Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Tea Party Activists Have ATTITUDE


    By Jack McHughs Blog, Section News
    Posted on Mon May 11, 2009 at 09:33:37 AM EST
    Tags: tea party, political class (all tags)

    (Promoted by Nick...)

    (Cross-posted from the Mackinac Center website; this is part of a Tea Party Activists "Tool Box" that also includes "Ten-Minute Tea Party Activist" and "Candidate Questionnaire for Tea Party Activists.")

    Samuel Adams, widely believed to be the instigator of the Boston Tea Party, once said that it didn't take an activist majority to prevail, "but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

    Setting brushfires requires attitude, especially during a time described by Adams, "when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, (and) our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

    The following describes an attitude that, if widespread, would vastly improve the incentives of lawmakers to honor the principles of limited government.

       1. Tea Party activists aren't impressed that their politician is a "nice guy."

    Being likeable isn't needed for a person to succeed in America. An insufferable jerk can build a billion-dollar corporation from scratch, employ thousands, save the whales and cure cancer.

    What he can't do is win an election. To gain votes in a democracy a candidate must be likeable. The reason political campaigns feature photos of the candidate's family and pets is not because they want voters to assume that he or she has a responsible record on taxes and spending.

    Therefore, the last thing that should ever impress a Tea Party activist is a politician who's a "nice guy." Simply put: They're all nice guys, so get over it and ignore it. Hold them accountable for their deeds rather than their smile. The Tea Parties were a reaction against a lot of very nice guys doing very bad things.

       2. Tea Party activists don't presume virtue in party labels.

    Political parties are extensions of the politicians that they elect. They are mere instruments to gain power, not virtuous machines that exercise that power in noble ways.

    Example: During the term of President Bill Clinton the budget actually had a brief surplus, while spending soared under President George W. Bush. Likewise, while Michigan Republican lawmakers boasted of their collective resistance to the $1.4 billion income and business tax hikes passed in 2007, most of them voted for most of the increased spending it funded.

    There are countless other examples. An experienced patriot treats the promises of politicians and political parties with equal (and substantial) skepticism. Use political parties only as tools toward your ends, not theirs. Your loyalty is too valuable to sell so cheaply.

       3. Tea Party activists really know their own lawmakers' voting records.

    If the "nice guys" aren't a reliable source for a full and accurate picture of their records, and the party label doesn't do it either, then experienced patriots need to find this information on their own.

    At the state level, two free tools make this much easier in Michigan. The first is MichiganVotes.org, which provides a plain-English description for every vote cast by every member of the Michigan Legislature since 2001. The second is Michigan Capitol Confidential, a periodical that gives more details on votes involving concerns regarding limited government.

    An experienced patriot should use both of these tools, and compare how his or her lawmaker measures up by asking these critical questions:

      --  Does the lawmaker always vote with their party, no matter what?
      --  If there are a handful of dissenting votes for or against the limited government side of an issue, which side does he or she tend to fall on?
      --  Do most of the bills he or she introduces expand the size of government, or reduce it?

        4. Tea Party activists follow the money.

    Is your lawmaker getting financial support from those whose values do not match up with your own? It's not hard to find out. For most past and current Michigan legislators, go to the "Search Voting Record" tab on the MichiganVotes.org homepage, choose a representative or senator and click "search." A link to a list of the legislator's campaign contributors appears below his or her photo. For members of Congress find this information at OpenSecrets.org. (Go to "Politicians and Elections," "Donor Lookup.")

     --  5. Tea Party activists know they don't have to get elected to change the world.

    They understand that electing a handful of virtuous lawmakers won't solve the problem either, because what needs to change are the incentives operating on the entire political establishment. Here's how Milton Friedman described it:

    "I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office."

    More often than not the most important effect of an election is who gets defeated, not who gets elected. When a politician loses for "doing the wrong thing" the incentives change for all of them.

     --  6. Tea party activists don't "repress their feelings" regarding fiscal malpractice.

    Having discovered the real records of elected officials in their own area and elsewhere (see Items No. 3 and 4), Tea Party activists share this knowledge widely with friends, family, colleagues, internet contacts, etc., letting all and sundry know how their lawmakers are behaving, and sharing their feelings regarding the ones who are misbehaving.

