Tea Party survival strategy
“If I have my precedents right, the tea-party movement by itself will not take lasting political form. The spontaneity and diversity of such revolts unfits them for the long haul,” wrote author and journalist Richard Brookhiser in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion editorial. Brookhiser referenced prior flash-in-the-pan political movements to make a convincing argument that the Tea Partying days will not be long-lived. For the good of America, however, the partying must continue, and I think I know how to keep the party going.
The Tea Partiers likely will sweep dozens of leftist politicians out of the federal government in the 2010 elections, and the movement could end up defeating President Obama in 2012. Their ultimate goal must be to restore America to greatness. To reach that attainable goal the Tea Partiers will need to focus on more than healthcare and the political race du jour to make an impact beyond 2012.
If we examine the healthcare struggle closely we’ll discover it’s a symptom of a much larger problem: American civic illiteracy. If Americans understood fundamental principles of our democratic republic we wouldn’t have gotten to the point of having the obscenely large and intrusive federal government we have today.
Last year, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s annual survey on American civic literacy revealed that 71 percent of Americans in their sample failed a basic civic literacy test, with an average score of 49 percent. For college graduates the average score was a pathetic 57 percent, while politicians registered 44 percent. Last week, ISI released data demonstrating that increased civic literacy is more effective than a college education in improving one’s appreciation for basic American principles.
If we want to change America, we must boost our civic literacy.
The Tea Partiers should attack this problem. Like the healthcare reform battle, the fight to restore America’s civic literacy will be ugly but winnable. Unlike the healthcare battle, this challenge could take decades and give the Tea Partiers a long-term cause for revolt.
The civic literacy battle will be a difficult one because education bureaucracies and unions will vigorously oppose the centerpieces of civic literacy renewal: parental education choice and union reform. Matthew Brouillette, president of Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Foundation said, “Education labor unions are full-fledged political machines. That’s what they are first and foremost. Teaching excellence and the education of children are secondary and tertiary matters.”
In addition, the battle will be winnable because Americans will eventually realize—as they did fighting healthcare—government has overreached in controlling the American education industry. Excessive government control is the cause of our civic literacy sickness, which can be cured if the Tea Partiers write a prescription for a strong dose of education freedom and competition.
Brookhiser suggested that the Tea Party movement would burn out like past political revolt movements. If the Tea Partiers fade into history after our civic literacy problem is solved, they will be remembered as the political movement that saved more than a healthcare system. They will have saved America.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top27 Comments to “Tea Party survival strategy”
I rather think the answer will come from the church or not at all. But yes, we need a much higher level of civil literacy. That’s quite an un-PC thing to say, though.
Report comment to moderator
I’m all for civic literacy. Civil literacy, too.
Report comment to moderator
The link between conservative Christians and conservative politics is odd. It makes more sense that some Christians decry politics. As we all must die, and as all human endeavors involve disappointment and frustration, no solution based on human effort is ever going to satisfy us.
If you really believe that there is a God, and really believe in an arrangement or possibility in which we survive our physical death, and really believe there is some arrangement in which we are rewarded or punished in some way, whether for deeds or for throwing our imperfect selves on the mercy of a God, then it makes sense to put all your hopes in there being some supernatural solution.
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, I think the beliefs summarized by me in #3 is nonsense. We have a better (though very imperfect) chance to face the fact that we are mortal and make the best we can out of the life we have and to be kind and patient with each other.
It gives you a better chance, also, to be born to good parents in a fairly decent place. So pick your parents and place of birth carefully, little onconceived children.
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
Two thoughts here:
“The Tea Partiers likely will sweep dozens of leftist politicians out of the federal government in the 2010 elections…”
Or it will steal votes from more moderate candidates and split them with Tea Party candidates, thereby ensuring leftist politicians stay in office.
The Tea Party, Constitution Party and (to some extent) the Libertarian Party are to the Republicans what the Greens are to the Democrats.
“If Americans understood fundamental principles of our democratic republic we wouldn’t have gotten to the point of having the obscenely large and intrusive federal government we have today.”
Or…many Americans understand those principles and just disagree with them. Or, for those who don’t understand them, would disagree if they did.
Seriously. Do you think guys like Phil Krugman are too historically illiterate to understand the principles this country was founded on? I don’t. I think that in their heart of hearts, folks like Krugman et. al. know that the federal government we now enjoy was not what the founders envisioned. They, however, like most people, Republicans and Democrats alike, have long since rejected a limited federal bureaucracy. They just didn’t bother to amend the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
“a strong dose of education freedom and competition”
This is classic. The Tea Party movement would thrive if only we had more education, particularly of the private kind. Essentially, we just need a dozen more Harvards, and other such hotbeds of the Tea Party movement!
