Often I hear and see political observers make the comment, “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” Alas, many is the time they are correct – as an example the federal government has grown under administrations from both parties at an ever-increasing pace, to the detriment of freedom-loving Americans.
Some Americans have awoken from their political slumber to demand changes to the system. To use the old metaphor, these frogs found the heat in the cooking pot being turned up too quickly. Whether it’s because their economic situations rapidly deteriorated, they were alarmed at the unprecedented intrusion of government into the private sector, or they became more informed citizens by broadening their spectrum of news and information, that simmering cauldron became too hot for them to bear and they decided not to suffer in silence anymore. Hence you have the TEA Party movement.
There has always been a “throw the bums out” mentality among Americans but the cycle waxes and wanes on a regular basis depending on the national mood and economy. 2010 promises to be a peak in the cycle if you believe the conventional wisdom. But throwing the bums out means defeating the entrenched special interests who would like nothing better to see the opposition splintered and working at cross purposes.
Democrats win because they promise their core constituency something for nothing – it’s as simple as that. My purpose is to reiterate that nothing worthy in life comes for free, and there is a cost in what the Democrats promise. TEA Partiers have become well aware of that cost, which is not simply measured in dollars and cents, and that’s why they are speaking out.
If you took my core beliefs (political and otherwise) and distilled them into a political philosophy, you’d likely find that I fall on the shadowy line between libertarian and conservative. My biggest problem with libertarianism is that followers tend to be pro-abortion and against the projection of American military power where necessary, while my biggest problem with conservatism tends to come when some adherents demand legislating morality. (Perhaps that seems to be a contradiction, but I can explain further through later comments.)
Yet I proudly bear the label of the Republican Party. For all of its faults (and they are numerous) they at least have a relatively decent chance of winning in 90-95% of American precincts. The problem I have with third parties – despite the fact I like having multiple choices on my ballot on Election Day – is that they rarely win. Sure, my Libertarian friends will tell me that there are a number of state and local office holders sporting the Libertarian Party label but it pales in comparison to the number representing the two major parties.
That’s not to say I give the GOP carte blanche. Unfortunately the Beltway insiders who run the national party have the Bob Michel “go along to get along” strategy and when it’s left up to them they more often than not put their backing behind the most moderate – or even liberal – candidate they can find. Case in point: a special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District where, according to Erick Erickson at Red State, the GOP candidate could easily be to the left of our former beloved (or reviled) Wayne Gilchrest (h/t Blue Ridge Forum.) Tell me again: how many Republican principles is Dede Scozzafava following with that record? Note that it wasn’t the GOP voters in that district who had the say but the party bosses.
However, imagine the millions of TEA Partiers becoming active in their local Republican party apparatus. Admittedly, the outcome could be likened to that of herding cats but eventually the party stops picking Dede Scozzofavas and starts selecting more principled limited-government candidates to back.
But their job doesn’t stop there. As it should be, the Maryland GOP has a policy of not endorsing candidates before the primary (at least publicly). Thus, if there is a contested primary between a conservative Republican and a RINO it would be up to the local party faithful to educate their fellow Republicans about the merits of the conservative candidates on their own. The better informed voters nearly always make the right choice, and, once united, they can train their guns on the REAL enemy: the entrenched special interests in Washington and the 50 state capitals who feed on the cancer that is big government.
Those in power don’t normally give it up willingly or easily, though, so we also have to be prepared for a long siege-like fight with numerous ups and downs. There is a reason for the saying “united we stand” and by taking over the banner of the Republican Party – with a large apparatus already in place and available for use – the pro-freedom side can more effectively spread its message and marshal its resources in this long-term pitched battle.
As you know, I also trend towards libertarianism (more than you do, I think), but I agree with your analysis. If you want to make a change through the electoral system, the best bet is to work within one of the two major parties. A viable third-party candidate for President can sometimes cause the two main parties to co-opt their message (Perot in 92 and Nader in 2000, for instance), but often that’s a losing strategy. There have been a handful of Senate races this decade where the Libertarian Party candidate won more votes than the Democratic candidates’ margins of victory. We haven’t seen the GOP try to co-opt the LP message too much as a result (unfortunately).
When people complain to me about the GOP leadership as the reason why they don’t like the party, I tell them that the leadership doesn’t really determine the party. Every candidate is chosen in a primary. Every central committee member is on the ballot. If you don’t like the party then you should blame the voters, not the leadership (for the most part).
I don’t know if the county-level party members are elected in every state, but in the two states I’m most familiar with (Maryland and Ohio) they are.
The thought process goes as follows: in election year “A” you elect a conservative slate to each local Central Committee and eventually some leaders will emerge who are willing to try for higher office in the party. (Oddly enough, in Maryland our party Chair cannot be a member of a particular Central Committee but he or she is elected by the membership, which is comprised of CC members.)
These members steer the party apparatus and create a message to appeal to voters in election year “B” while finding and grooming candidates who reflect the message and are willing to run in that election.
But the process doesn’t end in election year “B” because the ongoing effort should be to continually engage and educate the electorate on the merits of limited government while developing a “farm team” of younger candidates. (This is why I’m encouraged by the development of both the Lower Shore Young Republicans and College Republicans at SU…just need to keep that cycle going within the organizations.)
The obvious problem we have as a national party is that the leaders who, by and large, spent their formative years as followers of Ronald Reagan both stopped teaching and stopped reminding themselves why they came – or allowed the pursuit of personal power to co-opt their message.
We may have this complaint 20 years from now with the TEA Partiers as well. Unfortunately, human nature can be such that once power is tasted it is corrupting. Those GOP leaders we revile now probably came in with the best of intentions for limiting government. Even Newt Gingrich isn’t the small-government purist he made himself out to be in the early 1990’s.
I’m just thinking out loud here but is there a mechanism or existing model in another state perhaps to generate interest among local conservatives to run for office? If so might not funds be made available to send vetted potential city and/or county candidates to LI’s campaign or leadership courses?
I think we have a local AFP chapter that has a large cadre of passionate conservatives. Maybe some of its members will be willing to take the plunge?
There may be interest in the WCRC to help fund potential GOP candidate training and whatnot. We need to look at what’s out there, what it cost, etc. I know candidates from past elections have suggested this is a role the WCRC needs to play.
Those AFP guys….
I heard that Kratovil is refusing to meet with AFP members who are interested in having a policy debate.
Frank is worried that there could be shouting or disagreement.
Amazing