Charles L. Cotton wrote:My contention is that voting for or against someone simply because the "Tea Party" supports or opposes them is risky business. I would define myself as a Tea Party Republican, but I also realize that many who identify themselves are members of the Tea Party movement are actually Libertarians who realize they can't win under that banner. I agree with very few of the Libertarian position on issues and I don't want them ruining the Tea Party movement.
The following are my observations. Others may interpret the political scene differently.
I would contend that there is a huge difference between libertarians and the Libertarian Party, and that the "Tea Party" IS a "small-l" libertarian movement, not an off-shoot of the political party. We "Tea Partiers" disagree on a great many things, from drugs to gay marriage to foreign policy to religion. What links us together, however, is a recognition that there are a great many things the government, or at least the federal government, should NOT be doing, yet is doing anyway, and there are a few things the federal government is supposed to be doing, but refuses to. The Tea Party IS the "libertarian movement." It is the movement of "leave us alone, and do your job." It is the movement of "I answer to whatever God or gods I choose to believe in, not to some petty bureaucrat." It is the movement of "Let me live my life in peace and liberty, with the freedom to succeed or fail based on my own merits and work."
The Libertarian Party, however, is a political party that, last I checked, is best known for its pro-drugs, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-open-borders, and international isolationism stances. In short, the hippie movement got older and decided they didn't like paying taxes. I suspect the only reason they got any traction at all in prior elections is their appeal to juvenile-minded voters who want free sex and dope, or with virulent anti-military advocates who're honest enough to admit that Democrats are just as prone (if not more so) to resort to military force than Republicans.
The Democrat Party is and has been driving anyone away who is not to the left of Noam Chomsky.
The Republican Party is torn at the moment, pulled three ways. There is the "moral" wing that is mainly recognized by its fierce anti-drug and anti-abortion policies, with anti-homosexuality as a distant third. There is the "liberal" wing that has become so accustomed to "going along to get along" and to being the minority party that it really doesn't HAVE any policies other than "be in the opposition and minimize the damage, somehow," and frankly looks forward to the weekly "bipartisan" cocktail parties. And then there is the libertarian (small-l) wing, that demands a smaller and less intrusive government, strictly in line with the Constitution, even when the intrusion is in support of a moral position they may agree with (drugs, gays, etc).
The problem with people like Cantor, as well as the Paul Ryans, Marco Rubios, and any other one person we "pin our hopes on," is that they get co-opted out of the small-l libertarian movement and into one of the first two camps. People who want to be left alone don't really HAVE "key issues," and so don't fit neatly into a voter bloc to which a candidate can appeal in election after election. It has been, historically, kinda hard to win an election by promising, "Elect me, and I will actively prevent the government from furthering pet causes," or "Elect me, and I'll make sure the government does nothing for (or to) you." However, promising to help "win the war on drugs," expand social programs, and/or "be bipartisan" appeals to certain voting blocs. The idealist can very quickly become disillusioned by this. Add in the natural human desire to be known, to have your name attached to something, and you wind up with politicians searching for pet causes, like amnesty. Or "preserving Medicare." Or any other you-name-it cause.
Now, when you take THAT, and add in the fact that the Old Guard, who are already in either the Go-Along camp, or the Pet-Cause camp (or a foot in both), are the ones with all the power internal to the party, and do not take kindly to interlopers who threaten their Pet Causes, it gets very difficult for any newcomer to actually get elected, or stay elected, without joining the Old Guard, and helping to protect the institution of the same. I would venture that it's a toss-up as to whether Ted Cruz, for example, is hated more by Harry Reid, or by John Boehner. And yet, if we're to going to fix the problems of governmental overreach, intrusion, and corruption, we HAVE to have these idealistic newcomers, uncorrupted and unco-opted. We have to have people "outside the networks."
Cantor may not have been one of the biggest problems in the House, but neither was he a solution. He's "gone along" too often, compromised too often, and made himself a part of the Old Guard culture. He may not have been a driving force behind the problems of the Republican party, but neither has he attempted to be part of the solution. It's a bit of a "lead, follow, or get off the road" thing.
Personally, I'm in favor of kicking out every incumbent during each primary, unless they can point to where they actually shrank government. I don't vote for friends so they can have a pretty desk with a nametag on it and a chance to be on C-SPAN. In fact, I don't think I could BE friends with an elected official, and any friend who got elected probably wouldn't stay my friend if they managed to keep their seat.
Yes, I know that's not "how the game is played." I'm fed up with it being a game in the first place, and I want to vote out the players, and elect someone who'll quit trying to use me as their own personal Monopoly piece.
THAT is the essence of the Tea Party, and that is why Cantor lost his primary. His former constituents are sending a message to the Congress as a whole.
