There is a tragic, toxic feud taking place in Tennessee between some grassroots activists and the Legislature. Part of the tragedy is what it means for grassroots relating to legislators moving forward. The grassroots don’t like the way legislators are acting. Equally tragic is what it will mean for legislators relating to grassroots moving forward. Clearly, the legislators don’t like the way grassroots are acting, either.
From where I sit, responsibility for whatever consequences there are lies with the grassroots. They will accept no result but 100% success. Absent that, they are unwilling to abide by reasonable dialogue between natural allies. They are willing to die on every hill upon which they fight and all that disagree with them are the enemy. It’s a flawed strategy.
Grassroots’ analysis says legislators are “traitors,” “treacherous” and have “betrayed” and been “disloyal” to those who elected them; legislators sold out citizens to Big Business. Lawmakers are “liars,” “anti-2nd Amendment,” “unconcerned with Constitutional issues” and more. There is a huge body of rhetoric out there which is both highly critical of and incendiary in nature towards the Tennessee Legislature.
It’s bad form and it’s not true.
Legislators are people, too. Cut them and they bleed, treat them badly and they will resent it. Unwilling to be a perennial whipping boy, legislators know the names they are being called and the conclusions being drawn concerning their character and integrity are, put bluntly, untrue.
In the last two years, this lying, treacherous, disloyal, constitution and 2nd Amendment hating group of lawmakers passed SJR 127 championing state’s rights in the matter of abortion. They passed Collective Bargaining reform of the sort getting GOP Senators and a Governor recalled in Wisconsin. They fundamentally changed the way education is provided in Tennessee with this year’s TEAM act basing teacher evaluations in merit and not length of service. They abolished the Hall Income Tax, the Estate Tax and the Gift Tax. They cut $1.5B from the budget. They enacted one of the best Voter ID laws in the nation. They passed the Guns in Restaurant bill and the Carry in Parks bill along with other pro-2nd Amendment legislation.
I could go on but you get the point. Please, God, may legislators everywhere be such lying, treacherous blackguards!!
For their trouble, whenever there was an honest difference of opinion, the threats began. “We’ll primary you,” and “You lied,” have been the order of the day. Few insults or defamations were off limits. Frankly, from my perspective, the legislators have had enough. They see the political process as a collaboration. Grassroots seem to see it more of a Master/Servant relationship. Rebuilding bridges will be time consuming if it’s even possible.
This feud is now being driven by a single issue. The Safe Commute Bill which pits Property Rights against 2nd Amendment Rights. Many in the 2nd Amendment crowd (full disclosure – I am in this camp) seem unable to grasp that someone can disagree with them without being evil. The grassroots’ treatment of legislators on this has finally polluted the hearts of the legislators as well. More than one legislator has said to me they didn’t pass the bill out of committee precisely because of the actions of the grassroots. Who knows? That might even be true.
I do know two things:
1) The grassroots are ignoring good advice. I wrote last year to give up this strategy. A TownHall last weekend featured speakers who, when asked how to relate to legislators, reminded us we catch more flies with honey. It’s the world’s way of explaining Proverbs 25:15, “By long forbearance and calmness of spirit a judge or ruler is persuaded, and soft speech breaks down the most bonelike resistance.” (Amplified)
2) The grassroots are in no win scenario. Proverbs 25:14 notes, “Like billowing clouds that bring no rain is the person who talks big but never produces.” (The Message) Primary threats are only effective if they work. There are several current attempts to replace sitting Republicans. If they fail, the grassroots will be further marginalized.
The Legislature has done well without the grassroots. They’ve done better with them. Both are needed for maximum effectiveness. Unfortunately, the grassroots may have made themselves irrelevant by their actions. We’ll see. But Conservatives believe a man is responsible for his own actions. That’s about to play out across the state in elections. Sadly, regardless of who wins, Tennessee loses.
One can only hope that next year, we’ll find ourselves building more together than we do unilaterally tearing our own house down today.
#1 by Jeremy Faison on 04/27/2012 - 15:32
Very well written!!
#2 by Sally Absher on 04/27/2012 - 15:55
I think the Hall Tax will be taken up next year (as I have to pay it, I’m pretty sure I would have known if they’d repealed it this year!) but otherwise, your article is spot-on. Relationships matter. Bobbie Patray, our 25-plus year citizen lobbyist heroine, preaches this to anyone who will listen! We didn’t get where we are today overnight, so it is unreasonable to expect that it will be turned around overnight. We need to work with the legislators, not attack them, and be sure to give credit where credit is due. We aren’t the only people trying to influence the legislature – there is the establishment party, the lobbyists, the grassroots, and John and Jane Q. Citizen. A little bit of grace goes a long way. Thanks for an important article, Ken!
