Will history repeat itself?

Published November 16, 2013

by Carter Wrenn, Talking About Politics, November 15, 2013.

The row started, oddly enough, with a single email. Which got answered. And counter answered. Then, boom, there was a full scale war of emails going on (with me watching copies flying back and forth) that lasted two days.  

At first I thought my two friends were arguing over who to support in the Republican Primary for U.S. Senate – but then it struck me what they were really arguing over was two different wars – and which war was more important.

 

Friend #1 figured the war that matters is whipping Obama while Friend #2 figured before whipping Obama the Tea Party had to, first, whip the Pachyderm Republicans in Washington who keep making deals with Obama.

 

Now, make no mistake: Friend #1 doesn’t like deals with Obama. And he wants to cut spending too. But not bad enough to shut down the government and risk losing the next election.

 

Friend #2’s view is simpler. To him all that spending is wrong. Period. Just like adultery or bank robbery is wrong. And he’s not about to go along with adultery just to win an election. He’s also a bit like Davy Crockett standing on the wall at the Alamo – he figures he’s dead right and doesn’t mind taking on a whole army to prove it.

 

In a way this whole argument’s the return of a very old fight I saw the first time back in the mid-1970s when we were trying to elect Ronald Reagan.

 

Back then, in all of Washington, we could only find two Republican Senators who’d endorse Reagan for President. Two. That was it. The rest of Republican Washington lined up behind Gerald Ford. So, in a way, the Tea Party – which, with Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, has three Senators – is way ahead of where we were then.

 

Also, back then, everybody from liberal Democrats to mainstream Republicans let fly saying Reagan was too radical and too uncompromising and too unbending and if he ran he’d sink the Republican Party. And, in a way, that was partly right: He did run. And didn’t win. And Gerald Ford did lose to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But, then, it turned out we weren’t in the Alamo at all. Four years later, Reagan ran again and started winning elections faster than General Sherman tore through Georgia.

 

Who knows if history will repeat itself with a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, but the Tea Party is a legitimate political movement – its ideas are popular within the Republican Party. And it may have to whip the Washington Republicans first.

 

Reagan did.

 

Read More NC SPIN >>

November 16, 2013 at 10:50 am
TP Wohlford says:

Okay, every movement has its crazies, and your friend might be one of them. But I'm gonna go out on a limb here and thing that you miss this guy's point. Which, given your previous writings, would NOT surprise me.

TEA Conservatives believe that there is a legitimate role of government. So, dispense with all of your rants that "conservatives wouldn't have roads and programs to prevent killing of children" 'cause that isn't true.

Conservatives believe that the roles of government are rightfully and logically distributed, so that each role is done at the lowest possible level of government where it actually works. My city can't do national defense, but we must ask why it takes a Federal government to do welfare and potholes -- for instance.

Conservatives believe that the role of government is limited. This comes as a complete shock to liberals, who believe that the same government they decry when they are out of power is somehow powerful enough, wise enough and kind enough to fix every woe of humanity (and most of the animal world).

And most of all, this government needs to live within its means. Most liberals believe in living within a budget too, but they also believe that some uber-rich people have an infinite amount of cash that can fund every government problem and solve every lack of money anywhere.

So I'm gonna bet this Friend #2 isn't saying that "all" spending is wrong. I'm gonna bet that he says that it is wrong if we can't afford it. And if it doesn't stay in the confines of the traditional roles of government at that level.

And I bet you KNOW that's what he's saying, but you prefer to keep that distorted image of the TEA people going!

November 16, 2013 at 10:56 am
jacob jacobs says:

I love how Republicans try to cling to that "hate spending, fiscally responsible" reputation when they are anything but! I love how Republicans "hate spending" unless it means spending to provide welfare for their corporate masters, which include but are not limited to big oil, big banks, the war industry, corporate farmers, the very rich, or any other segment of our society that has bought them off, and bankrolled their elections. I love how Republicans try to float above the fray as if they were not responsible for the Great Recession. Hypocrite, thy name is Republican, but the word is out. Don't you dare, ever, utter the words "Republican" and "hate spending" . . . in the same sentence again.

November 16, 2013 at 10:58 am
jacob jacobs says:

Please, please, please dear God, . . . . let Ted Cruz run. . . .