Peter Bearse - FRANK GUINTA: NOT YOUR CUP OF TEA

The Tea Partier facade that Rep. Frank Guinta cultivated during his 2010 campaign has been fractured. He voted for the Boehner compromise during the debt limit debate, better known as a boner bill. This vote revealed Mr. Guinta’s true identity -- that of a go-along/get-along [GA/GA] Member of Congress who, as one Tea Party member remarked, is already “getting too comfortable with Washington,” unwilling or unable to risk his political career for the sake of principle.

A meeting of about 25 political activists from around the 1^st Congressional District was convened by Rep. Guinta in his Manchester District Office on August 10^th. Most of them were Tea Party folks. One of them, Ray Shakir, had come all the way from N. Conway for the meeting. He swore that “All of the Tea Partiers were against Frank’s vote.” They left dissatisfied with his lengthy explanation of why he voted as he had. The “explanation” amounted to an unconvincing rationalization. A recognized NH Tea Party leader noted that the Boehner bill established an unconstitutional “Super Committee”. Another attendee said he felt that Frank had voted for a “bad bill.” He was “struggling to understand why.” The only reason he could imagine was “fear.” Frank denied this but didn’t explain why even though he was aware that the fear factor had been played up by the mainstream media and Pres. Obama.

Perhaps the main reasons were unspoken. That Frank is attempting to be a Rep. to all of his constituents. He is focused on reelection [Aren’t they all?]. And so he lost the courage of his convictions and/or bought into the Dem’s view that getting identified with the Tea Party is a “poison pill” that makes him unelectable -- “dead meat.” We don’t share that view, but note again Ray Shakir: “He (Frank) tried to play the candle’s middle by burning both ends.” Even his usually astute political judgment here is open to question. U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte has gotten a lot of praise for her vote vs. the “boner” bill.

Frank Guinta’s future as a Member of Congress [MoC] is intertwined with two other big issues:

* What it means to be a Rep. really committed to changing the way Washington does “We the People”’s business, not just a Rep. of the same old/same old [SO/ SO] type; and

* The power of the Tea Party in NH.

On 1.: Frank has abdicated a leadership role. He’s in danger of becoming a GA/GA, SO/SO MoC. The only plus that he has demonstrated, as an editorial in the Union Leader recently recognized, is an ability to listen. But these days, listening is not enough. Voters need a lot more information on tough issues like the debt limit if they are not to be led astray by fear-mongering and misinformation from the liberal media. Frank has failed to sufficiently inform his constituents as to what was really going on and what was at stake.

On 2.: Frank’s vote puts him on the side of the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party {TP}. If the former prevails here in NH during a Presidential election year, then the forces of real change to “take back our government” in NH and countrywide are weakened. Jack Kimball, the TP-favored NH GOP Chairman, is now under pressure to resign. His NH GOP HQ Exec. Director is on the way out. A TP-favored candidate lost to a liberal democrat in an Aug. 9^th special election. The battle for the future of both the NH TP and GOP is now joined.

At this point, we can only hope that Mr. Guinta comes to his senses, regains some “testicular fortitude,” and reasserts his determination to fight for those principles that got him elected -- the Tea Party goals of freedom, liberty, personal responsibility and limited government. If not, then we’d like to see a Tea Party conservative run against him in the 2012 Congressional primary election. There are individuals out there who are willing to run but are in the process of taking stock in the midst of a fast-changing political and economic climate. The key question is whether “We the People”, as represented by a majority of NH CD 1 voters, are still willing to support those fighting to “take back” their government from political careerists, big-money, special interests, elitists and bureaucrats.

_______________________________________________________________________

Peter Bearse, Ph.D., and Rick Parent, both Tea Partiers and former candidates for Congress during last year’s Republican primary.

Peter Bearse - THE DEBT LIMIT, A VOTE TO SEPARATE THE SHEEP FROM THE GOATS

Now we know, at last. The vote to exorcise the media-Halloween specter of “economic Armeggedon” or “Global Meltdown” has been cast. All the hue and cry ended in a whimper. Except for cries of default by “Tea Party” Republicans -- default of courage.

