The Tea Party

It originally sprung up in opposition to out of control government spending. It has become a grass-roots movement centered around government fiscal responsibility. It has a tendancy to work outside the Republican party machinery, which has engendered the wrath of the GOP establishment.

It’s not unusual for a primary candidate to be scorned by the GOP establishment, simply because the candidate is considered a tea partier. Tea partiers felt like they were locked out of the 2012 convention. The GOP is highly critical of any tea party slip ups and magnifies them into major failures. Conversely, the GOP establishment seems to conveniently fail to give the tea party credit for its successes (Marco Rubio for example). It seems as if the GOP establishment now wishes the tea party would just go away.

Social Conservatives

They are concerned about government using its influence to push the country socially to the left. While they get pigeon-holed as the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage group, in the larger sense they are concerned about government policies that undermine family integrity (such as the welfare state) and an activist judiciary that (1) creates new rights out of thin air that push the country socially to the left, and (2) thwarts any attempt to reign in government social activism.

And, the GOP establishment hates them. They want their votes, but they don’t want them to speak. The aftermath of the 2012 election produced another flood GOP consultants blaming the loss on social conservatives.

Libertarians

You sometimes forget there is a libertarian wing of the Republican party (because it is so loosely tied to the party), but it’s there. When a libertarian leaning candidate emerges (as Paul did in the last primary), you realize how sizeable (and vocal) this group really is. Unfortunately, this group tends to pack up its toys and go home when it doesn’t get its way. Which, is exactly what the GOP establishment wants. If a group can’t be controlled, they would rather it not be part of the GOP. Libertarians (because they are so focused on individual liberty) are the least controllable of all. This is why they (like tea party activists) were shut out of the 2012 convention.

The core philosophy of libertarians is (1) the government should be limited to its constitutional functions, and (2) individual rights trump government and group “rights.” Not that far out there at all, really. Unfortunately, it’s easy to confuse the libertarian messenge with the libertarian messager. Both Ron Paul and the actual Libertarian party are much farther out onto the edge on a host of issues than the typical libertarian leaning Republican, giving many people the impression that libertarian is a code word for wacko. It’s not. It is though, the only wing of the GOP that attracts large numbers of college students and young voters (something conservatives of all stripes should be very aware of; if you can’t pull in young people, your movement will grow old and die).

The GOP establishment sees all three groups as more trouble than they are worth. Hence its constant maneuvering to silence, shut-out, and shut-down all three. But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?

The party of business and defense.

Is that enough? Can the GOP survive (much less flourish) emphasizing business and defense, while deemphasizing everything else? Obviously not, but that would seem to be the path the GOP establishment is taking the party down, as it continues to attempt to suppress the influence of the tea party movement, social conservatives, and libertarians.

Maybe it’s time the red-headed stepchildren focus on working with each other, instead or working with the GOP establishment. I’m not sure if this would take the form of another party, or a redheaded coalition within the GOP, but whatever form, it would certainly be more effective than the current situation.

Don’t think the three groups can work together? Social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives, which lines up the the tea party. Tea partiers want government to stay within its constitutional bounds, and so do libertarians. Libertarians are concerned about judges who legislate from the bench, as are social conservatives. When you lay it out, the three groups’ goals, they mesh nicely. Not perfectly, but there is a lot of overlap. Enough, certainly, to form a coalition.

Perhaps it’s time the redheaded stepchildren get together and quit being children.

PS

And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Despite what the typical liberal would tell you, conservatives are not insane. Still, when asked what conservatives should do to take back the country from its current liberal domination you often hear conservatives recycling the same old ideas that haven’t worked in the past. Let’s take a look at some of the things that haven’t worked, and then quit acting as though we’re insane.

A Conservative Messiah

In Reagan we had the closest thing to a conservative messiah we’ll ever get, and we weren’t able to permanently transform the Republican establishment or American society. Sadly, as soon as Reagan left office the Republican Party reverted to its previous form, and America once again started to drift left.

The left follows Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Rule 12 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” In other words, make a movement about a man, then attack the man. One of the great strengths about the Tea Party movement has been its lack of a central figure for the left to attack. I remember several times this spring seeing Democratic operatives (1) express frustration over not having an individual in the Tea Party movement to attack, and (2) attempt to make the Tea Party movement about a single person so they could attack that person.

