I was listening to some Tea Party leaders recently. They were unhappy some Representatives had not yet made their position on a bill public. They decided to find out those positions and if a Rep was voting “wrong,” to threaten him with a primary challenge.
Disagreements, even among allies, are inevitable. How we handle them defines our relationship’s future. In the aftermath of successful influence in 2010′s elections, some Tea Party activists are choosing coercion over cooperation.
It’s said you don’t truly know a man until you disagree with him. Character is revealed by conflict more than it is developed by it. What will Tea Party choices reveal? Will they choose purity of principle? Will they insist their way is the only way and burn the bridges between them and their natural allies? Or will they choose maturity of method? Will they permit allies to have varied convictions and still build bridges to lasting collaborations?
It’s true that elected officials can be more interested in reelection than good governance. Legislatures can become so insular that votes are disconnected from the constituency for whom they are being cast. All that matters is being there next year to cast more votes. On the other hand, activists can be more interested in today’s results than in tomorrow’s reality. The courage of conviction can become the inflexibility of arrogance. The piece of candy today is the prize at the expense of tomorrow’s bag of candy.
But there are real people on the other end of issues. Where is the profit in winning on an issue while destroying the connection to those for and alongside whom we fight?
My personal goal is a synthesis of the two approaches. Bad votes and legislation identify bad legislators. Yet at some point all legislators and activists will end up on the wrong side of an issue. How should we handle this?
Lives are videos, not snapshots. If a legislator can go from ally to enemy over a single issue, what sort of ally was he really? So, I try to choose allies carefully. In the event of disagreements, I try to give my ally the benefit of the doubt and generally practice private awareness and public silence. If I choose to comment publicly, I keep the discussion to the merits and flaws of the issue. Threats and personal attacks are not options. The rationale here is both social and practical. I can bully my Rep for a bad vote, but why? The Rep I threaten to primary today is the same one whose vote I need next week. Cooperation, goodwill and access are not built with threats as the default option. Like Momma said, you catch more flies with honey …
So what’s a tea’d off activist to do? Reason and facts are powerful. I believe they are the best currency with which to “buy” legislators. It’s easier for them to face cameras and constituents well armed with sound arguments than merely clothed with the knowledge their votes were coerced. Would we not despise them for caving to lobbyist threats to cut off funding? How is caving to our threats any different?
If our position is sound, we should have little trouble explaining its value. We find like minded souls to contact our legislators with the same arguments. We bring petitions, position papers, polls and data to support our view. Then we “Reagan” them; trust them to vote right and verify they did. That gives us a snapshot. We express private disappointment or public gratitude accordingly.
Since we haven’t alienated our Rep with bad behavior, we can engage him on the next issue and the one after that, always following the same pattern. That gives us the video. If it shows a Rep who, not over one issue – but over time, consistently supports bad policy, we don’t threaten to primary him, we actually primary him. Frankly, he’s unlikely to be surprised. We have the evidence we need to justify and implement that decision. Until then, we have not compromised our ability to work with him or to influence him to change.
It’s basic courtesy and common sense. It’s choosing long term results over immediate gratification. It’s a harder path to walk, but the rewards are equal to the effort – maturity of method over purity of principle. Sure, you could take a different road. If you do, don’t be too surprised to find it crowded with bullies busy reading Rules for Radicals. You might also start preparing for your turn wearing the target costume …
#1 by StephC on 03/23/2011 - 13:53
That does present a problem for the Tea parties. The possibility strongly exists that using such tactics will make of them what they are fighting, both from the progressives in government and the establishment big government GOP.
While I haven't been politically active for very long, I've seen groups in other areas go this same route many a time. They band together for a common cause but, over time, become the thing they once banded against.
#2 by Toni on 03/23/2011 - 14:11
I personally believe in most instances this is a naivete on the part of most Tea Partiers. So it's pretty much an empty threat anyway. For example, Gov. Haslam or Sen. Corker, do they really believe they have enough money to counter the power and money behind these two? In TN, the only way would be to oust them in the primary and with TN having open primaries it's pretty much a losing proposition. Why else is the TN Mafia against closed primaries. In a closed primary they can't pull the Democrats to vote for them. For the TN Tea Party people, I don't believe they were all that 'activist' in the last election. How many were actually out working for candidates? How many were walking the neighborhoods campaigning? Not many from my recollection.
#3 by Josh Williams on 03/23/2011 - 14:16
Great post Blue. You hit the nail on the head. I think some of the Tea Party leaders have drank to much of their own kool-aid and over reacting to singular issues. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Why would a Governor or Legislator want to work with you in the future if you threaten them over every disagreement. That tactic is no better than the way the left treats their side. We should be better than that. STOP throwing the word "socialist" around, you lose credibility if you throw it around too much. It is like the little boy that cried wolf, the people eventually stopped believing him and the wolf finally showed up.
Way to go my friend!
#4 by Kay Brooks on 03/23/2011 - 23:21
Excellent. Maturity is the perfect word to use. It's lacking in many of the 'voices' of the current renewal who are rabid defenders of their doctrine. And let me add that maturity isn't necessarily compromise or even capitulation. It's knowing which fights to choose and living to fight another day. It's being able to engage over the long haul as you say, and eventually win the war.
#5 by Daniel Lewis on 03/23/2011 - 23:56
It would depend on the issue. For example, if a Tennessee legislator voted for a state income tax (or against the amendment preventing it) that could and should be a litmus test issue.
On the other hand it is important to keep in mind that one may work with individuals and groups on one issue, but not another. I worked with the SEIU on opposing Music City Center. I doubt I would support an SEIU endorsed candidate.
