St George and the Dragon by Raphael |
George Orwell repeatedly condemned
the leftists of his time and place – 1930’s England – for their thoughtless and
irresponsible rhetoric: their unreflective pacifism in the face of the fascist
menace, their self-deluded justifications of Stalinist brutality, their blithe
dismissals of patriotism and middle-class virtue. Orwell’s insight was that they spoke
irresponsibly because they knew they would never achieve any real political
power. Power may corrupt,
but marginality breeds recklessness. And
power and marginality distort judgment for the same reason: they insulate one
from public accountability. They both alienate. Keep that dynamic in mind when you consider
the ongoing struggle between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party
insurgency.
The Tea Party has lost most of the
battles recently, with establishment candidates winning primary
elections in Kentucky, North Carolina and Georgia, but the Tea Party forced
a runoff in Mississippi (which they just narrowly
and bitterly
lost). And on June 10th one
of the pillars of the establishment, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor unthinkably
lost
his
primary
race
to David Brat,
an unknown, hard
right
economics professor. Many on the right
heralded
Cantor’s defeat as a win for the people against the powerful, as David slaying
Goliath. But it was the conservative
grass roots that
sent Cantor – who is quite
conservative – to Congress to fight
the right fight, and now they perceive him as a big-government sellout? In the last few years the Tea Party has
successfully moved the Establishment to the right, and there is now precious
little programmatic difference between the two.
As John
Nichols of the Nation perceives, both rival GOP primary candidates in Mississippi “oppose
abortion rights and marriage equality, support restrictive Voter ID laws,
promise to oppose minimum-wage hikes, rip ‘Obamacare,’ the IRS, the EPA and
OSHA and trash ‘entitlement’ programs.”
But if the fondest desire of both
groups is to curtail
the welfare state and reduce the national debt, why do Tea Partiers hate
their own leaders so? It’s seems the
conflict is largely symbolic and temperamental. That is, the Establishment sees the national
debt and the welfare state as complex realities to be prudentially and
incrementally blunted and reduced, while the Tea Party sees them as monsters to
be slain. The grassroots hungers for a
crusade. They love
Republican Senator Ted Cruz because he tried to kill Obamacare by shutting
down the government and threatening debt default; and they hate
Eric Cantor because he
buckled and voted to end Cruz’s
threat. But the Establishment doesn’t
understand; they want the same things, so why does a mere difference in tactics
elicit such acrimony and demand such
purity? Erick
Erickson of redstate.com has an answer:
What the circle
of jerks in Washington
sees as a conservative quest for purity, many of those in flyover country see
as fighting against out of touch, entrenched elements in their party who’ve
grown far too cozy with lobbyists and Wall Street. The conservative fight in Mississippi, Virginia, Texas, and elsewhere is mocked and ridiculed by a
left-leaning and establishment-oriented press when, in reality, it is
overwhelmingly a response to a Washington
that has grown out of touch. Yes, the grassroots want more conservative members
of Congress, but they want them because they believe the people there are in
the pockets of special interests and the politicians have abandoned their core
beliefs for cash and connections.
That is, Cantor only pretended to
want what Cruz wants. He tried to
hoodwink the base with slogans and dishonest
ads, but he was more interested in a profitable career
of accommodation and obeisance to Wall Street money and Washington power. But the Tea Party is finally hip to that
game. The GOP pretends to be fighting
against the federal Leviathan
but only the conservative base really
wants to slay the monster. They pursue purity
not out of temperamental indulgence or ideological dogmatism, but out of
necessity. Only the chaste heart,
nurtured on the common sense of the common folk, inspired by the love of Constitutional
freedom, eager for battle
against aristocracies of privilege and power – only such a knight
in shining armor can resist the Whore of Babylon that elite America has
become. Purity isn’t the Tea Party’s
goal, it’s their weapon. Righteousness –
and the ideological clarity that flows from it – protects them.
It does seem the Tea Party is more
serious than the Establishment about ending the welfare state. But Erickson is kidding himself that purity
is merely an instrument for conservatives. Purity has always been at the heart of American
conservatism. No one can yearn for crusades
who isn’t dazzled by his own purity. To
the conservative common folk, America
has been corrupted and polluted by sexual license, godlessness, illegal aliens,
liberals, the welfare state, etc. The
failure of the Bush administration and the successes of the Obama
administration have convinced them that the Republican Party is complicit in
that corruption. What’s the point of a
Republican Party if it can’t stop Obamacare?
The Tea Party, as the more perfect distillation of those conservative
impulses, is predicated upon the notion that sufficient purification is the
solution to all our problems, that purity
can be won only by the pure. Thus
their infamous aversion to compromise and conciliation; compromise only
pollutes good with evil. It is the
American essence itself that has been compromised and that needs to be
purified. But the GOP must be cleansed
before it can become the vehicle for that purification.
