The struggles of the Democrats and the Republicans are making news. The Democrats are learning that it is far easier to make campaign promises than it is to govern. As for Republicans, the party that loses the Presidential election often spends the off-year attempting to refine its message if not find a new message and new messengers. In the watchful eye of 24/7 cable news channels and the Internet, however, such political soul searching can appear rather untidy. As the calendar turns, the process remains unresolved for Republicans to say the least.
To say the least. There hasn't been a lot of inspiring leadership coming out of the trunk camp, and none of it from Congressional Publicans.
Worse than mere overexposure, according to Rasmussen polling, despite Obama's falling polls and Democrat divisions, the Republican Party would fare worse in an upcoming election than the Tea Party -- a "Third Party" that, as of yet, does not exist.
If it's going to be effective next year it had better influence primaries, rather than trying to field candidates.
It is no minor issue because with the help of Tea Party activists, Republicans certainly can beat Democrats next year -- without them they may not.
I think the Publicans could improve their position with Tea Party neutrality, but I think most people who're paying attention would rather see the lot of them turned out, Publicans and Sinners -- a complete inversion of the current Congress. That won't happen because of the number of nailed seats -- we're never going to see the last of Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi until they die. There are also lots of seats that are close enough that a few judicious truckloads of "found" ballots will tip them. So I wouldn't get too fired up about Congress turning around.
It would seem evident to many that the Tea Party movement should be the natural ally of the Republican Party.
Not after the Publicans' record after the first few months of the Contract with America...
After all, the issues that inspire most Tea Party activists should not be inimical to Republican Party leaders. However, the fact that the Tea Party movement is at odds with certain aspects of the Republican establishment belies the greater issue as to why the Tea Party movement -- and its potential to be a 3rd Party movement -- arose at all.
That reason being that people have come to the perhaps belated realization that their elected pols could give a spit what their opinions are, whether those pols are Publicans or Sinners.
It is worthy, as part of this discussion, to note that the rise and fall of third party movements and candidates is directly tied to whether voters perceive the existing parties as being successful. In this context, successful means providing effective leadership on the major issues of the day.
Third parties are difficult to get off the ground. Both the Dems and the Pubs trace their roots to the original Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson. Effectively we've had one party with "liberal" and "conservative" wings, only the definitions changing. Federalists and Whigs have fallen by the wayside. Most everybody else either never got started or, like the Conservative Party in New York, rides the same rail as the big party.
The Republicans should well know this lesson. After all, the Republican Party came into being because the Whig Party of the 1850's and 1860's was perceived as not willing to provide effective leadership on the most divisive issue of the day -- if not the most divisive issue ever: slavery. Appearing too accomodationist to many voters, a third major party came into being under the leadership of Lincoln and others: the Republican Party -- a party that, in time, took a decisive stand against slavery.
The remnants of the Whigs combined with a wing of the Dems, hence the "Republican" name. The Dems were the party of slavery at the time, just as they're the party of the plantation today.
More recently, Ross Perot ran twice for President and gave life to the Reform Party. It is more than arguable that Perot handed Bill Clinton the Presidency by drawing so many votes away from President Bush in 1992. But did he?
Yes. No doubt in my miniature mind that he did.
As a matter of history, Perot was more of a symptom of failed leadership by Republicans than cause of Clinton's victory. The errors of the Bush Administration gave rise to a perception that the Republican Party was the party of higher spending and higher tax rates -- a policy that led to burgeoning deficits. Bush 41 was not perceived as a leader in the wake of breaking his "no new tax pledge" and the Democrats were not exactly considered leaders on how to handle the deficit either. It is on such political battlefields that disgruntled voters take interest in a third voice -- in that case, Ross Perot and his Reform Party.
Perot had good financing -- his own bankroll, plus donations -- and he had lotsa good points to make. That sucking sound you heard really was your job heading south. But he also ran what was primarily a vanity campaign, and as soon as Pat Buchanan -- now trying manfully to hop the Tea Party bandwagon -- hijacked the party it evaporated. Buchanan had the ego, but not the message, nor the bankroll. Go, Pat, Go, and Don't Come Back...
Of course, the John Anderson presidential run should be noted as well.