     --  7. Tea Party activists focus on what unites them, not things that may divide. Those uniting things are:

      --  Grievance: Chronic fiscal irresponsibility, now become acute fiscal extremism.
      --  Target: A self-serving, self-perpetuating political class that no longer represents the will of the people.
      --  Goal: Restore genuine representative, limited government by changing the incentives on elected officials.

    Written by Ken Braun and Jack McHugh, legislative and policy analysts for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

    See also: "Ten-Minute Tea Party Activist" and "Candidate Questionnaire for Tea Party Activists."

    < Monday in the Sphere: May 11 | Big Reveal... COMING SOON! >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    New era for Libertarians (none / 0) (#1)
    by Brady on Mon May 11, 2009 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    Thanks for this interesting article.  It echos a lot of what the tea party people who visited us are saying.  Of particular interest is point #2 and point #5.  Many of the tea party activists make a point to mention that they are as unhappy with Republicans as they are with Democrats.  One of my former college roommates who is active in Libertarian politics tells me they have a goal of having a gubanatorial candidate, SoS candidate, AG candidate, candidates for all of Michigan's U.S Congressional seats, and all state senate and state house seats in 2010.  They're going to great lengths to organize Ron Paul's people, for example, into a reborn Libertarian Party in Michigan.  Whether this results in something lasting or is a Ross Perot type hiccup in Michigan politics remains to be seen.  Regardless, it upsets the right-left political system.  What do you call someone who supports lower taxes, less government spending, gay marriage and legalized marijuana?  Leon Drolet could have a lot of company next year.

    Rules of the game make LP a non-starter, I fear (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jack McHughs Blog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    The rules of the game mean that the US will always have just two parties. The chances of the LP displacing one of the two current ones seems infinetssimally small.

    In fact, the LP really an educational outreach institution that uses the form of a political party to carry it's message. The difference between this kind of organization and a real party is spelled out in a classic of political science, E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government, publised in 1942.

    Schattsie explains how parties are an inevitable outgrowth of the organization of caucuses to coordinate concerted action in the very first Congress, which inevitably became just two caucuses, which inevitably expanded their efforts into elections, and inevitably remained just two due to our first-past-the-post single member district system by which we elect Congress and legislatures.

    Schattsie's definition of party is an organization that seeks to gain control of the government and has a plausible chance of doing so. The plausibility generates excitement and support among a wider population, but the organization itself does not include that wider population any more than the Chicago Cubs organization includes all their fans.

    This is not to say that libertarian-oriented people could not take over the GOP. I have long contended that most grass roots social/religious conservatives would be quite satisfied with just being left alone (rather than seeking to impose a "theocracy"), and so there is a natural alliance between them and limited government libertarians. The odd-man out is establishment, 'country club' Repubs who want to use the government for all kinds of economic mischief, from film subsidies to cosmetologist licensure.

    PS. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jack McHughs Blog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    My colleague Ken Braun came up with this formulation for the article: "Political parties are extensions of the politicians that they elect. They are mere instruments to gain power, not virtuous machines that exercise that power in noble ways."

    My own cruder way of saying something similar is that parties are about power, not principle.

    Agree (none / 0) (#4)
    by Brady on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    Jack, I agree with the points you make.  Just a couple of comments...

    As for the Republican Party, I doubt very much the Republican establishment (the ones you call "country club Republicans" are going to allow libertarians to take control of the party after having spent 30 years preventing social conservatives from taking it over.

    As for the libertarians, I have strong doubts but wouldn't be surprised to see the improbable happen.  The best way to get an American to accomplish something is to tell him it isn't possible.


    You forgot one (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rougman on Mon May 11, 2009 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    --  8. Tea Party activists are handsome and virile.

    Great article.  

    • Hahahah! by Nick, 05/11/2009 11:58:36 AM EST (none / 0)
    Here's another one (none / 0) (#7)
    by apackof2 on Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    9. Tea Party activists are attractive "spitfires" and intelligently sexy.

