Carolyn McKinney - The Tea Party’s Biggest Challenge: Protecting Its Brand

The Tea Party, now a well-known but poorly understood American populist movement, has attracted so much attention because it truly rose from the grassroots passions of Americans who love their country.

To clearly understand the grassroots nature of the Tea Party, it's important to note that the movement has never been controlled by any one central authority―besides, perhaps, the rule of law and the constitution. This decidedly libertarian-conservative political movement has really grown up around a loose network of patriots united around a core set of issues. And around those issues, groups of people act with distinct autonomy based on the will of their members.

Despite this decentralization―or perhaps because of it―the movement has managed to focus the American political conversation on concerns and objectives of lasting importance to the American Republic: overspending, debt, and crony capitalism on the one hand, and government accountability, sound money and national sovereignty, on the other. But more than that, the Tea Party has sought to restore those timeless principles that were once cherished by all Americans: limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and equal protection under the law chief among them.

As a populist movement, it is only by remaining decentralized that the Tea Party will continue to unite the passions of Americans and reject the allure of power and influence. Already, it has successfully rebuffed attempts by the Washington and Republican establishments to co-opt the movement for their own purposes. National groups like FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Express, and Tea Party Nation have had limited success tapping the local Tea Party fervor because average Tea Partiers are wary of national groups that compromise principles for power.

This strength, however, is also proving to be its greatest weakness. Without a strong central authority or spokesman, it has been difficult for the Tea Party to maintain the purity of its core principles or to stay on track with its original grassroots agenda. Nowhere is this more evident than in its support of federal candidates.

In 2010, not long after the outset of the movement, the Tea Party successfully coalesced around several candidates for Congress, many of whom now serve in government as reliable limited government reformers. However, as the current session continues and the next election approaches, the Tea Party is having trouble both in articulating the same clear mission with which it began and in identifying that mission in the agendas of the current political candidates. Some candidates now claim association with the movement, but their record shows a clear disparity with the Tea Party. In this way, the decentralized nature of the movement has not been conducive to a critical defense of its brand.

But defense of the brand is critical, and Tea Party patriots must demand that politicians prove themselves worthy of the Tea Party label. That does not mean the candidate can just have a shallow commitment to Tea Party principles, but they must have the political courage to make deep and lasting reforms.

For example, the generic “cut government spending” principle is certainly a Tea Party concept, but by which standards will a candidate cut the size of government? Will he or she simply reduce the percentage of the increase in spending by trimming a few line items here or there, or will he or she reduce the size of the budget by eliminating redundant, unnecessary or unconstitutional programs and departments, and more importantly, will that budget be balanced without new debt?

Likewise, will a candidate eliminate only those deals with lobbyists and corporate entities that the incumbent has cultivated, or will he or she actually eliminate all cronyism in government and restore the free enterprise system where the market―and not government bureaucrats―picks the winners and losers? Does the candidate have a history of promoting free market capitalism or does he or she have a record of making deals for political gain?

Additionally, if a candidate is promoting a “limited government” approach, does he or she truly understand the federalist system that puts political power in the hands of the people―by putting people in control of their own lives and reserving most of the governing to the states―or will the candidate continue to look for federal one-size-fits-all solutions, or worse, global solutions to the problems facing everyday people? How will the restrictions on federal power in the Constitution weigh his or her decisions, and does his or her record support the campaign rhetoric?

There is still a strong core of Tea Party patriots who are committed to the ideas that defined the Tea Party at its inception, but these people must remain proactive to protect the Tea Party brand. They must demand that politicians not merely speak about Tea Party issues, but demonstrate a passionate dedication to the ideals of limited government within the federalist system defined by the Constitution. And they must educate new Tea Party patriots on the movement's core principles; communicate and coordinate with all the local groups identifying with the label; and clearly articulate the original Tea Party agenda to the media and the general public so candidates cannot attach themselves to the label when they clearly should not.

Without an active defense of the movement, there is a strong chance that the movement will slowly disintegrate. For without a strong brand and conviction to principle, populist movements cannot remain passionately united for the common cause―and in these times when America needs the Tea Party more than ever, this would be a tragedy.

Carolyn McKinney is a graduate of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In addition to being a mother of four and small business owner, she is the Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, an organization dedicated to conservative principles and the cause of liberty.

Carol Shea-Porter - Yes, The Stimulus Did Work

In late 2008, the economy was in free fall.  The daily headlines were downright frightening. Two were particularly ominous: “In String of Bad News, Omens of a Long Recession” and “Next Year Is Looking Even Worse.”  In December, America lost more than 700,000 jobs, and economists worried about a global depression.  They were predicting the longest and most severe recession since World War II.  The New York Times noted the “demoralizing rat-a-tat of grim reports on jobs, sales and public confidence.”  In the wake of that financial crisis, nearly 8 million Americans lost their jobs.

