The events leading up to Primary Day 2010 were hardly spawned by some baseless "anti-incumbent" craze.
The spin began even before Primary Day. According to ABC News, it was an "anti-incumbent" sentiment. Pennsylvania's Democrat Governor Ed Rendell tried to assign blame to the weather for the impending loss by Arlen Specter, claiming, "The rain hurt. No doubt about it."
But rain and sunshine notwithstanding, in several key May 18 primary races, the mood of the general public has been unmistakable. It represents a clear continuation of the bombshell that hit the liberal establishment in Massachusetts and across America in January when Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley. The United States Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy since 1962 was turned over to a Republican. Perhaps the sun would not even rise the next day.
On May 8 at the Utah GOP Convention, incumbent Republican Senator Bob Bennett, by all accounts a "good moderate," was given the boot. Tim Bridgewater and Mark Lee who defeated him (and who will face each other in a June 22 primary election) are inarguably more conservative and no darlings of the Beltway insiders. Likewise, in the Kentucky Republican Primary, Rand Paul, who is aptly described as the "Tea Party Candidate," beat Trey Grayson, whose allegiance was clearly with the Party Establishment.
Career politicians and liberal Democrats in both parties are rattled. According to their propaganda partners on the nightly news, the 2006 and 2008 elections exhibited a willful turning point for "mainstream" America, which we were told had relegated individual liberty and self-reliance to the ash heap of history, and was wholly embracing the brave new world of socialism and the nanny state. How else could the installation of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and eventually, Barack Obama as the leaders of the Federal Government possibly be interpreted?
In fact, it is by an entirely different set of forces that the situation must be explained, and without the sweeping inconsistencies of the liberal Democrat/media "spin." Unfortunately for the American Left, it is altogether unlikely that the mindless pragmatists of the Democrat Party will figure this out before November. So, barring electoral fraud on a scale that massively eclipses the antics of ACORN in 2008, the stage is set for an electoral earthquake of unprecedented scale.
The events leading up to Primary Day 2010 were hardly spawned by some baseless "anti-incumbent" craze. Senseless fads among the grassroots cannot honestly be deemed culpable in a trend of this magnitude. Nor has it been random in its origins and direction. In fact, it was a refinement of the very sentiments, expressed in a far different manner, that resulted in the disasters of the past two major election cycles.
America is, and has long been, averse to the prospects of an incessantly bloating and encroaching government. So when the Republican Party revealed itself to be increasingly detached and indifferent to the principles for which it was granted the majorities in both Houses of Congress in 1994, and ultimately in the White House in 2000, the public backlash became inevitable. However, rather than recognizing this attitude among the electorate and responding positively to it, the liberal political machine seized on the situation as an opportunity to put the nanny state on the fast track.
The plan was to implement such a colossal infrastructure of the socialist state that it would overwhelm any who might have even the slightest intention of ever dismantling it. Thereafter, irrespective of any tepid attempts to rein it in, the statist juggernaut would remain in some form as the new order for America in perpetuity, growing and metastasizing as such monstrosities invariably do, and immune to the attacks of any who dare oppose it.
Initially, it appeared that the scheme would work. Republicans, partly from fear of the overblown Obama phenomenon, and partly out of their infuriating willingness to accept the "Gospel according to the Beltway insiders," were reluctant at first to stridently oppose the Democrat agenda. Rather, they sought to "fine tune" major Democrat initiatives in a "bipartisan" manner.
Yet something unexpected began to occur in Heartland America. Those citizens who knew from where their great country had come, and who now saw it being wrenched from them, began to coalesce and speak out. As they did, they (and any among the political class who dared face the truth) realized that this was no transient mood swing. Rather, it reflected a mindset of fierce determination among average citizens who were not ready to forfeit their country.
In the face of mocking media coverage wherein they were demeaned as "tea baggers," or castigated as "seditious" by the likes of Bill Clinton, the Tea Party supporters pressed forward. Assembling in vast numbers in major gatherings on April 15, July 4, and September 12 of 2009, they gathered to tell both the Federal Government and their less assertive fellow citizens of their abhorrence for the unconstitutional actions by which America is being transformed from its glorious founding.
Americans who have not been inoculated with the bilgewater of "political correctness" well know of the blessings of liberty and prosperity bestowed to them by their noble and industrious predecessors. And they well understand the responsibility charged to them in the Declaration of Independence, specifically that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."
This, therefore is the legacy of the modern "Tea Party" movement. It is neither Democrat nor Republican. Rather, it is pro-Constitution and therefore conservative. No doubt imposters and opportunists will seek to hijack it in the upcoming months. Some already have. But doing so will not be an easy trick.