 

The acid test vote on the federal debt limit indicates just how far we’ve got to go -- those of  us who spoke about and supported “real change in the way Washington does “We the People”s business.” The Republican veto-proof majority did well to approve a “Cut, Cap and Balance” [CC&B] approach to the issue. Only nine Republicans, including Michelle Bachmann, defected -- because they thought the CC&B cuts didn’t go far enough! Even with this, backed by support of CC&B by nearly 3/4 of Americans polled, the U.S. Senate voted down the initiative with a thud.# House leadership, however, didn’t have the “stones…testicular fortitude” to then draw a line in the sand and say to the Senate and its President: “Enough is enough; this is our position; DEAL WITH IT!”#

 

Thus, as of Friday, “We the People” were confronted with yet another bill and another House vote. The Boehner bill that finally passed was “Dead on Arrival” in the Senate, to become the subject of a backroom deal cut by the Senate President [still smarting from a Tea Party that had the temerity to challenge his senile eminence in 2010], the U.S. President [Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief] and the Speaker of the House [prime sponsor of the boner bill]. So we could look forward to another piece of major legislation cooked up through “secretive deals, gimmicks and tax increases.”#

 

Opportunities -- for the Tea Party to change the GOP or take it over -- all these were highlighted by the tiring debate, fear mongering and “political posturing” over the debt limit. The ultimate possibility, as advocated by several TP-associated Members of Congress (MoCs) led by Rep. Ron Paul, would have been to refuse to vote to increase the debt limit. This would have provided the kind of real barrier to increased federal spending and debt that most people voted for in 2010.

During his July 19th floor speech, Rep. Paul stated: “If the debt is the problem…how is raising the debt limit the solution”? Our current federal deficit is $1.6 trillion [T]. So, we owe the Federal Reserve $1.6T. This is not real debt subject to default. Let them eat it. Then we can get down to serious business. Default is not a matter of “failing to send out checks.” We’ll do that. Effective default is lose of people’s purchasing power and depreciation of their incomes via higher prices & interest rates (&c). This looms whether or not the current debt limit is increased. 

 

According to the mainstream media, compromise failed; Obama won; the GOP and TP lost. But the real losers are “We the People.” For the public was never well-informed. We got a pile of hype and fear mongering, as noted earlier. This included releases from two leading bond-raters, Moody’s and S&P -- whose misrepresentations helped cause the Great Recession! -- that “default” would spell a down-grade of the U.S. government‘s Triple-A-rated debt. What the agencies really stated was that there was a 50:50 chance that they would downgrade the debt within 90 days even if a “technical default” were avoided, if there was no credible plan to reduce the federal debt over the “long term.”

Opponents of the limit increase had repeatedly stated, and proponents had not denied, that failure to increase it by Aug. 2nd need not lead to a technical default. Why? -- Because the Federal Reserve could rearrange the government’s accounts payable enough so that interest payments on the debt would continue to be made in the short term. The President could instruct the Treasury to pay Social Security recipients on schedule [Aug.3rd]. In the meantime, up to three months, ways could be found so that the federal government would “live within its means” as established by the current, un-raised, debt limit. 

 

Was this scenario feasible? Yes, but here again, the public was ill-informed. On the one hand, media “economics” commentators were talking about anemic GDP and “jobs” reports, how government cutbacks and the threat of “default” were already starting to take the economy back down. On the other, they failed to specify precisely what default meant and what its implications might be, including short-term and long-term impacts on government spending and jobs. MoCs also seemed to be poorly informed except by “BeJesus” reactions to the media and ratings agencies’ fear-mongering.