The severity of the economic crisis that President Obama inherited called for strong and prompt action to keep America from slipping into a depression.  Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on February 13, 2009. The goal was to jumpstart the economy by saving and/or creating jobs and by increasing economic growth.  There was money to keep state and local governments afloat, money for infrastructure, a tax cut for 95% of American workers, and tax cuts for small businesses.  The total cost of the package, called  “The Stimulus,” was $787 billion.  It’s been almost three years since the bill was passed, and the two political parties are still fighting about it.  Recently, the nation heard a Republican presidential candidate dramatically insist that the Stimulus had not created a single job.  The question is—did the Stimulus work?

A study by two economists, Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who was presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's economic advisor, said that the government's various interventions averted a second Depression.  In studying the effects of policy responses to the recession, they argue that without the government's various interventions, our gross domestic product would be 6.5% lower, we would have lost 8.5 million MORE jobs, and would be experiencing deflation instead of low inflation.  They conclude that the interventions "reinforced each other," and that "While the effectiveness of any individual element certainly can be debated, there is little doubt that in total, the policy response was highly effective."

What did the stimulus actually do for NH?  Who got the money?  Why do Republican leaders say it failed even as they show up to celebrate the beginning or the end of successful projects?  As mayor, one of our NH Congressmen pushed so hard for money that then-Attorney General Kelly Ayotte accused him of being a “grandstander.”  The Stimulus has been used as a club to beat President Obama and Democrats so often that many believe that the money evaporated without helping anyone.  That simply is not so.

The money was spent to help communities cope with recession.  It helped pay for waste-water treatment facilities and clean water.  It kept teachers working, helped Head Start, and kids with special needs.  Stimulus money was used to provide meals for seniors in centers or at home. It helped homeless children, crime victims, people with brain injuries and many others.  It helped New Hampshire build, repair, and renovate.  Money went to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, creating good jobs and bolstering national security.  The National Guard received funds, as did the NH Broadband Mapping Program.  The Small Business Administration was able to expand small business lending.

Money was used for invention and innovation. The Green Launching Pad, initiated by Governor Lynch and the University of New Hampshire, was funded with stimulus funds. Governor Lynch said:

"The first round of the Green Launching Pad has been a tremendous success, benefiting not only those companies that participated, but working to strengthen our state's economy…I am focused on making sure that we are growing the jobs and companies of the future right here in New Hampshire and the Green Launching Pad is just one way we are doing that. The ideas and the products that have been nurtured by the Green Launching Pad are helping create good jobs..."

This plan wasn’t perfectly executed everywhere. But USA TODAY got it right on August 30, 2010 with the headline: “Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs.” They continued, “Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930’s.”

I voted for that Stimulus because I wanted to do exactly that—stave off a rerun of the 1930’s. It is time for the political opposition to correct the record and let people know their government did do something good with the people’s money.

###

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011.  She is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Cory R. Lewandowski - Legislative Session Ends: The Good, the Bad and the Unresolved

By Corey R. Lewandowski, State Director, Americans for Prosperity- New Hampshire

New Hampshire voters sent a clear message in last November’s election that they want lower taxes, smaller government and less regulation by electing candidates who echoed and supported that message.

Our legislators deserve credit for passing a state budget that cuts spending by 11% WITHOUT raising taxes or adding any additional fees to New Hampshire residents. 

Each legislative session is marked not only by the individual legislators but also by the times. Given the current economic climate and the reality that our state and our country are still emerging from the recent recession, being able to pass a budget that reduces spending without increasing taxes to pay for the reductions is commendable. Speaker Bill O’Brien and the rest of the members deserve our appreciation for doing exactly what the voters sent them to Concord to do – reduce spending and cut taxes. After an arduous fight, the current budget includes a reduction in the tax on cigarettes. While this does not impact every taxpayer directly, we all reap the indirect benefits as this tax cut helps New Hampshire businesses stay competitive with neighboring states, thus keeping their prices down and enabling them to maintain and create jobs.

The House and Senate passed SB 2 that caps spending on annual budgets in cities and towns in New Hampshire.  Both chambers also approved SB 146 requiring state agencies in addition to their usual budget request to submit an additional budget that shows a reduction in their spending by 10%.

The House also passed CACR 6, a proposed constitutional amendment, which would have required a 3/5 super-majority vote to impose any new increases in taxes or license fees. Sadly, this is one of many pieces of legislation approved by the House which the Senate failed to act upon. The Senate also failed to pass HB 648, the eminent domain bill which sought to assert the rights of New Hampshire landowners against moves from foreign companies to take and utilize their private property. Both of these bills represented opportunities in which the Senate could have acted to protect and preserve the rights and prosperity of Granite State residents.

