The Tea Party’s Path to Irrelevance

The Tea Party’s Path to Irrelevance
By JAMES TRAUB
New York Times Op-Ed

WASHINGTON — THE Tea Party has a new crusade: preventing illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship, which they say is giving amnesty to lawbreakers. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, recently told Politico that his members were “more upset about the amnesty bill than they were about Obamacare.”

They’re so upset, in fact, that Republican supporters of immigration reform, like Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have become marked men in their party, while House Republicans have followed the Tea Party lead by refusing to even consider the Senate’s bipartisan reform plan.

Tea Partyers often style themselves as disciples of Thomas Jefferson, the high apostle of limited government. But by taking the ramparts against immigration, the movement is following a trajectory that looks less like the glorious arc of Jefferson’s Republican Party than the suicidal path of Jefferson’s great rivals, the long-forgotten Federalists, who also refused to accept the inexorable changes of American demography.

The Federalists began as the faction that supported the new Constitution, with its “federal” framework, rather than the existing model of a loose “confederation” of states. They were the national party, claiming to represent the interests of the entire country.

Culturally, however, they were identified with the ancient stock of New England and the mid-Atlantic, as the other major party at the time, the Jeffersonian Republicans (no relation to today’s Republicans), were with the South.

The Federalists held together for the first few decades, but in 1803 the Louisiana Purchase — Jefferson’s great coup — drove a wedge between the party’s ideology and its demography. The national party was suddenly faced with a nation that looked very different from what it knew: in a stroke, a vast new territory would be opened for colonization, creating new economic and political interests, slavery among them.

“The people of the East can not reconcile their habits, views and interests with those of the South and West,” declared Thomas Pickering, a leading Massachusetts Federalist.

Every Federalist in Congress save John Quincy Adams voted against the Louisiana Purchase. Adams, too, saw that New England, the cradle of the revolution, had become a small part of a new nation. Change “being found in nature,” he wrote stoically, “cannot be resisted.”

But resist is precisely what the Federalists did. Fearing that Irish, English and German newcomers would vote for the Jeffersonian Republicans, they argued — unsuccessfully — for excluding immigrants from voting or holding office, and pushed to extend the period of naturalization from 5 to 14 years.

Leading Federalists even plotted to “establish a separate government in New England,” as William Plumer, a senator from New Hampshire, later conceded. (The plot collapsed only when the proposed military leader, Aaron Burr, killed the proposed political guide, Alexander Hamilton.)

The Federalists later drummed out Adams, who voted with the Jeffersonian Republicans to impose an embargo on England in retaliation for English harassment of American merchant ships and impressment of American sailors. This was the foreshadowing moment of the War of 1812, which the Anglophile Federalists stoutly opposed.

Finally, in the fall of 1814, the Federalists convened the Hartford Convention to vote on whether to stay in or out of the Union. By then even the hotheads realized how little support they had, and the movement collapsed. And the Federalists, now scorned as an anti-national party, collapsed as well.

Contrast that defiance with Jefferson’s Republicans, who stood for decentralized government and the interests of yeoman farmers, primarily in the coastal South.

They ruled the country from 1801 to 1825, when they were unseated by Adams — who, after splitting with the Federalists, had joined with a breakaway Republican faction.

In response, Jefferson’s descendants, known as the Old Radicals, did exactly what the Federalists would not do: they joined up with the new Americans, many of them immigrants, who were settling the country opened up by the Louisiana Purchase.

Their standard-bearer in 1828, Andrew Jackson, favored tariffs and “internal improvements” like roads and canals, the big-government programs of the day. The new party, known first as the Democratic-Republicans, and then simply as the Democrats, thrashed Adams that year. (Adams’s party, the National Republicans, gave way to the Whigs, which in turn evolved into the modern Republican Party.)

Today’s Republicans are not likely to disappear completely, like the Federalists did. But Republican leaders like Mr. Rubio and Mr. Graham understand that a party that seeks to defy demography, relying on white resentment toward a rising tide of nonwhite newcomers, dooms itself to permanent minority status. Opposing big government is squarely in the American grain; trying to hold back the demographic tide is quixotic. Professional politicians do not want to become the party of a legacy class.

The problem is that the Tea Party is not a party, and its members are quite prepared to ride their hobbyhorse into a dead end. And many Republicans, at least in the House, seem fully prepared to join them there, and may end up dragging the rest of the party with them.

The example of those early days shows that American political parties once knew how to adapt to a changing reality. It is a lesson many seem to have forgotten.

James Traub, a columnist at foreignpolicy.com, is writing a biography of John Quincy Adams.

Bryant wrote:The Tea Party’s Path to Irrelevance
By JAMES TRAUB
New York Times Op-Ed

WASHINGTON — THE Tea Party has a new crusade: preventing illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship, which they say is giving amnesty to lawbreakers.

They’re so upset, in fact, that Republican supporters of immigration reform, like Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have become marked men in their party...

That's about the size of things.  The Tea Party folks have accused supporters of the bill would be amnesty, and Marco Rubio may have lost his appeal to Conservative voters over his stance on this issue.  Lindsey Graham is a lost cause though.  A cancer that need to be removed.

