The Washington Post recently published an article that warns of how “Tea Party antics could end up burning the Republicans“. The article is sure to upset a number of Tea Party participants and to encourage Democrats that they have a chance of stemming the tide of losses in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.
I believe that this main point made by the Washington Post article author, Staff Writer Amy Gardner, is a valid one, but not necessarily for the reasons provided within this specific article.
It is true that the “Tea Party” has had a volatile influence on this year’s election. However, unlike the portrait painted by Ms. Gardner, the volatility and the violence has also been evident among Democrat Party supporters. Both sides have been guilty of overstepping the boundaries of civil discourse and disagreement, preferring instead, to use force and intimidation. The Obama Administration has also engaged in intimidation; specifically with regard to businesses such as health care insurers such as Humana Insurance Company:
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), acting with President Obama’s blessing, subjected Humana Insurance Company to immoral, illegal and unnecessary threats and intrusion into the affairs of its relationship with its customers when Humana warned that Obamacare would result in higher costs and less benefits to patients; especially those relying upon the Medicare Advantage program.
As to Humana’s statement that access to Health Care insurance and to favored physicians will be reduced, we’ve been hearing and reading about numerous companies contemplating dropping their workers coverage, paying the fines and forcing their workers into government run health and wellness programs. Some insurers have already stopped selling and renewing “children only” health insurance.
Most of the current actions on the part of employers and insurance companies could have been avoided had the Obama Administration chose to sit down with Humana and other insurance companies to examine the best means of covering the largest segment of the population at the least cost. Instead, they opted for threats and an arrogance that has permeated and infected an already damaged and weakened political system that breeds little more than cynicism and contempt. Congress has compounded this insult by allowing the President to usurp its oversight authority regarding national commerce though his recess appointment of yet another “Czar” who has been and remains outspoken in favor of rationing care, Dr. Donald Berwick.
Political turbulence, vitriol and volatility is ever present in politics. When one side gets too heavy handed, the population generally turns out to vote the party of power out of office and the opposition in as an attempt to bring about stability and a sense of security, they do so to reassure themselves that they do hold some power over their public servants, however slight their power may be. Above, I pointed to Dr. Berwick as a man who has been given ultimate control over the health care system.
Citizens did not elect him to his office. The Congress did not appoint him and has no control over him. By extension, we common folk have no control over his decisions and no recourse to reject them. Only the President of the United States can remove him, and President Obama will not do so because he will upset his base more than he already has, and it is plain to see how much support he has lost.
The “Tea Party” brings to the Republican Party a short term boon with respect to helping them regain lost seats in Congress and, perhaps, forcing the President to move more to the center and further from what remains of his left wing base. I say short-term boon for a number of reasons.
There is no one Tea Party. There is, instead, a multitude of regional Tea Party groups. Those groups in the Deep South will not necessarily agree with groups from the northeast sector of the nation. Midwestern groups will not necessarily agree with groups from the west coast states such as Oregon and California.
The Tea Party is an amalgam of people who are angry with the government for a various number of political reasons. At the present, the national debt and the prospect of a diminished lifestyle are driving most to join in “kicking the bums out”. Unfortunately, for the Democrats, they are the party in power and they are perceived as the group of bums most harmful to the economy. No one is denying that President Bush had a hand in the collapse of the economy; however, he shares that blame with a Democrat Congress that held the purse strings and the power to say no during the latter part of his term.
President Bush, his administration and many Republicans are on record as expressing concern over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and potential abuses and dangers to the economy. He owns responsibility for not following through on his instincts and the information given him, but relying instead on the advice and exuberant admonitions of key Democrats like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, as well as the President’s own advisors at the SEC, the Fed and key Republicans in Congress.
At some point after the election – soon afterward, in my opinion – the different factions within the Tea Party movement will diffuse out from the center of the cell they now occupy and one by one separate into individual blocs that will turn on each other. All will agree that the economy is the most profound issue facing the nation and getting the budget and the size of government under control is the most important issue to be addressed. However, just as Democrats and Republicans try to undermine each other or cut compromises that do little or nothing more to solve a problem other than to get it out of public view, Tea Party groups will undertake similar actions against one another.
If those who view small government, low and fair taxation, and minimal intrusion of the central government into matters rightfully belonging to the states are the dominant group, the Tea Party may have a chance of succeeding and changing the size, scope and reach of government if it remains patient enough to be satisfied with one bite at a time. However, it is my belief, based on my 62 years of observing politics, that the religionists will dampen the fire for change that now exists and will drive the more rational and reasonable people out of the movement. If this occurs, the movement will die, Republicans will go back to being disparate but meaningless voices in the wind and the social engineers will win out. There is a good reason for the saying, “Never mix religion and politics”. Our Founding Fathers understood that when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Jefferson and Madison tried to make that abundantly clear in subsequent letters on the subject. However, there are those who long for a Christian Theocracy, all the while finding every fault they can with an Islamic Theocracy. They fail to see how each robs individuals of their innate and deeply personal right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness in any manner of their choosing, so long as that manner does not impinge upon the rights of others.
Insisting on allowing government sanctioned use of theological symbols, prayers and customs always infringes upon the rights of others; specifically, those who see such symbols, prayers and customs as antithetical to their own faith based beliefs. Furthermore, just as everyone is guaranteed the right to practice their religion unencumbered under the Constitution of the United States; people who rely upon science and reason above faith, or who see faith as impractical, unreliable and dangerous, have an equal right of protection regarding their system of values. Those of faith are fond of the expression that things “are God’s will” and that God gave man free will to separate man from beasts. My question, then, is why would a God give man free will, and by extension, free choice, only to allow those in power to take away choice and limit just how much life, liberty and happiness another is allowed to possess?
In fact, according to Christian scripture, God demands that individuals exercise their free will. With that as a given, how does one justify forcing individuals to suppress their free will and right to free choice when one is a mere mortal? Be it a Caliphate or Christendom (Sacerdotium), those serving under it are slaves to doctrine and are not people free to choose how to live, where and in what fashion to live, or to live according to their individual desires (dreams) or pursuits of property by which they can engage in trade or use for comfort and security.
Whenever one speaks of limiting the influence of another’s religion while insisting on the placement of prominence, one is speaking of domination, the application of force and the suppression of the very liberty that they claim to defend. The Tea Party was formed because the President and his Congress dared to force their will upon the rest of us without asking for our consent. That is what made people angry enough to build this grass roots organization called “The Tea Party”, and the use of force or the insistence on faith over rationality will be what breaks the group apart. Religion is a difficult topic to discuss or debate. Politics is also a difficult topic to debate or discuss without arousing anger and resentment. Putting both in one basket is suicidal for a democratic republic that favors individual rights over forced submission to government or church.
Politics can be nothing but public in practice. However, faith is a personal choice or an inherited expectation. It not only can be practiced in private; it must be kept from the public square when there are numerous people of faith with very different belief systems. Governing in a free society depends upon the rule of law, not the faith of individuals. Much of our law comes from religious philosophy and much of that philosophy has been distilled down in the application of law and punishments over the centuries. We in America no long accept public hanging, the stocks, tar and feathering, or scarlet letters. Ultimately, we will abolish capital punishment and move justice forward; not by faith – but through reason.
The goal of the Tea Party or any party should be the restraint of government force or power on the lives of individuals. That goal serves no purpose if the powers to limit free choice, free will and freedom to act on one’s own interests are removed from government only to be handed over to some other agent other than the individual. When you go to the polls, choose wisely. After the elections, listen closely and raise your voice according to how strongly you believe in liberty over all else.