 

Was the opponents’ scenario also credible? Yes. It is credible as the only position that really comes to grips with the basic problem of national over-spending and huge intergenerational accumulation of unsustainable debt. Over-reliance upon debt had become addictive. Like Nancy Reagan on drugs, somebody had to stand up and insist: “Just say NO!” TP Rep.’s were not altogether “somebody”. With some exceptions, they failed to fulfill a fundamental responsibility  -- to provide full, timely information to their constituents. When push came to shove, many lost the spines shown in their campaign advertising. Had they had forgotten the Biblical question: “Are we like sheep…?”

 

The GOP/TP overlap/on-again/off-again alliance failed again to face down Obama. Although the President bears responsibility for immediate negative impacts of the failure to raise the debt limit,  it is the GOP’s new, spine-less TP members that should pay the piper in 2012. If the TP is to regain its credibility, it should prepare to run candidates in primaries against those who voted for the “boner.” Like someone vs. Guinta in NH CD1. He was not among the 22 who had the courage to vote against the “boner.”

 

PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., International Consulting Economist and author of A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION: How “We the People” can truly “take back” our government (forthcoming).

 

The Tea Party's Relationship To The Republican Party

By Nick Fortune

I think we in the Tea Party have to understand that we’re dealing with establishment Republicans who have their own agenda.  These may or may not be conservative, but certainly include those considered to be RINOS.  These establishment Republicans will work with us only to the degree that it’s in their best interest. 

It was these same establishment Republicans who initially resented, denounced, and resisted the Tea-Party movement.  If you recall, it was Michael Steele, National Chairman of the Republican party, and Karl Rove in the hierarchy of the Republican party who both criticized Sarah Palin (who at that time was the most popular Republican) for stepping down as governor of Alaska.  They both violated Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment; “do not speak ill of another Republican.” 

I think that the Republican party is coming to realize that without the Tea-Party people, they are but an empty shell.  It’s in our interest to try to work with them as best we can making them aware that our loyalty is to conservative/libertarian issues and candidates, and we need to understand that the Republican party is just a means to an end.  We might do well to play one party against the other; (the Republicans vs. The Democrats), giving both the opportunity to obtain our support.  Whichever party brings forth the best candidate, by our standard, is the one we will back.  If neither brings forth a suitable candidate, by our standard, then we should consider bringing forth our own candidate to primary against their candidates.  I don’t think it wise to compete as a third party candidate.

The “big tent” concept is meant to include, or not exclude RINOS.

Do not be misled in thinking that the Republican party is interested in bringing forth the best quality candidate.  From my experience, their  first priorities are 1 –Can they win?  2 –How much money can they raise?  And THEN they might consider how good the candidate is regarding the public’s interest.

We should not alienate the Republican party, but neither should we conform to or be absorbed by the party; we must remain a separate entity, trying to work both within and without the party.

Nick F

IS THE GOP A DINOSAUR or AN ENGINE OF REAL CHANGE

IS THE GOP A DINOSAUR or AN ENGINE OF REAL CHANGE, EVOLVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

When a political party thinks that “the wind is on our backs”, one should ask which way the wind is blowing. Over the long run, the historic opportunity facing the GOP this election year is more likely to weaken the Republican Party than strengthen it.

Unlike Bob Dylan, the GOP needs “a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.” Republican candidates fail to appreciate the fact that most voters do not view the GOP favorably; they primarily would be voting against Democratic policies. Thus, the 2010 November elections would be a inverse replay of those in 2006 and 2008, when most voters voted for Democrats and against Republican policies. The Party sees itself as solving a self-defined problem: “The wrong party is in control.” Wrong. This attitude is an illustration of what a new book describes as “How we trick ourselves and others into solving the wrong problems….”^[1] Upon returning to power (if they do), Republicans are no more likely to change Congress than the Democrats.

So, what is the truly “historic opportunity” of this election year? It is that, after decades of decline in political participation, “We the people”, representing a good cross section of the electorate, have finally woken up, and seeing how badly off our nation has become, said: ‘We’ve got to get involved -- to take our government back.’