#3 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/27/2012 - 16:29
Sally, my understanding of the Hall Income Tax is that its repeal is the same as the Estate Tax. It is being stepped down over a few years and will end entirely in just a couple of more years.
You may still pay it but you should pay less and not for the foreseeable future. The end is coming…
#4 by Tami Kilmarx on 04/27/2012 - 15:59
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. Many of us attempt to not participate in this sort of hostility. Admittedly, the issues of the day (the highly-charged and emotional issues of the day), get folks riled up. Some of the things I have witnessed from some in the legislature, I have remained mostly silent about unless to my good friends or unless they are so overwhelming, one cannot remain silent. But there are reasons we, in this house, don’t participate in some things and activities; we have been on the receiving end many times of hostilities directed at us. It’s a sorry state of affairs, and I know this very well, friends get thrown under the bus….coming from the legislature directed at some grassroots activists, vice versa, and grassroots to grassroots.
I realize you are attempting to moderate and mediate, but I caution anyone to take care appearing to take the high road. It is imperative we don’t treat like-minded friends badly; that we keep our eyes on the prize; and when there are those who necessarily do not agree with our positions (and then do a 180 and condemn you in ways that are beneath contempt and publicly, by the way), it is up to us to maintain the high ground.
There are some I just choose not to keep company with. And perhaps, they likewise choose not to keep company with me. So be it!
#5 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/27/2012 - 16:42
@Tami -
As I wrote in the piece last year that I linked to, there are people whose behavior is bad over time and these folks deserve to be shunned and opposed by us.
However, just because someone has behaved badly over an item or two, they should not be subject to the same treatment. If someone has lied to you, then you ought not trust them. But neither should you call them a liar unless you can prove it. And, it would help if you could demonstrate that it was truly a lie as opposed to a change in position based on new information, for example.
The problem is that we like to gripe about how we don’t like what people do to us and we turn around and do the same or worse to them.
If someone treats you badly in the legislative process, you have two options: 1) be like them, or; 2) be the bigger man. As well, there is a continuum of behavior there from one extreme to the other.
The point is, if someone continues to do badly over time, there’s no surprise if he finds himself opposed to us. I don’t believe Jimmy Naifeh or Jim Cooper would be surprised to find I disagree with them on most things.
But if they behave badly on occasion, as I have often said, my Much Younger Trophy Wife of 25 years and I do not agree on everything. We make it work. Because we are committed to each other and to the big picture end we are working for.
Not much more really needs to be said. If there is evidence of wrong doing and lies, put it out there so there’s no question. If not, keep silent and behave in accordance with what you believe to be true while looking for further evidence.
While doing so, do not mistake principled disagreement and a passion for their positions that matches your own for treason, deceit and opposition. Sometimes your friends are the ones you most disagree with …
#6 by Tommy Thomas on 04/27/2012 - 16:30
Excellent comment, HOWEVER, I feel strongly about asserting myself when it comes to the rights granted under the U S Constitution. I have heard “compromise” and “common ground” long enough. Look where that has gotten us thus far! On one end of the spectrum is my right to strap on a firearm and wear it at my desk… at the other end is having to leave it in my safe at home… in both cases, I am “bearing arms.” I think the middle of the road is for me to be able to have my weapon inside a locked compartment inside my locked vehicle at any time and any place. HOW can a property owner disagree with that. The legislature passes laws that will NEVER change behavior, only punish the transgressor… If the crazies amongst us were to disappear into confinement, I would not HAVE to defend my self. MOREOVER, I will die on ANY HILL where my OR YOUR rights are threatened!
#7 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/27/2012 - 17:00
Tommy -
Your question, “HOW can a property owner disagree with that?” is the best illustration of the problem.
I’m on your side of the equation on this one. I believe Americans should be able to carry wherever and whenever and lose that right only when they commit a felony or are incarcerated or in some other way demonstrate they cannot be trusted to properly exercise it. So I support the Safe Commute Bill.
However, I have friends who believe that Property Rights trump 2nd Amendment Rights in this case. They may be wrong. But their disagreement does not make them evil.
For me to say, as some have said, that being wrong on Safe Commute makes a legislator anti-2nd Amendment when the legislators in question passed Restaurant Carry and Park Carry last year is simply not true.
