Tea Partiers anonymous

Robert Showah

Opinion Editor

Last Saturday, FOX News talk show host Glenn Beck held his “Restoring Honor” Tea Party rally in Washington, but it was no ordinary Tea Party rally. Beck’s speech ended up covering God rather than politics, likely surprising Reverend Al Sharpton, who held a smaller rally in Washington at the same time. The God rhetoric came as a surprise to many conservatives and journalists, but is a clear example of how the conservative movement in America is insanely fractured.

However, when it comes to this November’s elections, division is irrelevant. In a year where Republicans have an edge, the question is not whether or not they will win seats, but how many. Most importantly, what type of Republicans will be elected. There are a few.

First, there are the generic Republicans we have known for eight years. They’re tough on terrorism, support low financial regulation, tend to be religious and social conservatives and are big spenders. Most have taken advantage of the Tea Party movements anger to remain incumbents.

Then there are the libertarians. These are the true libertarians, the ones who support state’s rights across the board. They support little to no financial regulation, a non-interventionist foreign policy, a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, oppose populism and are religiously diverse. These are people who are polite, have all their teeth and engage in civil conversation. They also don’t dress up like Uncle Sam and keep American flags in their back pockets.

Finally, there are the Tea Party or the commercialized “libertarians.” I am not sure about how similar or different their views are compared to true libertarians, and those that are representing them are painting a wrong picture, but the people seem to be enjoying themselves at these rallies anyway.

“This is a day that can start the heart of America again,” declared Beck at the Washington rally. “and it has nothing to do with politics, but has everything to do with God.”

Since when?

It is rhetoric like this that makes the Tea Party a mess. A movement that was supposed to be inclusive of all people who are angered by the federal government regardless of their religious background or devotion, are now experiencing the same discomfort many libertarian and moderate Republicans felt when they had a religious-conservative president in office.

But the divisions are deeper than religion. Even though the views of people like libertarian-Republican Congressman Ron Paul might be similar to that of the Tea Party’s (intended) political views, it certainly does not mean he shares the same rhetoric, ideas or views as someone like Sarah Palin who has been embraced by the Tea Party.

In policy they clash. Ron Paul opposes military intervention in Iran, supports States’ rights to determine their policy on same-sex marriage and supports legalizing marijuana. Sarah Palin would consider invading Iran, supports a federal constitutional ban against same-sex marriage and opposes legalizing marijuana.

In rhetoric they also clash. After the BP oil spill, Paul rejected the criticism President Obama was receiving from Republicans about how he was not doing enough to solve the problem. Paul further explained, convicted to his beliefs, that whenever disasters like this occur critics should not have this habit of running to the federal government and expect the President to be whipped into solving this crisis.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, hammered away at the president and demanded that she know that it was his top priority to stop the leak. Afterward she accused the president of taking advantage of the crisis to raise energy costs, a view that was never clarified.

This ultimately means that people like Sarah Palin and even House Minority Leader John Boehner have become demagogues of the Tea Party movement, using it to their advantage. For Palin it is to gain popularity and perhaps support for a presidential bid and for Boehner, the House Speaker’s gavel is at stake come November.

Speaking of November, a problem with electing different breeds of Republican is that while different crowds within the conservative movement might elect them, they might not always vote as one would expect. Take Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican who won a special election earlier this year as the “Tea Party” candidate in liberal “Taxachusetts” succeeding the late Ted Kennedy. He voted with Democrats and a few other Republicans for the financial reform law.

It is worth noting that if the only issues that make up the Tea Party’s platform are an anti-tax, anti-federal government message, then that certainly leaves many issues where Democrats may be able to gain their votes.

This election season, the bottom line seems to be that people are pissed. Republicans/Libertarians/Tea Partiers will support the name with the “R” next to it. Independents, however, won’t be voting for Republicans, they’ll just be voting against Democrats.

Throughout the midterms, Democrats will tout their accomplishments to the people between now and November: health care reform, financial and regulatory reform, ending the War in Iraq and holding BP accountable for their mess.

Despite what sounds like an impressive list of achievements, the Republican public relations machine (which is far stronger than the Democrats’) has helped and I presume will continue to assist in smearing Democrats but will particularly be used to elect Republicans, any “Republicans,” as long as it’s anyone that takes seats away from Democrats.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply