During the American Revolution, roughly a third of all colonists
supported King George III, and, for the most part, Parliament.
Though completely surrounded by the wildfire of political
rebellion, these Tories continued to support the status quo.
Thankfully, our founders did not, no more than the Tea Party
accepts today’s status quo. The Tea Party’s rise has been called
the second American Revolution—a peaceful one of ballots, not
bullets—as more and more Americans came to the realization that
the majority of elected officials serve their own self-interest, or
the interests of their cronies. Congress’s approval rating stands
at 13 percent, according to Gallup, or about one third of what King
George’s support was. In 2009, a full 76 percent of people polled
said that elected officials put their own interests ahead of those
of the American people. Yet despite such numbers, in 2010, during
one of the most dramatic political shifts in decades, more than 80
percent of incumbents at all levels won reelection, largely
preserving the political status quo.
At first glance, it doesn’t make sense: a highly unpopular
Congress (and president, for that matter), governing over an
economy and country careening out of control, yet some eight out of
10 members of Congress can expect to be re-elected. Many have
served for years and have brought this country to its current
predicament. Yet they keep winning re-election to continue their
tenures of failure: If current spending levels hold, the United
States’ public debt will eclipse 300 percent of our economy before
midcentury. And when confronted with massive debt, our leaders,
lacking the political courage to undertake fundamental change,
shave infinitesimal amounts here and there, exfoliating the
elephant of debt while it keeps plowing ahead toward the inevitable
cliff.
How can this be? Long-time incumbents, a Ruling Class, if you
will, with low approval ratings, making bad decision after bad
decision, yet still getting re-elected? This is because the
American people have been up against a protection racket for nearly
a century now, ever since Progressives established a system of
government that allowed our country to drift away from the
Founders’ original vision of limited government and individual
freedom. The Progressive “reforms” have, over time, continued to
centralize federal power, and have made our elected officials more
powerful and less accountable.
With all power deriving from the people, our elected officials
are supposedly there to serve, though at times they prefer
that the American people serve them. We provide every dollar that
pays them, their staffs, their expenses, and every dollar that
funds our government. Yet the American people in recent times have
been ignored by their officials (think most recently the Cut, Cap
and Balance Plan, which nearly 70 percent of the American people
supported but was never taken up in the Senate) and treated with
disdain.
Part of this disdain is because many officials think themselves
untouchable. So it’s time for the “unwashed” to break the Ruling
Class’s hold over our system of government. The Tea Party is
already on the move in this regard, working to identify and
train people to run for office, whether it’s for local school
boards or Congress. It’s fielding a farm team—in many places for
the very first time. At all levels of government, from local to
federal, many elected officials have simply never been challenged:
In 2010, Ballotpedia.org reports, more than a thousand state
legislators ran unopposed in the general elections, and between
2000 and 2008, a GOP U.S. House member had a 98.3–99.5 percent
chance of winning his or her primary (assuming they even faced
primary opposition).
If we want more accountability from our elected officials, we
must continue to challenge them to adhere to the principles of
limited government. One very practical accountability mechanism is
to challenge them in elections. In the 1940s, E. E. Schattschneider
wrote in Party Government that “He who has the power to
make the nomination owns the party.” It’s not too much of a stretch
to say incumbents control their own nomination process, buttressed
by the current party system. (The parties, which are creatures of
compromise, seek to be in power and to hold on to it. One way to do
that is to make sure as many incumbents as possible are
re-elected.)
Parties, the overwhelming majority of time, seek to “clear the
field” in primaries and frown upon primary challenges for fear that
it might cost them a seat and endanger their power. But what are
political parties? In the February 1974 edition of
Ramparts magazine, G. William Domhoff, addressing why
socialists and Communists should no longer run under a third party
banner but inside the Democratic Party, wrote:
[The Democratic Party] is what Democrats say it is—and
what they say it is is determined by the people Democrats
elect to attend party conventions and nominate to stand in
general elections. Given the relative openness of this
process, an ideological battle fought at all levels from
precinct to President could have rather dramatic results
in a relatively short time.
So if conservatives want to see a party (or parties) become more
conservative and hold incumbents accountable, they must continue on
the path of identifying new leaders, running them against the
Ruling Class, and vying for precinct chairman within a political
party. For too long, incumbents (even conservatives) have been
seduced by Republicanism, Democratism, and Powerism. But that
seduction very easily be dispelled by blaring wakeup calls in the
form of primary challenges from legitimate, credible conservative
candidates. Only when we see a losing percentage approaching 50
percent or more for incumbents at all levels will we be able to say
the Ruling Class’s power has been disrupted. That percentage won’t
be reached in the next election, or the one after that, but it
should be the conservative movement’s goal to increase it by five
to 10 percent with every cycle.
If the Ruling Class’s hold is to be broken, the Tea Party must
continue to work on controlling the nomination process and “taking
over” a major political party—from within. Because at the end of
the day, he who controls the nomination process controls the party
controls the system. And then redefines the status quo.
