Republicans, Conservatives, and the TEA Party

There's a lot of division these days on the right: RINOs, the “Republican Establishment”, libertarian conservatives and the TEA Party to name a few.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has become the poster boy for the in-your-face aspect of the RINO stripe with his notorious coziness with President Obama.  Arizona Senator John McCain should be nominated for the Oscar in the leading role as "useful idiot for the Obama administration in the category of Republican Establishment", going so far as to lash out against conservative TEA Party Republicans like Texas Senator Ted Cruz and libertarian TEA Party Republicans like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for their conservative values, displaying his rapier wit by calling them "wacko birds".

Disagreement among conservative factions is normal and can be good when it fosters discussion that dispels ignorance.  But disagreement should never occur when it comes to our Constitutional rights.

The framers were convinced that the rights they enumerated in our founding documents were not granted by their writing or bestowed by the beneficence of government, but endowed by our Creator.  No one in their right mind wants an American theocracy.  But remove the Creator, and who exactly is it that endows us with our rights?  Our “rights” then come from government, and are reduced to privileges, to be taken away as that government sees fit.  The concept of a “right” implies objectivity; that is, a source beyond subjective opinion or decision.  Our rights are endowed by our Creator, or we don’t have any.  Those are the only two options.

Our rights are always under fire and require a vigorous defense, perhaps never more so than now.  The modern TEA Party movement gets its fuel from the Republican Party’s ineptitude in preserving conservative principles and its weakness in defending our rights.  It is comprised of libertarians, religious conservatives, non-religious conservatives, even non-conservatives who realize our government is off the rails, citizens who despite their differences revere and respect the design of the nation according to the founders.  It is the attempt to renew libertarianism and conservatism, to save the nation from the steady march of liberal progressivism.

Where we run into trouble is when the different factions want the entire movement to be according to their particular beliefs.  We need to take into account what the opposition is doing.  They are putting aside any differences they have in the effort to transform America into something it wasn’t meant to be.  To meet them head on, we have to look at the basis for our movement, and come to an understanding of the required common denominators; that without which the movement ceases to have meaning.  Here’s a short list, a starting point:

The Constitution is non-negotiable outside the framework of the legal means of changing it – We must stand firm against the opposition’s onslaught against our Constitutional rights, and any infringement from our side as well.

Government within its bounds – We must support the federal government in its enumerated responsibilities, and we must resist its encroachment in any other area.  The federal government is already far outside its prescription, destroying personal freedom at an alarming rate.  The tenth amendment should be the guiding principle of our government.  Instead it’s the most ignored.

Fiscal responsibility – We must work to stop government standing in the way of economic growth and stop it from spending the future.  The first term of the current administration has taught us that the mere threat of government interference can freeze an economy and squeeze the ability to recover from recession out of it.  And with debt now passing $17 trillion, far too much of government revenue for the foreseeable future will be spent on simply servicing the debt rather than doing anything positive.

Retaining the deference to the Creator – Controversial yes, but crucial. From the Declaration of Independence:  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  Without the Creator there are no rights; there is no objective source to which to appeal.  Without an objective source, there is only the subjective, and what we have are privileges granted at the pleasure of government.  You don’t have to be a religious person, but if you will not support the idea of the Creator, you have nothing to which appeal for the rights you claim to have.

Where we go wrong on the right is that we so often arrange our infantry in circles.  Our opposition never does this.  One could perhaps rightfully say, “That’s because we have convictions and they don’t.”  But if we don’t soon find a way to put aside our lesser differences and work together to stop the onslaught, the discussion will be academic.