DECEMBER 23, 2010

So Long, Specter

The Washington Examiner's Tim Carney today reviews Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter's farewell speech to the U.S. Senate, and characterizes it as "20 minutes of self-serving gripes, empty name-calling, and petty meanness." He reports that the desperate party-switcher longed for the good old days:

Recalling his old gang of moderate Republicans, Specter painted a composite picture of the sort of senator he admires, such as the late Ted Stevens, the infamous porker given to bouts of arrogance, who lost re-election in a cloud of scandal and after being convicted of corruption (Stevens was cleared thanks to prosecutorial misconduct). Specter also fondly recalled Sen. Bob Packwood, who resigned under threat of expulsion after facing sexual harassment charges.

Half the moderates Specter invoked in his reminiscence have since cashed out to K Street, including John Warner, Slade Gorton, Warren Rudman, and Jack Danforth.

Carney also provided an illustration of Specter's rank hypocrisy:

Throughout the speech, Specter claimed to hew to some principle, while repeatedly showing disdain for those same principles. Specter assailed the Citizens United ruling as "judicial activism" that would allow corrupting corporate influence in our elections. Moments later, though, he held up the write-in bid of Sen. Lisa Murkowski as the "the way to counter right-wing extremists" like Toomey and Utah Sen.-elect Mike Lee. Murkowski's re-election was fueled by $12 million in outside spending by a group funded entirely from the corporate coffers of lobbyist-run companies that she has enriched with federal dollars through earmarks and special contracting rules.

So we know Specter doesn't really mind corporate influence in politics. We also know he doesn't mind judges making law, because he has called Roe v. Wade "inviolate" and sank Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination in fear that Bork would overturn Roe. There's no principle here. Instead, Specter knows what he likes -- abortion on demand and pro-choice porkers like Murkowski -- and he knows what he doesn't like: the increased public criticism of politicians Citizens United would allow.

So say goodbye to the petulant Pennsylvania senator. There may be no greater example than he of the entitlement-to-power mentality that Tea Partiers agitate against.

posted by PAUL CHESSER | 09:46 AM | 0 comment

OCTOBER 8, 2010

We are All Fiscal Conservatives Now

My remarks at PA Liberty Conference

I'll start with a question I often get...or at least a question that is often proffered to no one in particular, that I will answer anyway.  That is, "Why were there no tea party rallies when George Bush was spending like a drunken sailor?"

And I think the answer is simple, no one had any idea that so many of us were not only angry about government spending, but would actively get involved.  A rally to protest government spending?  Who would show up to that?  In fact, when we help put together the first Tea Party in Harrisburg early last year, I was optimistic we'd get 100, maybe even 150, to show up.  I never anticipated the crowds we saw. Nor did I expect to see dozens, maybe hundreds, of local grassroots organizations—tea parties, 9/12 groups, and other liberty organizations—form across this state.  I've been stunned when I'm invited to speak at forums (which almost never happened two years ago) and see a couple hundred in the crowd to hear a presentation on the state budget or public pension reform.  I know it's not because it's fun, and I'm pretty sure it's not because I'm so good looking.

There is little doubt the liberty movement has changed the political debate.   There is a new market for folks reading and discussing The Road to Serfdom, Atlas Shrugged, and, of course, the Constitution.  There are far more opportunities to engage on policy issues.   The fact is, the electorate is more engaged than I've ever seen, and the result is a great awakening of the public on what our politicians at the federal, state, and local level have been up to.

As evidence of this, I'd like to point to a recent interview in which Joe Sestak said, "I'm a Fiscal Conservative."   In a Wall Street Journal piece in May, Gov. Rendell said, "I am a Fiscal Conservative."  You may not believe them, but they know that's what voters want to hear.  The liberty movement has made it cool to be a fiscal conservative.  We are all Fiscal Conservatives now.

But there are many challenges.  What the movement has accomplished in changing minds and attitudes, and even electoral success, has not yet transformed public policy.  And victory will not come in November, or in 2012, or possibly even for decades.  What will the Tea Party movement look like in five years, in ten? Will it continue to be a vibrant force?

