Are Ideological Witch Hunts Killing the Tea Party?

Remember the early days of the Tea Party?  Remember the wave of energy that swept across the conservative movement?  Confronted with the combined legislative onslaught of Obamacare, a bloated stimulus (“porkulus”) package that cost more than the Iraq war, and economy-reshaping initiatives like cap and trade, the Tea Party yanked conservatives out of defeatism and depression, reminded Americans of their constitutional heritage, and confronted our fiscal irresponsibility not just in economic terms but with cultural and moral arguments as well.

And the Left was furious.  Lies and slander spewed from the mainstream media.  Somehow, a collection of middle-aged professionals who left public spaces cleaner than when they arrived suddenly became a “violent” and “dangerous” threat to the republic.  Yes, many Tea Partiers were angry at the direction of the country, but that anger was expressed in isolated verbal outbursts at Town Halls and protests.  They simply exercised their First Amendment rights, and the intensity of their protest paled in comparison to the recent Wisconsin union battles or the Occupy marches and encampments.

Even in the face of overwhelming media invective, the Tea Party remained popular, at one point exceeding the favorability ratings of both major political parties.  In November 2010, the Tea Party triumphed, providing the energy and activism that transformed the political landscape.  A new day had arrived.

Or had it?  Even as the Tea Party hailed its great victory, signs of trouble were all around.  In some jurisdictions (Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Delaware), a dedication to ideological purity over all else resulted in nominating deeply flawed candidates.  And public opinion was beginning to turn.  By mid-2011, Tea Party popularity had turned upside-down, with significantly more Americans viewing it unfavorably.

Tea Party defenders blamed the media, and they were right — at least partly.  The invective and slander kept spewing from the Left, with labels like “extremist,” “racist,” and “violent” used virtually as talking points.  But something else was happening, something far more dangerous to the long-term health of the movement.

For many activists, the focus changed — moving away from making constitutional arguments to the American people against Obama’s excesses and towards a vicious ideological battle within the Republican party.  Peruse popular conservative websites, and you’ll see writers calling fellow conservatives “gnomes” and some of the most popular even banning dissent from their comment boards.  On talk radio, hosts are attacking other conservative candidates with unrestrained ferocity.  In a strange turn of events, a conservative can agree with a fellow conservative on every major substantive plank of conservatism and still be labeled a “RINO” if their tone isn’t angry enough or if they support a different Republican in the primary.

Simply put, this kind of conduct is annoying and infuriating to everyone who is not in the constantly-shifting “in” crowd.  And it’s happening in local venues where once-vibrant Tea Party groups are being increasingly dominated by an angry fringe that has long floated around the periphery of conservative circles.  I’ve seen Republicans who one year ago loved to talk about the Tea Party now roll their eyes whenever they get one of the incessant, incoherent emails sent by this or that local activist.

If you talk about fiscal responsibility, decreased tax and regulatory burdens, and a culture of life, you tend to unite conservatives and many, many independents.  When you tell a fellow lifetime conservative that they’re morally deficient for backing Mitt Romney or a “coward” for not advising public officials to violate the law to implement “conservative” policies (just to take two recent examples from my life), you not only alienate your allies, you look downright strange to independents.

Why bring this up?  Because the polls are moving from bad to worse, with the Tea Party now enjoying only 25% agreement in Tea Party districts.  These are the very districts most impervious to liberal media influence, the very districts often most gerrymandered to ensure a permanent conservative presence in Congress — and yet the Tea Party is at 25%?

The rise of Newt Gingrich as the “anti-Mitt” represents a serious blow to Tea Party dominance.  Conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have to be shaking their heads.  Wasn’t this the year for the “true conservative?”  Don’t their lifetime flawless conservative records count for something?  Yet in Newt Gingrich you have the very essence of the establishment Republican, a former Speaker of the House who has made millions as a quasi-lobbyist.

Obviously it’s way too early to write the Tea Party’s obituary, but that obituary is inevitable if self-proclaimed “true conservatives” continue to act like the fratricidal ideological scolds they’ve become.

Mitt Romney, the Tea Party, and the Rise of Conservative Political Correctness

I first encountered true political correctness in law school.  The year was 1991, George. H. W. Bush was still in office, and our campus literally seethed with hatred for the Reagan/Bush era.  When I raised my voice to speak for conservative values, I would sometimes be treated to a cascade of boos and catcalls — attempts to literally shout me down.  I received vile messages in my mailbox, including calls that I should “go die.”  Other conservatives saw their faces pasted over gay porn and then plastered on campus walls.  While some on the Left attempted to engage conservative ideas, many others simply postured and preened, trying to outdo each other in the stridence of their denunciations.

I grew to loathe political correctness.  It is the enemy of rational argument, it is a slave to passing fads and fashions, and it creates echo chamber communities that eventually isolate and marginalize themselves.

Why bring up PC now?  Because of this story:

Free Republic founder Jim Robinson has a message for supporters of Mitt Romney: go away.

In an email to POLITICO this afternoon, Robinson admitted that the site routinely blocks Romney supporters from posting — and offered no apologies for the practice:

“Free Republic is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-small government, pro-constitution, pro-liberty site. Governor Romney is none of the above. His record is that of an abortionist, gay rights pushing, gun grabbing, global warming advocating, big government, mandate loving, constitution trampling, flip-flopping liberal progressive with no core values. That and the fact that he is the chief architect and advocate for ObamaCare disqualifies him for any consideration whatsoever on Free Republic as a potential nominee for the presidency.”