With the election-year opportunity recast in these terms, we can begin to see to what degree the GOP is, like the Congress it seeks to control, a dinosaur rather than an institution offering even evolutionary change. For the Republican mantra is ‘lower taxes, less spending, smaller government and free markets. Nothing here about helping people to ‘take back our government’. Just change the seats from ‘D’ to ‘R’ and all will be well!

If the Party was really listening, its emphasis would shift from the conventional headline issues (symptoms) to the underlying factors affecting issues (causes). These include:

«     Congress-as-an-institutional-dinosaur, implying that issue #1 is none of the above but rather the need to change the way Congress does the people’s business on any of the headline issues. The last such effort was made by Congress’ “Class of ‘94” under the leadership of Newt Gingrich.

«     The dominance of big money over people: Campaign finance reform (CFR) a la McCain-Feingold has failed, and a recent Supreme Court decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns. “Big money” has corrupted the Congress.

Ä     The need to empower people to take back what, indeed, should be their politics and their government. Lacking this, new Members will revert to SO/SO [Same-Old/Same-Old] Congressional behavior dictated by Lady GA GA [Go-Along/Get-Along] pressures -- as if “change” is simply a game for insiders only. Congress has proven unable to reform itself. 

The exception is the Tea Party, a radical departure from the GOP in terms of structure and organization. Contrast flat with hierarchical organization, democracy with oligarchy, newness with SO/SO, dynamics with statics, and individualism with GA/GA. Tea Party candidates’ positions overlap the GOP Platform on headline issue #1, deficits and spending. Otherwise, they represent the empowerment of people who either have not been politically involved or who do not represent the ‘establishment’ of any established party. In other words, they represent a new, conservative populism.^[2] As Peggy Noonan has written: “The populist movement is more a critique of the GOP than a wing of it.”^[3]

The GOP is caught in a contradiction. On the one hand, the Party needs to co-opt the Tea Party in order to engage the new political energies that it has mobilized. On the other, the self-organizing, populist dynamic of the Tea Party is utterly foreign to the good old boy network that dominates the GOP. How and whether the GOP can bridge these gaps may well determine whether the Party makes history by leading American politics into a new, conservative political realignment, or whether the party becomes history.

Whether the GOP is really open to the change that the Tea Party represents is very much open to question. The acid test will lie with candidate recruitment and financing. The GOP has a greater chance of bringing Tea Party folks into its ranks to the extent that it:

Ä     Rebrands itself as a “Party of People” and begins to throw off the image of the Party as a party of big money. This implies not favoring “big money” men and women for candidate recruitment, and rebuilding the Party from the ground-up. 

Ä     Offers an alternative way to reform the so-called “reform” of CFR, one that for the first time values people’s contributions of time over big money donations. 

Ä     Substantially revamps Party structure and functions in terms of leadership, hierarchy, decentralization, financing, membership training, and use of new Internet or ‘Web-based technologies.

Ä     Recruits candidates who have proven themselves to be innovators and change-agents at the local and state levels of government.

Fundamentally at issue in all of this is whether our democratic Republic can be saved. Real change is required in the place where it most counts -- in the Congress, the branch of government that, under our Constitution, is the only branch constituted to work for us, “We the People”. If the GOP cannot change, we may have a dinosaur party in control of a dinosaur Congress. This is a formula for failure of our Republic.   [Sept. 20, 2010]

            PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., former Republican Candidate for Congress in NH CD 1

---

^[1]  See Mitroff, Ian and A. Silvers (2010), dirty rotten strategies, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

^[2]  See Bearse, Peter (2004), WE THE PEOPLE: A Conservative Populism. Lafayette, LA: Alpha Publishers, Inc.

^[3] Noonan, Peggy (2010), “Why It’s Time for the Tea Party,” WALL St. JOURNAL (Sept.18-19)



THE NEW GOP: BETTER ENABLER OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

Remember the great old line from Bob Dylan? -- “I’ll let me into your dream if you’ll let me into yours.” Do Americans have a shared dream? YES!; It’s the American dream, a vision unique among nations, that we are building a country to enable each individual to have an equal chance (opportunity) to fulfill the potential of his or her unique human nature -- one’s dream, as the old Army ad urged, to “be the best that you can be.”

