Richard Viguerie: Why leaderless Tea Parties are beating the GOP

American Thinker ^ | December 10, 2009 | Richard Viguerie

[neverdem]

Rasmussen reports the Tea Party Movement, which percolated only months ago, is beating the Grand Old Party.

That's amazing -- and good -- news. A nascent grassroots movement is more popular than a long-established political party.

Republican Party leaders should be embarrassed. Instead, the Republican establishment disdains this populist uprising. Rather than embracing this genuine movement, establishment politicians and consultants are calculating how to co-opt, sideline or even defeat the newest phenomenon in politics - tea partiers.

That would be arrogance, not leadership. It could be the downfall of Republican leaders, who have taken the Party of Reagan to the Party of No -- meaning, No Ideas, No Leadership, and No Principles.

What's driving the Tea Party phenomenon? Robert Stacy McCain writes at American Spectator about one tea partier, Rhonda Lee Welsch, who says, "‘It's a systemic problem,' discussing the top-down approach of leaders in both parties who seem indifferent to the concerns of ordinary Americans."

People realize that big-government, career politicians aren't going to save America, if it's not too late for that already. Like a modern-day court of Louis XVI, our leaders are disconnected from the people. An uprising is taking place, yet our political leaders seem more interested in playing a good round of golf.

As I wrote not long ago:

Americans are concluding more and more that many of the current problems we face are caused by unrestrained and corrupt government. It is becoming apparent to millions of voters the solution lies in electing officials who understand, respect and abide by the Constitution as much as we citizens are expected to follow the law.

The Tea Party Movement, however, is about more than electing new politicians, although that will be one of its consequences. What's happening in the tea parties is that people are actually using the Constitution to ground and form policy choices, and as a constructive means to hold the political establishment accountable.

Our constitutional system of checks and balances is currently in shambles. Congress refuses to hold the President accountable constitutionally, and the courts refuse to hold the other two branches accountable. 

This is why the 10^th Amendment is becoming so popular within the Tea Party Movement, and why that Amendment is becoming the bane of statists in the political establishment.  The 10th Amendment, intended as a fundamental, "systemic" protection of our constitutional form of government, says that all powers not given expressly to the federal government by the text of the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. It is a failsafe against tyranny.

The 10^th Amendment, which has been in the closet and is dusty, is a natural resource for the "leaderless" Tea Party Movement. The way to restrain the abuses of power, and create a culture of freedom and economic prosperity, is within the Constitution itself.  Tea partiers will use the Constitution, which has been so disregarded by the three branches of government, to tame the beast of tyrannical big government. The 10^th Amendment is one key to overcoming what Ms. Welsch articulates for all of us as a "systemic problem."

One of the best books I've read in recent years is The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom.

Read it, and you'll better understand why the Tea Party Movement is surging, and the Republican Party isn't. The book describes the success of leaderless organizations using the analogy of a spider, which is killed when its head is cut off, versus the starfish, which, when a tentacle is cut off, grows a new one.

The great Aztec civilization existed for centuries before the Spaniards arrived on the continent. Cortes told the Aztec leader, Montezuma, give me your gold or your life. Montezuma gave Cortes his gold, and Cortes killed him anyway. The Aztec civilization did not survive the loss of its leader. The head of the spider had been cut off.

The Apaches, a leaderless "starfish" society, survived hundreds of years of the Spaniards' trying to do what they did to the Aztecs. As Brafman and Beckstrom write:

You wanted to follow Geronimo? You followed Geronimo. You didn't want to follow him? Then you didn't. The power lay with each individual.

We are seeing the "starfish" Tea Party Movement with candidates running in both Democratic and Republican primaries. When they are shut out by the party establishments, as happened in New York's 23^rd congressional district, they are running as independents, or under third parties.

"Starfish" tea partiers are learning how to organize, raise money, and utilize the alternative media in record numbers. They are voicing their opposition to unaccountable Big Government, and promoting productive policy alternatives, through the guiding principles of the Founders.

From the tea parties, the grassroots, and the alternative media, we are seeing new leaders emerge. Like our Founders, they understand their strength of leadership does not come from a political party, but from consent of the governed. That is why they don't hitch their wagons to one person or one party.

