Come On Down And Meet The Wedge
posted at 1:11 pm on February 16, 2010 by Mitch Berg
Noted in advance; the left isn’t stupid. Keep that in mind as we go through this.
The Tea Parties are an odd phenomenon in American politics; they’re a mass movement that more or less defies conventional party labels.
When I spoke at the September 17 “Constitution Day” rally at the Minnesota State Capitol last fall, I asked people to raise their hands if the word I mentioned described them. I asked for Republicans to raise their hands (a little over half); Libertarians (10-ish percent); DFLers (a smattering, maybe 20 people, whom I urged to not feel bashful); Ron Paul supporters (a good 20%); people who’d rather pound a nail into their forehead than vote for Ron Paul (a giggly 20% or so); people who were sick of all the parties (maybe 30%).
The point – then, as now – was that the Tea Party movement, amorphous and leaderless as it was and remains, wasn’t a phenomenon tied to particular political party. It was more in line with the GOP’s traditional limited-government emphasis, but for many Tea Partiers the burden is on the GOP to prove that it’s repented of its free-spending ways from 2000 through 2008.
Long story short; the GOP has to earn the votes of an awful lot of Tea Partiers.
Kenneth Vogel in Politico notes the challenge Republicans face with tea partiers:
Across the country, conservative tea party activists — many new to politics and unaffiliated with, if not averse to, the Republican Party — are increasingly finding themselves the target of intense GOP courting headed into the critical 2010 midterm elections.
Republican National Committee Michael Steele’s plans on meeting Tuesday with about 50 tea party leaders. The California GOP chairman recently trained tea partiers on political organizing and is planning a party-sponsored rally. The South Carolina GOP has a resource-sharing agreement with tea party groups. The North Dakota party chairman hosted a tea party-GOP rally Friday and is urging fellow state chairs to do the same.
But for tea partiers, who from the early days of their movement wanted to be heard and taken seriously, it’s a little bit of careful what you wish for.
Some have welcomed the attention, forging tentative alliances or at least opening channels of communication, usually to intense criticism from fellow tea partiers. But most have either proudly spurned Republican advances or approached their suitors apprehensively, keenly aware that while Republican resources and infrastructure could both boost the tea party movement to a new level of effectiveness, the GOP’s tainted brand could also jeopardize the independence that is part of their populist appeal.
In a sense, the Tea Parties are exactly what the GOP has needed for most of the past decade; a return to solid fiscal conservatism as a means of turning the nation around, while leaving social issues as a big black box to be decided by the individual.
Of course, everyone knows social issues are the bedrock issue for another huge block of conservatives, the Evangelicans without whom, says conventional wisdom, the GOP faces a very uphill climb.
The ideal, for the GOP, is to follow the Reagan model; to make peace with those you agree with on the big issues – at this point, taxes and spending – and live and let live on the other issues. The GOP, at a high level, seems to be learning this.
And this terrifies the left; the only thing that is holding the right back is its predilection for shooting itself in the foot over the real-but-overblown divide between fiscal and social conservatives.
The left knows this. That’s why, in the immediate aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, you saw a wave of leftymedia/leftblog postings, starting with Media Matter and radiating out to their subjects, saying “ReThugLiCons just elected a pro-choicer! They are teh Heppocreet!”
They know that if the various factions on the right can agree, at worst, to disagree on social issues, that we will be well-nigh unstoppable in 2010 and, if Obama/Reid/Pelosi stay their current course, possible 2012 as well.
Which is why you can expect a constant drumbeat of media coverage of libertarian Tea Partiers who don’t care one iota, at least in terms of electoral politics, about abortion or gay marriage. It’s a considered effort to drive a wedge between evangelicals and Tea Partiers.
There are two approaches the GOP needs to take to this.
- The Tea Party is a sign that the conservative movement has grown up and agreed to disagree. The New Jersey Gubernatorial and Massachussets Senator elections showed that conservatism has learned how to prioritize, knowing that…
- …a fiscal conservative tax-and-spending hawk who has a “nuanced” position on abortion is going to be a friendly representative for single-issue pro-life evangelicals than a Democrat who is wrong on taxes and is in the bag for NOW and Planned Parenthood. Indeed, it just might be a sign of what is, for the left, the unthinkable; that Evangelicals are growing beyond single-issue voting. And that’d be very bad news for the Dems.
And so look for the Dems to beat on this supposed, potential wedge for all they’re worth in the next eight months. The best hope they have of turning back the Tea Party surge is by turning it against itself; by pitting fiscally-conservative Republicans against unaligned fiscal-conservatives over what is, for purposes of attacking the current orgy of spending, a side-issue.