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
MONTYFISHERWOOF: Discuss the topic not the person.
Report comment to moderator
Why? His criticism raises a good question.
What reason do you (or Lee Wishing) have to suppose a correlation between increased education and conservatism? In fact, all the data points the other way. More education strongly correlates with liberal views.
To be fair, Lee’s original point was exactly that. As he sees it, the leftists have a lock on the educational system, so Lee calls not exactly for education, but for “education freedom” and “civic literacy.” He does not define “civic literacy,” and it sounds to me like code for “conservative indoctrination.”
Looking at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute he links to confirms this suspicion. Here are the list of values that they say increased “civic literacy” will protect:
SOCIAL CONSERVATISM
* Believe that anyone can succeed in America with hard work and perseverance
* Reject the notion that America corrupts otherwise good people
* Reject the notion that educators should instill more doubt in students and reject certainty
* Support homeschooling families
RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM
* Favor teacher-led prayer in public schools
* Believe the Bible is the Word of God
* Believe that the Ten Commandments are relevant today.
ECONOMIC CONSERVATISM
* Agree that prosperity depends on entrepreneurs and free markets
* Reject the notion that global capitalism produces few winners and many losers
* Believe that government regulation does more harm than good
* Believe that the American Founders opposed universal health care
I agree with some of those, but it is still clear to me that what they’re calling “civic literacy” is actually an attempt to persuade people to one side of contentious political issues.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, I just now realized I called Paul Krugman “Phil”. Ooops.
Report comment to moderator
But I originally came to this thread to be snarky.
I was going to suggest that Sarah Palin has figured out the Te Party survival strategy, and she wrote it on the palm of her hand:
Those three words and that one little strikethrough perfectly define the Republican party, and most of the Tea Party movement. Complain, complain, complain about “Big Government” in the abstract. People love that stuff. They eat it up. But when it comes right down to it, strike the idea of cutting budgets.
For two reasons. First, that requires specific policy knowledge that Palin (and most of the Tea Party) just does not have. Second, despite their grumbling against Big Government in the abstract, people hate it when you cut their government benefits. They hate it enough to vote against you. (cf the deliciously ironic “Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare” signs)
So strike the idea of cutting budgets. Cut taxes instead. And don’t bother paying for that lost revenue. Let the next administration figure that out. After your disastrous presidency, they’ll likely be Democrats, so you can blame them for either running deficits or cutting programs. You might even win elections on those talking points.
And you can ride this merry go round til the music stops.
Report comment to moderator
Just a comment about the schools piece:
Civic literacy would establish that the idea of common, publicly supported schools goes back to the ante-bellum period. it is part of that core set of beliefs broadly known as civic republicanism, i.e. the iedology of the young Republic in the early 19th C.
So in that light this special pleading for private schools actually works against the founding ideals.
Report comment to moderator
#13 Harris, you should read Dr Olasky’s writings about the “Blaine amendmts” forced on many states before they were admitted to the union. Private nongovtal controlled schools had a long tradition in the USA.
I tend to agree with those who say budget cuts before tax cuts or do both simultaneously.
The Reagan folks naively had their “starve the beast” attitude: they felt cutting taxes would decrease revenue and force govt to curtail spending. Didnt work, did it? They just shifted the debt burden onto the future generations of taxpayers (those who escaped abortion, that is).
Report comment to moderator
SOCIAL CONSERVATISM
* Believe that anyone can succeed in America with hard work and perseverance
I always point to the Viet Namese as “model minorities” or “model immigrants”: Arrived penniless with no bilingual ed programs to keep them confined to any barrio mentality.
I’ve lived in many cities large and small and I see lots of VN doctors, pharmacists and other well-remunerated professional types.
I tend to ascribe this to strongly supportive and intact two parent families.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for the bolding beyond the first 3 lines.
Report comment to moderator
As long as TEA party remains decentralized and not beholden to any billionaire kook celebrity, I see it not disappearing not going gently into that good night.
The presence of talk radio cheerleaders, FOX News, Lou Dobbs and the blogosphere Social network sites (Facebook, Meetup etc) will provide continual grist for the TEA folks.