To be victorious, the liberty movement must not only overcome the institutional left—with, which MoveOn.org, the remnants of ACORN, Democracy Alliance, public employee unions, and the like, will remain both well-funded and politically active—but the unprincipled cronies (from K-Street to businesses that feed on taxpayer funding to self-serving politicians) that only want to control the powers of government, and will try to ride out the wave and bide their time.

We have a long battle ahead, and the liberty movement has not yet proven that it will stand the test of time—but I am far more optimistic about our future than I was two years ago, as I have seen a new force in our political culture dedicated to individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited constitutional government. 

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 11:09 AM | 0 comment

MAY 26, 2010

Who are the Tea Party Members?

Much has been said and made of the Tea Party movement over the past year and especially over the last several months, much by those who have no idea what it is, but will do what they can do disparage it (but also much who agree with the fundamental ideas of tea partiers, but will do what they can to defend it).

Here is one recent analysis from the New Republic trying to summarize three strands of Tea Partiers - those that think America is in decline, those with a Jeffersonian anti-statist philosophy, and those that hold to "Jacksonian producerism" (i.e. opposing taking from tax-payers to tax eaters, especially in the form of corporate welfare). This prompted a rejoinder from David Boaz of the Cato Institute.

A recent New York Review of Books piece thinks Tea Partiers represent dangerous, radical libertarian views. Red State offers a good response to this. An LA Times piece argues that tea partiers are just hippies from the 60s with nothing else to do but protest.

We've even gotten analysis from Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, for whom almost every statement is an effort to bully members of his own party to back his agenda, essentially arguing the tea party movement is nonexistent and has no influence.

How Large/Influential is the Tea Party?

Nationally, Rasmussen reports that 24% of likely voters identify as members of the "Tea Party Movement." An analysis by the Winston Group puts this number at 17%.

In Pennsylvania, 28% of voters told Rasmussen they are "part of the tea party movement." Recent polls by Rasmussen and Franklin & Marshall College show that 40 to 45% of all voters support the goals of the tea party movement. Further, F&M reports that 50% of likely voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate supporting tea party goals.

Party ID

According to Rasmussen, 55% of tea party members nationally are Republican, 7% Democrat, and 32% Independent or some other party.

While Democrats make up a small minority of tea party activists, 19% of Pennsylvania Democrats support the tea party movement, and 25% would be more likely to vote for a candidate supporting tea party goals, according to the February Franklin & Marshall poll. A solid majority of Republicans support tea party goals and candidates, and tea party ideas score more positively than negatively among Independents.

According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, 43% of Tea Partiers don't trust Republicans. 57% claimed to have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush.  In contrast to the views that the tea party movement was fueled by anti-Obama racism, only 10% blame Obama for the state of the US economy (5% blame the Bush) and a plurality, 28%, assign blame to Congress. In contrast, only 27% of the general public has a positive opinion of Bush and 32% blame him for the state of the US.

Age & Income

Tea Partiers are concentrated in the age bracket of 45-64, with 48% falling in that category according to a Winston Group poll and about 46% according to the New York Times/CBS poll.

Contrary to claims that "the people involved are ‘hicks,' poorly educated, or violent," responses to the NY Times/CBS show that Tea Partiers are more likely than the general public to have gone to college, completed college, and completed post-graduate degrees. 

Once race and ethnicity, the conventional wisdom seems accurate - self-identified members of the tea party movement are predominantly white. A New York Times and CBS News poll reports that 3% is of Hispanic origin, 1% is black, and 1% is Asian. 89% of the Tea Partiers are white and 77% of the general electorate is white.

In terms of income, the NYT/CBS poll show Tea Partiers more likely to fall in higher income categories than the public as a whole:

The Winston Group study, in contrast, shows tea party members more likely to be middle-income, and less in the higher and lower income categories, than the overall public.

Issues and Ideology

Not surprisingly, 78% of Tea Partiers indicate they are conservative, while only 33% of the electorate as a whole does the same.

