A Party Designed for the Tea Party
Thousands of patriots are concerned about the loss of their constitutional rights. They populate the Tea Party Rallies with religious fervor. Many of them call for the formation of a third party that reflects their views.
Amazingly, just such a party already exists. It’s called the Constitution Party. It was conceived by the amazing Howard Phillips, now of late, who himself ran for president in 1992 and again in 1996 as a way of creating the infrastructure and beginning the national organization so essential to a third party.
“The day is coming,” he would say, “when the conservatives and the patriots are going to wake up and realize that the Republican Party has been using them and ignoring their principles for decades. When that happens, we need to have a party ready to accept them, because I’m telling you, it is going to be big.”
Today he might have said, “The Conservative Spring is coming. Let us be ready.” Phillips gave unstintingly of his time and energy to create a party that would stand without compromise for the working American who bears the brunt of the tax burden and the welfare state.
His first tactical error was the first name it had – the Taxpayers Party. It was too clever by half. Nobody liked it. If you took the time to explain to a voter, “One third of Americans are on Welfare. One third are working for government at some level. We need a party to represent the taxpayer, who is paying for the other two thirds.” But when you did, a light would go on in their head and they would “get it”. Eventually they chose a name that made more sense – the Constitution Party.
Two problems appear to be keeping disgruntled conservative Republicans from bolting to the party designed for them. First, the CP has no clue how to market itself. They are, like their Tea Party compatriots, just average Americans, rather than millionaires with a staff of professional marketing gurus who can create demand where none exists. They really are the party of the working American, more than any other in the past hundred years. And that’s clearly not enough.
The second problem is that Karl Rove and his minions are past experts at taking political dissent and absorbing it into the party without losing the voters. They would make Machiavelli proud the way they subvert every movement of every stripe and amalgamate them, preaching the same mantra to each group, that, “We have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or those mean old Democrats will appoint the next Supreme Court justices, and you DON’T want that, now do you?” Using this tactic over and over, the neocons, (whose only abiding principle has to do with winning elections, at any cost), have preempted and largely absorbed the Tea Parties around the country.
In the beginning, the Tea Parties sprang up spontaneously. There was no one leader – there were hundreds of leaders, and it was truly a grassroots movement. That movement has lost steam as it has been swallowed whole by the GOP, giving them some energy in the process. Like riding a bucking horse, they have finally brought it to be reined in.
As one would expect, the Tea Parties have managed to buck off a few riders, and have put a few of their own into office. Ted Cruz may be the most conspicuous, along with Rand Paul, neither of whom won with Republican Party support until it was clear that they had no choice.1 That’s likely to happen less and less.
But the political masters have sensed a change in the wind. You can’t spurn these “nuts” or you will lose them. “Moderate” candidates and neocons are showing up at the Tea Party rallies and bragging about their conservatism, when the fact is that they have NO CLUE about that document they are going to swear to protect and defend if they are elected. It remains about winning, not constitutional principles. That, indeed, is the history of the Republican Party.
As long as the Tea Parties are co-opted by the Republican Party, they can expect to become a footnote in the political history of the nation. But if they ever figure out how to break those bands (“which have connected them with another”) and either create a real party based upon principles, they just might salvage some of the freedoms lost under the past century of Democrat and Republican versions of socialism.
If that’s going to happen, they are going to have to start endorsing some candidates who don’t have the “R” beside their name on the ballot. They may be Independents, or Libertarians or Constitution Party candidates, but somehow the Tea Parties need to declare their independence and then prove it.
Endnotes:
1 Cruz and Paul make an interesting study in contrasts. They are very, very different, which is good evidence that the movement was spontaneous, rather than crafted by some single group. Real grassroots politics is messy that way.
Daniel New called the first meeting of the Constitution Party of Texas in 1996, (www.CPTexas.us), following his unsuccessful bid for Congress. He is also the founder of the Independent Conservative Voters (www.ICVUSA.com) He is the father of former Army Specialist Michael New, who refused to obey an unlawful order to wear a United Nations uniform and was court-martialed for his principled stand (www.MikeNew.com). He has also been successful in promoting “UN-free Zones” in some communities around the country (www.UN-freeZone.org). He can be contacted at ddnew@danielnew.com.
Click here for more information on the Constitution Party