But only if real conservatives
come to power. So then why is the
man who is replacing
Cantor as Majority Leader not
a Tea Party purist? Two
ambitious House Tea Partiers made half-hearted attempts, but they were
bested by a better-connected and better-organized moderate
conservative backed by the Establishment.
As Dana
Millbank so nicely explains, a true believer will never learn to work the
system as well as a pragmatist. The
failure of the Tea Party to capture Cantor’s post is widely seen as a simple
expression of Tea Party weakness within the Republican caucus: there just
aren’t enough of them. But Tea Partiers
everywhere were quite angry that Cantor’s primary loss didn’t result in the
elevation of one of
their own. They’re even angry at their
own Tea Party House conservatives who, as Erick
Erickson says, “refused to step up and make a play for leadership, choosing
instead to just obstruct.” The
grassroots is ever more eager to topple more GOP leaders.
But maybe that’s why no Tea
Partier took the post, because once one does there’s a target on one’s back. Purity is never sated. The conservative populism that sees regular
folk as pure and Washington
and Wall Street as corrupt automatically makes any elected leader – even a Tea
Party leader – suspect. As Michael
Warren of the conservative Weekly Standard writes:
As majority
leader, Cantor likely expected Republican voters to appreciate their
congressman’s proximity to the center of political power in this country. But
that’s not what Nancy Russell [chair of one county’s GOP in Cantor’s district]
heard from her fellow Virginia Republicans. “I almost feel like they’d rather
not have their representative in the leadership,” she says. In a cautionary
tale for any ambitious member of Congress, Cantor’s success in Washington was, back
home, his ultimate undoing.
The base is so hyper-aware of the
temptations of political life – influence-peddling, elitism, cronyism – and so
dogmatically and habitually hostile toward any concentration of power that, like
right-wing commissars, they constantly scrutinize
their leaders for signs of deviationism. It’s easy to imagine that many Tea Party
Congressmen don’t believe leadership is worth the scrutiny.
And the realities of the
legislative process demand from its leaders just the sort of compromise and deal-making
that the base finds so repellent. True
believers will still come to Congress, maybe even in greater numbers, but true
believers make unproductive legislators.
They only make good obstructionists
(much to Erickson’s disappointment).
They can shut down the government and refuse to raise the debt ceiling
but at the last minute the grown ups have to step in and make sure that the
world keeps running. The less purist,
more career-oriented, more realistic
conservatives like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell understood that Obamacare
could not really be stopped and the debt ceiling could not really be breached. They may be careerists – with Cantor the most
slippery and repulsive
careerist
of them all – but careerism forces them to govern prudentially. The Tea Partiers – unfettered with the responsibility
of actual governance – are free to make outrageous demands and release fire-breathing
denunciations
of the capitulators. Pressure from the base may compel even the more
sensible leaders to grandstand
and take us all to the brink of disaster, but as bearers of responsibility they
understood that the business community, the
American people, and simple reality dictated
their capitulation.
And on some level the purist
conservatives must understand that they can only act so
irresponsibly because they don’t control the Congress. On some level they must be grateful that
those more pragmatic leaders saved them from their own reckless and irresponsible
actions. And the shrewdest ones among
them must know that the American people don’t
really want Leviathan to be slain, that most people are happy to receive
their Social Security checks and their Medicare reimbursements. The conservative base is still being conned,
but now they’re being conned by their own pure heroes. And really, of course, they’re conning
themselves. Tea Party hopes are simply incompatible
with American political and fiscal reality.
Tea Party Congressmen, demanding government shutdowns and calling their
own leaders squishes
and
RINO’s,
are doing the most they can given the present circumstances. One can either be a purist or a responsible
legislator, one cannot be both. During
the campaign Cantor
complained to a conservative crowd about Brat’s cheap criticism: “It is easy to
sit in the rarefied environs of academia, in the ivory towers of a college
campus, with no accountability and no consequence.” He was answered with jeers. But how is the Tea Party back bench any less
of an ivory tower?
And to eat their own. Brat slew Cantor as David slew Goliath, but he could easily become the next Goliath himself. He will soon face the choice whether to remain pure or to become effective. If he chooses the former he consigns himself to futility, though it can easily be a noisy and gratifying futility in which the conservative media complex hails him as a hero. If he chooses the latter, however, in a few years we’ll be reading bitter right-wing denunciations of “Brat the RINO” and “Brat the sellout” and beholding his primary demise at the hands of a genuine, true, pure, immaculate candidate to his right. And Eric Cantor will smile.