On issue questions, Tea Party members mirror the responses of the public at large, with the exceptions that more identify budget deficits as a major issue than the public at large, and the issue of "politicians/government" also ranks high.

Another study pinpoints Tea Partiers' views on taxes and concludes that 83% of the Party believes increasing taxes will cause job losses and that tax cuts are actually the preferred job creation strategy. "The deficit is a serious concern of Tea Party members, yet a concrete reduction in unemployment is able to outweigh that concern," says the Winston Group.

NYT/CBS polling shows that while about one-third of overall voters think the stimulus helped the economy so far, only 10% of tea party members do.

The Winston Group's poll coincides, stating that 54% of the overall electorate believes that the stimulus is not working, a view held by 87% of Tea Partiers.

Franklin and Marshall pollsters summarize the views of tea party members thus:

Tea Party supporters and opponents have very different ideas about the movement's primary goals. Supporters most commonly cite smaller government/fiscal responsibility (31%) and more representative government (14%) as the movement's primary goals, compared to opponents who give less concrete responses, such as anti-Democratic/pro-Republican motives (35%) and general negative comments (15%).

According to research done by the Sam Adams Alliance, Tea Partiers prioritize issues this way:

Zero percent selected "social issues" as the most important direction for the Tea Party; instead their focus began and remained on fiscal issues: 91.7 percent said "budget" is "very important," followed by the "economy" at 85.4 percent, and "defense" at 79.6 percent.

The Tea Party Movement is by no means cohesive, nor it appropriate - as many media pundits who cover politics as a horse-race - to identify "tea party candidates".  However, the tea party movement represents a large bloc of well-educated, middle class voters - including many Democrats - concerned with government spending, deficits, and economic intervention. 

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD, LEAH ACHOR | 08:41 AM | 0 comment

APRIL 8, 2010

Pennsylvania Tax Day Tea Parties

We've been getting a lot of calls from folks who want to attend a tax day tea party. Tea Party Patriots has a good list of the events taking place across Pennsylvania on April 15th.

• Avondale
• Clarion
  
• Cochranville
  
• DuBois
• Franklin
• Hanover
• Harrisburg (or your local US representative's office)
• Hollidaysburg
• Honesdale
• Jennersville
• Johnstown
• Latrobe
• Lewistown
• Montrose
• Oxford
• Philadelphia
• Phoenixville
• Scranton
• Shippensburg
• Uniontown

Plus a number of rallies are planned for the 10th, 17th, and 24th. All the event information and contact details are available on the website.

And finally Freedomworks is sponsoring another rally on tax day in Washington DC.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 03:34 PM | 0 comment

MARCH 4, 2010

Who are the Tea Partiers?

The Sam Adams Alliance has a new report out presenting findings from a survey of 50 "tea party movement" leaders. Among the more interesting findings

• 46.9 percent were uninvolved or rarely involved with politics prior to 2009
• 91.5 percent are on Facebook, 80.9 percent of the organizers have a website for their organization, and 59.6 percent are on Twitter
• 85.7 percent said "No" when asked if they were in favor of moving in the direction of a Third Party
• 91.7 percent said "budget" is "very important," followed by the "economy" at 85.4 percent, and "defense" at 79.6 percent

The was also a recent CNN survey which asked about tea party involvement (see page 5). Not surprisingly, participants in tea party events were more likely to be Conservative, Republican or Independent, from rural areas, and from the Midwest or West than the full survey respondents. Somewhat surprisingly - at least if you follow the MSNBC/NPR talking points that tea partiers are a bunch of dumb hicks - they are, on average, higher income, more educated, and younger than the non-teapartiers.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:59 AM | 0 comment

NOVEMBER 20, 2009

What Next for "Tea Party" Activists?

Following the recent "Taxpayers March on Harrisburg," as well as recent health care protests in Washington DC and elsewhere, a grassroots organizer posed the question, "what should we do now?" Here are a few thoughts for the tea party movement.

Protest is not enough. Repeated protests and rallies can simply be ignored, and wear out activists who want to attend. Furthermore, events with unclear or mixed messages fail to advance the effort. And "Obama is Hitler" comparisons (even when they come from 7-time Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche), make the entire movement look bad. Here are some suggestions for tea party and 9/12 activists.

