Tea Party Growing Pains – The US Senate Races

Lindsey Graham survived his primary challenges this season, as did Kansas US senator Pat Roberts and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

Do these defeats signal that the Tea Party movement has lost its steam? Not at all. In addition to the statewide triumph of Tea Party affiliate candidates in local and statewide races in Texas, libertarian-leaning candidates are on the rise in open Congress districts throughout the country. Justin Amash of Michigan also brushed aside a Chamber of Commerce challenge in his primary. Who can forget the stunning loss that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor endured? Outspending his underfunded challenger ten to one, Cantor could not carry the day. Virginia’s Seventh Congressional district has been a reliably Republican bastion, even in 2012, when Virginia elected another Democratic US Senator (Tim Kaine, replacing Jim Webb) and President Barack Obama. Very likely classical liberal economics professor David Brat will hold onto the seat.

---

Tea Party movement candidates have been very successful in House Races and will continue to do well in those more local contests. Yet the upsetting failures to remove some less-than-perfect Republican US Senators have created some discouragement. Or should it? Tea Party affiliated US Senate candidates have also done fairly well at the US Senate level. Consider the stunning upset of GOP US Senator Bob Bennett in Utah in 2010, which opened the way for staunch, anti-liberal obstructionist Mike Lee to take his place. Marco Rubio, aside from his immigration pandering, has been a staunch advocate for limited government and strict adherence to the Constitution. He defeated an establishment GOP-turned independent candidate, a former governor to boot, and captured the US Senate seat in Florida in 2010. The same holds for Kentucky’s unlikely yet well-liked Tea Party spoiler Rand Paul. Despite some disturbing setbacks in 2012, Former Texas Attorney General Ted Cruz defeated the establishment choice, as well. His vocal resistance on the floor of the US Senate and in the courts of public opinion have carried the anti-Big Government mantras nationwide and to great effect. Putting aside the victories of 2010 (and to a lesser extent, 2012), what happened between those two years which made US Senate Tea Party wins less assured? At the outset, incumbents like Bob Bennett did not take primary challenges seriously. His elder colleague Orrin Hatch did in 2012, calling himself “Tea Party before there ever was one.” Neither did Indiana’s long-time senator Richard Lugar stock up for a serious challenge, who had saddled himself as “Obama’s Senator”, only to lose to state treasurer Richard Mourdock, who then lost to conservative Democrat Joe Donnelly in the general election. On to 2014, and more incumbents have staved off challenges. How did they succeed this time? What can Tea Party activists take from these losses to prepare future wins? First, US Senate races are a different affair from House races for a number of reasons, and limited government enthusiasts must embrace this trying distinction for future success. The US Senate, by its inception and incorporation in the Constitutional framework, functions as a more elite chamber, one which would cool the inflamed passions of the more popular chamber, the House of Representatives, per George Washington. While dismayed, pro-limited government advocates should not be surprised regarding that federalized programs find support, and overwhelming legislation like the 2013 Immigration Bill (the ObamaCare of Immigration Reform) passed in the US Senate. Still, the bill died in the House, as popular outrage won the argument, frustrating backroom deals and back-handed efforts to push a pork-laden bill beholden to the Cheap Labor Lobby. Even though strong conservative activists regret the current turnout in the US Senate, the House of Representatives remains the Chamber of Congress that will stop the unprincipled lobbying of the Chamber of Commerce. Because they stand for reelection every six years as opposed to every two, US Senators will inevitably be more Washington-oriented than state centered. For that reason, the Framers had envisioned the election of US Senators through the state legislatures as opposed to direct election from state voters. Consider the following: US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham received formal censures from their respective state party groups. More distinct interests like these party officials, and their attending legislators in those state houses, pay more attention to wayward Senators than the public. If those party organizations had the final vote on those Senators’ reelection chances, they would have rejected amnesty and other offensive pieces of legislation. Instead of trying to knock out entrenched incumbents, who by now recognize the dangers of well-funded and active primary challenges, Tea Party leaders need to focus on strong, relentless pressure on their senators, while setting up strong candidates and primary challengers for key House races. That way, no matter what illiberal policies the US Senate may pursue, Senators will have to work with a strong, unyielding House majority. As for future Senate races, investing resources toward promoting well-positioned House members to replace retiring Republicans or endangered Democrats will create more unity for the more conservative party in Washington while keeping the progressive overreach of the Democratic Party and their ilk at bay.