Widespread frustration among Americans is sure to play a major role in the November midterm election. The lingering recession and intensified partisanship in Washington have created rancor and concern which, in many cases, was effectively harnessed in primary elections by Tea Party candidates. Many votes were cast to protest the status quo, and many voters have become susceptible to the most extreme positions that candidates are willing to offer.
Although a spirit of bipartisanship is vital to effective government, it is put on hold for elections, when differences between candidates are illuminated and messages are crafted accordingly. In that context, it is necessary to understand the underlying motivations and themes that led to primary election victories for Tea Party candidates, address those themes with vision instead of anger, and urge the electorate to cast their votes for balanced judgment and pragmatism.
The Tea Party's Four Major Themes
The Tea Party has four major characteristics, two of which were central to its inception, and two others which emerged as the primaries became "open season" against the government and the Tea Party attracted people who had other agendas.
Antidotes to the Tea Party's Themes
Candidates who ignore the Tea Party's main concerns and message do so at their peril, since frustration is not the exclusive domain of the Tea Party. Candidates can address the four underlying themes while staking the territory as the effective, sensible, pragmatic choice.
1. Fiscal responsibility can -- and must -- be directly addressed, as it is a major issue for the overall electorate. Instead of amorphous slogans about spending cuts, the discussion should focus on jobs, economic growth, tax rates, and deficit reduction to help people at the local level.
Job creation and economic growth are very likely to accelerate due to initiatives by President Obama and Congress, such as small businesses financing legislation, economic stimulus projects, and the effort to double exports within five years. There are at least two other initiatives which would further bolster jobs and the economy. First, job skills training can be made widely, conveniently, and inexpensively available through e-learning. Unallocated stimulus funds could be used by for e-learning programs that would bridge the gap between the jobs that are available and the skill sets of displaced workers who seek employment. Second, a network of localized business parks throughout the US could add jobs and accelerate key high-growth industries by co-locating numerous companies that are in the same emerging industry to facilitate leveraging of each other's research, skills, resources, patents, and manufacturing and fulfillment capabilities. Each park would become a hub for job and economic growth with synergistic benefits for all involved (please see "Development of Industry-Specific Technologies for the Future Economy via Business Parks" for more detail).
Tax rates will remain reduced for the first $250,000 of annual income for all families. For the highest income earners, the decision on tax rates above that level must be balanced with another focus of fiscal responsibility: deficit reduction. Since the planned sunset of the tax breaks already gave certainty to high-income earners (i.e., that tax rates would return to their prior levels after 2010), any additional tax breaks must consider the economic and political factors. (Please see "Bush Tax Cuts: The End of a Tax Holiday or the Start of a Tax Hike?" for further discussion.)
Deficit reduction is important to all - from Tea Party voters to liberals - to ensure the long-term sustainability of our economy. The bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will recommend ways to reduce the debt and deficit. Americans of all ideologies will be called upon to accept tough measures, possibly including means-testing for Medicare benefits, reductions of military spending, phasing out spending for certain programs, returning to the tax rates of the 1990s, increasing taxes on health insurers that impose excessive premium hikes, and increasing taxes on corporations with excessive executive compensation.
2. The role of government is an issue on which Republicans and Democrats historically and currently disagree. It is a legitimate topic for debate, and can best be addressed by specifically identifying what the American people would lose if government were limited as advocated by Tea Party candidates and the Republicans' "Pledge to America" document. The electorate would not take kindly to the prospect of Social Security and Medicare being privatized, Unemployment Insurance being dismantled, severe reductions in low-income assistance causing homelessness to skyrocket, education programs being dismantled, companies polluting the environment at will, oil companies jeopardizing our energy security, health insurers radically raising premiums, financial companies taking advantage of consumers, civil rights laws being eliminated, and reproductive options being directed by the government.
3. Anger that leads to a protest vote is based on the illusion that the views of one candidate matter less than those of another. It can be countered by urging voters to demand specifics from the candidates, evaluate them, and choose wisely. Voters must know that, whoever they choose, that person will bring a wide span of views, not only the few that they reiterate during the campaign. It is not enough for a candidate to be against something, or to offer banal platitudes like "It's time to give government back to the people" which don't offer any clue as to what they would actually do. Not all incumbents are the cause of problems, just as not all outsiders are the cure. In this sense, each race should be localized, with a focus on the choice between the particular candidates, rather than on national trends.