    D'oh! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jack McHughs Blog on Mon May 11, 2009 at 03:36:09 PM EST
    To Rouge and TwoPack -

    D'oh! How could we forget those? :slaps forehead:

    Two Party System (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ken Braun on Mon May 11, 2009 at 09:27:45 PM EST
    With apologies to my co-author's fixation on the wisdom of political "scientists," I think that while historically the rules of the game have forced an eventual gravitation back to a two party equilibrium, they do NOT necessitate that this ALWAYS be the case at every given point in history. There was not always a Republican party and there need not always be a Republican party. A "Bull Moose" party and a "Dixiecrat" party have each won substantial electoral votes just this century -- enough to decide presidential races.
    Imagine the GOP disappearing tomorrow -- declaring financial and ideological Chapter 7 bankruptcy and just going away. Would that force the United States into a one-party state under Democratic governance, or would something else evolve quickly to restore competition?

    I think the GOP walking off the field would cause chaos all across the political spectrum - and it might even be healthy.

    In all likelihood, two or more "third" parties would swiftly evolve and organize from the debris of the GOP. While this would clearly split what was the GOP voter base, these new parties would also draw in otherwise independent voters who have recently made temporary homes as Democrats.

    A fiscally conservative, socially indifferent party that was neither in favor of nor opposed to gay marriage or stem cell research would draw in a very different -- to say nothing of wealthier and younger -- voter than does today's GOP. But obviously this comes at the cost of the GOP voters who care deeply about those social issues and want it in their platform.

    At least one faction of the GOP remains would be those social-issue voters, and maybe this group is indifferent toward the fiscal issues (not hostile to the economic stuff, mind you, just "big tent" agnostic.) This gives them a wedge to steal union votes and the votes of older Americans from the independent and even current Democratic columns.

    Other emphasis and combinations are possible and likely -- I just point out the easy fault lines.

    To imagine an only slightly wild hypothetical: Consider a party that opposed abortion, gay marriage, trade with China and highly paid CEOs -- but strongly supported firearms ownership and labor unions. In Michigan, such a populist hybrid would match up VERY well against BOTH of the existing parties.

    Meanwhile, if you have chaos in the wake of the GOP going away, there is no longer any relevancy to Democrats frightening their most liberal members away from Ralph Nader or points further Left. A vote for the Green Party or other leftist crusades can no longer can be portrayed as handing an election to the Republicans. Uber-leftist Democrats would no longer need to fear voting all on principle -- if for no other reason than they'd be watching the old GOP voters gleefully endorsing their own radical notions.

    Consider the already shaky alliance of environmentalists and industrial labor that got tested when John Dingell's committee perch was yanked away. Absent the unifying force of the GOP on the other side to keep everybody on the same team, there's a much more powerful incentive for those competing forces to go their own way when they don't get their way.

    Implosion of the GOP identity would likely and swiftly lead to chaos on the other side of the aisle as well.

    In the end, I agree that something like a two party system would eventually re-form -- because of the imperative to win an electoral majority every four years if nothing else. But the two party system that came out of a mess such as this need not look anything like the alliances that we have now and probably would not.

    A strong third party -- such as the Bull Moose or Dixiecrats -- could also drive this same kind of evolution in both parties. Much that is the modern GOP is a result of Dixiecrat Strom Thurmand winning four southern states that had traditionally been Democratic for generations.

    Home of the Brave? (none / 0) (#11)
    by stevenstmason on Tue May 12, 2009 at 12:22:37 AM EST
    How many Lansing Republicans are willing to go on record and endorse a specific list of cuts that equal that amount necessary to eliminate the 2007 tax increases, as McHugh has suggested?

    http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8798

    I hear plenty of politicians claim that the list shows how the state can cut $1.9 billion but when the state cuts items on the list, like State Troopers, the politicians protest. What would the politicians cut? Or are none of them brave enough to take a stand?


    The List of Brave Republicans (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ken Braun on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    Stevens T.:

    As it happens, I compiled a list of data that gets at what you are talking about:

    www.mackinac.org/9270

    While the vast majority of GOP voted against the $1.4 billion tax hikes, most of them turned right around and voted in favor of spending most of the extra money that was being taken away. Draw your own conclusions.

    Just to point out - (none / 0) (#14)
    by snoopygirlmi on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    the Republicans were radicals who essentially took over the Whig Party.

    The Democrat-Republican party got shortened to the Democrat party.

    Parties that don't respond to the masses get replaced and restructed.

    That only happens if there is a ground-swell of anger and passion about an issue or issues....are we there yet?  Are we on the verge of it happening?  

    I hope so.  I'm really not happy with any of the formal political parties - and, especially, the one that I keep voting for because they are my "default" setting.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search