The Tea Party Blues

A couple of posts ago, I ranted and raved (which I have a tendency to do) about how the Tea Party was fringe and non-relevant. Boy was I wrong (as happens from time to time, or all the time!). As I write this post, Christine O'Donnell has defeated Mike Castle in Delaware for the Republican Senate nomination. For those that don't know, I lived in Delaware for four years and Mike Castle is as much of a favorite son as you can be. What's even more shocking is that O'Donnell had the "perennial candidate" syndrome where she was always on the ballot for something but never seemed to get any traction.

To get back onto a little more of a philosophical note, I think 2010 has been the season of tea for several different reasons. For starters, the most involved and dedicated voters (especially in the primaries) are arguably the "hard-core" partisans and ideologues. For Republicans this means ultra-conservative partisans dominate the process, and for Democrats it's progressive and liberals. What has been different in this season is that Democrats have been more lenient to their moderate members while Republicans have brought the hammer down on them with force. For examples, I use Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who survived a left-wing primary challenger and Mike Castle/Lisa Murkowski, two arguably moderate Republicans who were shocked by tea party upstarts.

To summarize the conversation so far, one could argue that the Republican tent is getting smaller while the Democrat tent is for most purposes staying the same. Republicans are demanding ideological purity while it is common knowledge that most Americans are moderates/independents. Does this help the party? You can argue both sides effectively but you can't argue the fact that it makes Democrats more competitive in many races where they were all but written off. The larger question is what does it mean for the future of the Republican party? Does it move right and assimilate the tea party-ers into its base, or do two separate factions develop that threaten to virtually hand the races to Democrats?

I've been on the record saying that moderate candidates are good for America. This means people like Mike Castle, Scott Brown, Tom Kean, Claire McCaskill, John Warner and Jon Tester. You can argue that I've named all liberal politicians here, but if you check their voting records you will find that they buck their party more than most for the good of their constituents (and to save their hides!). It isn't about being Republican or Democrat, it is about being able to go against your party and vote for your people. You can call that a RINO if you want, but I call it a moderate.

Republican Moderates: Good For the Nation

I've gone on the record as saying moderates are a good thing for both parties. For the Democratic Party you have Ben Nelson and to a lesser extent; Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman who occasionally cross party lines on legislation. For the Republicans, the only moderates seemingly left were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine. With Scott Brown's election, it seems being a moderate New England Republican is trendy again.

Some conservatives view this as a sellout on the part of Brown. I don't necessarily think that is the case. Brown's only responsibilities are to the Massachusetts people; if he believes a piece of legislation is something they'd support, he should be under no obligation to conservatives or "tea-party-nistas". Now if we could only wrangle up Lincoln Chafee to come back to the Senate and we would be set!

I think bipartisan legislation can only be accomplished through moderates who are willing to cross party lines for something they believe in. People like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid may make a lot of noise and show, but in the end, it is in the hands of moderates that true groundbreaking legislation rests.