What the Republican Party can gain from the Tea Party
What the Republican Party stands to gain from the emergence of the Tea Party.
Despite the 24/7 presence of nauseating and asinine rhetoric from politicians from both sides of the aisle, something is happening in the United States. By now most have heard of the Tea Party in some form or another. Whether from the early protests by members in the beginning of 2009 to the rallies held during the 2010 Tax Day to the success of Nevada’s Sharron Angle capturing the nomination for the 2010 Nevada Senate Race, the Tea Party, whether you love it, hate it, or could care less about it, has managed to capture a small percentage of the US public’s hearts and is making a relatively decent chip in the US political scheme.
What does this mean for politics in the US as we know it? Restructure. No matter if you subscribe to the left, middle, or right, one thing is clear: the US is in need of a change from the defunct two-party system. And how could this benefit the GOP? By capturing the far right of the Republican Party, the Tea Party and its candidates have given the GOP a chance to go under the knife, get a little plastic surgery, and come back on the scene with a new message, new voting bloc, and yes, pun intended, a fresh face.
By sending the small percentage of far right Americans into the hands of the Tea Party, the GOP now can step away from the its former alienating rhetoric regarding social issues while keeping with its popular agenda of controlled government spending. What I’m arguing is that for too long the GOP has taken the far right stance on social issues simply because candidates knew they needed the votes from those republicans whose ideology was far right. Even when the nation is slowly but surely heading to the center/left on a number of social issues, a number of GOP candidates have, for the sake of votes, stalled social progress in the United States.
What issues am I talking about? First, the use of “green” and alternative sources of energy. According to GovTrack.us, H.R. 2454 (named American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) seeks to, “reduce American greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2005 lev¬els by 2020, and to 83% below 2005 lev¬els by 2050. It also man¬dates that 25% of the nations energy be produced from re¬new¬able sources by 2025, cre¬ates new energy efficiency programs, puts limits on the carbon content of motor fuels, and re¬quires green¬house gas stan¬dards for new heavy duty vehicles and engines.” It passed the House of Representatives but only by a small margin and will move onto the Senate soon. Despite it passing the house, it is intriguing to see how the numbers played out. Number of Republicans in the House who voted No? 169. Democrats? 43.
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477)
The second issue is that of Hate Crime legislation. Ever heard of H.R. 1913? Probably not. But that’s ok, here’s a quick summary from OpenCongress.org, “This bill, previously introduced in Congress in 2007, seeks to expand upon the 1969 US federal hate-crime law by extending hate crime protections to bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in addition to the current protections for bodily crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, and national origin. It would also codify and expand the funding and investigative capabilities of federal officials for aiding their local counterparts.” So, summed up even further, this bill wants to add disability, perceived gender, orientation, and gender identity to the federal hate-crime law. Seems understandable, right?
Making sure Americans are protected from those who might seek to harm them? And, like H.R. 2454, it passed the House. However, 159 Republican members voted no, along with 16 Democrat members. Every representative from the following state voted no: Alabama, Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Why? I don’t want to assume that the representatives who voted against this hate those with disabilities, gays, or lesbians. But, I will make the assumption that they were concerned about the coming campaign season in two months.
For a last example, sex discrimination. H.R. 12, introduced in January 2009 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, sought to, “ amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes” (OpenCongress.org). Now, who wouldn’t agree with this? Why shouldn’t there be more resources out there for persons of wage discrimination? Again, this is a case where the bill passed the House but the vote record according to GovTrack.us begs to be looked at. Democrats voting no: 2; Republicans voting no: 161. States where every representative voted against bill: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-8)
I am not saying that the Republican Party is against alternative energy, expanding federal hate-crime protection, or providing more resources for wage discrimination. I also recognize that these are just three examples among a staggering amount of legislation on which Congress votes. What I’m hypothesizing is that these No votes were cast with the upcoming Midterm election in mind. Why support Democratic legislation right before an election? Why want to seem sympathetic to the Democrats? I’m betting many politicians voted against these legislations because of their constituents who may not agree with some or all of the details presented in the bills above.
If the Tea Party candidates were to attract the small percentage of Americans who disagree with parts of the legislations above and ones similar to it, moderate Republicans might be able to capture a growing percentage of the American public who cannot find a happy medium with the current Republican and Democratic parties and who are fed up with having to choose between just two parties (often picking the best of two bad options).
The Republican Party could emerge as a moderate party, maintaining its current platform of fiscal moderation while leading the way in social issue advancement. Will it happen? We can only speculate just how numerous and influential the Tea Party will become. But if you’re like me, it’s getting real old real fast watching an ass and an elephant try to agree on anything.
