David

Karki

Read David's bio and previous columns here

April 22, 2009

Tea Parties, Then and Now

Last week, millions of Americans participated in “Tea Parties,” named after the Boston Tea Party of 1773 in which colonists disguised as native Americans committed an act of civil disobedience, throwing a shipload of tea into Boston harbor in order to protest the British crown's levying of a tea tax.

Make no mistake, that was a legitimate criminal act on three grounds – breaking and entering, theft and destruction of property. If one had hesitation or misgivings about such a raising of the ante against the British and their rule, one wouldn't have been wrong in that sentiment. And yet they went ahead and did it, hoping that perhaps acting against property might wake up King George III before it came to colonists and Redcoats acting against each other. As it turned out, of course, that wasn't the case.

So if one is to adopt that name with any intellectual and historical honesty, one must be very careful in doing so. For we are either talking about a similar raising of the stakes that might prove to be a crossing of the Rubicon in its own right, or insulting the memory of the Founders by associating something that's all talk and no action with their bravery.

So the question remains: Where does this movement go from here? There is already talk about another national event on Independence Day, and perhaps yet another in September. But without a greater focus and purpose, this will remain a nice way to vent on an annual-to-quarterly basis, but not much more.

I think the answer lies in what this spontaneous protest represents – the anger at the total lack of opposition in what is supposed to be the opposition party, and the resulting fear that the entire federal bureaucracy is unleashed upon the people, whom they openly hold in contempt.

Were there a place that such protest could be effectively channeled into practical, tangible results, it would be. But over the past few years, the GOP sold out everything it used to believe in and became the Vichy Republicans. Just as the World War II government of France (headquartered in the town of Vichy) sold out their nation for the illusion of power when in fact they were merely a puppet of Nazi Germany, so too did the GOP sell out its once-conservative beliefs in order to keep power.

And even though they have now lost it all as a result, they still can't shake the habit. In fact, a more apropos sarcastic nickname might be the Seinfeld Republicans – a party that's about nothing at all. Should it be surprising that when the ship is utterly adrift and directionless, the crew starts to mutiny and look for a new captain and perhaps an entirely new vessel?

Therefore, it comes down to something much like the choice faced by President Abraham Lincoln, who went with the more aggressive General Ulysses S. Grant to lead the Army of the Potomac, in spite of his legitimate flaws and the criticism he took for it, over the passive General George Meade. Lincoln explained his reasoning very simply: "I can't spare this man. He fights."

First and foremost, it's all about that – willingness to fight. Fight with words, fight in the arena of ideas, and if necessary (though certainly it should be a last resort), fight in the fullest sense of the term “tea party.” Moreover, in order to fight one must first see that an enemy exists and that above all else it must be defeated. Clearly, such feeling doesn't exist in the current Republican Party hierarchy, whose loudest voice at the moment is apparently that of Meghan McCain, heartily advocating open consortion with liberals – a fact which speaks volumes about how totally bereft of momentum and leadership the Vichy Republican Party is.

So the first battle will be for the soul of the Republican Party. It does no good to go third-party, as the practical effect is to elect the opposition. (As Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton in the 1990s and Ralph Nader did for George W. Bush in Florida 2000.) The system is rigged to ensure that it's almost impossible for third parties to legitimately challenge the main two, so it makes more sense to simply try to (re)gain control of the one that's leaderless and adrift. It's also the quickest way to restore its credibility as a true opposition party – by unmistakably putting it under new management.

It will be interesting to see if something longer lasting can grow from what we saw on April 15. The next step is to coalesce into a cohesive organization, rather like the Sons of Liberty in the 1760s. And as for leadership, I hesitate to even begin to guess at this embryonic stage, but if the evaluation criteria are being despised by the establishment and having a willingness to fight, there is only one name presently on the public scene that comes close to fitting both bills – Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Much like the aforementioned example, it may come down to one simple thing: We cannot spare this woman – she fights.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DKK175. Request permission to publish here.