The John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum hosted an event on Tuesday, April 26 called “Tea Party – What’s Brewing for the Budget Battle & the Ballet Box?” The panel of Tea Party spokespeople and journalists featured a conversation with Andrew Hemingway of the New Hampshire Republican Liberty Caucus and Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots, who explained their goals for the movement and its expected impact on Washington. However much I agree with the premise of the Tea Party movement as a libertarian disciple of the 2008 “Ron Paul Revolution,” I must admit that these two Tea Partiers were somewhat off their game in defending the movement. Shannon Travis of CNN and Kate Zernike of the New York Times, along with several audience members, questioned whether grassroots activism catered to a sufficiently large base to make an impact in future elections and in the policy arena.
Instead of proposing methods for future success, these Tea Partiers repeated the mantra “Fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, free markets.” When asked to define possible approaches to fixing entitlements, national Tea Party spokeswoman Jenny Beth Martin conceded that she had not looked into the specifics of reform. In the case of Mr. Hemingway, he touted the fact that the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire boasted 50,000 voters of 250,000 total, a proportion that could sway a Republican primary in a field of several candidates.
This latter statement is a shortsighted solution to our national malaise, and will not give the Tea Party a greater voice on a national level. New Hampshire’s situation is distinct from other states in its Tea Party support, most notably because it has been receptive to the liberty movement overall, especially in the development of the “Free State Project” in the state. Such individuals continue to leave their mark, transforming the character of the state.
As a grassroots-based movement, I do not fault activists like Mr. Hemingway for thinking in such parochial terms. In fact, I applaud the fact that the model is working so well at a local level. The reality is, though, that the United States electorate is much more diverse and idiosyncratic. To stake out a greater influence in political discourse and at the ballot box, the Tea Party could use a few tweaks.
1. Take a decisive stance on foreign policy, preferably a non-interventionist approach. The Tea Party, though homogeneous in its fiscal views nationwide, is quite variable in its foreign policy stance. For instance, Tea Party Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have teamed up to propose a five-year deficit reduction plan, yet are on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to commitments overseas. While Paul questions the United States’ decision to invade Iraq and is skeptical of what our endgame is in nation building in the Middle East, DeMint adheres more to the party line and endorses a more hands-on, interventionist approach.
Which approach is better? Well, based on the fact that the Tea Party cannot possibly be serious about cutting the deficit without reevaluating our grossly large military budget (close to half of gross world military expenditure), a more sensible, non-interventionist approach to future wars is the wiser option. Recent polls would seem to bolster this sentiment. Disapproval of President Obama’s escalating the War in Afghanistan has reached an all-time high recently, hitting 49% nationwide. In my previous article on Libya in late March, I cited how seven in ten Americans believed the Libyan intervention was justified; today forty-five percent are opposed.
Most reading this right now are probably skeptical of the efficacy of the aforementioned strategy given the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in Abottabad, Pakistan. Indeed, this moment is a monumental day for America and can provide some much needed closure for the families affected by the tragedy of September 11th. At the same time, though, we cannot be quick to make judgments in the aftermath of this feat. We have to ask ourselves: is the discovery of Bin Laden’s whereabouts a byproduct of the escalation of violence in the Afghanistan theater by President Obama, or good intelligence gathering in coordination with the Pakistani authorities? Can this victory really be chalked up to the President’s unequaled abilities as a tactician, or would any executive in his shoes follow suit to close a chapter of the American War on Terror? We mustn’t be rash. Nation-building is not a harbinger of high-profile assassinations, and any GOP contender must painstakingly make this clear and help the American people discern the truths and myths of interventionist foreign policy. The death of Bin Laden should spell the end of the War in Afghanistan; if it does not, the logical question is what are we doing there?
2. Ally with progressive Democrats. It may sound absurd, but bear with me.
I received plenty of feedback after my article on the Ron Paul movement back in February, and one of the most intriguing e-mails I received was from a progressive Democrat. He expressed support for my article and forwarded me a link to an article on his blog, “Progressives for Ron Paul.” President Obama has left countless progressives disillusioned with his hawkish tendencies in Afghanistan and Libya, and has left the door open to a change of heart.
More importantly, the precedent for Tea Partiers/libertarians and progressives teaming up is not something completely novel. Both Ralph Nader and Ron Paul have appeared on cable news declaring their mutual support in the battle against “corporatism,” a system whereby entrenched military and banking interests prosper at the expense of the lower and middle classes. They also have intersecting interests in defending civil liberties against government privacy intrusion. By aligning itself with progressives, a larger following is definitely in the cards of the Tea Party, and the transition from spontaneous movement to inveterate policymaker should be a stone’s throw away.
3. Distance itself from lightning rods of negative publicity. I hate to be the person to say this, but the social conservative streak of the Tea Party movement threatens to bring it down. Figures like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin only serve to perpetuate stereotypes about the movement and invite social conservatives to hijack the message of the movement toward something that most Americans are simply not interested in. If you were to rank the debt ceiling with same-sex marriage, which do you feel should deserve more attention? It is simply a no-go. Be it a Bachmann who has proposed an amendment to ban same-sex marriage or a Palin who cannot keep bad press away from her, the situation is untenable in the long term if such figureheads are dominating the airwaves.
The Tea Party is here to stay, but its long-term impact remains a question. If it reassesses its approach, perhaps we can see much more drastic change come 2012.
A special thanks to the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum Committee and staff members, especially Jordan Sessler ’13, Trey Grayson, Jeff Barnes, Sean Tierney, and Noelia Rodriguez for putting on the Tea Party event and bringing this issue to light.
Photo Credit: The Crimson