This is not a fight between people who want to carry in their cars and those who want to take their guns away. It’s an appropriate and needed discussion, much like those recorded in the Federalist Papers about why we believe one right is superior to another in this specific instance.
This is the sort of question we should be debating at all times in government. Traffic Cameras and DNA samples and the like are all questions of the rights of the people. We need to oppose government when it wants to take our rights away.
However, here we have a different discussion. We have two different groups with legitimate claims to rights and we are trying to figure out how to do right by both groups. That we are having that sort of discussion ought to be celebrated, not excoriated.
#8 by The Sen. on 04/28/2012 - 07:37
Well said article and comment.
#9 by Roger Fanti on 04/28/2012 - 08:02
Amen, brother!
#10 by Andy Miller on 04/27/2012 - 16:38
Extremely well said Ken! We ALL care deeply about what we see happening in Our State and Our Country. The Process RELIES on Collaboration. No One deserves to be thrown out over One Vote, Statement or Position. My 90% Friend should not be viewed as my 10% Enemy…. The ONLY person I agree with 100% of the time is ME.
But when disagreement on a string of votes or a shift in Values starts to indicate that Representative or Senator is No Longer “representing” who You thought that person portrayed themselves to be TALK TO THEM! If they are no longer Representing the Issues you feel matter then work to elect someone who will! Complacency and Apathy Can, Will and to degree Has Damaged this Country Enough!
#11 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/27/2012 - 17:03
Agreed!
Although I envy you if you are so well adjusted that you agree with yourself 100% of the time.
I am, unfortunately, not smart enough or good enough to come to the right conclusion all the time. So I often find myself in disagreement with me and am forced to change my mind …
**sigh** Yet another reason I want to be you when I grow up!
#12 by C. Richard Archie on 04/27/2012 - 17:21
I politely contest the assertion that there was no reasonable attempt on the part of grassroots organizations to work with the legislature on the issue of the Employee Safe Commute Bill. I personally have met with Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey on several occasions to discuss the issue, and would have done the same with Speaker Beth Harwell, but have been denied the opportunity to do so under my guise as a representative of the TFA.
I was allowed an audience with a House Leadership group last summer in my role as a Tea Party member with several other Tea Party Leaders from across the State, and at that meeting we were TOLD what we would be allowed to work on, what their agenda and objectives were, and what was important to them. We were not asked what we thought deserved attention, and every item that the grass roots coalition supported was defeated by this General Assembly.
It has been my experience that compromise is the art of two sides seeking common ground, at least being able to express what issues are important to both, and working towards a common goal with respect. Setting the rules of engagement by disenfranchising one side at the beginning, by those who evidently have all the power, does not lend itself to compromise.
#13 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/27/2012 - 17:39
Richard -
You and I are friends and I respect, more than I can say, what you stand for and the values you espouse.
But your points were not what I addressed in my post. I did not suggest that activists made no attempt to work with the legislature. Not in any way, shape or form.
What I said was that to characterize their behavior and their character as that of liars, traitors, anti-2nd Amendment and the like was both bad behavior and an incorrect assessment of the two things.
In addition, I must add that, my understanding of what you were told is not quite what you relate. I am given to understand that you were told what would be worked on this year. That’s a slight, but important, difference.
As it applies to 2nd Amendment issues, lawmakers also pointed to their outstanding work last year and indicated they were going to take up other things this year. That would seem to indicate they were more than open to addressing 2nd Amendment issues next year.
There is a very real argument that can and should be made that the legislature should never refuse to hear an issue that a significant portion of the electorate indicates is important to them. However, again, to whatever extent their bad decision was met with insult, aspersions on their character and integrity, threats and table pounding, activists should not be surprised to find that legislators have feelings and reactions, too.
Your point on compromise is well taken. But, unless I am completely wrong on what I understand the legislature to have said regarding 2nd Amendment issues, they wanted a compromise of not this year and others wanted a compromise of not as much as last year.
That does not make either side wrong. It just means someone is going to be disappointed. And it’s how folks react when they are disappointed that I am addressing, not the nature of the disappointment.
The unfortunate thing here is that it seems relationships have been severely damaged in this fray. It did not have to be so. Yet here we are.
Whether or not we can fix what exists now remains to be seen. The most important thing, however, also remains to be seen. And that is have we learned anything from all of this?
#14 by C. Richard Archie on 04/27/2012 - 22:15
Ken, first, you can check with David Nance, Ben Cunningham, David Vance and Hal Rounds for what was said at that meeting, I was not in attendance alone. My best recollection of the agenda proposed for 2012 by the Caucus was to attain a “walkout proof” Super-majority of Republicans in the House.
