Check out Kate Zernike's piece in the Times today for a glimpse of how the Republican establishment is "shaping tea party passion into [a] campaign force" -- or at least, how they're trying to. The article profiles the efforts of Dick Armey's FreedomWorks to "turn local Tea Party groups into a standing get-out-the-vote operation in Congressional districts across the country," in part through a series of trainings that would be right at home in the 2008 Obama grassroots operation. But this paragraph shows what game is actually afoot:
Its candidates are libertarians and economic conservatives, but in the 2010 midterm elections, FreedomWorks is urging Tea Party groups to work for any Republican, on the theory that a compromised Republican is better than Democratic control of Congress.
So much for an independent force in American politics! Voting for a "compromised" Republican is exactly the kind of decision that should be anathema to Tea Party idealists, since it's a classically cynical political calculation. Regardless of their rhetoric and their libertarian-heavy reading list, Armey's army is essentially trying to channel the Tea Partiers' anger into a form that furthers the ambitions of the broader Right.
Is it possible? It's worked in the past, at least according to the What's the Matter with Kansas argument, since for a generation conservative activists have voted for Republicans who've instituted corporate- and wealth-friendly policies once in office while largely giving lip service to moral issues and libertarian priorities. But here's the fundamental problem: the Tea Partiers may have mobilized against Obama and his policies (and in part be motivated by fear of him and the demographic changes he represents), but they're also opposed to big chunks of the Republican establishment.
E.J. Dionne has repeatedly pointed out that the Tea Parties are a phenomenon largely confined to conservative Republicans, many of whom grew disgusted with the Bush administration over the expansion of Medicare benefits and the general growth of government. As he put it in a column in today's Post, "Republicans are in the midst of an insurrection. Democrats are not." And it's hard to think of a more establishment figure than Dick Armey, a former House leader now in charge of an organization that's been pushing the economic conservative message for over 25 years, a point Jon Stewart hit repeatedly when Armey recently appeared on his show.
The Tea Party movement has already proven to be a mixed blessing for the Republican establishment, helping to elect Scott Brown in Massachusetts but also knocking off insufficiently pure party favorites in Utah, Florida and (probably) Alaska. As shown by the Times's description of local Tea Party resistance to FreedomWorks' advice to adopt more-traditional political practices, the movement's energy is potentially valuable but also inherently difficult to channel. Worse, channeling it may actually dilute it to the point that it's no longer a power at all.
The tension inherent in the Tea Parties is that politics requires compromise, but that every compromise is a step down the road to being "just another politician" -- something that Tea Partiers would seem to reject out of hand. In fact, too much compromise would betray the very beliefs that motivate activists to show up and vote, meaning that many would drift way over time, disillusioned yet again. Compromise also robs the movement of what its members see as the moral high ground -- absent principle, the Tea Parties would be left with little more than an incoherent sense of rage that a somewhat-liberal, half-black Democrat became president and intends to govern as he ran, mighty thin soup to sell to anyone outside of their ideological bubble.
Which brings us back to Dick Armey, who's set himself the goal of riding the proverbial tiger without getting eaten. For this political movement, though, political accommodation would likely yield turned-off activists and (ultimately) political death. The real danger for the Tea Parties is that Armey and the Republican party might ride their tiger to short-term victory in 2010 but tame it in the process, something that I suspect is very much on establishment minds. But a neutered Tea Party would be a party -- and a movement -- no more.
Originally published on Epolitics.com
– cpd
Follow Colin Delany on Twitter: www.twitter.com/epolitics
Joseph A. Palermo: There's No Good News for Democrats Because There's No Good News
So we are forced to vote mostly repub which really sucks. The most we can do is go against the traditional party establishment which usually brands tea party candidates as too radical.
This whole party system really sucks.
The Tea Party, by and large wants to get Conservative officials into office. Splitting with the Republican party would do major damage to that goal. Do you remember Ross Perot or Ralph Nader? A third party candidate would be an answer to the democrats dreams. So the Tea Party will mostly work to elect the most conservative republican.
The Democrats have finally switched from saying we don't exist to now claiming we will die young. I guess that's progress. Where we were a manufactured tool of the Republican party, that has shown little interest in electing traditional republicans. The democrats are desparate to find some exploitable crack between the Tea Parties and the Republican party. They're not finding it.
They are only interested in their capitalistic interests, even more money for their oil industries, their 4,000 miles of pipelines, their enormous manufacturing business of fomaldehyde (which is a known carcinogen) - THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE REST OF US LIVING IN AMERICA JUST THEMSELVES.
Even The Beck Rally is supported by these two - providing buses, food, and MONEY for these tupes of events - THE PEOPLE ARE BEING USED.
The Koch brothers can't stand a black man in the White House.
Its even having an impact on Dimocrats who, if they want to win in November, have to move as far away from Obamacare and Obamanomics as possible!
All of this despite the effort by the "Professional Left" to demonize and slander it as racist and violent... both of which are fabricagted lies.. including the references to hateful signs by the NAACP
THAT NEVER EXISTED.
If Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers pull the Republicans to the right enough, their candidates will absolutely be trounced in the General Elections. If the Republican Party does not respond enough to more fringe element of the TP movement, they will lose what may be the most unifying movement within their own party, and a huge chunk of what is now their base. I really see it as a lose-lose situation.
Now, with this in mind I think the Democrats and The President have to absolutely ignore the 27% of America that will Never agree with anything they do or say and those in Congress that speak for them by obstructing progress. Then speak loudly to the rest of America about the need for better health care reform, actively working on a climate control bill, making real financial regulatory reform, etc. I'm convinced the other 73% of America would listen.
Or am I only dreaming?
It would be nice to actually have a discussion with people on the left spectrum without being branded racists, right wing whacko, ect. Who seriously wants to have a discussion with someone when they've already been branded a racist by them? (Conservatives are guilty of this on the same level)
I think we should try to dialog with conservatives as much as possible and start looking for common ground. We're not going to get anywhere if we're this polarized, and the powerful aren't going to do anything to help us get un-polarized.
But when all is said and done, we should still vote Democrat in the short-term. We wouldn't want what little progress we've made in the last two years to be completely undone by Republican majorities.
I don’t believe that a longer term scenario of being politically affective and at the same time avoiding central leadership is achievable. Leadership within any political party, in whatever form, is inevitable. And for the Tea Party, leadership’s role of planning, arranging, and controlling will most certainly end their distinct form of “grassroots†political relevancy. It is this basic domestic conflict that will end their run at achieving political power, regardless of their exuberance and scope. In the end, they will be absorbed and consent to the greater GOP much the same as the Religious Right.
On a related note, you may find this article interesting:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf
By the way, if you are looking for more on what “Comment on the Tea Party Movement†calls the “view of free market economics†here’s a link: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/econometrics-regulators-dick-pratt-greenspan-economics/8/16/2010/id/29636