Molly Hooper of The Hill recently posted a short article titled, "Tea Party faces 2014 challenge," in which she states: "The Tea Party is facing a huge test in 2014 as establishment Republicans and business groups try to wrestle back control of the GOP." The article identifies the competing factions in this battle in accordance with their respective reactions to John Boehner's attack on the "outside groups" that opposed the recent budget compromise. Hooper asserts that Boehner's attack, while viewed by its victims as an ominous sign of things to come, "emboldened allies in the business community and on K Street, who have been annoyed with the grassroots groups for making it more difficult to get things done in Washington." She notes that these "allies" of the establishment "are now funding business-friendly candidates and incumbents in GOP primaries, hoping that the result will be a more pragmatic House GOP conference in 2015," and quotes Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, to further support her claim: “The empire is striking back with the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads supporting more pragmatic Republicans in primaries.” While this straightforward analysis correctly identifies the nature of the participants---pragmatic insiders versus principled outsiders---it fails to identify the nature of their battle, and its implication---that the Tea Party and the establishment Republicans are fighting for the same thing and on the same grounds---is fallacious.
While the "allies of the establishment" may be "annoyed" about the Tea Party obstructing DC's ability to "get things done," the Tea Party represents a political revolution against the things that DC was "getting done." When Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were running wild in 2009 and 2010, the establishment Republicans and their allies supported the Tea Party's principled stance against more government, more insider-corruption, and more debt. Now that the president's agenda is largely neutralized, they want to toss aside those very principles as harmful and unnecessary---as if it was merely an anti-biotic for the more blatant socialist infections. The establishment Republicans adopt principles for the political purpose of attacking Democrats. When even the slightest chance of actual governance arises, the establishment Republicans dump their principles on their more ideological ("Tea Party") colleagues, and then stab those colleagues in their backs as they attempt to carry the weight of those once-shared principles in public debate. The establishment's only purpose is power, and its only means of getting and maintaining it is by servicing the interests of their "allies;" they will use principles in order to protect these allies from harmful government policy when they are in the minority, and will reject those principles the moment they have the opportunity to craft government policy themselves.
These allies in the business community and on K Street are not the 17th-century French entrepreneurs and manufacturers who, according to legend, screamed "laissez-nous faire!" (let us alone!) at the government official who asked them what the absolute monarchy could do to help them. These groups don't oppose government intervention; they oppose the government interventions which oppose their interests---they are fine with government favors. Hooper correctly pointed-out that these allies of the establishment want more "pragmatic" GOP candidates, which means: They want candidates who will shrink to idealess confines of pragmatism when government policy promotes their interests---i.e., candidates who won't let principles hinder back room deals. When the specter of burdensome taxes and regulations threatens their interests, these business groups vehemently oppose government policy on principle, but when questions of government investment, or subsidies for their industry arise, they oppose those same principles as burdensome to getting things done. For these business groups, "getting things done" only concerns them in so far as it effects their own business---which obviously makes sense---but for the entrenched lobbying firms in DC, "getting things done" is there business, and political pull is the primary, indispensable means by which they do it. Accordingly, the existence of these firms depends on having enough influential politicians who are willing to compromise on anything, for the right price, and who will not let ideology get in the way of a good deal for their clients---they need pragmatists.
Lobbying is defined, by its more honest observers, as the art of influencing legislation by privately influencing the legislators. Total spending on lobbying dropped in 2013 to its lowest level since 2004---from $3.3 billion in 2012, to "only" $2.4 billion in 2013. Lobbyist spending had hovered around $3.5 billion in every year since Obama began his first presidential campaign---the GOP portion of that spending was largely intended to bolster those who stood against the President's agenda, in the hope that it would be obstructed and stalled. Now that President Obama is politically battered and unpopular, the Tea Party is no longer of any use to the lobbying firms whose clients now seek a return to normalcy---a return to the principle-less governance of the mixed-economy, where the budget reflects a compromise, not primarily between capitalism and socialism, but between the amount of money allocated for corporate welfare and the amount allocated for personal welfare. Nothing is more offensive to this system than politicians who are willing to risk a government shutdown on behalf of mere principles---nothing is more offensive to the GOP establishment and the lobbying interests responsible for its existence than the Tea Party. This lobbying scheme and the use of public policy to gain political power are the aspects of the battle that Hooper's article failed to identify; this is the aspect of DC that is almost never identified when both insiders and outsiders chastise Congress for not getting things done. (It's worth noting that the aforementioned Chamber of Commerce, who according to the Hooper article are helping the "empire strike back" at the Tea Party, spent a measly $52 million on lobbying in 2013, down from nearly $160 million in 2010---the year before the Tea Party made its way to Congress)
The establishment Republicans and their allies are fighting to control a political party for the sake of controlling a political party---for the political power that such control entails; the Tea Party is fighting for principles, both their own and principles as such. For the Tea Party, political power is a means to an end; for the establishment, political power is the end. When you hear men like Karl Rove openly admit that they believe that the purpose of politics is to win elections, this is what they are admitting. These establishment Republicans defend their position by claiming that principles are useless if you don't have the political power to implement them---if you don't win elections. Accordingly, they reject certain principles on the grounds that advocating and defending those principles, during a campaign or in public debate, will hurt their chances of winning elections---of having the power to one day implement those principles. The obvious question is: At what point will it be politically-safe for Republicans to actually implement their principles? At what point will it no longer be necessary to compromise in the name of the next election? Never. If the Republicans take the Senate in 2014, they will make the same arguments in advance of 2016 as they are making now; instead of setting aside principles in order to gain power, as they now say, they will say that they need to continue to set aside principles in order to maintain power. The Tea Party is nothing apart from its principles, and thus has nothing to lose in the battle of 2014; their principles---the principles of this nation's founding---will survive this battle even if the Tea Party loses. The establishment Republicans have no principles, they only have power; if they lose, they will cease to exist.