Talk radio host Mark ‘The Great One" Levin discussed recently how Reagan spoke not of "his" administration, but of "this" administration. Levin noted how Reagan understood his power came from the people, not from the office he held. Reagan didn't read The Starfish and the Spider, but he understood its principles. The successors to Reagan's GOP do not understand those principles, and seem more beholden to staying in Washington than saving America. They are "spiders."

The Tea Party Movement is determined to save America. Republican Party leaders would be unwise to try to co-opt, sideline or defeat it. Perhaps they should welcome the new leadership into the Party as their single most important survival tactic.

[onyx]

Let me direct your attention to the solid democrat state of New Jersey and its recent election for governor.

The third party conservative was showing 14% in the polls right up to election day, and the race was tied between the incumbent democrat Corrozine and his GOP challenger Christie.

I’m certain you know that Christie managed to win, because the third party conservative only received 7% or 8% instead of the 14% the polling showed.

Once people are in the voting booth, pragmatism has its way of trumping emotion.

You may think this is the time and place and that the somebodies are already in place, but I’ve heard that before. Whom, might I ask, are the somebodies?

[votemout]

The point is that some republicans are conservative, but the party is not. More and more are ready to try something else after the failures of the republicans. I am an example of that as are a few million others, IMO. It’s a miracle anyone but a democrat got elected in NJ. ACORN must have been puit in check.

[mo]

The oldest con in the books is the Good Cop-Bad Cop routine. Since before Ronald Reagan, who used the populist lever to subdue it, Congress has been the pre-eminent practitioner of this con.

Anybody who thinks that 2/3 of the Pubbies would’nt cram this “healthcare” bill down our throats in a New York minute, just fell off the turnip truck.

They might be votin’ “against” it ..but they’re laughing in their sleeves with ecstasy over the power and loot they’ll get to ‘play with” next when its their turn.

The Two Parties in this country, for decades, have been Washington DC and Flyover, America. Aided and abetted by the MSM.

Flyover’s finally figurin’ it out

[Osage Orange]

The oldest con in the books is the Good Cop-Bad Cop routine. Since before Ronald Reagan, who used the populist lever to subdue it, Congress has been the pre-eminent practitioner of this con.

Anybody who thinks that 2/3 of the Pubbies would’nt cram this “healthcare” bill down our throats in a New York minute, just fell off the turnip truck.

They might be votin’ “against” it ..but they’re laughing in their sleeves with ecstasy over the power and loot they’ll get to ‘play with” next when its their turn.

The Two Parties in this country, for decades, have been Washington DC and Flyover, America. Aided and abetted by the MSM.

Flyover’s finally figurin’ it out

I don't know how...anymore to think about it differently.

[onyx]

What is the party if not the people? You see, not all Republican voters are conservative, just like not all democrat voters are blue dogs or radical Leftists.

As I see it, conservatives fall into more than one group. Some call themselves fiscally conservative: small government, low taxes, etc. Others call themselves socail conservatives: pro-life, one man, one woman marriage, etc. Still others like Ron Paul, are more isolationist, or strictly Constitutionalist and still others demand a strong national defense.

One conservative’s idea of a RINO, might not be another’s idea of a RINO. It all depends on that particular conservative’s litmus test or set of principles and issues.

It will be interesting to see the various conservatives who elect to challenge incumbents or who elect ro run in seats vacated. I personally like Sarah Palin’s self-description: “Common Sense Conservative.” I hope everyone runs on that.

[Kells]

The issue isn't what's the history of third-parties, it's that the top two don't have any special entitlement to maintain their place and power.

With more and more conservatiuves realizing the GOP has failed them and willing to join a different party, the GOP will BE the third party and eventually become insignificant. You have to start sometime and place with somebody, and this is the time and place. The somebodies are already in place.

No leaderless group of conservatives can win an election. It will be much easier to "take over" the GOP than to "take over" the entire country with a non-GOP party.

[GVnana]

I'm not up on Viguerie, but I learned my lesson on third parties with Perot. There's nothing to be gained except the empowerment of the opposition.

If recent polling data is to be believed, the Tea Party movement IS the Republican party for all intents and purposes.

Viguerie claims "the Republican establishment disdains this populist uprising." Maybe.

I don't know of any Republicans in office who "disdains" the tea parties. I do know Republicans who are happy to be associated with the tea parties, and fight to get on the podiums! In my experience the "disdain" is directed at the party and comes from dissaffected Republican voters.

However, as the year has stretched on, a failed Republican presidential bid is fading, and this discontent is waning while the current administration and congress hands the public one onerous outrage after another.