Failing in their attempt to make the Tea Party movement about a single person, they attacked the group as whole. What did their attack accomplish? Nothing, the left’s attempts to attack the Tea Party movement—portraying its members as astroturf, racists, selfish, rich, uneducated, and even too well dressed—failed miserably.

It’s notable that the only people who want to make the Tea Party movement about an individual are those on the right that have already formed a cult-like following around an individual, and those on the left that want to personalize the movement so they can attack it. Neither have the best interest of the Tea Party movement at heart.

Movements that survive and grow over time are not about men, they are about ideas. Conservatism has survived because it is about the ideas and truths stated in The Declaration of Independence andThe United States Constitution: individual freedom and limited government; rights granted not by the government, but endowed by our maker. Creating a conservative messiah is a losing strategy for conservatism.

Third-Parties

Our “winner takes all” political system forces us into a two-major-party setup. The last time a major-party failed and was replaced by another was in the 1850’s (and it took the Civil War to actually end the Whig Party). Supplanting either of the major political parties would be a daunting—as in not going to happen in our lifetime—task.

What happens when a serious third-party does arise? In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt became upset with the Republican Party and formed a third-party: the Bull Moose Party. The result was a Democratic victory (Bull Moose 27%, Republican 23%, Democrat 42%). In 1992 people were so dissatisfied with George H. W. Bush’s lack of conservative principles it opened the door for Ross Perot to form the Reform Party. The result was another Democratic victory (Reform 19%, Republican 37%, Democrat 43%). Note the Democratic vote amount in both cases is in the low 40% range. The only thing these third-parties accomplished was to allow Democrats to win without getting a majority of the vote.

If we establish another serious third-party will the Republican Party move to the right in an effort to get those conservative voters back? They never have in the past, why would anyone think they would in the future? Establishment Republicans believe the effort to get anyone to cross party lines (whether Democrat or third-party) is too high to be worth the cost. It is easier to shift to the left and go after the non-committed moderate/swing voter. Yes Virginia, the practical effect of conservative third-parties has been to shift the Republican Party to the left. To them it’s just a marketing problem. If conservative third-parties are eating away at your right, you need to shift left to pick up more votes.

How many political third-parties can you name? At the moment there are at least 85; eighty-damn-five! How much political impact do these 85 third-parties have? None; nada; zero! Conservatives have put a lot of time and effort into third-parties and they have accomplished nothing. We need to abandon strategies like third-parties that don’t achieve conservative goals and refocus on strategies that will achieve our goals.

Political Action Committees

Special interest groups routinely form political action committees (PACs) to get their message out and influence elections. They are used heavily by groups from all parts of the political spectrum. Conservatives have invested heavily in PACs, and we’ve had good results from using them in the past, but only good results.

If PACs were the answer to our problem, the problem would have been eliminated long ago. Not only are conservative goals not being met, but we’re actually moving backwards. Political action committees have their place, but are not the solution to achieve conservative goals.

The Republican Party

Conservatives assumed that if they worked to elect Republicans it would help to achieve conservative goals. History has shown that assumption to be false. What have we gotten in return for our loyalty? A Republican Party dominated by big-government RINOs primarily concerned about maintaining their personal power.

What is the real goal of the Republican Party? To quote one local Republican Party website: “The Republican Party’s purpose is to search and find Republican candidates for all partisan and local non-partisan offices. Its role is to also support the Republican candidates who volunteer to run for an elected office.” In other words, elect Republicans (any Republican—tall, short, skinny, fat, conservative, liberal, honest, or dishonest; as long as they call themselves “Republican” the party’s goal is to elect them).

Conservatives must come to grips with a basic fact: the Republican Party does not share our goals and simply electing Republicans is not sufficient to achieve conservative goals.

Controlling the Republican Party from the Inside

It’s tempting to think we can take over the Republican Party by placing conservatives in key positions so they can influence the party’s direction. Unfortunately, that strategy is dependent on people and personalities. Many of today’s party insiders that are trying to move the party to the left joined the Republican Party during the Reagan era as solid conservatives. So what happened? Some have succumbed by the political equivalent of the Stockholm syndrome. Eventually conservative Republican insiders come to identify themselves as Republicans rather than conservatives. Their loyalty and self-interest shifts to the Republican Party. At that point they become establishment Republicans and part of the problem.

