The EFM Feature
Tea Party

If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: The 2012 race for president is Tea Party versus GOP Establishment, with the Tea Party still searching for its candidate and the GOP Establishment slowing gathering under the Romney banner.  But after traveling all over the country, speaking at Tea Party events, and interacting with Republicans from coast to coast, I’m beginning to think that this analysis is too simplistic.  What if the GOP isn’t divided between tea partiers and cocktail partiers but instead between strategists, activists, and, well, actual primary voters.

First, the strategists.  These guys may be no less conservative than the activists, but they often play a different game for a different audience.  They’re thinking not about ideological fidelity but instead about winning elections and then governing following victory.  Their calculations lead them to sometimes compromise too easily, to play too close to the middle, and to place too much faith in the reasonableness of the opposition, but at the end of the day they’re convinced that their crooked path to conservatism is the best, indeed only, path that works.

Next, the activists.  Ideological fidelity matters most, then electability.  The activist is convinced that true conservative governance hasn’t worked because it hasn’t been tried, that true conservative principles — preferably united under the banner of an overwhelmingly charismatic candidate — will carry the day, and they are utterly, completely impatient with strategic calculation unless that calculation is about placing conservative values in the most attractive possible package. Susceptible to “One-ism,” the activists sometimes lurch from candidate to candidate, exchanging fanatical support for utter disdain with astounding speed.  At the same time, without the activist, the strategist would tend to lose his way, so caught up in “the game” that he forgets that sometimes pure principle can win and that often pure principle must be defended.

Finally, the primary voters.  These guys don’t really follow politics that intensely. They’re generally indifferent to — or ignorant of — the daily twists and turns of the campaign and are put off by the fury of ideological argument.  They have principles, yes, and they care deeply for the country, but politics aren’t the central focus of their lives, they’re more tolerant of ideological impurity, and they are extremely focused on bottom-line results.

Let’s not forget that any given night the vast majority of even Republican primary voters are not watching Fox News.  They either haven’t tuned into talk radio or tuned in only briefly — perhaps catching a few minutes on the way to work.  They like the Tea Party, until it annoys them.  They like the Establishment, until it bores them.  Incompetence and corruption are deal-breakers, but ideology alone rarely is.  These are the people who can select Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George Bush, and John McCain, very different politicians, all.

Mitt has most of the strategists, he has few of the activists, and right now he’s looking good with the voters.  I want more of the activists (heck, I’m an activist — they’re my brothers and sisters), but with the understanding that there is a long, long way to go, I like where we sit.

Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

5 Responses to The Primary is Not About “Tea Party versus Establishment”

  1. Philip R. Jasper says:

    Very insightful. Depending on our positions and beliefs, we tend to want perfection, so sometimes we can’t even see when the candidate we don’t like, possesses the attributes we actaully want. The media, both conservative & main stream has contructed Mitt Romeny’s image for us. Both are wrong. Please conservatives, read Mitt’s book and his “CURRENT” policy positions, the 59 points. They are bottom line & deeply conservative and comprehensive. Talk show hosts are being VERY deceptive in many of their comments and most have not read his book or even looked at his postion papers.

  2. David Walser says:

    An example: I contributed to a Tea Party group to help the group run ads in support of support of a conservative in one of the special Congressional elections that have been held since the last general election. Since my contribution, I’ve received almost daily emails from the group(s) updating me on their take on the issues of the day and, of course, asking for additional contributions. Earlier this week, they solicited me for support of their “Stop Mitt” campaign. (I unsubscribed from their email list.)

    These are folks that I agree with on a lot of issues. We obviously disagree on this one very important issue. I don’t want to stop Mitt, I want to help elect him. I hope, once the primaries are over, this group will support Mitt.

  3. Keiji says:

    You make a good analysis. It causes me to think that sometimes those who are involved so much in politics don’t see the vision you see of people being in a different mind set. Sometimes I worry what other activists, ( I consider myslef and activist), say and why they don’t rally behind Mitt Romney and then I remember that John McCain didn’t have the activists behind him. In fact in many primary elections the states have a lot of independents voting. However, like you said David, I also want the activists to rally behind Mitt Romney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>