Today’s Republicans are not likely to disappear completely, like the Federalists did. But Republican leaders like Mr. Rubio and Mr. Graham understand that a party that seeks to defy demography, relying on white resentment toward a rising tide of nonwhite newcomers, dooms itself to permanent minority status.

Interesting choice of words the author uses in this era of race-baiting.

The problem is that the Tea Party is not a party, and its members are quite prepared to ride their hobbyhorse into a dead end. And many Republicans, at least in the House, seem fully prepared to join them there, and may end up dragging the rest of the party with them.

James Traub, a columnist at foreignpolicy.com, is writing a biography of John Quincy Adams.

 True.  the Tea Party is NOT a political party.  But the problem as I saw it was that the Tea Party folks were missing in action during the last presidential election.  They achieved so much during the mid-terms and then just disappeared when Romney won the nomination. 

I'm not a Tea Party guy.  But its not really fair to paint Tea Partiers as being against immigration reform because they are racist.  This has been done time after time.  That's not why so many are against the current immigration reform bill being proposed.  The reason so many including myself are opposed to the bill is that it began to appear that the gang of 8 pulled a switcheroo and refused to make securing the border as its top priority.  Rubio initially said that the border would be secured 1st and everything else in the bill was contingent on that border being secured.

Republicans fell for this years ago and got screwed royally.  Reagan singed an immigration bill with the promise that Congress would secure the border if he did.  However after he singed the bill, Tip Oneal refused to fulfill that promise.  They don't want this to happen again.

They were missing during the last campaign because of the IRS scrutiny that largely kept them out of the loop. I think the left wishes they were irrelevant

By the way, to say republicans are anti immigrant is false. We're just anti-illegal immigration.

Sir Pun wrote:By the way, to say republicans are anti immigrant is false. We're just anti-illegal immigration.

 Absolutely.    ITs a clever ploy by the left to demonize the GOP.  They hope that Hispanics wont actually pay attention or listen to GOP candidates.  In this way the left can demonize the GOP and they'll wind up believing all the rhetoric.

Its called demogoguery

Dennis324 wrote:

Sir Pun wrote:By the way, to say republicans are anti immigrant is false. We're just anti-illegal immigration.

 Absolutely.    ITs a clever ploy by the left to demonize the GOP.  They hope that Hispanics wont actually pay attention or listen to GOP candidates.  In this way the left can demonize the GOP and they'll wind up believing all the rhetoric.

About 80%-90% of the hispanic population, that I know personally, agree with a more conservative or libertarian point f view than the progressive point of view. Of those that I do know, as with most people of that political persuation, do not vote. They trust/like government so little, that they feel it wouldn't make a difference or that the outcome is predetermined.

BTW, that article is very hostile and is not written in a way that a respectable journalist would write it. No wonder there is so much hostility between the "sides".

I would think the OP would know better than to fall for such journalistic tactics.

Marconius wrote:BTW, that article is very hostile and is not written in a way that a respectable journalist would write it. No wonder there is so much hostility between the "sides".

I would think the OP would know better than to fall for such journalistic tactics.

Its an Op-Ed, not a journalistic article. The point of the article was that if the GOP doesn't learn to market its self to changing demographics they'll end up as other historic parties. The GOP doesn't pain themselves as a tolerant group.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:BTW, that article is very hostile and is not written in a way that a respectable journalist would write it. No wonder there is so much hostility between the "sides".

I would think the OP would know better than to fall for such journalistic tactics.

Its an Op-Ed, not a journalistic article.  The point of the article was that if the GOP doesn't learn to market its self to changing demographics they'll end up as other historic parties.  The GOP doesn't pain themselves as a tolerant group.

But the Dems do???

That is the funniest thing I have read in the past few months. Should we replay the vids from the DNC???

Op-ed is still journalism is it not??? Judging by the venom in that article, as well as the mistruths in it, it is not the GOP that comes off as intolerant. It is the writer and all those who point to this article as truth. So how does it feel to be so hateful???

I cant even get started with the master-slave relationship between dems and the minority vote.

Sir Pun wrote:I cant even get started with the master-slave relationship between dems and the minority vote.

When one starts off on the "well one party is intolerant" crap, it only makes me cry for the person who said it. There is a lack of cogent thought for someone to say such a thing.......especially when whomever made the statement uses hate fueled articles, like the one posted here, to make their supposed argument for tolerance. It is beyond befuddling.

By giving the illusion of caring, the progs have set us up for failure. To really care, one has to stop enabling destructive behavior.

So basically the jist is this:

The GOP is intolerant. How do we know they are intolerant??? Because they refuse to comprimise.

Okay, let's forget that the GOP has spent the last few decades giving into compromise. Let's forget that one cannot comprimise with progs cause the progs keep changing the goal posts. What was comprimise with a prog last year, is no longer comprimise this year. It is not that the GOP lacks the ability to comprimise. It is the fact that they are now so far beyond, they cannot.