What's that line about "sound and fury, signifying nothing"? Pretty scary, until he evaporated on election day.
There was little doubt that in 1979 and in the beginning of 1980, the public's view of both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party had dimmed considerably. Amidst double-digit inflation and unemployment, 20+% interest rates, and little in the way of Republican Congressional leadership to contrast Jimmy Carter failings, John Anderson ran as an Independent candidate for President. He came out of the gate with 25% in the polls -- 6% higher than Perot's highest ever finish.
He was barely there when it was all over...
Yet Anderson wound up not winning a single precinct. Why? Because Ronald Reagan ran a stirring campaign behind the theme that "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."
Nobody's singing that song at the moment who doesn't sound like he's reciting something by rote that he doesn't believe. John McCain as a "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution" my foot...
And with that, Reagan and his strong leadership and policies won two terms (three if you count Bush 41s' first term) and there was no third party challenge until Bush Sr. ceded Reagan's high ground of leadership as referenced above.
"Read my lips: No new taxes!... Well, okay. Where do I sign?" I can remember all the editorials in the Washington Post saying how it would take political courage for Bush to sign the tax bill. Once the Dems had siggy there was nary a peep from the Post about how brave he'd been.
All of which brings us to the Tea Party movement.
Shall we attemtp to make sense of what's surely a complicated matter?
The numbers of Independents voters is on the rise again. Voters everywhere believe the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are more partisan than effective. The Tea Party movement is an out-growth of that perception.
Existing Third Parties don't fill the bill. The Libertarian Party evaporated under Harry Browne -- he was against going to war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9-11 so he was never heard from again. The Reform Party elected Jesse Ventura and didn't elect either Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan, and has since evaporated. There's something called the Constitution Party, which wants to restore the Constitution as well as the nation's biblical foundations, which kinda leaves room for argument with us agnostics and the Jews and the New Agers and what have you. The Greens are red on the inside, with a sniff like Nader wearing the same socks he had in the Army in 1958 or whenever it was, compounded with the smell of burning weed. If there was anything there to run with somebody would have run with it by now.
At its core, the Tea Party movement is a pro-liberty -- limited government movement. Its activists continue to believe in Reagan's cogent message about government. Beneath that over-arching theme, Tea Partiers by-in-large are motivated by four major issues. (1) excessive taxation, (2) out-of-control spending, (3) out of control Legislators who pass bills without reading them, and (4) the apparent lack of adherence/respect for our Constitution. None of those issues should be troublesome for the Republican establishment -- yet there is anything but an easy alliance between the Tea Party movement and the Republican establishment. It is a wonder why that is so.
It's no wonder. The Publicans had their time in the driver's seat. They were the reason Bill Clinton finished up his second term pointing with pride at the surplus he'd fought and the end of welfare as he knew it. Even by then they were listening to the Washington Post and all those other fellows telling them to "govern from the center," unwilling to realize that the Dems are better at being Dems than they are. Add in some fairly deep-rooted corruption -- Dennis Hastert springs to mind -- and people were simply disappointed in them.
Excessive Taxation. The issue of burdensome taxation has motivated Americans from the time of the Boston Tea Party to today. Always a potent issue, many activists wonder why the Republican Establishment has lost their voice on this important issue. Keep in mind that the issue is not just that people don't want to pay taxes because they are stingy. The issue is why aren't Republican leaders making the case to the American people (1) that high tax rates defeat their own purpose (Keynes), (2) that "that our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power, [and] reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." (Kennedy), or (3) that through tax relief we can grow the American economy (Reagan). Surely taking up that mantle -- with clarity -- is not a request that is too much for Tea Partiers to ask of Republican leaders.
It's not just the taxes. No matter how much we pay in taxes, and it's a bunch, there are always more taxes needed, because there's never any end to the bright ideas pols are coming up with. There are always new programs, and old programs never, ever go away. There is no end to the rapacity of those who regard themselves as a ruling class -- and increasingly as an hereditary ruling class.
