The events leading up to Primary Day 2010 were hardly spawned by some baseless “anti-incumbent” craze. Senseless fads among the grassroots cannot honestly be deemed culpable in a trend of this magnitude. Nor has it been random in its origins and direction.
The spin began even before Primary Day. According to ABC News, it was an “anti-incumbent” sentiment. Pennsylvania’s Democrat Governor Ed Rendell tried to assign blame to the weather for the impending loss by Arlen Specter, claiming, “The rain hurt. No doubt about it.”
But rain and sunshine notwithstanding, in several key May 18 primary races, the mood of the general public has been unmistakable. It represents a clear continuation of the bombshell that hit the liberal establishment in Massachusetts and across America in January when Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley. The United States Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy since 1962 was turned over to a Republican. Perhaps the sun would not even rise the next day.
On May 8 at the Utah GOP Convention, incumbent Republican Senator Bob Bennett, by all accounts a “good moderate,” was given the boot. Tim Bridgewater and Mark Lee who defeated him (and who will face eachother in a June 22 primary election) are inarguably more conservative and no darlings of the Beltway insiders. Likewise, in the Kentucky Republican Primary, Rand Paul, who is aptly described as the “Tea Party Candidate,” beat Trey Grayson, whose allegiance was clearly with the Party Establishment.
Career politicians and liberal Democrats in both parties are rattled. According to their propaganda partners on the nightly news, the 2006 and 2008 elections exhibited a willful turning point for “mainstream” America, which we were told had relegated individual liberty and self-reliance to the ash heap of history, and was wholly embracing the brave new world of socialism and the nanny state. How else could the installation of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and eventually, Barack Obama as the leaders of the Federal Government possibly be interpreted?
In fact, it is by an entirely different set of forces that the situation must be explained, and without the sweeping inconsistencies of the liberal Democrat/media “spin.” Unfortunately for the American left, it is altogether unlikely that the mindless pragmatists of the Democrat Party will figure this out before November. So, barring electoral fraud on a scale that massively eclipses the antics of ACORN in 2008, the stage is set for an electoral earthquake of unprecedented scale.
The events leading up to Primary Day 2010 were hardly spawned by some baseless “anti-incumbent” craze. Senseless fads among the grassroots cannot honestly be deemed culpable in a trend of this magnitude. Nor has it been random in its origins and direction. In fact, it was a refinement of the very sentiments, expressed in a far different manner, that resulted in the disasters of the past two major election cycles.
America is, and has long been, averse to the prospects of an incessantly bloating and encroaching government. So when the Republican Party revealed itself to be increasingly detached and indifferent to the principles for which it was granted the majorities in both Houses of Congress in 1994, and ultimately in the White House in 2000, the public backlash became inevitable. However, rather than recognizing this attitude among the electorate and responding positively to it, the liberal political machine seized on the situation as an opportunity to put the nanny state on the fast track.
The plan was to implement such a colossal infrastructure of the socialist state that it would overwhelm any who might have even the slightest intention of ever dismantling it. Thereafter, irrespective of any tepid attempts to rein it in, the statist juggernaut would remain in some form as the new order for America in perpetuity, growing and metastasizing as such monstrosities invariably do, and immune to the attacks of any who dare oppose it.
Initially, it appeared that the scheme would work. Republicans, partly from fear of the overblown Obama phenomenon, and partly out of their infuriating willingness to accept the “Gospel according to the Beltway insiders,” were reluctant at first to stridently oppose the Democrat agenda. Rather, they sought to “fine tune” major Democrat initiatives in a “bipartisan” manner.
Yet something unexpected began to occur in Heartland America. Those citizens who knew from where their great country had come, and who now saw it being wrenched from them, began to coalesce and speak out. As they did, they (and any among the political class who dared face the truth) realized that this was no transient mood swing. Rather, it reflected a mindset of fierce determination among average citizens who were not ready to forfeit their country.
In the face of mocking media coverage wherein they were demeaned as “tea baggers,” or castigated as “seditious” by the likes of Bill Clinton, the Tea Party supporters pressed forward. Assembling in vast numbers in major gatherings on April 15, July 4, and September 12 of 2009, they gathered to tell both the Federal Government and their less assertive fellow citizens of their abhorrence for the unconstitutional actions by which America is being transformed from its glorious founding.
Americans who have not been inoculated with the bilgewater of “political correctness” well know of the blessings of liberty and prosperity bestowed to them by their noble and industrious predecessors. And they well understand the responsibility charged to them in the Declaration of Independence, specifically that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
This, therefore is the legacy of the modern “Tea Party” movement. It is neither Democrat nor Republican. Rather, it is pro-Constitution and therefore conservative. No doubt imposters and opportunists will seek to hijack it in the upcoming months. Some already have. But doing so will not be an easy trick.
This is not about personalities, but about principles. Those who can credibly claim to uphold such things will be catapulted to the forefront of the movement, and eventually to leadership positions in government. And any who seek to offer lip service in town meetings or at election time, with no real intention of following through once they assume office, will soon find themselves following in the footsteps of Bob Bennett, Trey Grayson, and Arlen Specter.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.