conservatives of all stripes to step forward and exert the same level of advocacy and influence within the party to return it to its rightful stance. The “I’ll just take my ball and go play somewhere else” attitude is juvenile and counter productive. While much of what the author states is true on a national level, it is highly inaccurate at the local level in many areas, especially here in NC where we as a swing state “went red” for the first time in over a century, gaining veto-proof majorities in both houses of the State Legislature and a GOP Governor, as well as returning a conservative majority to the State Supreme Court, largely due to the grassroots efforts. Unity will be built much faster by looking for reasons to work with one another rather than defining terms under which others will be allowed to cooperate with them.
Major D., you write, sir: “This is a golden opportunity for conservatives of all stripes to step forward and exert the same level of advocacy and influence within the party to return it to its rightful stance.” With the exception of the Reagan era (under whose Presidency the gov’t grew, as did revenue) the “rightful stance” of the GOP has not been to be conservative. If you think Nixon and the Bush presidents governed as “conservatives,” then we, sir, have different definitions of the term.
My advanced age oviates being “juvenile,” sir. (Ad hominem arguments carry no weight.) As to “conterproductive” – to whom? The GOP, as Poyntz C. notes above your comment, is showing you folks the door.
“While much of what the author states is true on a national level…” – that is the range of my aim, thinking that the Tea Party aims/aimed to be a national movement.
“Unity will be built much faster by looking for reasons to work with one another rather than defining terms under which others will be allowed to cooperate with them.” I agree – I think, because I’m uncertain what you mean by “defining terms.” “Working together,” though, does not mean living together.
Consider the possibility – a reality IMHO – that there are many old school Democrats and unaligned voters whose fundamental partisanship is to the nation rather than to a “party,” and that more than a few might take an interest in the Tea Party if they weren’t convinced that joining it is equivalent to joining the Republican Party.
From the beginning of the Tea Party movement the plan has been to gain influence in Federal and State Governments by challenging establishment Republicans in primaries and if successful then electing the Tea Party candidates in the general election. Most people would suggest this strategy has been somewhat successful as the push back from the liberal media and the Republican establishment would seem to confirm. The Tea Party members following this strategy likely do not consider themselves Republicans, we are independent TP members using the Republican party to our advantage. We have already de-committed ourselves.
If we are to abandon this strategy for something else because the Republican establishment is fighting back or for whatever reason, then the something else needs to be defined. How does declaring our independence from the Republican Party increase our influence in Federal and State Governments? Are we to assume that the major parties will start running more conservative candidates in order to get our votes? How do we recruit our candidates if we don’t have a party apparatus to offer them? Our candidates running as Republicans receive millions of votes in the general elections just because they are on the Republican ticket; will these old school Democrats that join our cause make up the difference?
Since I have already de-committed to the Republican Party I am willing to consider declaring my independence if that leads to increasing Tea Party influence relative to our current strategy. But I have not been convinced that it will.
Response to Donald Mellon:
Sir: With respect, I draw your attention to the site for the “Denton County Republican Tea Party” at http://dentongop.org/clubs/denton-county-republican-tea-party/ . I live in Denton County and don’t attend their meetings, because I’m no longer a Republican. I don’t take this arrangement – stated, or unstated – as being an anomaly re. Tea Party-GOP alignment.
The “something else” that needs to be defined, IMHO, is simple independence. In other words, non-alignment with any particular political party. As well as the TP intention to not become a conventional political party – a long-lived entity that is rapidly becoming an anachronistic political model in America.
“How do we recruit our candidates if we don’t have a party apparatus to offer them?” What “party apparatus?”
“Since I have already de-committed to the Republican Party I am willing to consider declaring my independence if that leads to increasing Tea Party influence relative to our current strategy. But I have not been convinced that it will.”
Fair enough, sir. But isn’t your professed de-commitment a de facto declaration of your personal independence from any conventional political party? Sounds like you’re there already. Our only difference is that I won’t commit to a movement that remains aligned with a political party. The two big ones have failed the nation.
After much thought I have finally arrived at a sure fire can’t miss way to get out Tea Party candidates elected. And it will be simple and easy for it only involves a name change. We just call ourselves “The Socialist Tea Party of America”. Of course we will still be conservatives but the media will have to stop criticizing us for fear of denigrating socialism and all those voters that have been schooled into believing the greatness of socialism, being the idiots they are, will flock to our conservative causes. And since our supporter are members of the informed voter community they will understand the reason for our name change and continue to support us.
Don, you never cease to charm with your acerbic wit. Lee Cary is a gifted writer and makes an impassioned case for his cause. I and millions of Republicans across the country share his frustration. But the history of third party movements offers little encouragement for Mr. Cary’s position. The wisdom of the Tea Party movement was that it did not go the rout of other third party movements. That rout is the road to irrelevance. The Tea Party recognized the political assets of the Republican Party and invited itself, through shared values, to a seat at the table. Now the task is to move to the head of that table. The third party rout would immediately put the Tea Party at the head, but of a very small and insignificant table. What Tea Partiers need to realize is that the Tea Party has much more in common with rank and file Republicans than it does with Republican leadership. This is a huge asset and the Tea Party must learn to capitalize on it. The Tea Party should, to the extent that it has not already done so, recruit within the Republican Party. Befriend and co-opt the rank and file. Then ride this wave to victory. As Dick Army suggested, the Tea Party should ride in and take over the Republican Party. The work will be demanding but the rewards will be great. The midterm elections provide the next big opportunity. The one caution I would add is to encourage Tea Party members to maintain dual membership. Do not allow the Tea Party to be swallowed by the Republican Party. If this is done right, the small fish will eat the bigger one. Bon appétit.
Terrell, your comment is clear and well-structured. Unfortunately, though, it beats a straw man not found in the article that prompted it wherein I don’t advocate that the Tea Party movement morph into a third political party. That would quickly drain its influence.
I merely advocate that it establish its independence from the G.O.P., which currently takes its vote largely for granted.
You write, sir: “The one caution I would add is to encourage Tea Party members to maintain dual membership. Do not allow the Tea Party to be swallowed by the Republican Party. If this is done right, the small fish will eat the bigger one. Bon appétit.”
The first sentence of that quote is, IMHO, incongruent with the second. In the real sea, the big fish eat the small ones. And there are no signs on the horizon that the Tea Party movement will become the “big fish” in the G.O.P. No “Bon appétit.”
Would that it was otherwise, sir. Que sera, sera.