Radical proposals which stem from anger can be countered with sound policies toward shared objectives. President Obama and Congress instituted sound policies and programs to resurrect our economy from the fiscal epidemic, but hopes for a quick cure were inflated, as impacts need more than 21 months to work through the economy. Since these efforts are very likely to bear fruit in the coming months, voters would benefit by letting the policies take their full effect without causing a course correction. Conversely, if all of the Tea Party candidates were elected, their proposals on health care, education, environmental protection, senior citizens, low-income assistance, and energy security that would be destabilizing, inimical to societal needs, and detrimental to consumers in deference to corporate interests. Most Americans would soon regret the deconstruction of sacrosanct programs and policies. In this sense, the election should be nationalized, with full attention to what Tea Party candidates say they would do. This ominous specter would bridge the enthusiasm gap, even among independents and moderate Republicans.
4. Demonization is destructive of the social fabric which unites us as Americans, is based on distrust or prejudice, has neither a factual nor ethical basis, and obstructs responsible policies. Anyone seeking a more harmonious society should reject hateful and antagonistic rhetoric, and insist on civility. Decency and civility are hallmarks of American culture that eschew venomous or slanderous comments aimed for political manipulation. Recent comments about the President by Newt Gingrich created a "straw man" with false and baseless allegations, and then attacked it with vitriol that denounced the falsified characteristics. Americans of all political stripes should condemn such tactics, and insist on sticking to the issues. Civility enables bipartisanship, which bolsters the people's faith in their government, enhances voter enfranchisement, and improves legislative outcomes. Those who claim that bipartisanship is impractical, naïve, or undesirable usually lack either the mutual respect to find common ground or the desire to put forth effort in good faith toward pragmatic, non-ideological solutions. We should all honor President Lincoln's decree to act "with malice toward none, with charity for all".
The debate on the Islamic Cultural Center in New York showcases both the harm of demonization and the opportunity to find common ground. Through collaboration and civility, a compromise might be reached. Proponents do not want to move to another site, but are open to interfaith access. Opponents do not want an Islamic facility at that site, but don't mind other faiths having a facility there. One scenario might begin by renaming the project the "Institute for Teaching of Religious Understanding and Social Tolerance" (a.k.a., "I-TRUST"), with two or three areas for diverse religions to hold prayer services, a program of interfaith study, interfaith collaboration on community-oriented projects, and a cultural center with sports facility that is open to all people.
The November Election in a Nutshell
There are lessons to be learned from the traction that the Tea Party gained in Republican primaries. Yet, there is an antidote for each of the Tea Party's four main themes. The election should be nationalized with regard to the constructive policies that are beginning to take hold, and the proposals offered by the Tea Party while, at the same time, localizing each race as a choice between the policies of specific, identified candidates. The widespread frustration and anger is understood and acknowledged. But the solution is found in the vision for pragmatic, balanced, sound policies, not turning over the keys to those who would reverse America's progress.
Lately, I've come to the conclusion that it must be inspired by the "Mad Tea Party" out of Alice in Wonderland, where the tea party happens in a kind of alternate universe down a rabbit hole.
They are angry because there is a black democrat in office, and they don't like black people and they don't like democrats and they don't really know why they don't like them so they are frustrated and angry.
And to say that “the widespread frustration and anger is understood and acknowledged” seems to imply that both are justified or appropriate. I don’t think you’d agree that “wide spread racism is understood and acknowledged” even though widespread racism exists.
Unfortunately, the Tea Party seems to be little more than a collection of angry, ignorant Libertarians, with a healthy does of racism, funded by the Koch brothers, whose father started the John Birch Society. Their policies should not be given any credence, despite how much they may dress them up in patriot bombast.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Government intervention into the operations of private businesses should be limited to the greatest extent possible but, nonetheless their is a role it must play. There are far too many examples here to discuss and I am sure we would agree on many of them.
First one really doesn't say anything, except the concept of "fruits of one's labor" requires if not a definition, but then debate. If I buy the stocks for somebody elses money and immediately sell them for enormous profits, I' reluctant to call the profits "fruits of labor".
Reading a little history reveals that the right of states were given as a compromise to keep the Union togetherThere are areas where different policies and laws in different states go against the benefits of the whole population. Exactly which is also a subject for debate, but your interpretation of constitution is rigid and unpractical.
The most profound mistake is equating personal liberty with economic freedom = and I'd like to see the quotes from any of the founders on this matter. Free market (which, actually, doesn't exist and never existed) is a great tool for economic enslavement.
My group has the following:
"We are an independent group that is part of the nationwide Tea Party movement. The Tea Parties are a non-partisan, grassroots movement that spontaneously began in response to the United States government accelerating it's 100-year incremental descent into tyranny and losing sight of the fact that it serves at the will of "we the people". The pillars of this movement are Fiscal Responsibility (reduce spending & lower taxes), Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets."
Sure....
But our country's biggest deficits have most recently come from Republican leadership, when spending (typically on things like defense) is increased but taxes are cut-- and no plan is drawn up to deal with the disparity.
We the people have HAD ENOUGH.
The left can't confront the issues of the size and cost of government directly. They want it bigger, but they know they can't justify that to America. What to do?