Second, just what was accomplished by the legislature last year with respect to firearms of 2nd Amendment issues? Unless they slipped something past me that I am unaware of, there was nothing accomplished in 2011.
We were told at the end of 2010 that we could, as advocates, pick “one” issue, (as the year before “they” had passed “Restaurant Carry” at supposedly a great expense of political capital) and we must keep our profile low. We agreed, and proceeded to help elect the largest majority of Republicans in the history of Tennessee. Upon their swearing in, Josh Evans proposed the bill and all was right with the world. Somewhere along the way, the Caucus decided to remove all gain from the bill. We were not happy, but, relatively quite, especially since several in Leadership told us that it was simply not politically expedient for 2011, that the bill would be passed in 2012.
I started in the fall of ’11 working, writing letters and making calls, driving to Nashville to attend meetings with the House and Senate Leadership. I was promised that the bill would be brought back up this year,and we would reach a reasonable accommodation. I met with Rep. Evans early seeking to find compromise to suit everyones needs, while still adhering to the Constitutional guarantees. I contacted Sen. Stacy Campfield to see if he would bring his companion bill up first, as Evans said it would be required for House consideration, I was told at that point that he “was in a poker game” on the issue and would not be bringing it up for consideration.
I took the messages of Leadership to mean that there was support for the initiative, when in April 2011 I was forwarded this from the Lt. Gov.’s office, printed in The Daily News:
“{Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey of Blountville has said he prefers going further than the lawsuit immunity proposal, citing the safety record of the state’s handgun carry permit holders.
Over the last two years, just 1,600 of about 308,000 permits have been revoked or suspended because of criminal charges or orders of protection in domestic violence cases.
“A gun permit holder should be able to take his gun and leave it in his locked automobile when he goes to work,” Ramsey said.
Republican Gov. Bill Haslam has also expressed support for the guns in parking lots measure.}”
I have tried repeatedly to work a compromise on the newly proposed legislation (HB3560/SB3002), meeting with any who would, contacting all. when we heard that the measure as written was considered too “broad”, I contacted those who would listen and offered to restrict the bill to permit holders only, limiting out private residencies, nuclear reactors, Oak Ridge and any location prohibited by Federal Law. Sen. Faulk brought these amendments on the Senate side and Sen. Campfield added the hunting license addition on his own, (an intended “poison pill” in my estimation, meant to kill the bill in committee) but in my work with the Employee and Consumer Affairs Committee in the House, and with the help of Rep. Eddie Bass, we restricted the measure back to permit holders only.
I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and in the E&CA Committee hearing in the house, in both instances, I behaved reasonably, giving respect to the institutions I was before.
The issues passed out of committee overwhelmingly in both chambers, and it is my simple, though fervent belief that they deserved a vote on the floor.
#15 by The Sen. on 04/28/2012 - 08:14
It was not a poison pill and was even amended back in committee to those only over 21 with the support of the NRA. It passed by wide margins and was never brought up as an issue of major concern or reason for the bills lack of motion in any caucus meeting on the issue. The amendment was an attempt to allow hunters to carry guns in their vehicles so they could go hunting after work.
I am a “Constitutional carry” supporter. Possibly you want more restrictions on guns then I do. I will not hazard a guess at your desire for 2A restriction as you have done for my reasons for expansion of rights.
As far as me being in a “Poker game” I am not sure what you mean. The house usually moves first on all bill because senators have (by the nature of our position) triple the number of bills and not as much time to run bills if they are not going to move in the other body. You may note when things stalled with the Faulk bill I did attempt to move my bill. It was a little more scaled back in attempt to help it in getting support. Neither gun rights group spoke on its behalf or offered any support. It died in committee.
As for the TFA. Some of the “poison pen” e mails have killed your ability to get support even from those who would naturally be at least somewhat aligned with your issue. I have seldom (OK, never to my recollection) seen anyone actually at the capitol lobbying rank and file legislators solely as a TFA lobbyist. NEVER.
All we ever get are press releases attacking fellow members. That does not work. It does just the opposite. It just makes members “bow up” on a issue and go into protect mode if not the opposite direction. They do not cower or change position for the positive. Those of us who support the ideals of the bill end up trying to defuse other members about the TFA instead of talking about the merits of the bill itself. It completely backfires. Can you name one time this “poison pen” attack system has worked to change a legislator sitting on the fences mind? The only times I can it was not for the positive of the bill.