To be clear, Free Republic — while not the largest site in the conservative universe — is hardly a small-time player.  According to Quantcast it has more than 1.5 million monthly visits, and it’s the site that broke the Rathergate scandal in 2004 that brought down the CBS News anchor and arguably influenced the outcome of the Bush/Kerry presidential election.

And now they won’t even let pro-Mitt conservatives make an argument on their site.  That is political correctness in action — conservative political correctness.  And I fear that its grip is extending beyond Free Republic.  Last month I had my own encounter with conservative PC.  A series of erroneous news reports led a prominent local talk radio host to (wrongly) declare that I was causing a client to surrender to ACLU demands, essentially called me a coward, and then urged local Tea Party leaders to raise money to “fire” me and replace me with a “real” lawyer.  When I tried to call in to correct the record, he wouldn’t even let me engage.

Fortunately, however, the truth was on our side. Recognizing that Tea Party patriots are literally hungry for information, we decided not to engage with uninformed talk radio hosts but instead to take our case directly to the public — to answer questions from all comers.  So we held a public forum, and more than 1,200 Tennesseans attended (you can see a local television news report, including my comments, here).  By night’s end, I had explained our commitment to defending the First Amendment and opposing the ACLU’s religious censorship.  While not everyone was satisfied, I was grateful the crowd listened to what I had to say, asked thoughtful questions, and behaved exactly opposite of the talk radio host: they engaged.

The Tea Party is not politically correct.  But I fear that some of its leaders and most vocal advocates are.  Mark Levin has become so strident in defining true conservatism that I sometimes find it hard to listen.  I was saddened to see one of my favorite conservatives, Rush Limbaugh (heck, I’ve even named my fantasy baseball team “The Limbaughs” since 1992), fall prey to the winds of conservative fashion and flatly declare Mitt Romney “not a conservative,” a statement that stands in stark contrast to his thoughts in 2008:

I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.

Not even the dean of the beltway GOP, George Will, is immune to the prevailing winds of “true conservative” fashion.  In last week’s much-circulated column, he declared Mitt Romney the “pretzel candidate” and concluded with this scathing statement:

Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?

But as Ramesh Ponnuru noted in NRO, Mr. Will hasn’t always had the same view of Mitt.  Here he is in 2007:

The axiom is as old as human striving: The perfect is the enemy of the good. In politics this means that insisting on perfection in a candidate interferes with selecting a satisfactory one. . . .

Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience — on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?

What explains these flip-flops?  Did Mitt Romney move left between 2007 and 2011?  Hardly.  His platform is conservative, his record in business and as governor is conservative (both fiscally and socially), and — in an era of record deficits, stagnant job growth, and debt downgrades — there’s a strong conservative case to be made for a man who has turned deficits into surpluses, job losses into job growth, and debt downgrades into upgrades.  Yes, I know that Romneycare is deeply problematic to many conservatives (though we often forget that when he fashioned his health care plan, he did exactly what we want our Republican governors to do: turn to a conservative think tank for assistance), and I certainly understand there are good arguments for other candidates, but simply declaring Mitt outside the conservative movement is nothing more than PC nonsense.

NRO’s Jay Nordlinger hits the nail on the head:

Barry Goldwater once hollered, “Grow up, conservatives!” I sometimes feel the same way. We who are conservative aren’t meant to be 100-percenters. That’s more a Bolshevik trait: “What, you favor a lower grain quota? Up against the wall!” Politics is not for the pure, and ideologues are a nuisance. The American electorate is bigger than National Review Online (unfortunately).

A belief in ideological purity is much like a belief in any other kind of earthly purity — it’s vanity, a chasing after the wind.  How can human beings — who on this Earth are doomed to “see through a glass darkly” ever expect to know or define the best ideas, the absolute right ideas, in every circumstance?  We live, we learn, and — yes — we sometimes change our minds.  I’m a conservative in large part because of what I don’t know, because traditions arise out of the wisdom of many, and because I don’t look to any man to be the “One.”

Vote for Mitt, or not.  Support my legal strategy in any given case, or not.  But let’s not pretend that all the questions are settled, that our fellow citizens are defective for their disagreement, and that all right-thinking people see things our way.  Down that path lies division, isolation, and marginalization.

The Cultural Importance of the Tea Party

Following up on my post last week regarding the cultural roots of our debt crisis, today in NRO I addressed the Tea Party as a cultural solution.  It begins:

As rumors swirl of a possible Obama/Boehner deal, it’s worth remembering that any agreement is but one skirmish in a long cultural war. Budget agreements made this year are renegotiated the next, and we have to settle in for a sustained conflict. At stake is nothing less than the relationship between citizen and state and the future of the American experiment. As the government has careened toward the model of a giant “pension plan with an army,” it’s not just Washington that’s broken. Entitlement programs have bred an entitlement mentality in our citizens, the creation of dependent classes of Americans who primarily view the government as providing benefits rather than protecting liberty and preserving economic opportunity. Forty years of Great Society entitlements have had a negligible effect on poverty but a maximum impact on our budget.

Read the whole thing.