Out-of-Control Spending. The issue of government waste and spending is of major concern to many activists around the country. Keep in mind that in 1964, the entire federal budget was roughly $130 billion and poverty was approximately 14%. The federal budget is nearly $4 trillion a year now. We currently make social welfare transfers of over $1 trillion per year. Yet the federal poverty rate remains around 14%. Disgruntled Tea Partiers (and Ron Paul supporters) know that intuitively even if they do not always know the statistics. Should not Republican leaders be exposing the stunning level of federal waste (including $1 in every $10 of Medicare spending) at every turn -- even filibustering ever growing budgets which provide little return on investment? Is that request too much to ask? -- let alone insisting they refrain from pork barreling themselves?
So not only do the taxes keep trying to go back up, and to appear in new and more inventive guises, but the spending keeps outstripping even the gruesome level of taxes we have. The debt keeps going up every year, we've been effectively in a deficit since... can anyone remember when we weren't? Other than the couple years under the Republican Congress in the last couple Clinton years? And when we did run a surplus, the Dems wanted to spend it. We're looking at a Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, who keep spending without looking at the checkbook, which has been empty. At the same time they're implementing programs that kill our competitiveness and handing out money like it grows in the garden. Which is approximately true, if you regard the taxpayer as a species of vegetable, or a fungus, something like a mushroom.
Reading the Bills. Federal legislation now exceeds 1,000 pages at a time. It is well beyond common knowledge that most politicians do not even read the bills upon which they vote. Given that so many congressmen and women are lawyers who would never expect their clients not to read the contracts they sign, is it really an exorbitant request of those same politicians to read bills before they bind us to legislation from which, incredibly, they often exempt themselves?
Their staffs write the bills with the assistance of lobbyists, some of whom are subject matter experts, most of whom are owned by Malefactors of Great Wealth.
The Constitution. There can be little doubt that our Constitution is not interpreted as our Founders intended. Jefferson and Madison opined that the Constitution did not permit the Congress to tax people to build roads. Now, without so much as an amendment, we tax people to subsidize the purchase of cars that run on those roads built with tax dollars. In that light, many activists well understand Justice Scalia's commentary that "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things." The question is whether Republican leaders believe the same or are willing to defend the same.
They patently don't. The "living document" approach has gutted the 10th amendment especially, while fattening up the commerce clause so that it's eating everything in sight. But the very heart of the problem lies more with congress critters who have no idea what the document actually says.
The reality of today is that the Tea Party movement is more than skeptical of whether the Republican establishment is willing to take a stand on those issues or whether they are more interested in playing Let's Make a Deal with American principles. In other words, they do not believe that they are providing effective leadership on those important issues. Instead, they do things such as offering a Presidential candidate who wanted to buy up all the bad mortgages that government encouraged in the first place. A government response to a government problem -- Reagan would not be pleased -- and neither are Tea Partiers. If Republicans were providing effective leadership on those important issues, I would hazard a guess that there would not be a Tea Party movement today.
McCain was sadly representative of how the public sees the party: not quite clean -- the Dems didn't bring up the Keating 5 very much because it was relatively small potatoes -- and willing to get along with the opposition. Compromise might be the essence of politix and maverick politicians, but there are times when you have to stand up for what's right. Congress is really good at nibbling at the edges of what's right until there's not much left to it at all.
In the final analysis, Republicans never do so well as to defend freedom and the expense of government -- when they run against City Hall instead of defending it. Not coincidentally, Americans never do so well as when freedom is protected from government. Reagan understood that and that is why he ran against the Washington establishment instead of encouraging it. Unless Republicans regain that understanding, rather than winning next year with Tea Party support amidst the troubles of the Democrats, Republicans may well be alone wearing the Whigs of long ago. |
What do you get when you combine the right idea with the wrong process, the wrong strategy, and moral preening that ignores the application that the right idea would have had for the other side of an election? This stupid and futile gesture from the progressive wing of the Senate Democratic caucus. It ostensibly seeks to force Donald Trump into divesting himself of his businesses and putting his assets in a blind trust. It operates more as a sour-grapes shot that might actually weaken the argument for its core idea:
Canvassing Board members stressed that they weren't rejecting the arguments made by Franken's attorneys, and they made it clear that they expect the issue to go to court.
The Star Tribune has analyzed reasons for absentee ballots being rejected in 28 counties, and only Ramsey and Itasca specifically cite election officials' error. In Ramsey County, it appeared that 53 rejections were tied to administrative error.