Texas Tea

Forming amongst a loose coalition of protesters during last years tax season as a response to the bailouts, the "tea party" has since become something slightly more tangible.

Depending on who you ask, the Tea Party is either a small government (Libertarian) or 10th Amendment/state's rights (Statist) party. Regardless, both can agree that they want a smaller Federal government. This tieing in with the Libertarian boom of the last decade can cause a radical shift of the Party system as we know it. It could abandon the Republicans, to be doomed alone with the Christian right. It can rip the social liberals/apathetics from the Democratic party, leaving them alone with those in favor of large federal infrastructure.

But earlier this week was the first real test of their principals, and how they hold up via candidates, in the Texas State Primaries.

As the Tea Party doesn't have any real party affiliations, I think there were Tea Party representatives on both the Republican and Democratic Ballots. Given recent political history, this meant most of the candidates were on the Republican ballot.

Given recent political history, this meant most of these Tea Partiers were lined up against incumbents.

With the recession/depression/economic whatever, congress's dealings whith said whatever, and really congress's approval rating since 2006, you would think this would be to the incumbent's disadvantage. One must need only look to the McCain-Feingold reform to be instantly corrected on this silly mistake.

Congress has always had Franking privelages. This means they can mail stuff anywhere for free. This means any Congressman can simply spam newsletters and pamphlets whenever he wants. This is a significant cut on overhead that was invaluable in the days when people still used mail. Add this advantage to the McCain-Feingold act and, well it simply isn't fair. The bill puts a ceiling on the amount of money the candidate can accept from any single organization/person (different amounts in each case). This effectively makes it an even playing field, as far as funding is concerned.

The incumbent has the pleasure/displeasure of being known. They have recognition. All publicity is good publicity. Period. Plus, the incumbent already has a support infrastructure in place. They don't need to waste money on building their campaign process and plan. They already have that, or at least some semblance of it from previous campaigns. Newcomers start from scratch.

Well, it looks like I'm rambling a bit now about "campaign finance reform" and it's effects on actual campaigns, but I'm getting to my point, I swear.

The tea party candidates were blown out of the water.

They weren't close anywhere. Really.

The closest they might have done was disrupt Senator K Bailey Hutchinson's gubanatorial campaign. That's debatable, and it wasn't even under the dubious categorization of "vote stealing" (something which I will deny ever ever exists, you run your campaign on who else is running and you vote on who runs, to speculate other scenarios is reckless and irresponsible), but rather under the category of something more akin to a PAC taking apart a candidate. Think of it this way. She got swift boated -- except instead of for serving in Vietnam and earning a purple ehart, to be discredited by disillusioned veterans who may or may not have served for you, she had a very successful career as a congresswoman for Texas and was always able to pull money and projects back into her state/districts and was discredited for supporting the state of Texas by wasting the federal governments money on projects which may or may not have helped her state/districts.

My wording is awkward, but trust me, there's an analogy in there somewhere.

Regardless, I think this actually serves as a good example of the short term future of the party.

They will act as a PAC, or series of PAC's, rather than a party which runs successful candidates. This is the same strategy which has kept the ideals of the green party alive, as Ralph Nader's presidential campaign numbers continue to dwindle.

Given the nature of their party's politics and views, they should probably be advised to get some butts in the seats. They can act as an influencer, but if they actually want to change policy at their pace, they need to get their own representatives in government.

Both the parties of today were created upon single issues, really, so it's not entirely out of the question to say this party can't do it.

The Democratic party, while claiming ties back to the founding fathers (especially Jefferson), came into something more of their modern manifestation as the "vote for Andrew Jackson" party. There was really only one party then, but that's when the distinction was began between Democrat-Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats.

The Republican party has a much more cohesive tie to one single party. It was formed in the 1850's as an abolitionist party, and grew largely out of the ashes of the crumbling Whig Party, which refused to take an official party wide stance on the issue. At the end of the decade, they managed to put a President in the Oval Office, Abraham Lincoln.

So the question is will they be able to do it? Or even simply, will they try?

Ron Paul is a good bet for someone who has at least the capability to do it. He has drawn the ire of both the major parties, supports most of the Tea Party's central ideals, and has the support of the internet (which may only equal to one person in real life). Not to mention, if he can win his home state of Texas, well that would change the entire political landscape.

German Music Time!!



-- Knuttel