Oooh! That’s going to leave a mark! Well, it’s official: the tea party movement has left its mark on the face of the American Body Politic. Both democrats and republicans have felt the effects of the TPM, and the slap may smart for quite some time. A slap across an otherwise stuporous face is precisely what the republicans needed, while democrats will attempt to call it anything other than what it was – a sizeable rejection of their liberal socialist agenda.
As I stayed up late on election night watching results pour in from across the nation, many thoughts crossed my mind. I was impressed by the rarity of what I was witnessing. In less than two short years, a unique grassroots political movement sprouted from the on-air rant of an American business reporter and grew to a fearsome stature. Also interesting was the ever-present ramblings of political commentators. Some were socialists, some were conservative, and some were clueless.
It seemed liberal socialist commentary fixated upon the O’Donnell and Angle races like they were deciding the fate of the universe. Perhaps, in the pundit’s minds they were. Smugly calling the two women “tea party candidates”, liberal after liberal proclaimed a rejection of tea party extremism while they downplayed other tea party backed candidates who were successful elsewhere in the country. I’m sure the MSM will spend the next several days in detailed analysis determining exactly how badly tea party credibility was hurt by the losses in Nevada and Delaware, and what it means to the future of the failing TPM movement.
Some so called conservative commentators failed to do much better. Many republicans rued the candidacies of O’Donnell and Angle. Apparently, if the two women had not been backed by the TPM, and not won their primary contests, better candidates would have emerged enabling the republicans to win the ten seats necessary for a Senate majority. They blamed the intransient “ideological purity” of the tea partiers for the trouble, which got me to thinking…what benefit does intransient ideological purity bring to the fight? Several benefits come to mind, but space will allow for only a brief exploration.
To begin with, I see a rejection of the idea of a practical politician: a man or woman who lacks any core beliefs, or integrity. Washington is already full of elected officials who seek to further their ambitions and protect personal viability at the expense of what’s best for the people they represent. How’s that good for the future of our country? But, does that explain why the tea party would support candidates opposing RINOs in their local primaries even if the tea party candidate appears to be the weaker of the two in the general? Why are they willing to sacrifice a candidacy to the “greater good”? I believe the answer is not that elusive. It has immediate positive effects on republicans, and long term negative effects for democrats.
As for how the democrats are affected, the DNC viewed the Nevada contest as a battle between Obama and the tea party. Period: end of story. Perception is paramount to the liberal socialist. Perception is the mask that hides the monster. They couldn’t allow Mr. Reid, the face of Obama’s policies, to be defeated by a neobarb (new barbarian) “tea party candidate”. I can’t imagine the amount of money and personnel hours spent in Nevada saving Reid. That’s money and time pulled from a dozen democrat candidates across the country. Many of those candidates risked their jobs in supporting the Obama agenda. In fact, pulling cash from those candidates made the news cycle recently. They were sacrificed on Obama's alter to save a single figurehead. Saving Reid was practical politics at its worst. The final landscape of this election is much different because of the Angle candidacy alone. The ripples of that action will damn the democrats for years to come. No democrat candidate will trust the national party with any verve, and any democrat elected to Congress will be less likely to support a party line vote on a return promise because of it.
Republicans have learned, through their primary experience, they must refrain from practicing practical politics. No playing the ear mark game, or reaching across the aisle like Bennett (R-Utah) so loved to do. The lesson there: you probably won’t survive your state’s primary. O’Donnell helped to teach the republicans that lesson. The TPM caused all republicans to take a hard look at themselves, and to take stock in their core principles. They will be better for it.
To both women, I say thank you for your service. It is a rare thing for a person to be willing to endure what those two have in the service of others.
As I stayed up late on election night watching results pour in from across the nation, many thoughts crossed my mind. I was impressed by the rarity of what I was witnessing. In less than two short years, a unique grassroots political movement sprouted from the on-air rant of an American business reporter and grew to a fearsome stature. Also interesting was the ever-present ramblings of political commentators. Some were socialists, some were conservative, and some were clueless.
It seemed liberal socialist commentary fixated upon the O’Donnell and Angle races like they were deciding the fate of the universe. Perhaps, in the pundit’s minds they were. Smugly calling the two women “tea party candidates”, liberal after liberal proclaimed a rejection of tea party extremism while they downplayed other tea party backed candidates who were successful elsewhere in the country. I’m sure the MSM will spend the next several days in detailed analysis determining exactly how badly tea party credibility was hurt by the losses in Nevada and Delaware, and what it means to the future of the failing TPM movement.
Some so called conservative commentators failed to do much better. Many republicans rued the candidacies of O’Donnell and Angle. Apparently, if the two women had not been backed by the TPM, and not won their primary contests, better candidates would have emerged enabling the republicans to win the ten seats necessary for a Senate majority. They blamed the intransient “ideological purity” of the tea partiers for the trouble, which got me to thinking…what benefit does intransient ideological purity bring to the fight? Several benefits come to mind, but space will allow for only a brief exploration.
To begin with, I see a rejection of the idea of a practical politician: a man or woman who lacks any core beliefs, or integrity. Washington is already full of elected officials who seek to further their ambitions and protect personal viability at the expense of what’s best for the people they represent. How’s that good for the future of our country? But, does that explain why the tea party would support candidates opposing RINOs in their local primaries even if the tea party candidate appears to be the weaker of the two in the general? Why are they willing to sacrifice a candidacy to the “greater good”? I believe the answer is not that elusive. It has immediate positive effects on republicans, and long term negative effects for democrats.
As for how the democrats are affected, the DNC viewed the Nevada contest as a battle between Obama and the tea party. Period: end of story. Perception is paramount to the liberal socialist. Perception is the mask that hides the monster. They couldn’t allow Mr. Reid, the face of Obama’s policies, to be defeated by a neobarb (new barbarian) “tea party candidate”. I can’t imagine the amount of money and personnel hours spent in Nevada saving Reid. That’s money and time pulled from a dozen democrat candidates across the country. Many of those candidates risked their jobs in supporting the Obama agenda. In fact, pulling cash from those candidates made the news cycle recently. They were sacrificed on Obama's alter to save a single figurehead. Saving Reid was practical politics at its worst. The final landscape of this election is much different because of the Angle candidacy alone. The ripples of that action will damn the democrats for years to come. No democrat candidate will trust the national party with any verve, and any democrat elected to Congress will be less likely to support a party line vote on a return promise because of it.
Republicans have learned, through their primary experience, they must refrain from practicing practical politics. No playing the ear mark game, or reaching across the aisle like Bennett (R-Utah) so loved to do. The lesson there: you probably won’t survive your state’s primary. O’Donnell helped to teach the republicans that lesson. The TPM caused all republicans to take a hard look at themselves, and to take stock in their core principles. They will be better for it.
To both women, I say thank you for your service. It is a rare thing for a person to be willing to endure what those two have in the service of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment