5 Things Conservatives Should Be Wary of in the Tea Party

[shagdrum]

5 Things Conservatives Should Be Wary of in the Tea Party
by Matt Lewis

While some view the Tea Party as a continuation of the Ross Perot movement, it may be better understood as the third wave of modern conservatism (the first being Barry Goldwater's victory over the GOP establishment in 1964, and the second being the rise of the Christian right in the late 1970s).

For conservatives, both of these movements were largely positive; both paved the way for Ronald Reagan's 1980 election.

In both instances, the newcomers were first viewed as "barbarians at the gate" by the threatened insiders (who sometimes compared the rabble to something you would see in the bar scene in "Star Wars").

Many insiders view Tea Party candidates and activists with similar skepticism. But while some conservatives are threatened, most view the Tea Party as merely an influx of new conservative troops they can co-opt to support their causes. For these folks, it's important to note that the new faces could also change what it means to be a conservative. After all, when Christian conservatives became involved in politics, their involvement certainly had similar consequences. This may or may not be entirely positive.

With that in mind, I was honored to be part of a panel discussion yesterday at the conservative Leadership Institute (for which I worked from 1999-2003) on "The Conservative Movement and the Tea Party." Though I opened my remarks with the caveat that I believe the Tea Party to be an incredibly positive force on American politics -- never content with simply being popular -- I focused my remarks on "Five Things Movement Conservatives Should Be Wary of in the Tea Party."

As you can imagine, many in the crowd did not appreciate this counter-intuitive angle. Conservatives are rightly frustrated with President Obama's leftward lurch and are in no mood for introspection or constructive criticism -- even if offered with the best intentions. After all, if you truly believe the end of the world is near, you're less likely to want to engage in debate over what might be perceived as abstract ideas.

This, of course, is foolish. Debate and discussion are healthy, and failure to examine oneself is hubris. As such, here are my thoughts on potential problems for conservatives -- again, with the understanding that there is much more right than wrong with the Tea Party:

1. Lack of reverence for conservative leaders and organizations. It has been my observation that many of today's new activists are quick to conflate being "old" with being part the establishment. This is probably natural, but it is not always helpful. To be sure, some conservative leaders have been corrupted or co-opted. But many joined the conservative fight when it was not popular or profitable to do so, and have nobly dedicated their lives to this cause. This should be honored, not dismissed. A tenet of Burkean conservatism is respect for tradition and accumulated wisdom. Conservatives would be foolish to abandon the wisdom of elders, much less eschew the infrastructure that has been created over recent decades, merely because it existed prior to 2010.

2. A move away from social conservatism. Just as the rise of Christian conservatives in the late 1970s and 1980s profoundly changed the conservative movement, the Tea Party has the potential to change it once again, possibly making it more libertarian. While many Tea Partiers are full-spectrum conservatives, it's fair to say that government spending and the failed economy are the galvanizing forces right now. As such, it's fair to conclude that an influx of activists concerned primarily about fiscal issues might change the complexion of the conservative movement. This could be good or bad (depending on your views), but it is a phenomenon worth considering.

3. Anti-Intellectualism. Unlike liberalism, which began as a patchwork of disparate interest groups seeking power, conservatism began as a coherent intellectual philosophy. But in recent decades, conservatives have mocked "pointy-headed liberal intellectuals," creating an impression that intelligence is almost something to be skeptical of. While I am certainly not advocating elitism, I would strongly encourage conservatives to reject populism. Conservative candidates who can eloquently advocate for conservative positions have a better chance of impacting the culture than do demagogues who cannot effectively communicate their philosophy to the masses.

4. Purges. For years, I have been critical of "conservatives" who consistently throw stones at other conservatives. Having said that, there is also a danger of Jacobinism, where even fellow revolutionaries are purged -- not for philosophical apostasy but for not being "team players." In recent weeks, we have seen conservative writers labeled RINO's (Republicans in name only) for questioning the background of a Tea Party candidate.

5. The Victim Card. Recently, a prominent conservative voice accused Karl Rove of sexism. While sexism certainly does exist, fair criticism and analysis of a female political candidate does not constitute sexism. Though winning is important, how you play the game is, perhaps, more telling. Conservatives should avoid copying the tactics of the left.

You may have noticed that missing from my list is "electability." Many analysts such as Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove have argued that the Tea Party risks costing the GOP a majority in the Senate by nominating candidates who aren't ready for prime time. This is not a concern for me. As the DC Examiner's Tim Carney noted, this is collateral damage. You've got to take the good with the bad, and clearly the Tea Party has given us more good candidates than bad ones.

Note: The aforementioned concerns do not keep me up at night. It would be wrong to obsess over these concerns, or to let them diminish from the positives the Tea Party has given us. But it is also foolish to avoid introspection. These are not issues to worry over, but they are issues to keep an eye on as we go forward.

 

[Federali Aundy]

These are all excellent points being made here. Passion brings with it followers, but passion must always be guided by thought and reflection. To do this, the Tea Party must be open to the wisdom of its elders (point 1) and the intellectual integrity of the conservative movement (point 3).

But of all five points, point two seems to be the scariest. As I watch the news (and look at the GOP’s “Pledge”) all I hear about is the economy, economy, economy. We forget that it was the value voters that re-elected President Bush back in 2004 and it was the value voters who sat at home when they saw McCain running in 2008. I’m certainly not advocating for imposing Christian values on anyone, but our culture seems to be straying further away from objective morality in general. Focusing on money is not going to make Americans more moral.

We need an ego reduction just as much as we need a spending reduction.

But from an economic perspective, we have seen countries whose birthrates have remained or risen do better economically than in Europe or the U.S. where birth rates have declined. Here our citizens begin to act irresponsibly and then expect entitlements. We speak of “birth control” but what we really mean is no births and even less self control.

I understand that Americans are really suffering right now economically and thus it makes sense that conservatives focus on the most immediate problem people are experiencing – but we can’t afford to let the even bigger problems (indeed the ones which actually caused the financial meltdown) get cast aside.

Candidates who run as “value candidates” often times, however, know little about fiscal concerns and foreign policy matters – we need more candidates with moral backbone and a keen intellect for domestic and foreign policy. Candidates such as this are hard to come by.

 

[shagdrum]

I’m certainly not advocating for imposing Christian values on anyone, but our culture seems to be straying further away from objective morality in general. Focusing on money is not going to make Americans more moral.

There is the big concern. Social conservatism is often equated with quazi-theocracy and unfortunately, there have been many so-called "conservatives" who have validated that view with legislative proposals (mostly at the state level).

Especially at the federal level, I would prefer the more libertarian conservatism of Barry Goldwater (which seems to be more in line with the tea party).

However, as you allude to, moral and economic issues are not separate. It was no coincidence that Adam Smith was a moral philosopher as much as an economist. The question is, what is the government's role in promoting morality.

While it is rhetorically effective to say that no one should "legislate morality", that is what all laws ultimately do; codify moral views so ubiquitous in society that they become normative.

The problem, in my view, is when people look to change society's morals through legislation. This is something that is inherent in any ideology (in the technical sense), you can even find it in libertarian thought.

Obamacare is, at it's heart an attempt to impose a moral order on society, specifically a moral order built around the concept of social justice. Libertarianism promotes a moral order built around individual liberty.

Government laws should reflect the morals of society, not dictate them. As a tool for social change, government is a blunt instrument; a crude tool that is inappropriate for the job at hand. There are other social institutions that are much better equipped at promoting morals in society; the church being the classic example of such an institution.

 

[fossten]

These are all excellent points being made here. Passion brings with it followers, but passion must always be guided by thought and reflection. To do this, the Tea Party must be open to the wisdom of its elders (point 1) and the intellectual integrity of the conservative movement (point 3).

But of all five points, point two seems to be the scariest. As I watch the news (and look at the GOP’s “Pledge”) all I hear about is the economy, economy, economy. We forget that it was the value voters that re-elected President Bush back in 2004 and it was the value voters who sat at home when they saw McCain running in 2008. I’m certainly not advocating for imposing Christian values on anyone, but our culture seems to be straying further away from objective morality in general. Focusing on money is not going to make Americans more moral.

We need an ego reduction just as much as we need a spending reduction.

But from an economic perspective, we have seen countries whose birthrates have remained or risen do better economically than in Europe or the U.S. where birth rates have declined. Here our citizens begin to act irresponsibly and then expect entitlements. We speak of “birth control” but what we really mean is no births and even less self control.

I understand that Americans are really suffering right now economically and thus it makes sense that conservatives focus on the most immediate problem people are experiencing – but we can’t afford to let the even bigger problems (indeed the ones which actually caused the financial meltdown) get cast aside.

Candidates who run as “value candidates” often times, however, know little about fiscal concerns and foreign policy matters – we need more candidates with moral backbone and a keen intellect for domestic and foreign policy. Candidates such as this are hard to come by.

Absolutely right. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Calabrio]

Personal responsibility.
If we don't have a cultural awakening, independent of government, there is little hope of any successful political restoration of the country. That's absolutely true.

And you simply can't have limited government if the population has no self-control or shared morals and values.

But we have to pursue a dual course.
Political and social. And while they are symbiotic, they are still independent.

The "Tea Party Movement," for lack of a better term, is increasingly going to be either the kernel that the GOP has to rebuild around and reform their party- or, considering that the Democrats have been taken over by a political class that doesn't reflect traditional American ideas, and if the GOP doesn't get it right following the 2010 election, it may be the foundation of a constitutional third party or opposition party.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Government laws should reflect the morals of society, not dictate them. As a tool for social change, government is a blunt instrument; a crude tool that is inappropriate for the job at hand. There are other social institutions that are much better equipped at promoting morals in society; the church being the classic example of such an institution.

I think it would be very helpful for people to get this image in their minds – that “government is a blunt instrument.” We wouldn’t use a hammer to screw in a nail with any effect, and even the massive Saturn V rocket didn’t go to the moon; it was the small and comparatively light capsules at the top that did (and even then it was only the lunar lander carried within the rocket that actually set down on the lunar surface).

No one part should ever overwhelm another but all the parts ought work together to achieve a common goal, the common good. Power in itself does not make something greater than another – in fact, the more power one has, the more responsibility one has to act rightly and limit the use of that power. It reminds me of something from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good" CCC 1883.

Plato thought the same thing in the Republic. There can be no “social justice” without individuals acting just and being just in their hearts. If we as citizens act with integrity and upright morality, we would have a renewed nation.

 

[Federali Aundy]

...if the GOP doesn't get it right following the 2010 election, it may be the foundation of a constitutional third party or opposition party.

Well let's just hope the GOP gets it right!

 

[fossten]

The "Tea Party Movement," for lack of a better term, is increasingly going to be either the kernel that the GOP has to rebuild around and reform their party- or, considering that the Democrats have been taken over by a political class that doesn't reflect traditional American ideas, and if the GOP doesn't get it right following the 2010 election, it may be the foundation of a constitutional third party or opposition party.

It appears that the GOP may end up being the minority party and the Tea Party may be the main competition for the Democrats. See Murkowski and Crist.