Pass the hemlock, please

Though the Tea Party movement is not a cohesive entity, its component parts this year have been grappling with a central existential question: To be, or not be, a third party?  Thus far, Tea Party leadership from across the country has made a concerted effort to keep its powerful, grass roots movement within the Republican Party.  As one of Colorado’s Tea Party leaders, Lesley Hollywood, told me recently, “We had to work at convincing people that the right approach was to work within the Republican Party – to restore its conservative principles and to keep it honest.”  The thinking is that third party candidates are relegated to the role of spoiler, and even in the rare occasion when they are well financed, have little chance of actually winning.  Principle is important, but power is essential to changing the way government works.   The Tea Party has learned to work the system, and the system has begun to work for them. Or so they thought.  Late on Monday, former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo announced that he was entering the race for Colorado Governor as the candidate of the tiny American Constitution Party.    Even for those who know this mercurial politician well, Tancredo’s move represented a dramatic about face.  In December of 2009, Tancredo sent an open letter to Colorado’s Tea Party patriots, imploring them to get behind the Republican Party and not make the “suicidal” mistake of backing a third-party candidate from a small fringe party:

Some patriots are tempted to launch a third political party or back one of the existing small parties that never attract more than one or two percent of the vote in state races. I strongly believe that such a course is suicidal and would only result in splitting the conservative vote and guaranteeing the re-election of liberals and socialists.

I believe the Republican Party is the natural home of conservatives and that the road back to constitutional government lies in taking control of the Republican Party from top to bottom, from county committee to the statehouse and all the way to Washington, D.C.

According to the Denver Post, the ACP has 2,000 voters registered with the Colorado Secretary of State, and is the kind of fringe party that Tancredo rightly says never attracts more than a point or two of the vote.  But with a high-profile candidate in Tancredo, who has a dedicated core of state-wide support and a proven capacity to raise money, there is a very real fear that the American Conservative Party will split the Republican vote sufficiently to ensure that Democrat John Hickenlooper is elected in November.  As Colorado GOP Chair Dick Wadhams told the Wall Street Journal, “He wants to destroy Republican chances”.

Not that Republicans haven’t done a good job themselves of messing up the Governor’s race – the Republican front runner, Scott McInnis, has been embroiled in a high-profile plagiarism scandal, and  Tancredo’s stated rationale for joining the race is McInnis can no longer win.   But in the end, this move by Tancredo likely has less to do with politics and more to do with personality.  “Tancredo has an unquenchable thirst for national media attention, at any cost”, Wadhams told the Wall Street Journal.  Tancredo has gained a national following for his strident position on illegal immigration.  When Tancredo ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, he ran an ad that was reminiscent of the “daisy girl” spot that LBJ ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964 – depicting a bomb being planted by illegal immigrants exploding in a mall and the slogan “Tancredo – before it’s too late”.

This kind of sensationalism from a Tancredo run is likely to suck the air out of the Colorado campaign season – at all levels.  In fact, conservatives worry that beyond splitting the conservative vote in the Governor’s race, Tancredo’s presence on the ballot will affect other races as well.  This includes the race in the critical 4^th CD, where Republican Cory Gardner is running a hotly contested race against Democrat Incumbent Betsy Markey.  If Tancredo’s presence at the top of the ticket helps the ACP”s 4^th CD candidate Doug Aden siphons away votes from Gardner, it could mean the difference in the race.

All of which is salt in the wound to Colorado Tea Party activists – especially in Northern Colorado, where Cory Gardner is from.  In an open letter to Tancredo the day before he made his decision to enter the race, Lu Busse, Chairwoman of the Colorado 9-12 Project Coalition wrote:

We clearly demonstrated at the precinct caucuses and state assembly (that the)Tea Party and other pro-liberty grassroots individuals have worked tirelessly for more than a year championing our principles, becoming engaged and informed, learning the political process, vetting candidates at all levels, and also reshaping the Colorado Republican Party as you advised.

For Tancredo, it’s do as I say, not as I do.  “He’s making a mockery of himself and the entire election process”, Lesley Hollywood told the Wall Street Journal.  “It seems like an enormous power grab”.

Or publicity grab, anyway.