We also have to ask the obvious question: so what if we take control of the Republican Party from the inside? Have the bureaucrats in the Republican Party ever been able to control their office holders? Do Republican politicians take their marching orders from the head of the Republican Party? Would conservatives controlling from the inside have any more influence than current party members? No, no, and double no. Controlling the Republican Party from the inside will not achieve conservative goals.

I’m going to post the entire book to Red State one chapter at a time. This book was written as a “next step” for the tea party movement. The approach is different from what we’ve done in the past (“out of the box” would be a gross  understatement). But, given the recent election, the time is right for conservatives to  take a hard look at their past approach to politics and try some “out of the box” strategies.

For those that would like to read ahead, the entire book is available online at TheConservativeHand.com or in print form at Amazon.com (and yes, I am the author, so no copyrights are being violated by my posting the book here).

I sit here after the Republican catastrophe of 2008 and wonder what went wrong. The Republican Party has gone through many changes since I became interested in politics in the late ‘60s. The Republican and the Democratic parties were not that far apart at the time. While most would have pointed to economics as the biggest difference between the parties, Richard Nixon famously said “We are all Keynesians now.” How different could the parties have been if both were followers of economist John Maynard Keynes’ big government economic theories?

The Democratic Party started moving left in 1968. Their leftward shift has been relentless. Today ideas such as the redistribution of wealth, nationalization of health care, and removal of all abortion restrictions are not only accepted, but considered establishment Democratic thought. While conservatives are appalled at what has happened to the Democratic Party, the base of the Democratic Party believes in these ideas. For better or worse, the Democratic Party represents its members’ ideology.

The same cannot be said of today’s Republican Party.

A major shift in Republican thought took place with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, who had different ideas about economics, foreign policy, defense, and social issues. It was dubbed Reaganism. For the first time in a generation, the Republican Party became the driving force in shaping government policy. After four years of what the press called “radical, right-wing, conservative government” Reagan was reelected in 1984, winning 49 of 50 states (and coming within a few thousand votes of winning all 50 states). It was the most lop-sided presidential victory in American history.

In 1988 George H. W. Bush ran on a platform of continuing Reagan’s policies. Bush tied himself so closely to Reagan that many called the 1988 election Reagan’s third election. Bush won in a landslide, winning 40 states including Democratic strongholds California and New Jersey.

After the election it became apparent that the man who had once called Reagan’s economic proposals “voodoo economics” was no Reaganite. Bush advocated a “kinder and gentler” conservatism (with its implied message that conservatism was somehow unkind and ungentle), and governed from the center rather than from the right as Reagan had. The result was a 1992 loss to Democrat Bill Clinton. Bush only managed to carry 18 states, less than half the amount he carried in 1988 running as a Reagan conservative.

In 1994, a band of rogue Republicans in the House of Representatives proposed The Contract with America; ten legislative proposals rooted in conservatism. Their leader, Newt Gingrich, was roundly criticized by the press as being a radical conservative (Newsweek’s cover headlined “How the Gingrinch Stole Christmas”). The result was a major Republican victory. For the first time in 40 years, the Republicans took control of both houses of congress.

Everything was set for a Republican presidential win in 1996. Conservatism was on the rise while President Clinton’s liberal policies had been unpopular. The Republicans nominated…Sen. Bob Dole. He had been one of the “cooler heads” in the senate that had blocked the enactment of many of TheContract With America’s propositions. Bob Dole was a moderate and proud of it. He badly lost an election Republicans should have won. Strangely, many Republican insiders seemed happier losing with a moderate Republican than winning with a conservative.

George W. Bush ran in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative” (another Republican running on an implied message that there is something wrong with plain-old conservatism). Despite reassurances from people like Karl Rove that Bush “really got Reagan and conservatism,” few Reagan supporters would recognize the economic and domestic policies Bush implemented. Watching the series of bailouts implemented by the Bush administration, I heard Nixon’s words echoing in my head—“We are all Keynesians now.”

When Bush accepted the Republican nomination in 2000 the Republicans held majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives. By the time Bush left office the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in the senate (60 Democrat vs. 40 Republican) and an enormous majority in the House (257 Democrat vs. 178 Republican).

