Hennessy's View

Okay, Santorum and Gingrich didn’t get a bump out of their debates over the weekend.  More like the bump got them.

And Ron Paul did way better than I expected. Congratulations to Dr. Paul and Mitt.

I still think my Saturday night post accurately reflected the national impressions, though.  That’s backed up by this CBS News poll that shows Republicans believe Santorum most closely shares their values, but—and this is a J Lo but—they believe Romney is more electable.

Romney and Santorum bring different perceived strengths to the race as well. Romney is viewed as most electable (and most likely to be the eventual nominee), while Santorum is seen as the candidate who best represents these voters’ values – up 17 points since November. Romney is right behind him on this measure.

I have to disagree with their judgment on Romney. Here’s why.

To win, the Republican nominee must do two things: 1) generate more energy within his base than Obama, and 2) he must attract the people who don’t trust unlimited government, but don’t necessarily care for the conservative base, either. 

Ronald Reagan did that.  Reagan won the support of many center-right factions:

• Defense hawks (Cold Warriors)
• Religious right (Moral Majority)
• Fiscal conservatives (Supply Siders)
• Strict constructionists (Constitutionalists)
• Blue collar families (Reagan Democrats)
• Independents (independents)

But Romney isn’t Reagan.  Romney is much more like John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, and Gerald Ford—the last four Republicans to lose a presidential election.

The reason those four lost wasn’t because they were bad men.  They were good men.  And it wasn’t really because their policies were out of step with most voters.  In fact, their policies were more reflective of America than those of their opponents.

The reason McCain, Dole, Bush, and Ford lost to Obama, Clinton, Clinton, and Carter was because they failed to pull together that broad conservative coalition. But the biggest reason they lost was that they failed to convince the last two—so-called Reagan Democrats and independents—that they offered a choice. And they failed to inspire the base to spend their vacation pounding the pavement or making calls.

A WSJ story today reveals some crucial facts:

Today’s Republican Party has become steadily more blue-collar, more populist and more influenced by voters who act as much like independents as Republicans. All that makes the idea of attacks on capitalist behavior arising from the traditional party of capitalists a little less bizarre.

• Three-quarters of those who voted in the New Hampshire Republican primary had family incomes below $100,000, early exit polls indicated. Almost half had no college degree.

• In a stunning sign of how loose party affiliations have become, almost half of those who turned out to vote in the Republican primary actually identified themselves as independent voters. Big chunks of them went for Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., the least-conventional of the GOP candidates.

• Nationally, when the thousands of interviews conducted in last year’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls are combined, Americans who call themselves blue-collar workers actually were slightly more likely to identify themselves as Republicans than as Democrats.

• And when the Journal/NBC News poll asked Americans in November who was responsible for the country’s current economic problems, Republicans were precisely as likely as Democrats to blame “Wall Street bankers.”

When blue collar families and independents see establishment Republicans, they figure they might as well vote the Democrat who will at least throw them some largesse. 

There a many Americans who want government fixed. They want the Fed managed at least, if not dissolved. They are willing to go through the pain of winding down entitlement programs and realigning powers of the states to Constitutional intent. 

But they won’t go for half measures that create a bunch of pain and confusion but resolve nothing,eliminate no unconstitutional program, shut down no counter-productive cabinet department, and create new layers of bureaucracy through which we all must wade.

Maybe the blue collar voters and independents are wrong about establishment Republicans. Maybe I am, too.  And maybe so many people find Obama dangerous (I do) and anti-American (I do) that they will vote for anyone the GOP nominates. Our desire to avoid bad things is very powerful.

Then again, our desire to move toward good things is important.  If the only choice we on the right offer non-aligned voters is the lesser of two evils, Obama will be win re-election. 

There is no Reagan on the horizon, no Shane character to ride into town and save the day.  We have a choice between Romney, Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich.  Among those last three, I see none with a distinct advantage in gaining the nomination. Unless two quit. Soon.