“Nothing in politics happens by accident”

This observation by Franklin D. Roosevelt comes to mind as various agencies of the federal government move in force against reported design defects in automobiles made by Toyota Motor Company. Focusing on problems of sudden acceleration, the proceedings of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a grand jury and today the House Energy and Commerce Committee have begun to exhibit something resembling a cross between swarming and piling on. Is it possible that last year’s federal intervention to "save" the Chrysler and General Motors corporations has as its follow up an attack on the chief foreign rival of these American companies? Just wondering. For years, the primary criticism of government efforts by liberals to encourage commerce has been that picking winners and losers is neither productive nor fair, these matters being best determined by competition in the marketplace. Are we now seeing that such "picking" involves not only giving political and financial advantages to favored firms but actually making attacks on unfavored ones? One is reminded of the purportedly non-xenophic President Obama's denunciation of foreign corporations in his State of the Union Address last month. I guess foreigners coming over the borders illegally is one thing but playing by the rules in the American market is something else. Kimberly Strassel wondered out loud about these possibilities last week in her weekly column at the Wall Street Journal. I think she might be on to something.

Let's stop warping words

Rhetoric often manipulates our understanding through bias-laden misuse of language. We all have encountered such examples. "Progressive" suggests innovative, visionary and benevolent. But most "progressive" policies merely regurgitate antiquated notions that were disproved decades ago. A principal contemporary example of outdated "progressive" policy would be the flurry of big-spending, big-government legislation being touted by this Administration, merely repeating the failed economic policies that worsened and prolonged the Great Depression.

Conversely, "conservative" has come to signify stingy and contrary. Actually, there are two distinct forms of conservatism: fiscal and social. Fiscal conservatives believe that spending should be restrained, not over-taxing the public, especially during this economic downturn. Conservative fiscal restraint limits government spending just as people must limit their home budgets. Social conservatives believe in traditional interpersonal values, such as integrity and responsibility.

"Benefits" implies improvement. Properly used, the word denotes the favorable outcome for which we must commit some expenditure of time and resources. When used by the government, though, some people expect the proverbial "free lunch" free for them, paid by someone else.

"Government-funded" has no meaning whatsoever. At any level, no government has any money except ours. Taxes and debt are the only sources of government funding. That is, WE pay for "government-funded" projects. If a politician promises to deliver yet more benefits (see above) at no additional cost, that money must then be taken from some already-funded program.

Impassioned rhetoric should instantly signal the need for wariness, carefully assaying the logic and validity of the speaker's or writer's words. Bias-laden buzz-words especially trigger our alarm bells, protecting us from their misleading damage.

That was the week that was

Last week was truly remarkable. Republicans swept three state elections; then an Islamic extremist holding the position of an Army psychiatrist murdered 13 persons and wounded 31 others at Fort Hood, Texas; the House of Representatives defied the will of the American people by passing a comprehensive health insurance bill; and free people celebrated the 20^th anniversary of the demise of the Berlin Wall back in 1989. These events reveal the contrast that exists in this country and throughout the world between those who value freedom and those who do not. The most encouraging development is the growing awareness of our citizens that the future is won only by doing the right thing.

Reversing the results in last year’s elections, voters gave solid margins of victory to Chris Christie in New Jersey and Robert McDonnell in Virginia in their gubernatorial races, but also Republican candidates for the remaining statewide offices in those states and in Pennsylvania. President Obama campaigned in the first two states, despite the growing unpopularity of his administration.

Democrats have tried strenuously to spin the dismal results as merely local contests, irrelevant to the debate over their health insurance and environmental "cap and trade" proposals. But there is no doubt that it gave the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress incentive to resist party pressure to support these budget-busting and tax-increasing measures.

All good Americans are appalled and horrified at the shooting rampage of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he opened fire on his fellow soldiers and civilians prior to his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan. The news coverage has been remarkably vapid. The same articles which make it perfectly clear that Hasan is an Islamic extremist who could not bring himself to make war on his "fellow Muslims" and regards himself as a soldier in the radical Islamic cause, describe the shooter’s motives as unclear.

Sorry to say, the President himself has set the tone for this mindless and irresponsible attitude, asking people not to rush to judgment about a man and an incident that are as transparent as anything can be. We are learning, too, that "political correctness" or the blind indifference to if not covert sympathy with those who reject Western civilization, has infected the highest ranks of the U.S. Army.

No religion per se makes anyone ineligible for American citizenship or for participation in any civil government, but if the believer’s highest loyalty is to a doctrine that calls for the destruction of constitutional safeguards for human rights, there should be little doubt that he cannot be trusted with any responsibilities or respecting the rights of other citizens.