#16 by C. Richard Archie on 04/28/2012 - 09:40
Individual members of the TFA CAN and DO have different methods of contacting their elected representatives, and do so by the volumes. If in fact their polite entreaties were met with reasonable responses, then there would be no need for the escalation of rhetoric. In all my visits to the Hill to advocate for this issue, I have never been anything but polite in my contacts, and can upon request furnish copies of all electronic communications for review.
Are you guilty of being responsible for every statement made by every Senator? Do the Democrats speak for you. Are you to be painted with the brush of their comments and actions?
As for the TFA, we are an all volunteer, grass roots organization, and do not have “lobbyist”. We do however, advocate as individuals, on our own time and our own dime, and I can provide contacts in the House who will verify numerous trips to the Capital by myself to seek audience to discuss these matters.
I spent my time this year trying to affect consideration on the House side, as I was assured that the Senate was on board with the issue.
Truly, this whole discussion should not be joined as a “2nd Amendment” issue, that references the restraint placed on the Federal Government (by the States) to stay out of the debate or attempt to regulate arms in any way, as the chain place on them by the States was to not “infringe” the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, end of line.
It is more aligned with the 10th Amendment, bearing that the State has the responsibility to control here what occurs relative to firearms, as expressed by Article 1 Section 26 of our Declaration of Rights, which states: “That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”
It is clear, that as the Legislature has deemed a privately owned vehicle as coequal in “castle” status to one’s home, the ability to have any legally owned item in it should be protected by our General Assembly as referenced in TCA 39-11-611, and yet the Citizen is precluded form the enjoyment of that Right by regulation approved by the State.
I would be more than happy to sit down and have a rational, reasoned discussion of these issues, under any definition of my presence, either that of a representative of the TFA, the TN 8th Congressional Tea Party Coalition or simply as a concerned Citizen who owes a debt of obligation to our grand children, using the Constitution as the metric to be the guide. I can promise a calm demeanor just as was presented when I testified in the Senate Judiciary hearing this year.
#17 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/28/2012 - 11:59
Well said, a cogent expression of my thoughts on the matter and a fantastic example of the approach I recommend. Stacey – how about a meeting?
#18 by The Sen. on 04/28/2012 - 13:07
My door is always open but as you may recall I supported the legislation.
#19 by Gabriel Fancher on 04/27/2012 - 20:48
Both sides, the grass roots and the country clubers, of the republican party need each other, and hopefully they will realize it before the southern democrat party wakes from its slumber. Once we defeat Obama handily in November I think we will see the democrat machine return to the south nice and rested. Until then we should try our best to get along with all republicans and continue move the state toward ideals we can all agree upon.
#20 by Sharyn Bovat on 04/27/2012 - 21:18
This is one of the BEST blog post I’ve ever read, anywhere: The Blue Collar Muse thinks “big picture” & writes like an Ivy leaguer.
Compromise is NOT a dirty word and without it “gridlock” happens and good change never happens.
Before I moved to Tennessee a lady called me and said “you’ll have a new relationship with God after your move to the nations bible belt”. She was right. Y’all in the South have a tough initiation process and no matter how difficult the battle i’ve learned that in the South people value PRIDE as the prize .. So maybe we need to change the word to COMPUPRIDE.
Just a thought:):)
Thank you Ken
Have a Great Weekend!
Sharyn
#21 by Michael W Young on 04/27/2012 - 23:44
It cannot be explained much better that Richard has stated it. While I may have been slightly less vitriolic than some, I can certainly understand the pain of being LIED to. Promises were made in 2010 and then (as we say around here) they crawfished (backed up) on their word, because being reelected and lining their pockets from Big Business interests, was more important to them than keeping their word. The leadership could have let the original unamended bill come up for a vote before the full house where it would have stood or fallen on its own merits.
“I does not pay to leave a dragon out of your calculations. Especially if you live near him” JRR Tolken
#22 by David Nance on 04/28/2012 - 05:24
I will verify Richard’s story of the meeting with the House Republican Caucus leadership. I was there.
The Tea Party Coalition in the 8th district prioritized 4 items of legislation for this ending session. The Sheriffs Bill, The Balance of Powers Bill, the Intrastate Commerce Bill and the Safe Commute Bill. The Republican leadership killed every effort. These Bills all have something in common. They protect the people. It is the primary purpose of government to protect the people yet they killed every initiative. When certain legislators stand in opposition to protecting the people we should still treat them with respect until we can identify them and then remove them from office. Removing them from office or at least making our best effort to do so is not a battle with Republican legislators in general, it isn’t a Tea Party strategy, it isn’t malicious or mean spirited. It is our duty as citizens.
