WhatFinger


Nothing more certain to scare a RINO into me-too-ish, unilateral surrender than an adversary who really means business

How to Win, and Not to Win, in 2014



Lately there's been a growing chorus of calls for the Tea Party and the Republican Party to unite and find a way of compromising over their differences in order to achieve their common goal of defeating Democrats. This scares the heck out of me because many in the Tea Party may think it's a good idea.
The Tea Party is NOT (yet?) formally a political party, but a group of people who share certain ideas about political philosophy. True, for various reasons they tend to support Republicans more often than Democrats, but the basis for their support of any candidate is the extent to which his INDIVIDUAL political ideas meld with THEIRS. The party label is NEVER the essential point. It just HAPPENS to be Republican most of the time because INDIVIDUAL Republican candidates agree with the Tea Party's ideas more often than individual Democrats or Independents do. IE, the Tea Party is a movement based on a loyalty to PRINCIPLES, NOT to political parties. "YOU come to US" is what the principled Tea Party says, "from ANY political party," and "if you do share our IDEAS, then we'll support you." The Tea Party is not "into" party loyalty. What it is "into" is INTELLECTUAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, and MORAL & ETHICAL LOYALTY.

Support Canada Free Press


I responded to the latest organization which sent me an email pushing for the political compromise mentioned above. A paraphrase of that response follows just below. It provides the reasons why this strategy is a great way for us NOT to win the political battle. Following it, I offer the positive side of the coin, a suggestion on how to win.

HOW NOT TO WIN

Here's the essence of my response to those who advocate the Tea Party "compromise" with the Republican Party to "iron out their differences" and "find a way to unite" in achieving the defeat of Democrats:
"The RNC is loaded with Democrats in Republican clothing. It makes no sense to unite against the content of a particular book with the authors of that very book simply because they've given it a different cover or a new title. "The RNC and its candidates have repeatedly abused the good faith of Tea Party under false pretenses (words, promises, compliments) and then betrayed them (by legislative and other actions AFTER the Tea Party's support elected them). I agree with your message "in theory," but it needs to be sent to the RNC, not Tea Party people. The RNC first needs to banish the Democrats-in-Republican-Clothing from its own house before it makes any sense for Tea Party people even to THINK of joining with them. "It's ALWAYS a bad idea to attempt an agreement or compromise with people who have consistently proven themselves incapable of keeping their word. It's an EXTREMELY STUPID idea to do so with people who also have consistently abused your good will and then stabbed you in the back. "In the current context, the suggested "ironing out" and "compromising" amounts to urging the Tea Party to adopt, in its dealings with the RNC, the same approach which the Republicans have used for decades in their dealings with the Democrats. We've seen how well it works, which is why I'm a bit astonished to hear it being touted as a strategy for the Tea Party. "The RNC keeps using phrases like "our party is a big tent," which is a good idea, with provisos. If their tent will continue to tolerate leftish, collectivist, big-government statists, then there can be no compromise -- compromise with your adversaries' 5th columnists is self-defeating and obviously counter-productive. This is why the RNC has almost always been populated by LOSERS. It's why the Republican Party has so often been the world's gold medalist at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. "If there aren't enough true advocates of freedom, the rights of individual men, and constitutional law left in this country to win against the collectivist/statist mob, then we're doomed, and no political alliances or name games will stop it. The only solution in that case is to educate people to the error of their ideas, and accept that we will continue on the downward path for some time during the lengthy period required to change the beliefs of a lifetime amongst a significant portion of the electorate. "Compromises similar to the one suggested ARE THE VERY REASON WE'RE IN THE MESS WE HAVE NOW. Particularly under the current RNC leadership, there is NO reason to believe your suggestion will have a different result, and every reason to think it will have the same one, IN SPADES."

HOW TO WIN

Perhaps the most important reason the original states felt some motivation to create a Federal Gov't is the principle that "in unity there is strength." This same reason was the major force behind the formation of the Tea Party. But when entities or people join forces to augment their effectiveness, they join because they have a specific goal (or goals) in common. Yes, the Tea Party and the Republican political party do SOMETIMES have similar sub-goals. But their primary goals and "raisons d'etre" are NOT the same at all: The Tea Party's primary goal is to save the United States from policies which are destroying its essential fabric, by returning to some of the nation's founding principles which have been abandoned. The Republican Party's primary goal is to defeat candidates of its opposing political party, the Democrats. Often, defeating a Democrat is a sub-goal for the Tea Party in pursuit of its primary goal. But not infrequently, a Tea Party's appropriate sub-goal is to defeat a Republican candidate. Those who urge compromise between the two ASSUME that the defeat of Democrats -- a PRIMARY or INHERENT goal of the Republican Party--is also a primary, inherent goal of the Tea Party. It most certainly is NOT. If the Tea Party wants to send the right message loudly and clearly to those Republicans who are laboring under a misapprehension on this topic, then it has to find a way to cause some significant PAIN to those in the Republican party whenever they make this error. They have to get their wrists slapped repeatedly when they again mis-read the Tea Party, and like Pavlov's dog, the Republicans will learn. To achieve this form of punishment, I think the principle of "in unity there is strength" may once again be applicable (ironically, as a reason for NOT uniting with the current RNC's Republican Party. Trying to "unify" a square peg with a round hole can lead to disaster.). My alternative suggestion is that the Tea Party should UNITE ITSELF -- in targeting the worst amongst the RNC's candidates for defeat. In the normal course of things, the Tea Party's members are virtually certain to aim for the defeat of many Democrats. But I think it would give the RNC a well-deserved come-uppance if the entire Tea Party movement were to unite against JUST ONE (or a very few) key candidate(s) of the pseudo-Republican stripe, and become the DEMONSTRABLE cause of their defeat. This would stop the Republican party from taking the Tea Party for granted. Republican leadership thinks the Tea Party's votes are "in the bag" because the Democrats are usually so much worse, that the Tea Party has nowhere else to turn. Well, the Tea Party has to disabuse the RNC of that idea, by proving it wrong in a very dramatic and provocative way--by turning ON the Republican Party instead of turning to it. One big slap on one wrist is usually enough to send an entire herd of RINOs stampeding in whatever direction will please you. It would be the Tea Party's unequivocal DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE from the current Republican Party leadership. The Tea Party would retain and actually re-assert its current independence, supporting the ideas of any candidate who supports its ideas--probably mostly Republicans, but some Democrats and Independents too. BUT--in addition--WHAT IF . . . What if several of the largest Tea Party membership organizations held a leadership meeting to select one (or a couple or a very few) Republican candidates who are either worst offenders, or highly visible icons for the current Republican leadership's philosophy of compromise and me-too-ism? For example: Suppose they chose someone like Speaker John Boehner. The above plan would be explained by each of the Tea Party organizations to its members, giving the reason why they and other similar groups agree that Boehner must go, in order to send a message to the RNC. Their membership would be urged to understand why it's important to make the small "sacrifice" of one less Republican in the House in order to gain much more influence on candidate selection by the RNC in the future. Then members would be further urged to allocate some portion of their personal political contributions to Boehner's opponent in the primary, and if that fails as is likely, to then actually DONATE to and otherwise assist the election of his Democrat opponent. HORRORS? I don't think so. It might just be an "out of the box" plan that will bear valuable fruit. If Tea Party members from Boehner's home state and bordering states need motivation to provide "boots on the ground" and other assistance to Boehner's opponent, they should be actuated by their disgust with and contempt for Boehner's passivity and repeated failures to act consistently with his worthless words, and for his failure to work with the congressmen of the Tea Party persuasion. Most likely, the Democrats will put up a relatively moderate nobody in opposition to Boehner's virtually "sure win" candidacy. So . . . even if the Tea Party succeeds and we do end up with an extra Democrat in the House, the new congressman probably won't be a Nancy Pelosi type, and certainly will not have the power of a seasoned long-time House member, and will thus not be able to do THAT much harm. But imagine the hue & cry at Boehner's defeat! A sitting Speaker of the House defeated for re-election by a shocking revolt within the ASSUMED "party faithful!!" (And keep in mind. . . almost any new Republican Speaker would be an improvement over Boehner.) Even if Boehner wins despite the Tea Party's campaign against him, but by a very small margin, even that near-loss would be enough to send shock waves through the spines of every RINO in the Republican Party. "What if they pick on me next time?" each one will think. By uniting their forces and CONCENTRATING them on a single manageable objective, the defeat of a highly visible "icon" of RINO-ism, the Tea Party will show the RNC what big muscles it can muster when and if it decides to. The panic at Republican headquarters will be over "Who's next?" The media will gloat over the "friction in the ranks" between the Republicans and the Tea Party. They will gloat over the forecast end of the Republican Party because of the rift between its leadership and the Tea Party, whose membership is predominantly Republican voters. This will scare the RNC into SUPER panic. Nothing is more certain to a RINO than the fact that he MUST IMMEDIATELY SLAVISHLY COMPROMISE with anyone who the N Y TIMES, et al, describes as a threat to the end of his party. It doesn't have to be Boehner--that might be reaching beyond the Tea Party's current grasp. But you never know--maybe even partial success, if sufficiently noticeable, will prickle the hairs on the back of the RNC's necks enough to bend FROM THEIR SIDE toward the Tea Party's. And... if so... the Tea Party will hold the upper hand in such a case. It will be the RNC coming to plead with them, so to speak, rather than the Tea Party constantly berating and cajoling and begging the Republicans to please do the right thing. Instead of its pleas falling on deaf, impregnable ears, the Tea Party will find that the Republicans are beating a path to THEIR door, to plead with THEM to stop the carnage, to be friendly, to "kiss and make up." To which the Tea Party can simply say "NO. We told you so. We warned you. We begged you. You ignored us and even stabbed us in the back. We bent over backwards to help you, and you spurned us after we handed you back your life as a political party. NO. It's our role to turn the deaf ear now. We don't want your words, or any talk together. We've learned the value of your words. From now on we want action. Start backing some REAL Republicans as candidates. Start showing some spine in aggressive legislative proposals which are pro-active in re-establishing freedom and down-sizing government. AFTER we see some action, we may have a reason to talk. Right now, you have nothing to offer that can deter us from our current path. Absent any change in your deeds, two years from now you'll learn who your next casualty will be." Again, this may contain a sizable dose of wishful thinking, but given the general electorate's utter disdain for the incumbent congress, it just might work surprisingly well. Those more politically savvy than I am, who are more familiar with the political situations "on the ground" in various districts, might choose a different icon than John Boehner. But it would have to be someone well known and considered RELATIVELY invincible. If the Tea Party organizations could "unify their strength" in this one task, and go all out to depose a Republican icon who's a RINO or other form of degenerate, AND SUCCEED, or even move the election a significant and threateningly large distance closer to success at defeating the incumbent, then I think the resulting political shock waves from the implications of that one race would have a tremendous impact on the future relationship between the Tea Party and the Republicans--in the Tea Party's favor. There are at least 2 consequences of success or near-success I can think of:
  1. After the event, ANY slight criticism of a Republican incumbent from Tea Party sources would almost surely be followed by a significant desirable change in that politician's position or behavior.
  2. Since an icon, or near-icon had been unseated, those who feel the most fear will be the other icons of Rino Republicanism. IE, the ones who have clout with the RNC. They will almost surely demand some protection from the same fate, and their clout will be likely to light a fire under the RNC to engage in better behavior toward the Tea Party.
Here's a follow-up idea: In the event of significant success, the leaders of the largest Tea Party membership organizations might decide to have a quarterly meeting, or conduct a quarterly membership poll, to determine who will be their target in the next election--and publish the results of the top 5 or so contenders. Whoever is tops on the list will likely get the shivers and "re-think" his position on some issue that bothers the Tea Party, or something similar. Once that's accomplished, the Tea Party's 2nd or 4th or ?? candidate will then be moved into 1st place on the hit list. Obviously, it will be the fellow who is currently most obstructive to the Tea Party's objectives. He will then follow suit and "re-think" his attitude, once he sees himself as the Tea Party's new #1 target for being defeated at election time. And so on. If the above could be accomplished, it would be an affirmation that the Tea Party stands on principles. It would show that the Tea Party can unify and thereby gain strength in accomplishing its agenda. And it would show that the Tea Party REALLY means business., And . . . if history's a valid guide . . . there's nothing more certain to scare a RINO into me-too-ish, unilateral surrender than an adversary who really means business.


View Comments

Morry Markovitz -- Bio and Archives

Morry Markovitz is a retired scientist, economist, author and businessman who still actively trades in commodity futures markets. 

After completing his formal education in physics at MIT, he took a staff appointment at MIT’s Draper Lab, where the computerized guidance system for NASA’s Apollo Project was developed, and where the countless thousands of computerized flight simulations were carried out in order to perfect, in theory, every detail of the mission—which eventually worked near-perfectly in practice as a result. 

Morry later switched professions to economics, taking a position as commodity market analyst for a well-known Wall St. firm—from which he was soon recruited by Commodities Corp (CC) of Princeton, NJ, which became within a few years the acknowledged premiere commodity speculating firm in the world.  In the mid-1980s, after becoming Senior Vice President at CC, Morry left that firm. to form his own company on Wall St., Mercury Management Associates, Inc. where he wrote, edited, and published a highly respected and often quoted market letter and also managed private speculative accounts.  BARRON’S Magazine called Morry “the thinking man’s trader.”  In 1994, Morry broke the Hillary Clinton commodity trading scandal for USA Today.


Sponsored