Be
sure you understand, because the name they have chosen tends to fool one, that
the Tea Party is not a political party and, because of the nature of political
parties, never will be.
by Charlie Leck
by Charlie Leck
Somewhere along
the way the Republicans – that is, the pure and original type Republicans –
have come to realize that the Tea Party is not a division of, or a part of, the
Republican Party. And, with this knowledge in-hand, they have begun to declare
their independence from Tea Partiers. Now the Republican Party is seeking to
find its way back to a position of strength and credibility.
And I have come
to realize that the Tea Party isn’t really a political party. Knowing this
makes it easier to understand the Tea Party; and this calms some of the fears I
had about it. Now I realize that the Tea Party’s big moment is past. It has
already reached its pinnacle and it is now plummeting back down to some
realistic place as a “once was movement” in American politics.
What is a political party?
One needs to understand the nature of a political party to see why the Tea Party isn’t one. I’ve been quite significantly involved in party politics since 1968. Comically, it was a rebellion against the sitting and contented Democratic Party that brought me into it. No need to tell the story here. It is enough to tell you that I was elected the Democratic Party chairman of a ward on the southside of Minneapolis and as a delegate to the state convention of the Democratic Party. In those two positions I began to understand what political parties really were and why they exist.
One needs to understand the nature of a political party to see why the Tea Party isn’t one. I’ve been quite significantly involved in party politics since 1968. Comically, it was a rebellion against the sitting and contented Democratic Party that brought me into it. No need to tell the story here. It is enough to tell you that I was elected the Democratic Party chairman of a ward on the southside of Minneapolis and as a delegate to the state convention of the Democratic Party. In those two positions I began to understand what political parties really were and why they exist.
Political
parties make sense and, I believe, that they should be seen as essentially
necessary. Edmund Burke (1729-1797) played a significant role in founding the
contemporary political party system in America. For not a second did Burke
believe that parties could be perfect instruments. However, he did believe that
parties could encourage a certain level of cooperation among people with common
goals (key word is common). He
thought they would encourage political leadership to rise above their own
interests and factional interests to work for a common good through agreed upon
and realistic strategies.
In the biography
by Jesse Norman, Burke is depicted as a man of great political strength who
believed government could be held to account by organized political parties.
Yet, Burke also realized that such parties should never become overly partisan.
If they did, Burke felt that they would then fail to understand the broader
public interests that were at stake and they would lose their power.
Using Burke’s concept
as a means to define political party puts the contemporary Tea Party outside
that definition. The Tea Party, which began as a more open libertarian
movement, has grown to be a closed and completely doctrinally partisan
organization. In other words, there is no room within the Tea Party for
dissenters and non-believers. This doctrine, however, does not match that of
the standard Republican Party.
I came into the
politics as part of a very strong protest movement against the War in Vietnam.
In some sense, there was an idea that we could take over the Democratic Party
and force it to view the war as we did. Instead, because our convictions were
so singularly partisan, we merely split the party, weakened it and allowed for
the 1968 election of Richard Nixon (over Hubert Humphrey) to the presidency.
This, of course, as seen through the eyes of unbiased historians, was a
disaster for America that set us off course for a couple of decades.
It is the kind
of thing that the Tea Party is now doing to America. We will see some of the
results of this in yesterday’s election results…
I need to make
these notes… In Virginia, working on the gubernatorial campaign of his good
friend, Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton recently said: “There are more of us who
believe that working together is better than constant conflict.” That is the
basis for the political party system. It clearly defines the nature of a
political party. And Clinton has proven himself one of the most insightful
commentators in the world on politics and politicians.
McAuliffe won
big in Virginia yesterday because Virginia has a seriously weaken Republican
Party, which use to be the majority party in the state. It no longer is by a
long shot and isn’t even when one combines the party regulars with members of
the Tea Party. And, the Tea Party is clearly responsible for this significant
damage to the Virginia GOP. It is happening elsewhere.
In New Jersey,
Republican Governor Chris Christie easily won reelection. This in a state where
only 38 percent of voters favor the Republican brand of politics. The Washington Post says this is “much more
about the Chris Christie brand than the Republican brand.” It is true that
Christie has kept himself clear of association with less than moderate
Republicans.
Even in Alabama,
a Tea Party candidate in a congressional primary lost out to a Republican
moderate last night. The moderate Bradley Byrne defeat the Tea Party backed
Dean Young. It provides significant insight to what is happening in American
politics.
[As the day goes on, I’ll add more
relevant examples – if there are any – from yesterday’s election results as
they become known.]
What the
Republican Party is discovering is that it needs more moderate voices and less intolerant,
loud, boisterous and radically conservative voices.
A political
party without a clear and reasonably common goal is not really a political
party.
The Tea Party is
a renegade movement and not a true political party. It is similar to the Eugene
McCarthy movement of 1968. To this day, I believe the McCarthy movement was
correct in its ideology back then, but it failed to establish itself in
politics because it did not allow debate, discussion and compromise on its
issues. It was only a very short time before I was eased out of my position as
ward chairman and state delegate (and I can now see why). The Democratic Party
had to return to its more lenient and flexible roots or die. Were we McCarthyites
responsible for Hubert Humphrey’s election loss? Yes! We were obstinate and
inflexible and clearly indicated it was our way or no way. We got no way!
_________________________
Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it,send me an email if you’d like.
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it,send me an email if you’d like.
