T.E.A. Party Doubles-Down on Failed

Over-Involvement Policy and Social Conservativism


                In 2010 the remarkable effect of the T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) Party’s Anti-Big Government; Pro-Constitution; and Pro-fiscal Responsibility Platform was truly the news of the hour even if the lamestream-mainstream media were not willing to cover it and Time magazine refused to even consider it a newsworthy movement.  Besides the resurgence of conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, a shift of over 600 state legislature positions from liberal to conservative hands was an outstanding result by any fair measurement.  Only trouble?  Three shoo-in semi-conservative U.S. senators were defeated by three T.E.A. Party favorites each of whom proved to be unworthy and ineffective candidates . . . and the liberal Obama-supporting U.S. Senate under Harry Reid continued unbroken to obstruct citizens’ movements for responsible-responsive governments.  At present Reid’s Senate has NOT passed a budget in over 1,190 days just six days short of three full years.  Over the same time period, the House of Representatives under Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi also failed to pass a budget, but the Republican-controlled House after the 2010 “miracle-election” has passed two significant Paul Ryan budgets.  Just imagine how different things might be if the T.E.A. party had not interfered in Colorado, Nevada and Connecticut.  Now it appears that mistake in judgment is about to be repeated in the case of several well-respected Republicans; two quite prominent and most notably, Utah’s Orrin Hatch, a damned decent man in my not-so-humble opinion.

            Today rather than getting credit for the modern miracle they pulled off,  and almost pulled off . . . in many places the T.E.A. (taken enough abuse?) Party is villified and has lost much popularity.  Rather than being seen as the “savior of conservativism,” by Republicans, many moderate Republicans regard the T.E.A.s as a threat and a group of butt-inskies.  Has something gone wrong?  If so what?   What can we learn from the relatively few but remarkably stupid mistakes of 2010? 

  1. 1.       In each of these three cases, rather than emphasizing the T.E.A. Party “Contract from America,” the T.E.A. Party chose to become extremely involved in the early primary and election process itself.  In fact, today, the T.E.A. Party emphasis on the Contract from America has virtually disappeared:  a grievous error.
  2. 2.      In each of these three cases, the T.E.A. Party, rather than playing the role of impartial protectors of the Constitution emphasizing to voters how they ought to be making decisions, decided instead to immerse itself in the political in-fighting. 
  3. 3.      In two of the cases, Colorado and Nevada, the T.E.A. Party embarrassed itself by getting involved with virtually inarticulate SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVES who were easily maneuvered into ugly and untenable positions by experienced liberal politicians.  In Connecticut, their glorious candidate was a sorry excuse for a politician – who vetted that woman – witchcraft, indeed?   Looking at the Contract from America . . . where exactly are we to find any social-conservativism at all?  Or Witchcraft?   If the T.E.A. Party  wants its newly arisen social-conservativism to become the new replacement for the long ineffectual Republican litmus test . . . I guarantee that will be the end of the T.E.A. Party’s ability to create meaningful change in meaningful areas such as those 10 planks of the Contract from America.  In each of these three over-involvement instances, the candidates seemingly refused to mention the Contract from America, but were certainly not reluctant to talk about abortion, creationism in schools, and prayer in schools.  By the way, very little progress has been made on the Contract for America precisely because the U.S. Senate was not won by the Conservatives.  So what’s to be done?
  4. A.      Politics is very expensive, messy and often is NOT conducive to a climate of change.  Avoid actual politics.   Educate, proselytize, be missionaries for the Constitution; for fiscal-responsibility; for small, effective government.
  5. B.      Next to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, the most remarkable document for freedom and capital R-type Republicanism from paragraph A before this was the T.E.A. Party’s Contract from America.  When the T.E.A.s virtually abandoned this key document, they abandoned their identity.
  6. C.      Right now 75% of the conservatives in politics are Republicans.  If and when, however, liberal Democrats cannot get elected and liberal Republicans cannot get elected and Progressive anythings cannot even win primaries, then the T.E.A. Party will need to shift to carefully monitoring both parties as fiscal- and Constitutional-Conservativism becomes a winning proposition in both parties.  Till then 75% of the time the T.E.A. Party should support the Republican and 25% support some version of a Blue-dog Democrat or Independent. . . but should NOT get involved with primaries, and elections directly.   Just help people learn about the Contract for America; and fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism don’t interfere.  Also T.E.A Party volunteers can serve a very big role in 1) helping to get out the Conservative voters and 2) serving as watchdogs at election precincts (do the job of election volunteer, but remain alert to potential voter fraud situations).
  7. D.     The T.E.A. Party can learn a lot from the Libertarian father-son combo of Ron and Rand Paul.  The Pauls’ stance on small government, fiscal-responsibility, low taxes, welfare, abortion and military excursions away from America’s shore’s are well-known.  What’s worked for the Pauls?  1) emphasizing the T.E.A. Party positions found in the Contract for America more than any other approach which covers low taxes, small government, fiscal-responsibility, and to a  lesser extent 2) welfare- reform. 

What’s sort of worked for the Pauls?  3)  Lumping both major parties together as irresponsible (and they sure are) on taxes and big government and fiscal responsibility and 4) pointing at one as champions of an evil and counter-productive welfare-state and at the other of a bloated and almost-imperialistic warfare state? 

What’s absolutely failed to work for the Rands?  5) Social-liberalism on matters like drug-legalization;   and abortion; and 6) any hint of criticism of the American military in war zones.  <when Ron Paul talks about military bases in 156 countries and 120 troops in Gemany and Japan combined – he finds many more sympathetic ears than when he criticizes military missions>.  The Libertarian position on items 5 and 6 virtually guarantees a maximum of 20% support and as little as a 10% following anywhere in the nation – very ineffective.  Ron Paul should realize where his power lies and refuse to comment ever on items 5) and 6).  If he did that, he’d largely be a T.E.A. Party man and find high-receptivity among 45% of the voters minimum.  I love the T.E.A. Party, but have been embarrassed by its gaffs with the three Senators in 2010 and with virtually everything since then.  What works for the T.E.A. Party?   The Contract for America.   Make a new one quickly that reflects 2012 reality.  Refrain from picking candidates until they are nominees.  Refrain from any and all social-conservativism.  Fiscal- and Constitutional- and small-government-conservativism is not only a winner . . . it’s also precisely what the nation needs right now.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center