Notwithstanding weeks of polling date that reveal a solid majority of Americans opposed to government health care (AKA socialized medicine) and Republican election victories in three states that voted Democrat in 2008, the House of Representatives approved a bill of nearly 2,000 pages that would micro manage existing health insurance coverage and impose massive costs on the American people.

Despite considerable rhetorical blather about bipartisanship, the Democrat leadership managed to win over only one Republican representing a traditionally Democrat district in Louisiana and lost 39 Democrats representing traditionally Republican districts, passing the bill by a narrow margin.

It is evident that Democrats are desperate to pass some form of health care legislation, even if they lose seats or lose House control in 2010. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was not deterred by the strong indications that her Senate counterparts lack the votes to pass the legislation, even if it followed her lead in dropping coverage for abortions. She is unmoved despite the fact that she is defying the consent of the governed.

Meanwhile, celebrations are in order on the anniversary of the removal of the infamous Berlin Wall, an event which President Obama either feels is beneath his notice or perhaps understands as an achievement for which he cannot claim credit. No greater contrast exists between Presidents who steadfastly supported the freedom of Berliners and of all Europeans during the Cold War years and the current President who feels more comfortable talking to Asian and Latin American despots than supporting leaders of free nations long allied with the West.

One cannot imagine a President Obama making the courageous decision of Harry Truman to supply Berlin during a long Russian blockade or the uplifting defiance of President Reagan in demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this wall!"

The future of freedom is best entrusted to its dedicated friends.

Doing the right thing in office

What happens when ethics and politics collide? I did a quick online interview about this with Kelley Harp, one of my key staffers from Senate President days (2003-2005), for a graduate course he's taking. With more time, I would have put more detail and polish into my answers; but sometimes the spontaneous reply is the truest. Here's how it went: KH: What did you see as the biggest ethical dilemma in general while serving in the legislature? Was this a result of "the system?" The structure? Something else?

JA: Balancing principle and practicality, a dilemma heightened by the short time-horizon seemingly (but not really) forced up public officials by the legislative and elections calendar.

KH: How did you satisfy this paradox -- going in line with party to keep leadership/the caucus and "the base" happy vs. going in line with your constitutents even if you disagreed vs. voting your own conscience. (I realize that these do not always conflict, but when they did, how did you approach the situation?)

JA: I was a strong party man because of my conviction that parties are the best way to advance policy goals while providing democratic accountability to the citizens. I honestly gave little weight to constituent views since I hold to the Edmund Burke definition of an elected legislator's proper role - more that of an agent, doing as he judges best for the public interest, rather than a delegate who acts under instruction of his voters. As for voting my conscience, that was the ideal standard, but always tempered by the prudential considerations of #1 above - I tried to be on guard against "conscience" as a synonym for self-willed positions out of touch with realities of statesmanship.

KH: Was there a situation where you had to break one ethical principle to satisfy another? (For example, at the federal level, sending troops into harm's way knowing some will die on both sides, but preserving the safety of the nation. I couldn't think off the top of my head of a similar state situation like this that arose during my time there. I'm sure there were many.) And if so, how did you handle?

JA: Countless instances of having to choose between bad and less-bad options with no truly good option in view, but I didn't see those as matters of principle in light of #1 and #2 above.

KH: What do you think needs to change in order to minimize ethical problems in the legislature? (e.g. term limits, elimination of parties, publicly-funded campaigns, etc.)

JA: More fidelity to the constitution, more exercise of recall and impeachment powers already existing in law, and above all, reduction of government's functions back toward their intended constitutional limitations - since the greatest driver of corruption is the amassing of too much power and plunder in government's hands, creating huge temptation to gain control of those levers by fair or foul. Parties are vital as a check on power. So is non-government funding of elections. Term limits are an imperfect, but for the time being necessary, check on power as well.

KH: Did serving in leadership present any unique ethical dilemmas?

JA: It only heightened the tradeoffs and double-bind situations discussed above, resulting in daily decisions being skewed toward practicality. I would ask myself each evening, only half in jest, "How much of my soul did Iose today?" But I never regretted being in leadership, for on balance it have me a lot more opportunity to advance my principles than I would have had otherwise. On the other hand, in writing a memoir recently, I had to conclude the long-horizon strategic approach (mentioned in #1) received less of my effort as Senate President than it could and should have.