#23 by Roger Fanti on 04/28/2012 - 08:04
Amen!
#24 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/28/2012 - 12:04
David – Agreed.
And as long as that effort is undertaken rationally and calmly as opposed to laced with and fueled by hyperbole and emotion, I have zero problem with it.
As I wrote last year, legislators who are behaving badly are unlikely to be surprised by efforts to remove or circumvent them. But bluster, name-calling, disparaging a man’s integrity and the like are not the same as laying out the case for the deceit engaged in by a legislator, framing the issues as you did above and then moving toward creating a more receptive environment for your values.
You may fail with both approaches. But you will be more likely to succeed with the second.
#25 by walter A on 05/06/2012 - 19:19
AMEN !!!
#26 by Dave Vance on 04/28/2012 - 14:06
As Richard and Dave stated were we told in the meeting we had with the House Leadership that the primary legislative agenda was education reform and that their goal was to build a super majority in the House. We took that to mean avoid controversy as much as possible on any other issues.
Now to the current state of affairs. My background in the is military so I’m used to dealing with a lot of people I don’t like or respect but learned a long time ago that I still needed what they provided and or wanted to avoid pissing them off if I wanted to eat, get my vehicles fixed, have needed supplies, and get paid on time.The personal “why” of all the above list is obvious (I don’t miss meals if I can help it and patriotism doesn’t feed anybody) but the overiding reason is I need those people to accomplish the mission. The Tea Party is on a mission whether we have ever thought of it on those terms or not. We are also still in the minority unfortunately and have to educate not only legislators on the issues but more of the public so they can in turn put the needed pressure on the legislators.
So no we don’t want to burn bridges if we can help it. At the same time the legislators can and should expect to hear it from us if they do in fact lie to us or back something totally against their earlier stated positions. They deserve our thanks when they do the right thing and on that note Dave Nance and few other have discussed having an event or at a minimum sending certain ones some token of appreciation.I hope we get that done fairly soon.
I was at a Tea Party event recently where Rep. Sparks was grilled by one of the organizers at the end about the lack of action on legislation supported by some Tea Party groups. I thought it wrong to hang the blame on one or even a few reps. Ken I think it’s wrong for you to say that the blame for whatever happens between the legislature and the grassroots will be the fault of the grassroots just because we have a few that go up to Nashville and say the wrong thing.However,if any legislator voted against the parking lot bill just because he didn’t like the way some grassroots activist talked to him or her then that vote was motivated by pettiness and not conviction of any principle. We can’t expect too much out of that person when the pressure is on.
Speaking of pressure what about the pressure that the Governor’s office and other establishment types put on their members to vote a certain way or kill a bill in committee they don’t want to vote on. That’s pressure that really ought to turn a legislator off more than somebody calling them names and when we hear that they caved in a situation like that what are we supposed to think of them? Is it okay that they caved since the Gov. or Speaker wanted them to? Yes we should verify rather than assume the worst but you know and we know the above scenario happens.
I’m not for throwing around the threat of a “primary” for various reasons but am not opposed to actually doing it when and where it’s needed and feasible.
Now in fairness those of us grassroots types need to remeber that we can’t expect perfection or 100% agreement by legislators because we don’t even all agree on everything. I have yet to find Tea Party where every member agreeed on every issue.
All in all I think it would be worthwhile to do a reset with as many legislators as are willing. We would need to establish some ground rules going in to make it productive.
Now to the 2nd Amendment Vs. Property Rights. Since all rights are secondary to that of life then the right to defend your life would seem to be of the highest category of rights. To think that property would rival that in the proposed legislation seems hard to believe. Apparently property rights are total so they can tell you that you can’t have anything in your car on their property that they don’t want there. That could be a Bible, cigeretes, coffee, soda, and anti- Obama bumper sticker, fill in the blank if this concept of total property rights is to be accepted. Ignore that if you don’t pay your property taxes you can lose it, ignore you still can’t burn without a permit, ignore all of the other permits you need to do something on your own property,and if your a farmer especially then think of all the things the EPA says you can’t do on your own property. Remember to that the Farm Bureau (Richard correct me if I’m wrong) was at one point willing to support the bill if farmers were exempted. And why? Safety concerns that’s why. Now let’s think of the groups farmers hire. Illegals- I’m sure they will abide by gun laws. No sympathy there anyway.