In 2008 the Republicans nominated John McCain. The most far left Republican candidate since, well ever! There were rumors in 2004 that the Democratic nominee (John Kerry) was going to ask McCain to be the VP candidate on the Democratic ticket. Imagine if anyone had floated that idea about Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan! Who knows if the McCain VP rumor was true, but the fact that it was taken seriously shows how far to the left McCain had been in the past.

McCain lost to the most radically left presidential candidate in history (carrying only 22 states). Other than McCain’s spirited defense of the war in Iraq, it was difficult to pinpoint the differences between McCain and Obama on any major issue.

We’re already hearing calls that the Republican Party needs to move left. This is a recurring theme after every election, regardless of outcome. We expect Democrats to shift left (that’s what they are—a leftist party), but the Republican Party’s continual move to the left leaves conservatives without a party truly representing their views or trying to achieve conservative goals.

The Conservative Hand – Part 4

I’m going to post the entire book to Red State one chapter at a time. This book was written as a “next step” for the tea party movement. The approach is different from what we’ve done in the past (“out of the box” would be a gross  understatement). But, given the recent election, the time is right for conservatives to  take a hard look at their past approach to politics and try some “out of the box” strategies.

For those that would like to read ahead, the entire book is available online at TheConservativeHand.com or in print form at Amazon.com (and yes, I am the author, so no copyrights are being violated by my posting the book here).

It has been thrilling to be part of the Tea Party movement, and see power move away from the political elite and back to the grass-roots. The sleeping giant has awakened and slowed the liberal freight train, but slowing the train isn’t enough. We must reverse its direction and set it on a conservative track. To do that we need more than protests and signs; we need a strategy to achieve conservative goals. This manifesto lays out a set of rules, procedures, and a new political structure that if implemented will do just that.

• We’ll look at how we got here and what hasn’t worked in the past, then make a commitment to stop doing those things (if you get nothing else from this book, please take away the idea that we must stop doing the things that don’t achieve our goals).
• Then we’ll create a new system—using some insights from economics and the free market system—that will achieve our political goals.
• Redefining ourselves and the other political players we interact with from our perspective will allow us to quit interacting with them based upon their definition of who they are, and start interacting with them based on our definition.
• We’re going to create a new political organization. Not a primary party (like the Republican Party) or an independent third-party (like the Reform Party). It will be located in between those two entities, being part primary party and part third-party—a second-party. This party will operate unlike any existing political organization.
• We’ll define a new standard for politicians: productivity. Rather than accept vague campaign promises, politicians will commit to accomplishing our goals.
• Borrowing some tools from the business world will enable us to create those goals and measure a politician’s productivity.
• We are going to formulate incentives for politicians that reward them for achieving our goals, and punish them for failing.
• Finally, we’re going to define a set of rules—something to guide us in our daily activities.

The result will be a new political framework that will allow us to achieve our political goal—enacting conservative legislation. Expect to hear frequent negative comments about this strategy (even from steadfast conservatives). After you’ve listened to their negative comments, listen to their solutions. Odds are they will just be rehashing the same old haven’t-worked-in-the-past ideas. It’s time we do something different—something that works.

Establishment Republicans and Republican politicians both jealously guard their positions and power. Sadly, many are anything but conservative. The term “Rockefeller Republican” is decades older than the term RINO (Republican in name only), but both stand for the same thing: a liberal leaning Republican. The current system—the Republican Party drifting to the left and no one closely examining their actions—works great for them. They aren’t going to be any happier with us than they are with the Tea Party movement.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I didn’t get involved in politics for fun, as a hobby, or because I have too much time on my hands. I became involved to achieve a set of goals—goals I know will create a better country for my family, children, and grandchildren. I’m sacrificing part of my life to achieve those goals. I don’t need good intentions or a strong effort from politicians, I need results. A politician that tries hard and fails needs to be replaced with a politician that tries hard and succeeds.

It’s time to unleash our conservative hand, leave our fingerprints on the political system, and put our country back on the right track.

I’m going to post the entire book to Red State one chapter at a time. This book was written as a “next step” for the tea party movement. The approach is different from what we’ve done in the past (“out of the box” would be a gross  understatement). But, given the recent election, the time is right for conservatives to  take a hard look at their past approach to politics and try some “out of the box” strategies.

For those that would like to read ahead, the entire book is available online at TheConservativeHand.com or in print form at Amazon.com (and yes, I am the author, so no copyrights are being violated by my posting the book here).