What's happening in the tea parties is that people are actually using the Constitution to ground and form policy choices, and as a constructive means to hold the political establishment accountable.

Our constitutional system of checks and balances is currently in shambles. Congress refuses to hold the President accountable constitutionally, and the courts refuse to hold the other two branches accountable.

This is why the 10th Amendment is becoming so popular within the Tea Party Movement, and why that Amendment is becoming the bane of statists in the political establishment.

I agree with Viguerie's comments here -- to a point. It's too bad Viguerie doesn't name names when he writes about these "statists" in the political establishment.

The tea party movement is young and emotional and sometimes reckless. I don't know, ultimately, where it will lead, and neither does anyone else.

[SoCalPol]

Viguerie, Ron Paul, etc. are not Conservatives but Libertarians.
They are anti war, for Legalizing marajuana, and other areas
that are not Conservative. Many are also 9/11 Truthers.

The Libertarians are more closley related to liberals
on the domestic and international views.

Paul’s son Rand who is running for the Senate has stated he is Libertarian.

They piggyback on the Republican Party name because they know they could never win using their real title along with many of their true beliefs.

I have been to more than a few Tea Party rallies and the Paulites are there handing out their 9/11 Truther material.

I have heard the same thing from FReepers in other states.

Bottom line, the Paulite - Vigueri bunch need to stop their concern for the Republican Party which they are member in name only.

That would make Ron Paul a RINO as I have stated many times before.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Third parties , we have been told, always assure victory for the opposition, an unintended consequence. Third parties have never had enough strength to win in total. The Tea party movement is different and is growing stronger because it is rapidly becoming clear that the established parties, in trying to keep their priviledged positions, are letting stealth marxists, statists, and one worlders destroy the Republic! The only chance America has lies with the true Patriots We the People"

Actually, Third Parties have occasionally succeeded. First with Andrew Jackson in 1824, with the death of the Federalist Party, and the birth of the Democrat party. Second with Lincoln, with the birth of the Republican party.

The next Presidential election appears to me to most resemble the Jackson-1824, with Palin in the role of Jackson. This can go one of two ways--Palin stays Republican, and the RINO wing of the party dies (and turns Democrat), or a true conservative party is established, and the Republican party dies.

[x]

Actually, Third Parties have occasionally succeeded. First with Andrew Jackson in 1824, with the death of the Federalist Party, and the birth of the Democrat party. Second with Lincoln, with the birth of the Republican party.

There's a lot of argument about that. If you come along with a new party when one of the two parties is breaking up, do you have a third-party or a new second party?

Jackson came along when the Federalists had disappeared and everybody was some kind of (Jeffersonian) Republican. Lincoln's Republican party sprung up at the same time the Whig party was falling apart.

The next Presidential election appears to me to most resemble the Jackson-1824, with Palin in the role of Jackson. This can go one of two ways--Palin stays Republican, and the RINO wing of the party dies (and turns Democrat), or a true conservative party is established, and the Republican party dies.

The reason why Lincoln's Republicans (and to some extent Jackson's Democrats) did so well is because they could take votes away from the party in power. In the 1850s, a lot of Democrats (as well as Whigs) flocked to the Republicans, so they became a stronger and bigger party than the Whigs had been.

A new party now wouldn't get all the Republican votes and would get hardly any Democrat votes. Unless it got massive support at the polls from new voters and long time non-voters, it wouldn't do any better at the polls than the Republicans. It would simply split the non-Democrat vote with the Republicans.

There was a chance 30 or 40 years ago for a new party. You had liberals in both parties and conservatives in both parties. If one of the parties was too rigid, a third party could have drawn off voters from both parties and replaced the weaker of the two main parties.

But that's unlikely to happen now. For better or worse, we already have a conservative party and a liberal party and a new party isn't going to find much of an opening.

[ImpBill]

I'll try and make this as simple for you as I can.

I am not a "Republican". Meaning I am not a member of the Grand Old Party (Political Party).

Therefore I will not vote for or support the candidate that the members of "his/her" political party fielded as their choice.

I could care less how that person was fielded. He/She could have bought their way on to the ballot, they could have been drug, kicking and screaming, to the decision to run. If the GOP fields a candidate who is not conservative I will "forget that political party" in my decision upon who to vote for.

I mean it is a pretty straight forward sentence.