Of course this is eaey pickings for those who have no moral compass. Nothing is sacrosanct to them. They can easily put the GOP on the defensive because they themselves have nothing to defend. They only want control. Until that control is complete, the progs are not where they want to be. That is the way they want it. That is the playbook word for word.

So go ahead and say the GOP needs to comprimise their stance. At least they have a stance and aren't the party of buying votes from intellectually defunct individuals. If you are happy with the status quo, by all means stay on the progs bandwagon. Us real conservatives want it that way. That way we know exactly who is to blame when SHTF......and we will loudly say "we told you so".

Was thinking that too. So we need to abandon our position, and start pandering to minorities like the left does? No. This is why i want a party that appeals to voters, period. Not black, or hispanic, or whatever other groups the left wants to divide us into?

Scrap position, and replace with principles

Exactly. Marketing to minorities is the same as pandering to them. How does one political party "market" or "pander"??? Same as everyone else. They sell you something. So basically Bryant is indeed telling us, in no uncertain terms, that his vote can be bought with the right amount of pandering or marketing.

It must be nice having so few morals as to allow one to buy your vote.

He's just confused from listening to the leftist world we find ourselves in.

Wait a sec fellas.  Bryant didn't write that article.  A NYT writer did, so lets not shoot the messenger.   

That author should be the target of our disdain.  The author is the one who tried to belittle the Tea Party.

Dennis324 wrote:Wait a sec fellas.  Bryant didn't write that article.  A NYT writer did, so lets not shoot the messenger.   

That author should be the target of our disdain.  The author is the one who tried to belittle the Tea Party.

My apologies to Bryant, but he seems to support the views of the author. If I am indeed wrong, it wouldn't be the first or last time.

My point is that politicians should not pander to voters. That is a recipe for disaster. We have seen it time and time again throughout history. It always ends the same. We should know better by now. State supplied goods and services are nothing new. In fact true freedom was something new and we as voters allowed government growth to usurp that freedom. It still boggles the mind that educated individuals cannot see that. I can understand that view coming from those in places like Europe. They have never had true freedom so the concept is foreign to them, but we should not let our overseas brethern to drag us down to their level.

Of course I could start a whole new topic on dragging people down to others' low levels. Just look at segregation of schools. The result wasn't increased education for the poor. It was decreased education levels for everyone else. Same exact thing can be said for a variety of topics. It is much easier to drag others down than it is to lift them up. Always been that way.

Marconius wrote:My point is that politicians should not pander to voters. That is a recipe for disaster. We have seen it time and time again throughout history. It always ends the same. We should know better by now. State supplied goods and services are nothing new. In fact true freedom was something new and we as voters allowed government growth to usurp that freedom. It still boggles the mind that educated individuals cannot see that. I can understand that view coming from those in places like Europe. They have never had true freedom so the concept is foreign to them, but we should not let our overseas brethern to drag us down to their level.

Of course I could start a whole new topic on dragging people down to others' low levels. Just look at segregation of schools. The result wasn't increased education for the poor. It was decreased education levels for everyone else. Same exact thing can be said for a variety of topics. It is much easier to drag others down than it is to lift them up. Always been that way.

That's an interesting point.  I do agree that they shouldn't govern according to polls.  I think Clinton did that a lot.  But we elect them to represent us. so I dunno. 

I've been watching Mark Levin for the past few days on tv.  Mark Levin, the nationally syndicated radio host who served as chief of staff in the Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, argues in his new book—The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic—that state legislatures should use the authority granted them in the Constitution to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

“The federal government, Congress, the Supreme Court, the president, the bureaucracy, they are not going to reform themselves, they are not going to limit their activities. Only we can--through our state representatives from the bottom up.” Levin’s proposal is based on Article 5 of the Constitution, which says constitutional amendments may be proposed in two ways—either by two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Whichever way an amendment is proposed, however, it cannot become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states. “It’s time to turn to the Constitution, to save the Constitution, if you love the Constitution, before there is no Constitution,” - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mark-levin-states-should-call-convention-propose-amending-constitution#sthash.iq3Fe96f.dpuf

This would be the way to get term limits imposed on these career politicians.  Imo, term limits would solve a ton of problems we have in govt right now.  Congress is not going to impose term limits on themselves though because they don't want to lose the power.

But if the States used their Constitutionally guaranteed powers, the power of the govt would come back to us, the people, rather than the fat cat bureaucrats in Washington.  Sen Richard Shelby could no longer funnel millions of dollars to the University of Alabama in order to get votes for his next election.  Rather, the U of A would be more concerned about courting the State Legislature since they get state funds.  And the State reps and senators and governor are elected by the people.  They serve the people's will.  Washington is corrupted by lobbyists and power groups and they have lost their way.  I contend the Senators pander to those groups rather than to the will of the people in many cases. 

Another reason I like the idea of the power going back to the states is that it gives more authority to the red states.  I would imagine that Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and the gulf states folks all have similar views.  However because much or our land is rural, we don't get the same voice, the same vote as the people in the industrial northern states.  NY, Chicago and LA have so many people that they get more representatives than we do.