Tea Parties Buyer’s Remorse – A Response

In Tuesday’s October 5^th issue of the Denver Daily News, guest editorialist, Mark Hillman (see link here), argues that the key to this year’s victories, of the 2010 election cycle, will be the TEA parties. His recounting of “conservative history,” although partisan, is more or less accurate. The problem with his analysis is that it fails to confront the primary issue of governance and fiscal responsibility. He also fails to acknowledge that in political history that there is usually a bit of buyer’s remorse of after a primary election (see Reagan’s, George H. W. Bush’s, Clinton’s, as an examples). Hillman’s assertion that this is an opportunity for Republicans to push forward this new wave of conservatism has failed to take note that these were the same values, which created the economic crisis that we are in now.

To be sure, Americans are tired and angry, and are fearful of not knowing what to expect next. The feel that they are overburden with taxes and tired of dealing with the perception that the government has failed to help them “bail” them out—and are instead bailing out the big-wigs of Wall Street. Hillman states that, “the arrogance and relentless big-government crusades of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were like a cold shower to Republicans and many Americans,” is a bit spun. The shock and awe for Americans was how fast the economy failed during the latter part of 2008 and early part of 2009—and that despite the public sentiments to one of the most historic electoral moments in the United States history—it was business as usual in Washington and the beltway. Politicians’ insufferable arrogance to the plight of the American people demonstrated to the public that the only “best interest” politicians were interested in was their own.

The vitriol that preceded and came after the election demonstrated to young and old voters alike that no matter what that politics is a zero sum game and politicians are only out for themselves and the disillusionment that followed has in part help create the TEA parties phenomena. Hillman’s perspective is part of that disillusionment. For Hillman to imply that the only way to govern is to oust the moderate elements of the Republican Party, such as Mike Castle of Delaware, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Charlie Crist in order to create a Republican return to power is to overlook the extremism of TEA party elements.

If the Tea parties were only concern were to return to fiscal responsibility, then ouster of Bob Bennett of Utah makes no sense. The “conservatism” that is suppose to bring victory to the Republican Party is a disguised social movement, which believes that their effort to take control is now, when Americans are distracted.

The Tea Parties, such as 912 Project and TEA (Tax Enough Already) are being manipulated by the conservative social wing of the Republican Party, playing on the concerns and fears of Americans. The social conservatives want to restrict the freedoms of Americans by taking away rights (see Colorado’s Amendment 62), punish the disenfranchised (illegal immigrants), and create a xenophobic nation state (see the possible election of Tom Tancredo for Governor in Colorado). To be afraid of those who are different and to be afraid of our president because his name is not “Joe Smith” sets the course history into the classic clash of doing what is right versus what is expedient.

Hillman’s history lesson of the conservative movement only sugarcoats the reality on the ground. Yes, many Americans are upset with present state of the economy and Hillman’s misdirection does not serve the public interest or inform the public. Yes, there has been an expansion of government but out of the necessity of an economic crisis. The expansion of government was due to many years of contraction in services such as regulations in industries of food, oil, and financial. Yes, government expanded during the Bush administration, but in the wrong direction. Government expanded in restricting rights (see USA PATRIOT Act) and expanded in the military industrial complex with the fighting of two wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, during the war crisis years, the government irresponsible expansion was due to inability to cover it bills and created the largest US deficit in its history. Cutting taxes may have been “good” for business and the economic elite, but it was certainly not beneficial for balancing the budget or for that matter not very responsible for taking care of its citizens (see New Orleans). Simply, it was fiscally irresponsible. Previously, Republican or Democratic, no president prior to President George W. Bush’s administration cut taxes during a “police action” or wartime.

Hillman’s rhetoric on the new wave of conservatism and its best chance, “If 2010 isn’t the year for conservative candidates to break new ground, then such a year will never come” state that the willingness of those to take advantage during the economic crisis is at the very least a misplacement of his civic duty and its worse manipulative. His first duty is and always should be the protection of his citizens. This supposed leader has perverted the peoples’ fear and uncertainty to regain his party’s power. A party, whose economic policies failed the American public miserably, and a party that sold out itself to economic royalist of the 21^st century.

A bit of buyer’s remorse is expected, but don’t buy into the latest model, because the model they are selling is a lemon.

So, the gauntlet has been laid down by the Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Hillman’s assertion, it is time to stand up and be counted, vote on November 2^nd like your life depends upon it. Vote No on Amendments 60, 61, 62, 63 and Proposition 101.