First, they tried to paint the Tea Party as racist. That didn't work. It was to easy to see that was just a political tactic and the more they yelled "RACIST" the less credible it became.
Then they tried to paint the Tea Party as inciting violence. That too failed, especially when organizations on the left appeared more violent than the Tea Party.
Now they have decided on a new tactic. They now want to claim that the Tea Party is bought and paid for by corporations or the Koch brothers.
"The Koch brothers donated money, therefore they are in charge of the Tea Party."
See the failed logic? It is like saying, "Sick people take pills, therefore pills make you sick."
The Left's fear of the Tea Party is real, but they do not want to confront the issues and are left with slander.
Where were you all BEFORE?
I didn't see any Tea Party when Bush entered us into, not one, but two un-paid for wars. I didn't see any Tea Party when the Bush administration took the budget SURPLUS from Clinton and turned it into the largest deficit yet (at the time). I didn't see any Tea Party when the Bush administration crafted and enacted TARP (yes that was the Bush administration).
The anger was boiling under Bush. He grew government, but he did seem to do it reluctantly.
The real protests started when Pelosi began acting so arrogantly about healthcare. The differences is that the Democrats are actively promoting bigger government and that caused the anger to boil over.
I don't see that as a problem.
Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents, Survey Says
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001743-503544.html
Why do I care now, The president has no economic clue. The USD in in deep trouble. And once that fails we as a country are done. People buy UST Bonds, take surplus and OPEC trades USD. That's all we have left.
The govt has either the USD or the economy. They are choosing to trash the USD. The USD had the worst month since Wall Street plummeted.
Ask yourself why the FED has to buy US Treasuries. 11B last week. Does that make you worried.
End the War.
Got it? Anti interventionism is a huge plank of the real Tea Party agenda. We want all of the new Gitmo-like detention centers shut down. We want to see decreased spending on billion-dollar weaponry that we don't need. We want OUT of Iraq and Afghanistan. We want no war in Iran. We want to stop any government support of the ongoing human rights violations against the people of Palestine.
The only terrorists we need to be going after are the financial ones like Goldman Sachs and their ilk.
Welcome to the real tea party.
www.antiwar.com
Liberals have had a long history of race bating, double-standards, and prejudice. Of course, they are quite open with their displays of hate towards anyone who they don’t agree with- just look at the words used to describe “Tea Party” attenders. And God forbid there be a conservative Tea Party member who has skin that isn’t white. It is as if a black person couldn’t think for themselves and they have only one choice, the Democratic Party.
Anger and hate, ignorance and intolerance, and the worse aspect of the Tea Party, a completely unintentional drive toward self-destruction. By that I mean that if their entire economic platform was to be implemented, it would destroy the economy and make the super rich that much richer.
The people of the TP who are most vocal are the least informed, or perhaps choose to see only what they WANT to see. In educational jargon, many seem to be "trainable", not "educable." I wonder how they would fulfill the responsibility to be informed about the needs of the entire country, not just their own narrow view of their own "cubby."
2) The role of government – You frame the discussion on the role of the Federal Government in terms of what people will lose if the government is limited. You don’t see what the American people have already lost because there have not been limits on the Federal Government and current crowd in DC does not see any reason to start by limiting the role of government. Just look at the Patriot Act, and new bills granting powers to Federal Government to intercept my communications on the internet. You know those like posting here on this web site.
3) Anger – You bet, these shared objective over the years are those that people are angry about. The economic clasp is a direct result of the both the Republican and Democratic leadership’s shared objectives that forgot common sense and put the pursuit of their fortunes above the people.
4) Demonization – what is truly destructive to our social fabric has been the constant balkanization of the American people and the special favors doled out by Government to these selected minority groups at the expense of the overall good of the majority of the people.
I understand your horror of another great depression, but having lived thru That One, may I suggest you dig up some of the programs and the winners/losers as some background on what has worked in the past? Preventing bread lines and 2-cent apples being sold on the street is not ALL bad. The short sightedness of many of the senators in their silent holds, particularly on unemployment really offended my sense of responsibility to our total population. They did not seem to realize that the unemployment funds would be put back into circulation while buying the goods of survival for a family. Sales create jobs to make or grow merchandise and retail merchants to sell them.
A bigger problem I see is in the creation of jobs which will withstand the competition of those items created and imported. The outsourcing of manufacture is self defeating. If people do not have disposable income, how will they purchase the goods? The circular earning, selling, spending will continue to rotate only if we have all of the sectors in operation.
I just don’t see how we can continue to promise all things to everyone. My father grew up during this time period and later served in WW2. He always told me that many people survived by the “charity” of their community. He was taught that even though they did not have much, they had more than some, and that they needed to continue to help others. But they did not mortgage their future to help those who were in real need.