This is not about personalities, but about principles. Those who can credibly claim to uphold such things will be catapulted to the forefront of the movement, and eventually to leadership positions in government. And any who seek to offer lip service in town meetings or at election time, with no real intention of following through once they assume office, will soon find themselves following in the footsteps of Bob Bennett, Trey Grayson, and Arlen Specter.
I agree that an electoral tsunami lies ahead this fall. One of my political science colleagues, who does some very high quality survey analysis, is talking about 99+ new Republicans in the House. Since all of these Republicans will be deeply indebted to conservatives for voting support, the implications of such a victory are pretty obvious. I expect a serious and possibly successful effort to repeal Obamacare (and anything else Obama manages to get into place by fall). What conservatives need to recognize, though, is that the antiObama mood is more populist than conservative. Don’t be surprised if some new Representatives prove to be very sympathetic to regulation of the financial sector that will be objectionable to many conservatives. Populism is a loose cannon in ideological terms. The ire of the people won’t be pointed only at the left. Most conservatives, though, are opportunistic enough to take their votes where they can get them, but I do think some interesting divisions between populists and conservatives will begin to emerge. Expect to see these divisions become important in 2012.
Obamacare is a total farce. Unfortunately, we are going to spend all of our political energy for some time repealing it. Somewhere China is laughing……..
The plan was to implement such a colossal infrastructure of the socialist state that it would overwhelm any who might have even the slightest intention of ever dismantling it. Thereafter, irrespective of any tepid attempts to rein it in, the statist juggernaut would remain in some form as the new order for America in perpetuity, growing and metastasizing as such monstrosities invariably do, and immune to the attacks of any who dare oppose it.
Our largest unfunded liabilities, running up over 100 trillion dollars, are relics of the New Deal and Great Society, respectively. Has this not been a successful strategy in the past? Are any of the bold, Tea Party conservatives poised to take their positions in the congress going to even contemplate broaching the subject of abolishing Social Security and Medicare? Abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Abolishing price and wage controls? Abolishing gun bans? Auditing and reforming the Federal Reserve? Abolishing speech codes, racial preferences, and “hate crimes”? Not a chance. Because if they are honest with themselves, 95% of the uber-constitutionalist Tea Party members wouldn’t have a word of it. And 10 or 20 years from now, the “Coffee Party” will rise up to take their place after all of these much-touted Tea Party politicians have become the power-obsessed incumbents, just as the Tea Party has risen up to take the place of the then-political-outsiders who swept congress with the “Contract with America” in 1994. Fashion and politics are cyclical.
Don’t forget that the Constitution makes no room for a third party in the power sharing. So even if I agreed with the Tea Party, AND they get some voter love, I would still be hosed!
Greatest country ever? Maybe once upon a time, but the Constitution is really showing its age.
I really admire what the Tea Party is trying to do. I really do. In fact, I would be even willing to try a lot of this free market nonsense if not for existence of China, and similar economic regimes.
But you can not compete against an entire nation as a corporation (well a small one sure), so I think we need more unity, not more individuality. Individuality and a frontier government is great for a frontier nation, but the US no longer fits that description.
We need a government with real goals in place not this meandering behemoth.
reply to Patrick Mulligan:
Of course you’re right–elected Tea Party reps would not abolish all of those programs, but you didn’t make clear why this would be the case. All of those programs have constituents–those who benefit from the ongoing existence and operation of the programs.
Unless the Tea Partiers plan to abolish 1st Amendment freedoms, these constituencies will exert influence on the Tea Party reps. The bold new rightwing reps will find that they need the support of lots of these constituents. Put differently, in all political systems, ranging from ancient empires to our own, those sectors of society with sufficient power, wealth, influence, prestige (and other resources) will seek to use the power of government to protect themselves.
In a country with something that at least resembles a capitalist economy, the imperative is protection against market forces. Apart from libertarians and a few economics professors, few people (or organizations) really want to be at the mercy of the market when they can negotiate for protection from it. This is why the libertarian/conservative belief that gigantic corporations are just big versions of mom-and-pop businesses (and do they really want to be at the mercy of the market?) is so naive.
So, however militant the Tea Partiers in office might be, give them a year or two and you’d find them acting just like Republicans and Democrats with respect to organized interests. This means that, regardless of how fervently the Tea Partiers believe in downsizing government, it won’t stay downsized for long. Powerful interests pump up government to get it as big as they need and then they keep it that way.