Migrant workers with Visa’s – Can they even have guns?
Excons- Felons can’t have guns anyway.
Others- Nobody asking to have it on them just in the vehicle.
I’m not a farmer so if I’m missing something square me away please.
Either way safety was the concern. Safety disguised (and not very well) as property rights ! I wonder if there are really that many hypocitical farmers out there that believe in the 2nd Amendment for everybody everywhere except there employees?
A gun in someones personal property (vehicle) out of sight is not a threat to property rights. Rights should not be sacrificed for safety concerns.
FED EX didn’t want it so the GOV didn’t want it.
#27 by Blue Collar Muse on 04/28/2012 - 14:49
David -
Thanks so much for the thoughtful and detailed response. I have to say that I agree with about 95% of what you related here.
The disagreements are:
I do not believe and I did not intend to leave with you or anyone else that I believe the grassroots are responsible for every spat that exists between them and legislators. I am referring specifically and only to the current one. The reason I say this is because it is the grassroots that have stepped outside of effective negotiation strategy and resorted to name calling and such. No legislator I know has been upset that activists disagree with him or that he has heard in strong terms about that disagreement. The complaint is with public and, in many cases, untrue disparaging of the legislator that did not contribute to the negotiation at hand. I re-read my actual statement and understand it could be taken as you did. I’m happy to clarify.
I agree 100% that legislators should be upset with the Governor for any arm-twisting and pressure he might bring to bear. In fact, I have heard many of them state that they are. In my piece last year I also noted that we would be upset if legislators caved to lobbyist threats so why should we expect caving to our threats would be taken any differently? The glaring difference is that you NEVER see the Governor or a lobbyist group publicly and personally criticize or denigrate a legislator for their position. Why? Because they understand the point I have been making. There is no profit in it at all, ever! The legislator the Governor or a lobbyist pressures today during a disagreement is the same legislator he needs tomorrow on another piece of legislation. Conflicts can be kept private without compromising principles and allowing effective working together later. That is what I am arguing for.
Something I learned a long time ago is that just because a man is mature in a particular area doesn’t make him mature in all areas. He can be great in many areas of leadership, for instance, and still struggle with anger. To the extent his anger comes out, he can and will undermine and threaten the accomplishments he has already achieved.
I believe the activists in question here are far more mature than the legislators understood in the area of knowledge of the issues and the means to accomplish their goals. However, that doesn’t mean they have an equally developed ability to resolve conflicts with those same legislators. That is hurting them and all of us.
It’s not the end of the world and so I REALLY like your notion of seeking a ‘reset’ and going back to school as it were to learn more about this aspect of activism.
Call it what you like, an opportunity to save face, salvage one’s pride, catching flies with honey, doing unto others or a score of other maxims – working together even while disagreeing is a skill that must be developed by activists to be effective. Precisely because of the point we both have made, that neither lawmakers or other activists will agree with us 100% of the time.
It’s not the existence of disagreement that will determine future relationships. It’s how we handle that disagreement. This is interpersonal relationships 101, not just activism. Thanks for weighing in on it. Your thoughts are insightful and helpful.
Blessings,
K
#28 by Mark Rogers on 04/29/2012 - 19:45
Ken,
My experience with many of the people I have met who are most critical of our Governor, Republicans in the Legislature and with the ‘Republican Establishment’ in Tennessee is that they are fed up with having their issues neglected in favor of the agendas of special interests. Additionally they want immediate results to problems that require long-term solutions.
In a sense, the Tea Party and similar groups are revolutionary in the sense that they want fundamental changes in the Republican Party and in American society rather than just specific reforms rather than limited ‘fixes’ or cosmetic changes. While there are merits to this approach the key problem is that America is not a ‘revolutionary’ nation. Even our ‘Revolution’ of 1776 was more of a political transfer of power than a revolution like in France in 1789 or Russia in 1917.
Americans want reform, not revolution. Part of our national character is a need to be that shining city on a hill by constantly trying to improve ourselves, our nation and our world. The great causes of Americans like abolition, women’s rights, our charity and zeal for helping others are part of that city on the hill-building.
Also Americans equate revolutionary movements with ideological extremism, something else that is atypical of American political history. It has been often noted that while America is driven by Ideas, it is pragmatism that has been key to America’s success as a democracy built of many cultures, religions and peoples. It is an old American truism that half a loaf is better than none and Ronald Reagan observed anyone who is 80% in agreement with me is on my side.