Cross-posted on Shot In The Dark.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Trying to drive a wedge between between fiscal and social conservatives isn’t going to be enough to distract from a party that would have you born $80,000 in debt, medicate you like livestock on a farm, propagandize you for 20 years in schools that teach discredited economic models (Marxism) and discredited science (AGW), graduate you with student loans in six figures, rob you of the fruits of your labors (tax and spend), put you on a treadmill to try to buy a home that costs more than six times your income, and destroy your life if you dare to say the wrong words (political correctness).
Free men can debate school prayer and abortion policies — and perhaps reach acceptable conclusions. Slaves cannot.
cthulhu on February 16, 2010 at 2:40 PM
The very existence of “fiscal conservatives” who look the other way at the slaughter of the unborn, and “social conservatives” who don’t recognize what welfare and dependency do to the human moral character, results from an electorate that hasn’t paid much attention to politics and educated itself about political philosophy. There’s nothing really wrong with that — indeed one of the goals of our founding was that government be so limited in its powers, and have so little influence on daily life, that you didn’t have to be constantly aware of it.
What the tea parties represent, however, is that when things get really bad, middle-class people with free time and the freedom of speech are capable of devoting their attention to politics, educating themselves, and asserting their power. People who are actively talking and thinking about politics will work through the arguments and find agreement on more things than they agreed on previously. I’ve seen these conversations happen literally right at the tea parties themselves. What our liberal friends don’t understand is that the tea parties are fundamentally a phenomenon of education and self-education.
joe_doufu on February 16, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Joe,
Excellent point. One thing I’d like to comment on:
who look the other way at the slaughter of the unborn,
I need to get this across to people on both “sides” of the social/fiscal “divide”; just because someone doesn’t make abortion/gay marriage their litmust-test priority doesn’t make them “pro-choice”, or even “weak on abortion”; it merely means they believe that if this nation collapses under a mountain of debt and we lose all of our liberties, abortion will be irrelevant; if we make this nation safe and prosperous, we can sort out abortion.
Likewise, Tea Partiers, a social conservative merely believes that if our nation aborts its future, there will be no future.
But you are right, Joe; I feel myself needing to explain that distinction than I did ten years ago.
Mitch_Berg on February 16, 2010 at 3:55 PM
My rhetoric was pretty blunt there, I agree. I like the way Jim Bopp said it:
I believe that the tea parties are an educational movement in which people who start out as single-issue conservatives are coming to appreciate the wisdom and philosophy that ties all the conservative issues together. (Liberals think the opposite is true — they think the Tea Parties are about single-issue voters becoming more extreme and unthinking in their positions.)
joe_doufu on February 16, 2010 at 4:08 PM
I believe that the tea parties are an educational movement in which people who start out as single-issue conservatives are coming to appreciate the wisdom and philosophy that ties all the conservative issues together.
Yep. That, itself, is worth a blog post.
Mitch_Berg on February 16, 2010 at 4:55 PM
You could do a survey of tea partiers about how their political knowledge and beliefs have changed since, say, 2008. As for me, I started off pro-choice and ended up pro-life. It wasn’t because of an experience with an ultrasound or anything, but because I was a kind of libertarian type and had never really thought about the issue until I got interested in politics due to the madness of 2008, started reading blogs, getting into debates, and so on. On other issues, too, I’ve read more policy books this past year than in my whole life before 2008.
joe_doufu on February 16, 2010 at 6:23 PM
We can all agree that getting your hands dirty, that is, reading and educating oneself along with a good dose of debate on the issues causes one to expand their self awareness and concomitantly expand their awareness that others share similar thoughts. We are not alone. But we tend to live in a microcosm of life that must of need exist for a time. Bursting out of that cocoon as time and energy permit allows us the to revel in the full moments of expression and meditation that we didn’t even know we missed.
Situational awareness. Beyond self awareness. Kinda makes the mind pudding come to full flavor.
Robert17 on February 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM
THIS is the biggest point for a Conservative takeover….we need a limited Fed Gov that keeps it’s nose out of State politics. Our Founding Fathers knew that small issues, personal issues, should be handled at the LOCAL level. Anyone who has read The Federalist knows this was discussed in the earlist papers. Issues like school choice, marriage, abortion and even gun control ARE local issues. The Fed needs to stay out of those arguments and the Republicans shouldn’t even entertain the discussion at the National level. Let the State level party hacks argue over those issues in the local and state elections.
saltyrover on February 17, 2010 at 2:59 AM