The Conservative Hand – Part 3

Economist Adam Smith addressed this same question. He recognized that the free market is made up of countless businesses all pursuing their own goals. With no central leadership or organization the free market system in many ways resembles chaos. Yet out of this chaos emerges a coherent system that produces a greater common good: an efficient and productive economy. Smith called this phenomenon the free market’s invisible hand.

In this book we’ll take concepts from economics and apply them in a new and unique way to politics. From the outside it will resemble chaos, but the result will be a coherent and efficient system that achieves the goals of the Tea Party movement. Our new system will produce a greater common good without centralized organization or leadership, because (like the free market system) it will be guided by an invisible force—the conservative hand.

I’m going to post the entire book to Red State one chapter at a time. This book was written as a “next step” for the tea party movement. The approach is different from what we’ve done in the past (“out of the box” would be a gross  understatement). But, given the recent election, the time is right for conservatives to  take a hard look at their past approach to politics and try some “out of the box” strategies.

For those that would like to read ahead, the entire book is available online at TheConservativeHand.com or in print form at Amazon.com (and yes, I am the author, so no copyrights are being violated by my posting the book here).

The Conservative Hand – Part 2

The Hatch Rule: if a GOP politician without a conservative record starts cozying up to the tea party, you can be sure he’ll veer back left as soon as he is out of danger of losing his seat.

Some lessons you just have to learn the hard way. Tigers don’t change their stripes, and RINOs don’t change their ways. We made a mistake believing this one would.

One way to prevent making the same mistake twice is to give the mistake a simple name as an easy reminder not to make that mistake again. “The Hatch Rule” will work just fine as a reminder.

The purpose is to bait someone on the right into doing something stupid.

The left would like nothing more than to capture on camera someone:

• yelling at a gay couple
• assaulting (shoving, hitting, etc…) a gay couple
• telling a gay couple to “go to hell” or using other obscene language
• getting in a gay couples face
• employees forcibly escorting someone from the premises (call the police if feel this is required)
• giving a gay couple the middle finger
• angrily scowling at a gay couple

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;  if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.  In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,  and the Lord will reward you.  – Proverbs 25:21-22

1. gets your opponent mad as hell
2. turns the opposing team into a unified group focused on one thing: kicking your butt
3. causes you opponent to double down on their efforts to defeat you

In the last decade, Georgia has become a hard-core Republican state. The entire machinery of the state government, as well as a significant part of local government, is in the hands of the GOP.

This GOP machine put another SPLOST on the July 31st primary ballot–a TSPLOST (transportation special local option sales tax). A series of regional 1% sales taxes that would last 10 years and be dedicated to transportation infrastructure improvement. They figured it would pass easily–SPLOSTs always do. The GOP establishment (from the governor down to small town mayors) came out and pushed hard for its passage.

It went down in flames–losing in 9 of the 12 regions. Where it passed, it passed by razor thin margins. Where it lost, it lost in landslides (63% no in the Atlanta region, 75% no in the mountains region). The reason no-voters gave was simple and clear: we don’t trust you.

These were Republican voters sending a message to Republican politicians. We don’t trust you– to keep your promises; to speak the truth; to walk the talk–we don’t trust you.

The rain of distrust fell so heavily that by the end of the night, Republicans with an “i” next to their name on the primary ballot were being added to the endangered species list.

GOP voters in Georgia have lost patience with GOP office holders, and have no compunction about kicking out an incumbent Republican who has let them down–none what so ever. What’s more, these voters are getting involved earlier and earlier in the election process.

• In 2010, they turned out in the general election to give the GOP big wins across the board.
• In 2012 they turned out in the primary to punish Republican incumbents that had let them down.
• In 2014, they’ll get involved early in the primary process to ensure their candidates get on the ballot.

This is why this election should raise alarm bells for those in the national GOP who think “business as usual” can go on forever (it can’t) and who think the tea party is losing steam (it isn’t). The tea party is transforming itself from a protest movement to a government reform movement dedicated to putting people in office who keep their promises and kicking out people who don’t;  from a reactive to a proactive movement;  from a movement of people looking to others to a movement of people saying “if I don’t do it, nobody will.”

This is the new landscape of GOP politics.

• The Tea Party
• The American Party

Abolish slavery and restrict the role of government in economic and social life.

Reduce the size of government and restrict the role of government in economic and social life.