Perhaps the most notable instance in which the Senate failed to follow the will of the people is on the repeal of New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The House voted twice with veto-proof majorities to end our state’s participation in this failed cap-and-trade scheme. Unfortunately for the electricity ratepayers of New Hampshire, the Senate stalled, amended and watered down the RGGI repeal before finally passing it onto Governor Lynch without the amount of support needed to override the Governor’s expected veto.

Remaining to be addressed when the legislature reconvenes is the move to override Governor Lynch’s veto of the Right-to-Work legislation that was passed this session. This vital piece of legislation will increase New Hampshire’s competitiveness both in the region and around the country. We should encourage our legislators to stand with job creators across the Granite State and support an override of the Governor’s veto when this comes to a vote.

As we continue to monitor the votes in Concord, we must remember that the most important votes cast are those at the ballot box. Every two years we have the opportunity to assess the job performance of our elected officials. While the issues and candidates may change, what remains unchanged is the seriousness with which New Hampshire citizens approach this solemn responsibility.

Corey is a Windham, NH resident

Mercy & the Death Penalty

To:  COMMISSION TO STUDY THE DEATH PENALTY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

 

bcc: The New Hampshire General Court, Police Chiefs and media throughout New Hampshire

 

From: Dudley Sharp

 

Mercy & the Death Penalty
compiled by Dudley Sharp
 
1)  Saint Augustine: " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)
 
2)  Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful.-- CS Lewis

 

3)  Saint Thomas Aquinas: . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6, 2
 
4)   “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).
 
5)  Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.
 
“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods."
 
"This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’  "
 
"The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)
 
Some opposing capital punishment ". . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)
 
Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)
 
6)  William Law : "To say, therefore, as some have said, if God is all love toward fallen man, how can he threaten or chastise sinners is no better that saying, if God is all goodness in Himself and toward man, how can He do that in and to man which is for his good? As absurd is to say, if the able physician is all love, goodness and good will toward his patients, how can he blister, purge, or scarify them, how can he order one to be trepanned and another to have a limb cut off? Nay, so absurd is this reasoning that if it could be proved that God had no chastisement for sinners, the very want of their chastisement would be the greatest of all proofs that God was not all love and goodness toward man."
 
"And, therefore, the pure, mere love of God is that alone from which sinners are justly to expect that no sin will pass unpunished, but that His love will visit them with every calamity and distress that can help to break and purify the bestial heart of man and awaken in him true repentance and conversion to God. It is love alone in the holy Deity that will allow no peace to the wicked, nor ever cease its judgments till ever sinner is forced to confess that it is good for him that he has been in trouble, and thankfully own that not the wrath but the love of God has plucked out that right eye, cut off that right band, which he ought to have done but would not do for himself and his own salvation."   A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life,  http://www.answers.com/topic/william-law
 
7)  George MacDonald: God will give absolute justice, which is the only good thing. He will spare nothing to bring his children back to himself, their sole well-being, whether he achieve it here—or there.  http://www.george-macdonald.com/
 
8)  The Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church (2005) states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” "When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation." 2266
 
This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.
 
We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime/disorder of the aggressor and hold them accountable for it by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the guilt/sin/crime/disorder  and should represent justice/just retribution/just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 2260:
 
"For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." "This teaching remains necessary for all time."

 

9)  Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (Jesus) replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23: 39-43
 
Mercy, salvation and redemption will not be measured by the method of our earthly death , but by our state of grace in the context of the eternal.
 
10)  C. S. Lewis:  "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "
 
"I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal."
 
"The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."
 
"My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being."
 
"Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .".
 
" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "
 
"The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment."
 
"But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image."
 
"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "
 
" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
 
11)  C. S. Lewis:  "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself.  They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. "  "The Complete C.S. Lewis", Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002
 
12)  Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.
 
They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution),  that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior,  that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).
 
Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It  does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.
 
13)  "Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices...A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims."  Don Feder, Boston Herald Columnist. "McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment". 21 May 2001
 
14)   Reconciliation has to be built with full recognition and accountability for the wrong. –Martha Kilpatrick

 

15)  G. K. Chesterton : Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy.”  http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/
 
16)  William Shakespeare: Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy.
 
17)  Never Forget Mercy for the Innocent   -    "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
 
18)   “I have been asked on hundreds of times in my life why God allows tragedy and suffering. I have to confess that I really do not know the answer totally, even to my own satisfaction. I have to accept, by faith, that God is sovereign, and He is a God of love and mercy and compassion in the midst of suffering.” Billy Graham
 
19)  Nothing is to be preferred before justice.” Socrates
 
20)  Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens : Plato
---------------------------------
 
1) synopsis of “A Bible Study”, from Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Carey was a Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College.
 
2) “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,
www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html



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)