PAGE FIVE
WILL WASHINGTON CO-OPT TEA PARTY?
By Donald Devine
Aug. 16, 2010 - Former Republican Senate majority leader Trent Lott told The Washington Post recently
he was concerned that election of a “robust bloc of rabble-rousers” from the tea party movement would
result in “further Senate dysfunction.”
The New York Times defined these terrible “rabble rousers” as: “wealthier
and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less
afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest
New York Times/CBS News poll. The 18 per cent of Americans who
identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white,
male, married and older than 45. They hold more conservative views on a
range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to
describe themselves as 'very conservative' and President Obama as ‘very
liberal.’”
They do not sound THAT bad, but Sen. Lott was not finished. “We don’t
need a lot of [conservative Republican Sen.] Jim DeMint disciples,” who
actually believe in conservative principles and want to tackle real reform.
“As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them” into our ways” the old
Washington hand concluded.
What are those “ways?” The fact is that to a great degree both political parties in the U.S. are in agreement.
They both have adopted the New Deal welfare state model of governing, relying on government experts to
manage society ignoring even the educated electorate (like the tea partiers).
Political party is not the same as belief. At the turn of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was the party
with the progressive orientation. The Democrats represented the South and West traditionalists. Republican
President Theodore Roosevelt considered himself a progressive and when denied the GOP nomination in
1912 ran as the candidate of the Progressive Party. In 1928, Republican presidential candidate Herbert
Hoover was touted as the progressive icon by the leading intellectuals of the day.
After the phenomenal political success of Democratic Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal from 1932 to 1952,
there was a great movement within the GOP to accept his progressive view of expansive government if the
the GOP was ever to win the presidency again. In a bitter battle, the progressives nominated Dwight D.
Eisenhower and took his success as proof that only progressivism was politically feasible.
Even self-described conservative professors like Clinton Rossiter and Peter Viereck actually adopted the
same solution as the one adopted by the early 20th Century founders of modern progressivism, T.H. Green,
Leonard Hobhouse, Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Croly, and Woodrow Wilson – that the necessary reform of
American limited government was to make a distinction between positive and negative freedom.
As Rossiter put it: “The conservative should give us a definition of liberty that is positive and all-embracing,
not negative and narrow. In the new conservative dictionary, liberty will be defined with the help of words
like opportunity, creativity, productivity and security.”
The problem is no one can agree what positive freedom is. Liberal progressives say it is equality, welfare,
compassion and fairness. Conservative progressives say it is security, productivity and creativity. Changing
the meaning of liberty from “freedom from” to “freedom to” gives government the positive role of deciding
just what “freedom to” entails. But since they cannot agree, compromise is the rule of the day and nothing
coherent gets accomplished. One party gets control and makes some changes, which are quickly modified
by the other and policy becomes an incoherent muddle, with politicians throwing funds in all directions to
appease every possible interest.
Modern conservatism started in the 1950s in reaction to the progressivism of both parties but especially as
an effort to create at least one political party with a limited government orientation. The idea was to set a
few understandable general rules so that one person’s liberty did not infringe upon another’s and otherwise
to allow individuals, groups and communities to pursue their own interests in their own manner. The resulting
“diversity,” as the Founders called it, was the natural result of “freedom from” and, most importantly, it
generally worked. The goal was to restore a sense of “freedom from” as the more fundamental liberty and to
recognize that giving government a blank check how to define positive freedom would lead to poor policy,
rule by experts rather than by the people, bureaucracy, and financial irresponsibility.
Today, politicians of both parties have accommodated themselves to the welfare state, refusing to face the
impending worldwide economic collapse and simply hoping the other party will bear the burden of the crisis.
Over the past half century, Americans have generally gone along with the idea that they must give up some of
their freedom and wealth to achieve the higher goals of economic stability, welfare, fairness, prosperity and
the other positive goods promised by the welfare state. With experts promising that trillions of dollars would
assure unemployment would not reach eight percent, while the actual unemployment rate remains near 10
percent, together with exploding entitlement costs that all recognize as unsustainable, the bargain more and
more looks like a bad deal to most Americans.
It is becoming increasingly clear there is no such thing as “something for nothing.” There is no New Deal
tooth fairy. There is no welfare state free lunch. Even if there were, it should not be worth handing one’s
freedom over to a bunch of bureaucrats. As inarticulate as they may be, that is what the tea party movement
is trying to tell Washington – but neither Democrats nor Republicans are listening. The bills are coming due
anyway and, just maybe, Sen. Lott and his pals will not be able to co-opt those who want to reform the
welfare state and solve the real problems.
Donald Devine, the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management from 1981-1985 under Ronald Reagan and is Senior Scholar at Bellevue
University’s Center for American Vision and Values.