• Strategic involvement in elections. Politicians tend to react only when their electoral prospects are at stake. While protests can strike fear into elected officials, they will only be successful when the movement shows it can influence election outcomes. Strategic involvement includes recruiting candidates for office; getting involved in primaries, particularly in districts where Democrats or Republicans dominate; supporting third-party candidates when neither major party offers a viable alternative; putting candidates on the record for what they support; and researching and exposing incumbents' voting records.

• Focus on state and local issues. Sure national health care, federal deficit spending, Cap & Trade, Card Check, and countless other national issues remain important, but state and local issues should not be ignored. State budget battles, corruption in state and local government, local property tax hikes, and eminent domain abuses by local authorities have largely been ignored at tea parties. State and local governments spent about $3 trillion last year, nearly matching the federal government. State and local governments have almost 15 million full-time employees - about six times the federal civilian payroll. State and local policymakers have vast powers, and yet activists can have greater influence on local issues.
  

• Push a policy agenda. Opposing higher taxes and bigger government is needed, but you can't beat something with nothing. Simply saying "no" to bad ideas, or even championing "following the constitution" is not adequate without tangible ideas average citizens can get their heads around. The movement needs to do a better job of identifying and championing policy alternatives. Some ideas I think most can support include:
  
  
  1. Spending Limits - The first step to stopping out-of-control government spending is to limit the growth of government. Strict limits on the growth of government spending or taxes - such as tying it to inflation and population - would protect taxpayers, focus lawmakers on eliminating waste and pork, and also trigger economic prosperity. There have been proposals to limit federal spending, but tax and expenditure limits can, and have been, implemented at the state and local level, via voter referendum.
  
  
  2. Spending Transparency - Many states have enacted online databases of state spending, and even some local governments and school districts have done the same. Pennsylvania lags behind on this front, though legislation is moving in the state House. Transparency databases allow taxpayer to see where their money is being spent; help to eliminate waste, fraud and corruption; promote greater competition for government grants; and cost little to build. Of course, even with greater access to information, activists still need to be vigilant, taking opportunities to read and report on state and local government spending and corruption at places like SunshineReview.org.
  
  
  3. State Constitutional Convention and/or Initiative and Referendum - Given the rampant corruption in state and local government in Pennsylvania, there is a clear need for government reform. Term limits, a part-time legislature, redistricting reform, and numerous other reforms - both good and bad - have been proposed, but it is clear that few of these reforms will happen if we rely on lawmaker to reform themselves. A state constitutional convention and allowing Initiative and Referendum in Pennsylvania are ways to return power to the people, creating additional checks on the abuses of elected officials.
     
  
  
  4. Interstate Competition in Health Care - While we have outlined many policy recommendations in health care as an alternative to national takeover, allowing interstate competition is one that has started to catch on among lawmakers and pundits. One estimate suggests interstate competition would reduce the number of uninsured by 25 to 33%.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 00:51 PM | 1 comment

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

Are Tea Party Protesters Nut Jobs?

Reason TV interviews a number of attendees of the 9/12 Tea Party in DC in a new video asking whether they are "small group of radical freakazoids or a large crew of taxpaying regular joes".

While they don't answer that question explicitly, they do marvel at the size of the crowd, and the folks they interview give a consistent message of frustration of government overspending. Personally, I enjoy the bipartisan flavor - i.e. both Republicans and Democrats are big spenders. The attendees were critical of Bush for a massive expansion of federal spending, the largest deficits on record (since surpassed), bailing out Wall Street - and are even more disappointed in Obama for delivering more of the same (you can believe in).

