Sorry, But We Do Need Leaders or You Don’t Save the Republic Herding Cats
Posted by Adam Graham in : Future of ConservatismWarner Tood Huston has a quite prescient piece on the perils faced by the Tea Party Movement in 2010:
Here’s the problem and, as I see it, it’s a problem that is actually sort of built right into the Tea Party movement from its inception. That would be its essentially leaderless nature. Certainly this leaderless nature has suited the tastes of those suspicious of government, tired of failed party machinations, and the preternaturally aloof folks that populated them. Perhaps the gatherings could have occurred no other way and are born of this peculiar instant of political sensibility. Nonetheless Tea Parties have been disparate, unfocused, leaderless, and might prove to be pointless in the end.
There was no unifying single goal of the Tea Partiers and no agency or party directing them. This means that the raw power behind them just might go untapped because there will be no way to translate the passion to power. Every transformative movement has been led by a single man and his small group of powerful adherents but the Tea Party movement has no such leader and might just find that its passion will dissipate until there is nothing left but disgruntled followers.
This attitude was illustrated on an Idaho blog back in November on a blog here in Idaho: Politics, Guns, and Beer where the blogger and his son, nicknamed “the inconvenience” went to a town meeting. The blogger’s son received applause for an interesting suggestion:
Anyway, The Inconvenience kinda stole the show when he let them have it with both barrels during the Q&A. He told the candidates he didn’t want a leader, he wanted to be left alone.
I understand the sentiment, and in your own personal life, you should be left alone, but here’s the problem. When it comes to politics, you do need leaders. When you engage in political activity, it’s nice if someone who knows what they’re dealing can tell you what is the most effective use of your time, energy, and resources. And if you expect to make changes to the government when elected, you don’t need clueless people wandering about the Capitol.
Unfortunately, what Republicans have offered is untrustworthy leaders who keep putting the knife into the grassroots. This leaves some folks feeling like trusting no one. It’s a comforting idea, you trust no one and no one can stick the knife in. Unfortunately, trusting no one to lead means your effort are frustrated and come to nothing.
How bad can it get when there’s no leadership, when everyone just runs out doing whatever with no plan or strategy? Disaster. In 1996, Congressman Bob Dornan was a well-known conservative Congressman who lost re-election by 800 votes. There were allegations of fraud, but what killed him was an Operation Rescue guy running as a third party and getting 3600 votes. Dornan was as pro-life as the day was long, but some wise guy decided to run a campaign that he shouldnt’ have and the net result was the election of a liberal pro-abortion Congressman. I love it when a plan comes together. Oh wait, there was no plan.
I hate to point this out to those who would remain leaderless, but the Founding Fathers believed in leadership. In fact, that’s why not every single person in the Founding era was a Founding Father. The Founding Fathers were the leaders of their time who took the time to do things like write the Constitution and Declare Independence, and the founding generation responded to that leadership.
I don’t necessarily feel that 2010 will be a disaster, but I think a lot of elections will be lost that could have been won because of the lack of leadership that the Grassroots can trust, and a lack of willingness to embrace leadership.
Comment by laurel
Thanks for the linkage.
1. I’m female.
2. “The Inconvenience” is my husband, not my son. (The nickname is courtesy of an old friend from Ireland, long story.)
3. We were actually at a GOP event, not a town meeting.
4. If you read The Inconvenience’s comments in context, he was referring to the type of “leadership” our elected officials keep offering – meddlesome, freedom-restricting “leadership.” I notice you quote Reagan at the top – recall his sentiments about the nine most terrifying words in the English language? (I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.)
I do believe The Inconvenience – as an Eagle scout and Sergeant of infantry Marines, along with many other things – has a better grasp on the nature of leadership than most folks in Congress today. He’s also a degreed student of history and current scholar of law, so I really don’t think you need to point out much about the American founding to him. Perhaps I’ll point him over here so you can engage in a discussion about the nature of the Founders’ leadership, and the restrictions they placed on governmental powers in the Constitution.
If you can point either of us at a politician who has a track record of actually attempting to limit government instead of wield it for their preferred brand of oppression, we’ll support them – just like we support Ron Paul. We don’t fear figureheads, we despise liars and tyrants. I’m not going to shrug and hand over my freedom to someone with an R next to their name just because I’m less likely to wind up in their gulag than I am in the Democrats’ gulag. I’m not going to throw my gay/smoker/pro-reproductive-rights friends under the bus because it means those in power will be less likely to come after me… Just like I’m not going to throw my pro-gun/anti-socialism self under the bus to protect the aforementioned friends. We must all hang together in defense of individual liberty, or we will surely hang separately.
All that said, I frankly don’t expect this message to resonate with someone stumping for Mike Huckabee. Huck’s brand of “leadership” is exactly what terrifies me – it’s the epitome of “for your own good” governance. In fact, your boy pledged to sign a national smoking ban. Can you point out where in the Constitution our founding leaders gave the federal government that power? I’ll be waiting.
Comment by Adam Graham
Sorry for the confusion regarding identities.
Regarding this question about Huckabee’s stance on smoking, “Can you point out where in the Constitution our founding leaders gave the federal government that power?”
I’ll answer that if you’ll answer this question. Ron Paul has requested a variety of earmarks for his district such as:
Could you tell me where in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave the Federal Government the power to do any of these things that Congressman Paul has asked it to do in serving as a Congressman?
My point is that there is no such thing as the perfect candidate, who has followed everything perfectly.
Regarding the National Smoking ban:
1) Huckabee said he would sign a ban on smoking in “public places.”
2) Huckabee did not say he would push for a ban or that it would be a priority. Just, that if Congress sent him the bill, he would sign it. The odds of it passing Congress are thin.
You cannot have a hundred litmus test. I’m concerned with abortion, the second Amendment, spending, and Tax Reform. Those are my issues. I also want a leader who can be executive and advance those causes. If we have a President who stands up for the unborn, who doesn’t sign up off on bailouts, and who reforms the tax code. That’s enough.
Comment by laurel
Ron Paul has addressed the earmark issue in the past: He’s basically trying to reclaim the money his constituents have paid into the FedGov. It is not necessarily a stance I agree 100% with, but at least it makes sense. I admit I have not looked at the numbers to see how much his constituents pay into the FedGov vs. how much he gets back in earmarks. Assuming Ron Paul is not taking more funding for his district than his district pays out, he isn’t engaging in a freedom-limiting action, as far as I am concerned – there isn’t another way for him to get that money back. I really don’t envision Congress signing off on a bill to refund 100% of income taxes to the citizens of Texas District 14. Obviously RP’s preferred course of action would be to get rid of the income tax altogether, making it a moot point.
Comment by Adam Graham
It makes sense. The heck you say? So, Ron Paul is helping to make me whole for my federal tax payments by giving an unconstitutional gramt pf federal money to my neighbor? What Ron Paul is engaged in is unconstitutional as a ban on smoking in public places and his argument for why it’s okay is weak.