The vision of a renewed Republican Party is to be the better-better-best enabler of this uniquely American Dream. It can be so and do so by finding new ways to honor traditional American values. Do we have to disown or compromise our values? NO! Do we need to be open, creative and imaginative to find new and better ways to honor them? YES!

For all the media focus on WHAT -- the usual set of headline issues like energy, housing, the economy, the environment, etc. -- it’s matters of HOW that truly distinguish Republicans from Democrats. Scan the major issues and you won’t find much difference between the major parties. We all want a cleaner environment, more and less expensive energy, strong national security, affordable housing, economic growth, job creation, etc. Statements of goals usually found under issue headings are practically the same. Ways of achieving these goals [HOW to] are substantially and practically different.

Note the major differences in ways/HOW:

•u GOP: Emphasizes ways to solve problems that rely more on individual or entrepreneurial initiative, competition, free enterprise, personal responsibility, self reliance, volunteerism, a market economy, small business, job creation, equal justice under law, limited and decentralized government, equal opportunity, less regulation, lower taxes, less government spending, balanced budgets, belief in God, family and community life ... And ways that adhere to our Constitution [especially: freedom and liberty, separation of powers, federalism, state and local more than central-federal, and the 1^st, 2^nd and 10^th Amendments]

•u DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Relies more on the powers of the federal government -- bigger, more centralized and ever more powerful government as the source of solutions to nearly every problem -- via bureaucratic rule- and decision-making, over-regulation [“command and control” mechanisms], taxing and spending, globalization, social engineering, and the politics of good intentions [we have them; you pay for them]. Democrats are more likely to tolerate ways adverse to life, marriage, family and religion in the public sphere, elitist means that rely more upon “the best and the brightest”, and ways that compromise the 1^st and 2^nd Amendments to the Constitution.

Bottom line? -- Democratic fetishes for big government and the politics of good intentions dishonor American values and diminish the American Dream!

This new focus on HOW over WHAT implies a major shift in candidate selections and campaign messages. What better opportunity to put the shift into effect than for the 2010 Congressionals! After all, Congress has been a major culprit in the crisis. Bailout and stimulus experience highlight HOW Congress fails to do the people’s business -- working for themselves and their big political donors rather than us. Note, for example:

•ý Fannie and Freddie, aided and abetted by Rep. Barney Frank; and

•ý AIG, aided and abetted by Senator Chris Dodd.

The risks of huge federal bets on poor policies have been placed on the backs of the American people for generations to come because Congress doesn’t know HOW to handle the WHAT for US.

Yet, for the GOP to play any significant role in reform of the Congress, the Party must first transform itself. With entrepreneurship and innovation as the prime drivers of the new economy, how can the GOP fail to be entrepreneurial and innovative -- unless the Party wants to go the way of the Whigs? Reorientation implies the GOP should:

•ü Recruit and support candidates who are entrepreneurs and innovators, who “think anew and act anew.”

•ü Take seriously and give responsibility to those in the party’s ranks who are renegades, whistleblowers, or who otherwise “think out of the box.”

•ü Encourage serious debate on differences within the party. Open up the party to rethinking and new ideas as to HOW we can honor old values in new ways.

•ü Rebuild the party from the bottom-up by following guidelines to be found in WE THE PEOPLE: A Conservative Populism and TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT: A Handbook for the Private Citizen Who Wants Democracy to Work.

•ü DO NOT support candidates for Congress who will not agree to run as “Change Congress” and “Downsize DC” candidates [see Change-Congress.org and DownsizeDC.com].

For the sake of the American Dream, it’s time to do or die. “Live Free or Die!”

PETER BEARSE, Ph.D., Independent-conservative candidate for Congress in ‘08 and former member of the NH GOP Platform Committee, June 21, 2009. Comments to democracyanddevelopment@msn.com would be welcome.