But the larger problem is with the party itself.  Its establishment seems to have no idea how to inspire, and its insurgents have no idea how to team up.

Popularity: 1% [?]

A college student asked me a question:  Why join the Tea Party?

He was wondering why anyone would want to associate with people who behaved reprehensibly at two earlier Republican debates.

Here’s how I replied:

Johnny,

Sorry that I’m just getting to this.  I get a lot of email, and sometimes I miss things.

I organized the tea party in St. Louis in 2009. I did so because I’ve seen that governments accumulate power until they crush liberty and freedom. Governments use every means to increase their power over the people.  Most recently, it’s been debt.  

Did you know that you owe about $50,000 in federal debt–in addition to all other debts and taxes? You.  If you get married, you’ll have a combined $100,000.  

You’ll pay that debt in one of three ways:  taxes, inflation, or reduced income.  Either way, you have no chance of out-earning me if you follow my exact career path and work just as hard.  

But that’s just money. What about life and liberty?  

No weak government ever committed a holocaust.  But powerful governments do it all the time.  The Nazis.  The Soviets.  Pol Pot.  Ho Chi Minh. Mao.  Castro.  

Talk to someone who fled one of those regimes.  Learn what happens when all the power, all the police forces, all the taxing and permits and borrowing and judging accumulate to a small group of people.

Hell is what happens.  

Show me what happens when good people, people of character, are free to live their own lives. 

Prosperity.

Were there idiots at those debates?  Sure.  Then again, look at the idiots at OWS encampments, defecating on police cars and raping women. Put 100 people in a room and 5 will lack the ability to form human bonds.  

Do we need police and anti-trust laws and other regulations?  Of course. But we also need a constant and vigorous defense of our liberty. 

That’s why I called for a Tea Party in February 2009, and that’s why I hope you’ll join our little band in St. Louis. We stand on guard for your liberty.  And that’s one of hell of an important job. 

Here’s some other people’s views on Why I Tea Party

Cordially,

Bill Hennessy

Why do you tea party?

Popularity: 2% [?]

A friend of mine told me this story.

He sat that there bragging about getting a tax cut for friends of his.

I said, ‘you do realize, don’t you, that you’re just like the Democrats, except you’re giving taxpayers money to a different special interest.’

He looked at me and said, ‘but our special interests do good with the money.’

My friend was talking about the second highest-ranking Republican in the Missouri House at the time.

That’s Establishment thinking. The idea that legislators can spend . . . I’m sorry, “invest” . . . your money better than you can.

Okay, so maybe I have a fixation with the Establishment.  Just maybe, though, my fixation is justified.

The Establishment does some good.  It has access to lots of money and media.  It has database and training programs to help candidates win.  It throws great parties in really cool hotels, allowing ordinary people to watch drunk Republicans skinny dipping with Dumbo-ear water wings. 

Most importantly, the worst, most corruptible, most cynical, most self-serving of the Republican Establishment is still better for America than the best of the Democrat Establishment.  (Don’t forget when when you’re vilifying a candidate between now and the primary.)

There’s still something wrong with the Establishment.  It’s purpose is to advance and perpetuate the Establishment. 

Our purpose is to advance and perpetuate a uniquely American freedom.

In 2010, our purposes happened to blend very well with the GOP’s. That led to harmony on the right and a big win for Republicans.

After the swearings-in, the Establishment did what the Establishment does: like any organism from a simple protozoan to an advanced primate the GOP started working on self-perpetuation. 

Like Obama, the Republican Establishment believes that people cannot run their own lives.  Instead, other super-people (called politicians and bureaucrats) must run our lives for us.

The GOP Establishment supports subsidies for corporations that should be able to stand on their own. It supports bailouts for company that should be allowed to die their own. It maintains regulations for matters that the market regulates better. It chooses winners and losers, from Government Motors to the failed Aerotropolis here in Missouri.

The Establishment demonstrates its mistrust of people and markets every day.

We utterly reject that notion.