Come to think of it, I shouldn’t have taken for granted that Tea Partiers would not want to tamper with the 1st Amendment. Try this: A Tea Party majority in Congress could work on passing laws that would prohibit corporations, interest groups, unions, etc. from trying to influence members of Congress. Then they’d have to get some Tea Party judges on SCOTUS to uphold such laws. Wait a minute…this is beginning to sound familiar. Didn’t conservatives just utter love screams of approval at a recent Supreme Court decision that addressed this issue?
A Tea Party majority in Congress could work on passing laws that would prohibit corporations, interest groups, unions, etc. from trying to influence members of Congress. Then they’d have to get some Tea Party judges on SCOTUS to uphold such laws. Wait a minute…this is beginning to sound familiar. Didn’t conservatives just utter love screams of approval at a recent Supreme Court decision that addressed this issue?
Uhhh, did you familiarize yourself at all with the case in question? It’s kinda like that, except completely reversed. One portion of our extremely statist, draconian, anti-free-speech campaign finance law was reversed precisely because it violated first amendment rights. Tea Party people cheered because they kind of like first amendment rights. What you’re describing is if the Tea Party had passed first amendment-violating campaign finance laws and then gotten 5 Supreme Court justices who also opposed first amendment rights for corporations, unions, and their employees/members to uphold the first amendment-violating campaign finance laws that they passed. That was almost a real zinger though – touche.
Yes, I do know the case in question. My point is this: the Tea Partiers want to downsize government and they say they despise lobbyists, interest groups, etc. If government could be downsized, powerful interests would enlarge it again as soon as possible. The only way to prevent this would be to restrict the rights of Americans to attempt to influence government, i.e., restrict 1st Amendment rights. So I want to catch the Tea Partiers in a contradiction. Tea Partiers would be well-advised to support strong regulation of lobbying, regulations that make it difficult for persons and organizations to try to influence govt. etc. Except, of course, for the Tea Partiers themselves. They’d have to make an exception to their own agenda to leave room for them to work the system. This would be tough to pull off.
Again, the answer is smarter government, not less government. More chaos is not what we need to compete globally. We need less chaos.
Maybe people wouldn’t be so pissed off about taxes if they actually saw some real good come of them. Like, look at this dam! Or look at this nuclear power plant! Or let’s rennovate huge sections of slums in inner cities! These tasks are tertiary considerations at best while unaccountable welfare paymetns of both personal and corporate varieties are priority number 1. Is it any wonder we are floundering?
Gestell,
The only thing about constitutional rights for lobbyists, corporations, unions and interst groups that creates a moral hazard is that politicians have no integrity or accountability. But there’s no real need to squelch others’ first amendment rights – just become the squeakier wheel. That’s what the Tea Party and similar groups are doing right now, and if nothing else, they’ve made a splash and established a strong presence. Buyoff money is nice, but at the end of the day, all you need is enough pissed off people congregated around the same cause to put the squeeze on government (peacefully or otherwise).
Buyoff money is nice, but at the end of the day, all you need is enough pissed off people congregated around the same cause to put the squeeze on government (peacefully or otherwise).
Until those people get distracted, or bored, or have to get a job. I don’t see any real change at all coming as a result of the Tea Party.
I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad, though. I disagree with about 80% of what they say, but at this point, any change might be for the better.
Until those people get distracted, or bored, or have to get a job. I don’t see any real change at all coming as a result of the Tea Party.
I don’t see any major change coming from it either – not in the long-term. That was my original point. Conservatives and libertarians make poor activists precisely because they tend to get distracted with higher priorities until government becomes so intrusive that it cannot be ignored, and then as soon as they’ve beaten it back to it’s previous, already bloated and near-totalitarian size and scope they become comfortable again and go back to the other things they would rather be doing.
The left has much broader goals and ambitions, and it’s a lot easier to grant the government new powers than it is to take away old ones. So, for example, radical 1960′s SDS protesters, even though they were similarly short-lived, had a much larger long-term impact on society than the Tea Party will because the shift in power from individuals to government that they facilitated quickly became entrenched and nearly-impossible to reverse. The most transformational conservative presidents in the last century have probably been Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, and the cuts in the size and scope of government that they each made didn’t last a decade. The most transformational liberal presidents in the last century have probably been Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, and the programs they instituted still exist to this very day with virtually lock-step popular support despite the fact that they represent completely insurmountable long-term obligations. When you look back at the history books, the Contract With America and Tea Party are not going to be listed next to the New Deal and Great Society in terms of historical impact.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stand In The Gap and IC Politics, Michele . Michele said: RT @standinthegap: GOVT ISSUES WATCH => May Primaries and the Coming Electoral Tsunami http://dlvr.it/16qTM #912 #ocra #ucot #rs #tco … [...]