But look for Libertarian/ Christian fissure on the proLife issue to pop up soon
Report comment to moderator
Billionaire kook celebrity = Soros, not Perot.
Report comment to moderator
If Americans understood fundamental principles of our democratic republic we wouldn’t have gotten to the point of having the obscenely large and intrusive federal government we have today.
Fortunately, the Constitution doesn’t limit the size of government.
Our democracy needs a large, active government to meet our needs now and in the future. If this were not so, perhaps we could afford to make believe that the Constitution prohibits big government. But the fact is, we face challenges, large and small, that we can only meet through government.
BTW, the best schools in every community are almost always government schools.
Report comment to moderator
Its worth noting that James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”, argued in his SotU address (12-5-1815) for a national university to be created in D.C., with “means drawn from the property therein” and “subject to the authority of the General Government”. That he didn’t see this as a violation of Constitutional principles should possibly inform our understanding of these principles.
In that same address, he also suggested “recalling the attention of Congress to the great importance of establishing throughout our country the roads and canals which can best be executed under the national authority.”
In other words, he advocated the federal govt. building a national system of roads, and saw this as being compatible with the Constitution as it existed in 1815.
Here’s the address:
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/27.html
Now indulge me in a thought exercise. Suppose you polled Tea Party convention attendees with the following two questions:
“Does the U.S. constitution grant the federal government the power to use federal tax dollars to improve our national highway system?”
“Does the U.S. constitution grant the federal government the power to create a national university and govern its day-to-day operation?”
What percentage do you think would answer “yes” to those questions? I mean, given their abundant civic literacy.
Report comment to moderator
#19:
“BTW, the best schools in every community are almost always government schools.”
Do you really believe this? I mean, I’m not on the “all public schools are horrible” bandwagon, but I think if you looked at most communities the best schools are usually private. Less red tape, problem students weeded out (public schools don’t have that luxury), more motivated & less stressed teachers, etc.
Report comment to moderator
I think in the private schools you get more classroom prof for the buck. The principal has to wear many hats out of necessity.
And no one has shown me how pupils suffer for it in the least
Govt run schools? With all those layer upon layer of non-classroom employees? And even when a superintendent of school district is allowed to move on, they invariably have a generous severance package (golden parachute).
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass @ 21: the supposed accomplishments of the private schools are as often as not the result of the socio-economic status of the parents.
As to public funded schools: this is written into the Northwest Ordinance, predating the Constitution. The proceeds from the sale of the 18th and 36th Section were to support schools in the township. The notion of publicly funded education goes all the way back; the writings and work of Horace Mann solidifies this approach. So private schools? Sure, but don’t confuse them with being part of the American civic literacy — that heritage belongs elsewhere.
Report comment to moderator
#21 & 22 despite the many theories about why it stands to reason that private schools are better, they almost never are, unless they are in markets where they can charge $30k in tuition, in which case they are just as good. In most communities, you send your kid to private school if she can’t get admitted to the elite government school (or, if you happen to want her to be a creationist). The government schools are the most selective and have the most national merit finalists and so forth. This qualifies the conservative hypothesis that “teaching excellence and the education of children are secondary and tertiary matters”.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how the average Tea Partier would fare on a civic literacy test. If its anything like their spelling …..
As for
The Tea Partiers likely will sweep dozens of leftist politicians
dozens??? I would think you can count the total number of leftists in Congress on one hand
Their ultimate goal must be to restore America to greatness.
There is a number of assumptions here. One America was great. Two, America is no longer great. Three, America should become great. Four the Tea Party knows how to make America great.
Report comment to moderator
#24: So you’re referring to colleges? Where do you live? State schools run the gamut of elitist to laughable. Actually, they’re colleges, so they’re usually elitist as well as laughable. But in general, I find that state schools are where you go if you can’t get into or perhaps can’t afford the private ones.
Report comment to moderator
#26: I think he was talking about high schools. I looked at “National Merit Semifinalists per capita” for the “top” public high school in my metro area vs. the “top” private school and they came out about the same. Not that that’s necessarily the best way to measure a school’s quality, but its the most accessible.
As he points out, though, based on where I live my child would not be able to attend this public school. The “top” private school is almost surely superior to the public school my child would normally attend. My district has an academic magnet campus, though, that is likely on about the same level as the private school. Though, arguably less broad in its curriculum- its a science and engineering magnet school. It’s also one of those “school within a school” jobs designed to make the district’s diversity numbers look better. (I graduated from a similar campus in a different district.)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!