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 07:31 AM | 0 comment

JULY 1, 2009

Upcoming Pennsylvania Tea Parties

The are a number of upcoming "Tea Parties" in Pennsylvania coming up in the near future, many on or around July 4. Here are some listings to find the event closest to you:

• Tea Party Patriots
• Tea Party Day
• PA Tea Parties
• Conservative Events PA
  
• Americans for Prosperity List of Tea Parties in Pennsylvania

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 06:00 PM | 0 comment

MAY 21, 2009

Conservative Intellectualism vs. Populism

The discussion between Jerry Taylor, Dan Mitchell, and Brink Lindsey on the Cato Institute blog (and NRO's Corner) on Rush Limbaugh, tea parties, and conservative thought have been fascinating, and I think a discussion worth continuing.

I agree with Jerry Taylor that Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make a lot of stupid, wrong-headed, intellectually dishonest, and offensive statements, and that conservatives would do well to distance themselves from these statements, calling out Limbaugh and Hannity wrong when they are wrong.  But I also think Dan Mitchell is spot on, when he notes Limbaugh and Hannity are on 3 hours a day, several hundred days a year, are working to draw an audience, and are thus more likely to make such mistakes (contrast that to folks like myself, who edit everything I write several times before publishing).

Brink Lindsey's comments that conservative/libertarian thinkers "need to convince smart people that we are right. We need to win the battle of ideas in the intellectual realm by making better arguments than our opponents" is indisputable.  But Lindsey's dumps against populism and Tea Parties were as poorly thought out as a Limbaugh or Hannity tirade. Lindsey rants against "pro-torture-and-wiretapping, anti-gay-and-Mexican [conservatives]." What happened to the need to convince? Instead of a meritorious debate about immigration laws, the definition of marriage, or wiretapping, Lindsey resorts to cheap name calling.  Unfortunately, I see this too often from libertarian intellectuals, including those of the Cato Institute, who go above and beyond intellectual disagreement with social conservatives to stick a finger in their eye.

Returning to Mitchell's post, he poses a couple interesting questions (I will ignore the question about "conservative think tanks"):

How come there were no tea parties when Bush was expanding the burden of government? Where were the supposedly conservative members of the House and Senate when Bush was pushing through pork-filled transportation bills, corrupt farm bills, a no-bureaucrat-left-behind education bill, and a massive entitlement expansion?

I'll answer the last question first -a large number of truly conservative members did oppose pork-barrel spending, the farm bill, No Child Left Behind, and especially Medicare expansion, in which a lot of intra-party arm twisting occurred.  Certainly the later bailouts faced strong opposition from many conservatives in Congress.  The problem with GOP governance under Bush was not so much "conservatives" (or even "neo-conservatives" or any other category of ideology) voting for bigger government, but largely Republicans who followed the Bush-Rove doctrine of putting the goal of electoral success above any principle of government.

As to why there weren't any tea parties protesting Bush's increase in spending, my answer is twofold.  First, spending skyrocketed, even above previous high levels, beginning with the bailouts late in the Bush administration followed by the 'stimulus,' omnibus, and the Obama budget.   The video putting deficit spending in terms of driving a car - noting Bush "drove" the equivalent of 64 miles per hours, faster than any president in history, yet Obama's budget would accelerate that to 174 miles per hour - gives a pretty sensible explanation to why folks are more concerned about spending today.  Second, those who organized tea parties (and the Commonwealth Foundation is among those) never expected the type of turnout we saw - around a million folks attended tea parties, many of whom have never engaged in political discourse before.

This exchange begs the questions, why didn't Cato organize any tea parties when Bush was expanding the burden of government?  More importantly, following the populism of tea parties, what are Cato and the rest of the conservative/libertarian intellectual community going to do about it? 

The populism of talk radio and tea parties isn't a bad thing, as it exposes ideas to a larger audience; even Taylor concedes Limbaugh has an element of teaching in his show, getting listeners to read the Road to Serfdom and the like.   Tea party protesters won't like a federal government takeover of health care, carbon cap and trade raising the cost of electricity, the new auto emission standards, or tax increases being pushed in almost every state.  Given the right tools - the facts about these proposals, and free market alternatives - we have an army of allies in the war of policy ideas.  Instead of bashing tea parties "theatrics" for not occurring soon enough, those of us in the think tank world should reach out to these folks and give them the intellectual ammunition they need. 

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 05:16 PM | 0 comment