So when some of the pro-life or pro-Second Amendment or anti-tax or pro-constitution groups take the position that they are the only people capable of deciding who is legitimately pro-life or pro-gun or anti-tax or pro-constitution and they demand 100% loyalty from elected officials and others, it seems to others that there is a desire for an end to pragmatism and the triumph of extremism.
Lowering the level of the rhetoric and being supportive of efforts that gain even limited victories are vital at a time when the nation is already so divided and Republicans have just gained control of government in Tennessee. Only by being seen as a positive force to improve the party can the dynamic forces of grassroots Republicans and Conservatives win the victories they desire.
#29 by Eric Holcombe on 04/30/2012 - 13:32
Ken,
I agree with your advice on approach, but partially disagree with your praise of the majority on items unrelated to TFALAC’s cause, as if that should appease them. I am not a member but do receive (some of) their emails. The dispute they bring is specifically on this one issue – not the other 3700+ bills (from a conservative, limited government?) considered by the legislature. Kind of like if I am a car dealer and give you my word on a vehicle price and condition and then rip you off, BUT I have treated lots of other people reasonably, plus I kiss babies, you should just have confidence in my performance and come back for that next car. That doesn’t help you because 100% of the sales to you are sour. Maybe that’s a problem with being “single-issue”, but that’s not the same as being “pro-constitution” which is many-faceted.
Mark said:
“So when some of the pro-life or pro-Second Amendment or anti-tax or pro-constitution groups take the position that they are the only people capable of deciding who is legitimately pro-life or pro-gun or anti-tax or pro-constitution and they demand 100% loyalty from elected officials and others, it seems to others that there is a desire for an end to pragmatism and the triumph of extremism.”
See, I would argue this is exactly what TFALAC has heard in the past, so they sucked it up, licked boots and went along with the you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours approach and “compromised” for “incremental” moves of getting their right to keep and bear arms back. And you are granted only one “incremental, compromise” move per session apparently. Except they were betrayed.
This was a weak bill. I didn’t support it, just like I didn’t support guns for judges, guns for retired sheriffs, guns in parks or guns in restaurants. All of them rely upon the unconstitutional carry permit and its perpetual tax. But, constitutional pragmatists are told it is too difficult to just repeal the unconstitutional law and follow the constitution – that you can’t “get it all back at once”. The problem is, when the legislature is so weak and really don’t believe (or don’t understand) the concept of liberty and the inherit risk that comes with liberty, they will never go all the way to constitutional carry. I mean really…when a fingerprinted, training class passing, criminal background check passing, eternal 2nd Amendment Tax paying “carry permit” holder can’t be trusted to lock their firearm hidden from view in a parked vehicle, how many hundreds of years should it take to get back to the constitution?
Is it really unreasonable to expect 100% compliance with the one and only document that legislators take an oath to obey, when it takes THREE different votes to pass a bill? Secret meetings and declaring bills “dead” before they make it to sunlight reminds me too much of some other party, not what we’ve been waiting 150 years for. Our legislators are outnumbered 3:1 by lobbyists. They have convinced this government that not only should public tax gifts be given to their interests, but that they should be kept secret. Now that’s just stealing our money – but things like arm twisting with this bill are now encroaching on our safety.
Some more of Proverbs 25:
v. 5 Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.
v.9 Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another: Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away.
#30 by Dave Vance on 04/30/2012 - 20:53
Mark,
I don’t think most in the Tea Party believe that we can fix everything overnight but we do realize that unless our state and other state governments stand up to the federal government in a significant way on at least some issues and fast, America will not continue to be a free country. We have lost and given up so much already. I don’t think we are extremist for wanting the government to follow the Constitution and for the oaths politicians take to the Constitution to be more than a mere formality.
We are more of a restoration movement than a revolutionary one even if we are passionate and need to make some adjustments in how some of us interact with legislators.
As for the 80%/20% rule that really depends on what issues the 20% have to do with and if principles are compromised or just minor details. There are no shortage of Republican politicians that have 80% ratings from conservative organizations that sell us out on crucial issues. When they can be replaced they should be.
#31 by Matt Collins on 05/02/2012 - 04:41
This is hilarity… no one here knows anything about political strategy or how to get the politicians to do their will… Ignorance is abounding so much on this page that it’s seriously entertaining ha ha ha lolz
#32 by Eric Holcombe on 05/02/2012 - 10:17
Well, I get (some of) your emails too Matt, or used to. Apparently they are helping keep me ignorant.
But I wouldn’t shake Bailout Wamp’s hand either.