By their nature elected officials should be held to a higher standard. By definition the state is force. When a rep decides to advance and increase the force of the state it is justifiable to challenge them in an election.
#6 by Blue Collar Muse on 03/24/2011 - 01:51
@ Toni -
To continue on your thought about the real world practicality of making good on a threat to primary a legislator, consider:
We currently don't have people running in all of Tennessee's House and Senate races – if they aren't there now, they aren't going to magically appear next year;
Such threats are only effective if they are perceived as real. If, as in the scenarios you list, it is possible but highly unlikely that a primary challenger would be found, the person doing the threatening has expended his secret weapon for little or no return;
One must never forget negative harvests. If Tea Partiers continue to sound off about Primary challenges and those end up being more sound than fury, not only will legislators ignore them, they will begin to openly push back against the threats. THAT scenario ought to concern every Tea Party member who holds dear the gains the movement has made;
There's more that could be said along these lines but you get the picture …
#7 by bryan on 03/24/2011 - 08:50
Well put, Ken. As a teen, I remember Reagan and William F Buckley debating the Panama Canal treaty. At the end of the day, they were still brother conservatives who, though on opposite ends on that issue, lived to fight together another day. Sadly, if that debate took place now, I am sure you would see indiscriminate use of the terms "socialist" and (my personal pet peeve) RINO. How Reagan and Buckley handled their differences should be instructive for Tea Party Leaders. The question should be: is the legislator showing a PATTERN of bad votes that warrants looking into recruiting a primary challenger or is he a good legislator who blew it on the odd bill or two? I do agree with Daniel that some issues are so big that one vote is critical i.e. the income tax; the collective bargaining bill; etc. However, even then, you focus on the bill's merits or deficiencies, NOT the character of the legislator or the governor. Good advice for life as well as politics!!
#8 by Matt Bonner on 03/24/2011 - 13:39
Well thought out Ken. I agree. Much better to keep the emotion in check and think through these issues with bit longer term perspective. It is easy to jump on the ride of brandishing a rep when they don't vote your way, but as you've stated, much harder to build a track record of support and accountability over the long haul. I appreciate your approach here – let's hope a little more critical thought wins the day…
#9 by Willie Lawson on 04/04/2011 - 12:34
Come hear Ken talk about this very topic on the Willie Lawson Show. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/willielawsonshow. It is so important for people to get this.
#10 by Daniel McClain on 07/08/2011 - 01:56
I agree with most of what the Tea party members stand for but I also agree that they can go a little too far. As in all things moderation is the key. If you go too extreme either way it will relaly cause problems.
Pingback: Arrogant Jerks on the Right Are As Bad As Arrogant Jerks on the Left | The Pink Flamingo
#11 by Tami Kilmarx on 04/22/2012 - 09:41
Ken, thanks for this discussion. I would agree with you wholeheartedly, from someone who has been in a position of leading this unwieldy beast called tea party and other grassroots organizations. I would add that being a human being makes for an inherently skewed perception, in any matters that humans have to process.
I would also add that being a conservative comes with many such flawed perceptions and even more difficult attempts at alliances. Conservatives are by their natures extremely independent in their thinking (as opposed to the other side of the aisle who are joined at the hip and in lockstep. Perhaps something we could take lessons from? I don’t know.) But the utilization of “Rules for Radicals” to run an organization? Maybe not a good idea for some of us to parrot (as have been seeing the misuse of these “rules” in matters of the tea party and their activities.)
Another reason why I don’t sign up and sign onto many of the “points of contention or grievances” that have been “written” by some organizations, (tea party, gop, or whatever.) I can’t bring myself to sign on to these things because I don’t agree with certain of them. This has caused Rob and I endless angst over the years…we have been accused of not being a part of the tea party because we didn’t agree with the bureaucracy and organizational leaders. We have been accused of being “destructive to the cause.” Many such false and very hurtful accusations, as there is no truer heart than that of mine and Roberts….skewed and wrong much of the time, probably yes. But desirous of truth, definitely!
Something I have witnessed over the past several years (especially over the tea party years,) conservatives across the spectrum, even if self-styled, tend to stand in a circle and shoot. In this fog of war, friendly fire is taking out a lot of good friends. Take care to aim and then fire.
I try very hard not to burn any bridges. Sometimes that is difficult. From the perspective of primarying incumbents, that gets doubly hard. I see from the perspective of incumbent representatives, the rules of the game tend to be an eye for any eye, regardless of how hard you try to keep it clean and to the point/facts. It becomes a matter of their power and influence, and they are oftentimes not above holding one accountable for the activities for voting against them or campaigning for an opposition to their seat. I have also been witness to some who would denounce the tea party even when those tea party folks campaigned for them, then turning around and seeing the tea party person, organization as a threat. (I have been told many times that “the tea party desires to overthrow the Republican Party.” Ludicrous from mine and Rob’s perceptions and activities, as we have been republicans for as long as I can remember. Some gop and other organizations may need to be realigned with conservative and traditional ideals, but to be so accused? Divisive language.)
The nature of politics is ugly business when not aligned with God’s ideal for the physical realm. He has His plan. We only must know that plan and attempt to align with it. How I despise this ugly game…on all ends of it. But who am I?
#12 by Max Rodriguez on 07/19/2012 - 09:11
I really think that it’s important for us to put differences aside at times like these and focus on making steady gains in a direction that will do us some good, and the party as a whole.
With some of the nation’s most serious proposed threats happening so frequently within a term, it’s exactly what others hope to see happen within our ranks.
I may not always agree with my friends and colleagues, but i’m willing to put differences aside for the greater good – and in doing so, I hope I can inspire others to follow suit.