The reason the Tea Party exists is not to end the Establishment.  As I wrote last week, that can’t really happen. 

Instead, we hope to mold the Establishment into a vessel of liberty and good government, not a tool for social engineering.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Yes, the establishment wants you to go away.

Are you going to obey?

With a little help from The Atlantic and New York Times (of all places), we can put together a strategy to recognize and deflect the establishment’s tactics. 

Put this in your back pocket. You’ll need it before primary season is over.

Establishment Tactic 1:  Never admit membership in the establishment

How To Handle: Never argue about what he establishment is.  Instead, demand super-specific policies that the establishment would hate.  “Then you must oppose TARP and Stimulus. Could I get a quote from you for my blog?”

Establishment Tactic 2:  Kill the Tea Party with kindness

How To Handle:  Whenever someone praises you, thank them.  But if you suspect an ulterior motive, there probably is. Again, demand specificity:  “What would your legislation to unwind Social Security look like?”

Establishment Tactic 3:  Push Candidates to the Left

How to Handle:  You’ve heard it before—run to the base in the primary and to the middle in the general.  I’m not a fan of strict pledges that opponents can use to bludgeon a candidate. But letting the Billy Longs of the world lie their way to Washington to turn left is no way to save the republic. 

Hold out the third party threat.  Hand wobbly nominees a pair of flip-flops at a meet-and-greet.  They’ll get the message.

Establishment Tactic 4:  Make compromise a moral imperative

How to Handle:  A conservative once lamented that if the Democrats sponsored legislation to burn the capitol to the ground, Republicans would offer an amendment to phase the fire in over three weeks.

To combat  this tactic, point out the folly of the idea. If you’re in debt up to your eyeballs, borrowing half as much as you’d like to doesn’t make you better off.  Sometimes, reversal, not compromise, is the right thing.

Establishment Tactic 5:  Take the GOP ball and go home

As I pointed out in a previous post, the establishment is more prone than activists to defect when it doesn’t get its way.  Let them.  When Republicans say “it’s our party, not yours,” smile and nod.  Then run for low-level party position.  Get your friends to do the same.  Show up at township and central committee meetings.  Reagan’s forces took over the GOP in short order.  Tea Partiers can too.

Bonus Point:  Don’t Become the Establishment

Actually, you can’t really avoid that. But remember—new insurgents are born every day.  Someday you’ll be viewed at the powerful interest seeking to exclude the stamp-licking rabble.  Be careful how you use your power and influence.

You might have even better ideas.  Please add them to the comments below.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Some center-right people take their ball and go home. Guess who?

Since the 2010 election, we’ve heard from the Establishment (GOP, MSM, DNC) that Tea Partiers are too puritanical.

The elitist theory holds that Tea Partiers demand doctrinaire allegiance to some engraved-granite list of principles.  Stray from that list, and the Tea Party will hunt you down like a dog in the street and beat you with a Wiffle Ball bat until you pee blood for a week.

Guess what, though. It’s not the Tea Partiers who defect when their candidates lose.

A recent Rasmussen poll (subscription may be required) found that Establishment Republicans are far more likely to vote Democrat, third party, or not at all if their favored candidate loses a primary.

Interestingly, those outside the Tea Party are more committed to finding a candidate who shares their views–67% of Tea Party members take that approach compared to 75% of non-members. That data contradicts a common story line that Tea Party members are interested in ideological purity while others are more practical in their considerations.

But the divisions get even clearer when the questions get more specific:

Again, those in the Tea Party are more committed to the GOP field than other primary voters. Ninety-one percent (91%) of Tea Party members now plan to vote for the eventual GOP candidate even if their first choice isn’t the nominee, compared to 71% of non-members.

Kidding?  Non-Tea Party Republicans could see a 29 percent defection rate if their favorite candidate isn’t nominated?  Wow.

The next time someone tells you that the Tea Party is too puritanical, tell them, “Perhaps, but we’re not nearly as puritanical as the establishment Republicans.”

Popularity: 2% [?]