Tea Party Progressivism — Steve Farrell

by Steve Farrell

The Tea Party movement claims to be for the Constitution, but I’m not convinced they have not already been subverted by the same radical socialist progressives they say they oppose.

Case in point: This morning we learn that the Tea Party movement has hired the American Civil Rights Union to push for a ballot recall of Democrat Senators who are not up for reelection in 2010, namely in New Jersey, Louisiana, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.

But the United States Constitution — which the Tea Party movement claims to be saving — requires that one third of the U.S. Senate go up for re-election every two years, a wise measure by the Founders in favor of the stability of a republic rather than the mobocracy of a democracy.

Question: How does rejecting that republican wisdom, and the Constitution which fixed it in law, and attempting to do so, by the way, without an amendment to the Constitution (another violation of the Constitution), save the Constitution?

Isn’t the Constitution good enough? Isn’t there something terrific to be said in favor of gridlock? Isn’t it this the sort of impatience with change that gave us that radical power of Fast Track Authority to the President (which Bush II signed into law) and in turn brought us NAFTA and yet to come many other sovereignty destroying treaties without the constitutionally required two-thirds concurrence of the Senate?

And again, wasn’t this the approach of the phony bologna argument for conservative reform, that Third Way Contract With America?

Pinch my cheek fellas: If such radical and unconstitutional measures to promote ‘conservative’ change are made a legal precedent, would they not next be used against conservatives, Christians, and Constitutionalists — or worse yet, against every man or woman in national office who this or that party, politician, or special interest group hates or is upset with after an election or legislative loss? Will this not, in turn, cheapen the value of the electoral process, and raise the cost of government? Finally, won’t this defeat the Founders rational for six year terms in the first place, that is, to create something more like independent statesmanship as a counterbalance to the volatility of the House?

Besides, there are other Constitutional methods already in place to check the progress of the socialist left.

  • I refer to the difficult but ongoing process of educating ourselves, our families, and our neighbors on the Constitution and current events.
  • I refer to reinvigorating the power of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution by putting pressure on state and local government officials to get off the federal dole, to reject all federal grants, and thereby cut the strings.
  • I refer to writing letters, to knocking on doors, to organizing public meetings, to supporting candidates and companies that uphold our political and moral values.
  • I refer to insuring that we set the example by not partaking of the spoils of government through any arm of the social and corporate welfare system.
  • I refer to engaging in the daily battle to restore independence to every school district from centralized control, to bringing back the teaching of morality and the truth about the godly and constitutional foundations of this country in the classroom, to living those high moral and godly and constitutional standards ourselves.
  • And, oh yes, I refer to paying the price to win the next election, and the next, and the next.

These sorts of things take our time, our talents, our money, our best efforts, our patience, our endurance, and our FIDELITY to the Constitution we hope to save.

We can’t defeat radical revolutionaries who despise or ignore our Constitution by engaging in political tactics that mimic theirs. If we too are guilty of following Marx’s “the ends justify the means,” rather than Christ’s “a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit,” than why should we be surprised and outraged when our opponents jam their agenda down our throats? Isn’t it simply a case of the chickens coming home to roost?

Steve Far­rell is one of the orig­i­nal pun­dits at Sil­ver Eddy Award Win­ner, NewsMax.com (1999–2008), asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of polit­i­cal econ­omy at George Wythe Uni­ver­sity, the author of the highly praised inspi­ra­tional novel “Dark Rose,” and edi­tor in chief of The Moral Liberal.