When the Tea Party surfaced in 2009, I backed the movement’s
general philosophy and political objectives. However, following the historic
Republican victory in the 2010 elections, which was undeniably driven by Tea
Party energy and shrewd grassroots organizing, I became a critic
of the movement’s lack of strategic savvy engendered by a false sense of
invincibility and hubris.
Since then, the Tea Party’s popularity has declined
precipitously, and its vaunted grassroots energy and mobilization efforts could
deliver neither the Senate nor the White House for the GOP in 2012. (Yes, I
know all about how Mitt Romney wasn’t a true conservative, and therefore couldn’t
energize the base to turn out for him as it would have for a true believer. The
scapegoating of Romney for GOP misfortunes is belied by the hundreds of
millions of dollars conservative groups poured into electing Romney, by the
extreme desire of conservatives to defeat Obama, by talk radio’s “we must vote
for Romney” consensus, and by the fact that Tea Party candidate Richard
Mourdock, who unseated the “Establishment-RINO” Richard Lugar in the GOP
primary, lost in solidly Republican Indiana.)
The Tea Party’s low approval ratings can certainly be
attributed in part to the national media’s concerted efforts to vilify these
patriotic Americans. And while the media’s role in the Tea Party’s receding
fortunes should not be understated, neither should the shocking strategic
ineptitude of the Tea Party and its major supporters in non-profits, in
Congress, and in talk radio.
To better understand this ineptitude and without revisiting
the original rationale behind the decision to tie defunding of Obamacare to
funding the government, let’s look at the aftermath of the budget deal reached
in October to end the government shutdown, and the long-term budget deal struck
in December.
When the Senate and House overwhelmingly voted to approve a
deal to raise the debt ceiling and reopen the government, the self-anointed
leaders of the conservative movement immediately denounced
Republicans for acquiescing to a budget agreement that did nothing to
undermine Obamacare.
The harsh criticism was all too predictable and sweepingly
counterproductive to the wellbeing of not just the Republican Party (who are
after all part of the problem, according to our conservative overlords) but the
conservative movement as a whole.
If the leaders of the Tea Party and the conservative
grassroots, well-meaning conservatives like Jennie Beth-Martin or the Madison
Project’s Drew Ryun , were strategically savvy, they would have praised Speaker
Boehner for holding the line for as long as he could and for doing everything
in his power to do something which everyone knew was impossible: defunding
Obamacare through the CR process.
Instead, Jennie Beth Martin, Mark Levin, and the other
stalwart guardians of the conservative ideology unleashed a barrage of attacks
against Speaker Boehner, Republican Senators, and anyone else they arbitrarily
deem to be a member of the Inside-the-Beltway Establishment or the “Ruling
Class.”
They said it was the Establishment, those dreaded RINOs, who
betrayed the infallible Senator Ted Cruz and the conservative cause by agreeing
to the Senate deal. And they reflexively attacked the House Republican
leadership for “surrendering.”
They were oblivious—oblivious to the point of delusion—that
neither the House Leadership nor the conservative Republican Senators who voted
with Senate Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell had any other viable
alternative. Had they continued to “hold the line,” we would have hit the debt
ceiling, and forced to eliminate in one fell swoop 40% of the government—a
prospect that all, not most, all non-fringe
conservative economists and business leaders agree would have been devastating
and entirely pointless.
In other words, Senate and House Republican leaders had two
options as of October, 2013: support a short-term spending measure at the 2013 Sequester levels and reopen
the government, or risk a completely unnecessary financial disaster, for which
they would have been blamed.
They chose wisely.
Speaker Boehner fought the good fight. He stood with Ted
Cruz and the Tea Party movement for as long as he could. He submitted bill
after bill defunding or delaying Obamacare. He slammed the White House and
Senate Democrats for their intransigence, their unwillingness to compromise or
even negotiate. He fought literally to the last 90 minutes of hitting the debt
ceiling.
He was a good conservative soldier and he should have been praised
as such. The same goes for Mitch McConnell. Yet, he was subjected to wrathful
denouncements by Tea Party leaders. Men and women who
had no plan for what would happen once the Senate and the White House
invariably rejected defunding or delaying Obamacare. Men and women who insisted that John
Boehner fight an unwinnable fight, only to stab him in the back once he lost.
Two months later in December, 2013, facing far less scrutiny
from the media, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan struck a long term
budget deal with Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray.
Although generally well received by moderates from both
sides, the deal was criticized by both conservatives and liberals for conceding
too much to the other side. But by far the most vociferous opposition came from
our friend Mark Levin and the conservative grassroots, who were against the
budget deal before they even read it, prompting Speaker Boehner to fire
back against the same people whose torch he carried during the government
shutdown.