While the "allies of the establishment" may be "annoyed" about the Tea Party obstructing DC's ability to "get things done," the Tea Party represents a political revolution against the things that DC was "getting done." When Obama, Reid, and Pelosi were running wild in 2009 and 2010, the establishment Republicans and their allies supported the Tea Party's principled stance against more government, more insider-corruption, and more debt. Now that the president's agenda is largely neutralized, they want to toss aside those very principles as harmful and unnecessary---as if it was merely an anti-biotic for the more blatant socialist infections. The establishment Republicans adopt principles for the political purpose of attacking Democrats. When even the slightest chance of actual governance arises, the establishment Republicans dump their principles on their more ideological ("Tea Party") colleagues, and then stab those colleagues in their backs as they attempt to carry the weight of those once-shared principles in public debate. The establishment's only purpose is power, and its only means of getting and maintaining it is by servicing the interests of their "allies;" they will use principles in order to protect these allies from harmful government policy when they are in the minority, and will reject those principles the moment they have the opportunity to craft government policy themselves.
These allies in the business community and on K Street are not the 17th-century French entrepreneurs and manufacturers who, according to legend, screamed "laissez-nous faire!" (let us alone!) at the government official who asked them what the absolute monarchy could do to help them. These groups don't oppose government intervention; they oppose the government interventions which oppose their interests---they are fine with government favors. Hooper correctly pointed-out that these allies of the establishment want more "pragmatic" GOP candidates, which means: They want candidates who will shrink to idealess confines of pragmatism when government policy promotes their interests---i.e., candidates who won't let principles hinder back room deals. When the specter of burdensome taxes and regulations threatens their interests, these business groups vehemently oppose government policy on principle, but when questions of government investment, or subsidies for their industry arise, they oppose those same principles as burdensome to getting things done. For these business groups, "getting things done" only concerns them in so far as it effects their own business---which obviously makes sense---but for the entrenched lobbying firms in DC, "getting things done" is there business, and political pull is the primary, indispensable means by which they do it. Accordingly, the existence of these firms depends on having enough influential politicians who are willing to compromise on anything, for the right price, and who will not let ideology get in the way of a good deal for their clients---they need pragmatists.
Lobbying is defined, by its more honest observers, as the art of influencing legislation by privately influencing the legislators. Total spending on lobbying dropped in 2013 to its lowest level since 2004---from $3.3 billion in 2012, to "only" $2.4 billion in 2013. Lobbyist spending had hovered around $3.5 billion in every year since Obama began his first presidential campaign---the GOP portion of that spending was largely intended to bolster those who stood against the President's agenda, in the hope that it would be obstructed and stalled. Now that President Obama is politically battered and unpopular, the Tea Party is no longer of any use to the lobbying firms whose clients now seek a return to normalcy---a return to the principle-less governance of the mixed-economy, where the budget reflects a compromise, not primarily between capitalism and socialism, but between the amount of money allocated for corporate welfare and the amount allocated for personal welfare. Nothing is more offensive to this system than politicians who are willing to risk a government shutdown on behalf of mere principles---nothing is more offensive to the GOP establishment and the lobbying interests responsible for its existence than the Tea Party. This lobbying scheme and the use of public policy to gain political power are the aspects of the battle that Hooper's article failed to identify; this is the aspect of DC that is almost never identified when both insiders and outsiders chastise Congress for not getting things done. (It's worth noting that the aforementioned Chamber of Commerce, who according to the Hooper article are helping the "empire strike back" at the Tea Party, spent a measly $52 million on lobbying in 2013, down from nearly $160 million in 2010---the year before the Tea Party made its way to Congress)
The establishment Republicans and their allies are fighting to control a political party for the sake of controlling a political party---for the political power that such control entails; the Tea Party is fighting for principles, both their own and principles as such. For the Tea Party, political power is a means to an end; for the establishment, political power is the end. When you hear men like Karl Rove openly admit that they believe that the purpose of politics is to win elections, this is what they are admitting. These establishment Republicans defend their position by claiming that principles are useless if you don't have the political power to implement them---if you don't win elections. Accordingly, they reject certain principles on the grounds that advocating and defending those principles, during a campaign or in public debate, will hurt their chances of winning elections---of having the power to one day implement those principles. The obvious question is: At what point will it be politically-safe for Republicans to actually implement their principles? At what point will it no longer be necessary to compromise in the name of the next election? Never. If the Republicans take the Senate in 2014, they will make the same arguments in advance of 2016 as they are making now; instead of setting aside principles in order to gain power, as they now say, they will say that they need to continue to set aside principles in order to maintain power. The Tea Party is nothing apart from its principles, and thus has nothing to lose in the battle of 2014; their principles---the principles of this nation's founding---will survive this battle even if the Tea Party loses. The establishment Republicans have no principles, they only have power; if they lose, they will cease to exist.
RSS Feed