And before you want to engage in an on going debate about the subject, please simply keep in mind that it was you who initiated this exchange. I simply agreed with RegulatorCountry. I, after years of debate here on FR, have adopted the policy of not taking issue with those with whom I disagree. It is usually pointless and takes up more bandwidth that it is worth.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks neverdem.

[votemout]

I think I made that point earlier (maybe on another 3-party thread). Need leadership. BTW another problem with the republican party since 1988. When you take over the rep party, let me know, maybe we’ll merge.

[RegulatorCountry]

And I thank you for your agreement. Common sense and the party bandwagon appear to have parted ways.

It’s going to be quite the donnybrook between now and the Republican nomination. They can save themselves some grief and embarrassment, by embracing their own platform and sticking to it, as well as to the Constitution. Or, they can create a schism. Their choice.

I sense the 2012 cliques forming on FR already. Some things never change.

[ImpBill]

You are correct about things never changing.

One can understand the mindset of the "party faithful", however. Lord knows I was one for a long, long time in my life. It is only little solace that I find myself not as isolated as I once felt when I made the decision to severe the cord.

And in being totally and brutally honest, even though I severed the cord, on election day I still found myself, like a moth to the flame, being drawn back to pulling the lever "against" one candidate rather than voting "for" one.

This too will change, for me, in the voting booth where "my vote" is my only real political capital.

[JouleZ]

“But make no mistake here” sounds just like the BO. I just had to laugh at this. Carry on, Ronin.

[Ronin]

To tell the truth, I have never listened to his speeches and have no intention of starting. His actions and policies tell me everything I need to know about him.

[Kells]

Need leadership.

That would be Palin.

When you take over the rep party, let me know, maybe we’ll merge.

That would be my preference. However, if Palin is shut out and goes all the way rogue with a third party, I would still support her.

[roamer_1]

You can speak only for yourself, and I can speak only for myself. You do not speak for conservatives, any more than I speak for conservatives.

I speak the truth.

Republicans are down to 22% now. Yet Conservatism soars. Some polls put Conservatives at 60%. Everyone I know used to be Republicans. I don't know a single one now, and that isn't just here - I mean across the nation.

Do you really think it's the liberals and moderates leaving the Republican party? When they are the ones in control of it, and have been since Reagan left the White House?

Polling puts 40% of Conservatives inside the Republican party. Where are the rest of them? Do you think they crossed the aisle to vote for B.O?

The Republicans haven't been bleeding RINOs and liberals... They've been losing Conservatives. And they have been since Bush I. The critical tipping point has already happened.

Your claim that “Conservatism is at stake” is folly. Where have you been? Conservatism has never been more energetic and popular since the days of Ronald Reagan.

Not due to the Republicans, nor within the Republicans. The party is wholly owned by the Baker Moderates, and has been since Poppa Bush. They masquerade as Conservatives (kinder, gentler, "compassionate" conservatives), and ruin the name of Conservatism. That is why it is at stake.

I will lend *no* credence to them *at all*. When they have been forced to step down, and Reaganites ascend, then come talk to me about your silly Republicans.

Conseratives are currently found in both Houses of Congress and they’re all Republicans. Imagine *that*!

NO, they are *not* all Republicans, and not all Republicans are Conservatives, by a loooong shot. Those Conservatives who are in the Republican party are kept far away from the levers of power.

Conservatives have a grand chance to nominate and replace lifelong incumbents in Republican primaries. JD Hayworth is mulling a campaign to challenge McCain in Arizona and McCain already has one or two challengers.

So what? It won't be the Republicans replacing McCain, or any of the rest. It will be pressure from the TEA Parties working from the outside (if it can be done at all). Don't break your arm patting your back.

Your dream of a viable conservative national third party with respect to the presidential election is as silly today as it’s always been, even with a back-channeled financing by George Soros.

HA! At least it is "back-channeled", if it is there at all (as you have no proof of it). Soros donates to Republicans OPENLY. And they do his bidding. As to whether a third party can rise, the Whigs must have sounded alot like you.

Please don’t try to lecture me about fulfilling “the threats of ‘04 and ‘08” -— conservatives voted in both elections. Conservatives NEVER help democrats win.

No, Republicans NEVER help Democrats win. Conservatives, on the other hand, are noted for staying home if their principles are not represented. It has ALWAYS been the Republicans' game to lose. Democrats win when Republicans act like liberals, and their base stays home.