Given how unfairly they had treated him, Speaker Boehner’s
reaction wasn’t a surprise (though I think a more prudent Speaker may have avoided
publicizing the internecine warfare, which gave an opening to the left and their
media allies to attack conservatives.)
The deal brokered wasn’t perfect, but incredibly, it didn’t
give Democrats the three
core things they wanted. Given that the GOP controls just one third of one
third of government, it was indisputably the best deal conservatives could have
gotten.
But alas, the deal struck by the staunch conservative Paul
Ryan and passed overwhelmingly by the Republican caucus was an anathema to the Tea
Party because it didn’t go far enough in cutting spending. Fortunately this
time, with a few notable exceptions, the conservative leadership in Congress ignored the base, and the best result conservatives
could have hoped for was achieved. Undeterred, the Tea Party was furious and vowed to crusade
against Boehner, Ryan, et al.
And this is the environment conservatives currently find
themselves in. President Obama’s popularity and credibility have taken massive
hits largely because of the Obamacare fiasco, yet the severe internal division
within the conservative movement threatens conservative electoral prospects.
Predicting what the political environment will be like next
November is futile—there are too many unknowns. What is known is that the Tea
Party’s ironclad commitment to making the perfect the enemy of the good does
not bode well for putting the GOP in the best possible position to win the
Senate and strengthen its House majority. The conservative movement is divided.
Whether conservatives like Paul Ryan have the leadership skills and strategic
savvy to unite the movement remains to be seen. But if conservatives are to win
back the White House and build a lasting majority, unite we must.
The war between the Establishment and movement conservatism
reached its zenith when Ronald Reagan and his allies took on the Nelson
Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party in the 1970s. Reagan challenged and
almost beat a sitting GOP President Gerald Ford in the 1976 primary, and beat
out the more establishmentarian (though not a big fan of Nelson Rockefeller)
candidate George H.W. Bush four years later.
Today, self-anointed conservative leaders in the Tea Party (a movement whose core philosophical principles I embrace) are obsessed with refighting this battle. They see Rockefeller types everywhere
they look, even when their targets are staunch anti-Rockefeller (to use an
anachronistic phrase) conservatives like Tom Coburn and Paul Ryan. They see
anyone in the GOP leadership as a member of the vaguely defined Establishment,
even though Speaker Boehner towed the Tea Party line throughout the entire
shutdown, never once turning on the Tea Party caucus.
The Tea Party’s willingness to fight their own in the open can
be boiled down to this principle:
If you agree with us on policy and strategy, but disagree
with us on tactics, you are part of
the problem, a sellout RINO, and a member of the surrender caucus.
Just think about the breathtaking hubris of such a position.
If I agree with Ted Cruz on policy (Obamacare is bad for the country), agree
with him on strategy (Obamacare should be repealed), but disagree with him on
tactics (Obamacare should not be defunded through the CR process), I am a RINO!
The Tea Party sees the current Republican civil war as a battle
between the Establishment and movement conservatives akin to Reagan taking on Rockefeller.
But it’s not that. Paul Ryan is not a Nelson Rockefeller Republican. Neither is
John Boehner. The war the Tea Party is waging is not against the Establishment;
it is against conservatives who recognize the limits of power (and especially power
limited by minority representation in Congress.)
It would greatly behoove the Tea Party to lay down arms in its war against conservatives who
don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good and who pursue conservative
policies that can actually be achieved. It is acceptable, and indeed desirable, for the conservative base to pressure Republicans to maximize conservative outcomes. The Democrats' left-wing base does the same thing. However, there is a big difference between pressuring the GOP to move right and demanding the GOP do something that is politically impossible and then excoriating them in the harshest possible terms. Notice that the left-wing base doesn't do that.
We won’t know what long-term impact the current conservative
infighting will have on Republican electoral prospects. What we do know is that
Tea Party leaders who have come unhinged in excoriating Speaker Boehner and
others do nothing to advance those prospects, or the conservative cause.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you. Very kind of you!
DeleteHi Eugene - trying to find direct contact info... where it be?
ReplyDeleteeslaven80@comcast.net
DeleteI don't think its a battle over tactics. It's about results. Most Tea Party types just want us to stop the advancement of the progressive big government agenda. Democrats fully embrace and promote that agenda. Republicans say they are against the agenda, but don't use Constitutional tools to stop it. So we end up 50 years after our "great society" programs were passed with an absolute loss in the war on poverty. The only effective pushback on that was the Newt Gingrich led 1994 Congress. Someone needs to represent the folks who believe in Constitutional governance. Republican Party could, but they seem more interested in working around folks like Ted Cruz. First round of the so-called war was fired by John McCain. Hoping the Republican tent gets big enough to include conservatives some day.
ReplyDelete