By Donald Devine
Aug. 16, 2010 - Former Republican Senate majority leader Trent Lott told The Washington Post recently
he was concerned that election of a “robust bloc of rabble-rousers” from the tea party movement would
result in “further Senate dysfunction.”
The New York Times defined these terrible “rabble rousers” as: “wealthier
and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less
afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest
New York Times/CBS News poll. The 18 per cent of Americans who
identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white,
male, married and older than 45. They hold more conservative views on a
range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to
describe themselves as 'very conservative' and President Obama as ‘very
liberal.’”
They do not sound THAT bad, but Sen. Lott was not finished. “We don’t
need a lot of [conservative Republican Sen.] Jim DeMint disciples,” who
actually believe in conservative principles and want to tackle real reform.
“As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them” into our ways” the old
Washington hand concluded.
What are those “ways?” The fact is that to a great degree both political parties in the U.S. are in agreement.
They both have adopted the New Deal welfare state model of governing, relying on government experts to
manage society ignoring even the educated electorate (like the tea partiers).
Political party is not the same as belief. At the turn of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was the party
with the progressive orientation. The Democrats represented the South and West traditionalists. Republican
President Theodore Roosevelt considered himself a progressive and when denied the GOP nomination in
1912 ran as the candidate of the Progressive Party. In 1928, Republican presidential candidate Herbert
Hoover was touted as the progressive icon by the leading intellectuals of the day.
After the phenomenal political success of Democratic Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal from 1932 to 1952,
there was a great movement within the GOP to accept his progressive view of expansive government if the
the GOP was ever to win the presidency again. In a bitter battle, the progressives nominated Dwight D.
Eisenhower and took his success as proof that only progressivism was politically feasible.
Even self-described conservative professors like Clinton Rossiter and Peter Viereck actually adopted the
same solution as the one adopted by the early 20th Century founders of modern progressivism, T.H. Green,
Leonard Hobhouse, Gunnar Myrdal, Herbert Croly, and Woodrow Wilson – that the necessary reform of
American limited government was to make a distinction between positive and negative freedom.
As Rossiter put it: “The conservative should give us a definition of liberty that is positive and all-embracing,
not negative and narrow. In the new conservative dictionary, liberty will be defined with the help of words
like opportunity, creativity, productivity and security.”
The problem is no one can agree what positive freedom is. Liberal progressives say it is equality, welfare,
compassion and fairness. Conservative progressives say it is security, productivity and creativity. Changing
the meaning of liberty from “freedom from” to “freedom to” gives government the positive role of deciding
just what “freedom to” entails. But since they cannot agree, compromise is the rule of the day and nothing
coherent gets accomplished. One party gets control and makes some changes, which are quickly modified
by the other and policy becomes an incoherent muddle, with politicians throwing funds in all directions to
appease every possible interest.
Modern conservatism started in the 1950s in reaction to the progressivism of both parties but especially as
an effort to create at least one political party with a limited government orientation. The idea was to set a
few understandable general rules so that one person’s liberty did not infringe upon another’s and otherwise
to allow individuals, groups and communities to pursue their own interests in their own manner. The resulting
“diversity,” as the Founders called it, was the natural result of “freedom from” and, most importantly, it
generally worked. The goal was to restore a sense of “freedom from” as the more fundamental liberty and to
recognize that giving government a blank check how to define positive freedom would lead to poor policy,
rule by experts rather than by the people, bureaucracy, and financial irresponsibility.
Today, politicians of both parties have accommodated themselves to the welfare state, refusing to face the
impending worldwide economic collapse and simply hoping the other party will bear the burden of the crisis.
Over the past half century, Americans have generally gone along with the idea that they must give up some of
their freedom and wealth to achieve the higher goals of economic stability, welfare, fairness, prosperity and
the other positive goods promised by the welfare state. With experts promising that trillions of dollars would
assure unemployment would not reach eight percent, while the actual unemployment rate remains near 10
percent, together with exploding entitlement costs that all recognize as unsustainable, the bargain more and
more looks like a bad deal to most Americans.
It is becoming increasingly clear there is no such thing as “something for nothing.” There is no New Deal
tooth fairy. There is no welfare state free lunch. Even if there were, it should not be worth handing one’s
freedom over to a bunch of bureaucrats. As inarticulate as they may be, that is what the tea party movement
is trying to tell Washington – but neither Democrats nor Republicans are listening. The bills are coming due
anyway and, just maybe, Sen. Lott and his pals will not be able to co-opt those who want to reform the
welfare state and solve the real problems.
Donald Devine, the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management from 1981-1985 under Ronald Reagan and is Senior Scholar at Bellevue
University’s Center for American Vision and Values.