This is the fifth in my series of op-eds for Liberty Features Syndicate, which cleared September 14th. I’m told it was picked up by at least one newspaper so I guess I could have added this to my “in print” series.
When over a million people gather in one place to speak about issues, that may be the maturing of a political movement. Add in the thousands who attended related 9-12 events across the country or gathered to greet a bus caravan dubbed the Tea Party Express and the number approaches 2 million. These are not just voters, but activists motivated for a cause – and they are the people who can truly win elections by being the ground force both local and national candidates need to succeed.
In seeing this march on Washington, one is reminded of the last large issue-based conservative movement. In the 1980’s a group coalescing around social issues, particularly abortion, eventually became known as the Christian Coalition and attempted to become a dominant political force in the Republican Party. While they greatly assisted in the elections of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the religious Right eventually grew disillusioned with the process and drifted away from political activity. Similarly, much of the impetus behind the TEA Party cause stems from fiscal irresponsibility by Beltway politicians of both parties – but there are a large number of social conservatives allied in the cause too.
To address this prospective rift between fiscal and social conservatives, one needs to find common ground. But the most fervent social conservatives support what the deficit hawks and libertarians in the movement see as big government in the form of legislating morality, such as Constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage. The perceived ignorance of those two issues by the Republican Party was the straw that broke the camel’s back, splitting social conservatives away from the GOP fold. Those voters staying home helped defeat the Republicans in 2006 and 2008.
Despite these electoral defeats, all but a handful of Republicans inside the Beltway seem to be wary of embracing the fiscal conservatism of the TEA Party movement much as they eschewed the values voters’ agenda over the last two decades. Taking these voters for granted without addressing their “red meat” issues comes at a great risk for GOP strategists, especially in states and Congressional districts which used to be solidly Republican but swung toward President Obama and, especially, the “Blue Dog” Democrats over the last few cycles.
The answer may be in a renewed push for Tenth Amendment rights, which over time have been eroded by the federal government overreaching into issues more properly defined and addressed by the several states. Most tend to think of the federal stranglehold on state purse strings as the greatest example of this usurpation, but social conservatives can point to abortion as one issue which would be correctly more worthy of argument at a state level. Moreover, the current law on abortion was decided by federal judicial fiat rather than by the legislative process, and creating law from the bench is another common enemy despised by advocates across the TEA Party political spectrum.
To succeed in their political goals, the newly-formed coalition of 9-12 will have to make a few internal compromises between fiscal and social hardliners. The overall idea they have of supporting Constitutional and limited government is a very sound one, and it’s an idea which has a number of enemies already bent on ridiculing and marginalizing the very thought of government for and by the people, with decisions made mostly at the local level.
The mandate for change didn’t end with the 2008 election; on the contrary, that call for change has only just begun and the events of 9-12 proved the point.
Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.
