The Voice of Merrill

The following is a breakdown from a successful Dr. who is now a part of the TEA Party movement.  Dr. Marten’s observations may be in contrast to the original piece, but as was stated intolerance and hubris will destroy the momentum.  Far be it that the destruction of such a positive movment to come to a halt at the hands of those seeking to help.  And so, the response is in it’s entirity. 

Subject: Seven Deadly TEA Party Sins

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think it’s important NOT to be “unhinged.”  That is, not to take

the bait when offered.  In my estimation, most such encounters

fail because people start to argue rather than debate.  Remember

Reagan:  . . . “there you go again.”  Address the statement directly,

answer fully, and, most important, be prepared for whatever comes

from the opposition.  That I learned from high school debate.

The Constitution, in its brilliance, is intentionally vague.  The Second
Amendment never assigns a definition to the word “Arms.”  One would believe
that a well regulated Militia may be at liberty to use any means of arming
itself in an effort to secure a free State.  The leading Militia in today’s
revolution is the TEA Party.  In their battle against an oppressive state,
they have taken new “Arms” including legal challenges, community
organizations, underground media and voter education.  Today’s Minute Men
are loose collection of farmers, businessmen, lawyers, blue-collar and
white-collar workers, the patriotic minded and the socially active.  

I’d take issue.  The constitituion is not intentionally vague.  It spoke

to the times.  Back then NO ONE would have seriously questioned the

right to keep and bear arms.  These people hunted to eat, far more

than for sport.  Thus they felt it necessary to make it clear that the

public was permitted, even encouraged to bear arms to protect

themselves FROM GOVERNMENT!

After attending the first TEA Party Leadership Training Conference,
sponsored by the National TEA Party Coalition in Dallas this weekend, some
concerns have arisen that could be used to harm the TEA Party.  The recent
successes of the TEA Party in New York’s 23rd District in preventing Dede
Scozzafava election as a RINO and their success in providing a victory to
the more conservative Scott Brown in Massachusetts, have given additional
credibility to this grassroots movement.  The TEA Party was the driving
force in the Town Hall meetings that led to the delay in passing Health Care
Destruction legislation.  The Left understand the threat of the TEA Party
and have begun a concerted effort to thwart their works.  The Right know
they cannot succeed without TEA Party support but aren’t excited by the
thought of relinquishing control to a group of politically inexperienced
ideologues. 

I’m not so sure that political inexperience is a negative, though clearly

the leaders need some cogent advice on how to carry on politically.  It

is a minefield out there, but the Tea Party movement IS about ideology.

Much of Obama’s strength is his ideology.  Much of historic conservative

strength is about ideology.  This is a term which has lost a lot in recent

arguments.  It is not bad to be ideological.  It is important to be so.

Otherwise, what do you REALLY believe?

The following is a rough outline of Seven Deadly TEA Party sins.  These have
not been assembled to in any way hinder the admirable and patriotic works of
the TEA Party rather their identification is to offer the TEA Party an
honest insider’s evaluation of areas that may be targets for improvement.
Without internal audits, any organization will succumb to its own flaws.
Consider this a first step toward strengthening the resolve of this
fledgling Militia moving forward.

1.     Emotional Drive – The double edged sword

*       The TEA Party was borne out of frustration.  Without passion the TEA
Party could not exist.  However, there must be moderation between passion
and a logical and tactical approach.  A constant temperance of knee-jerk
reactions and a reevaluation of emotional responses regarding how they
relate to long term and sweeping goals is necessary to avoid showing
vulnerability to those seeking to disrupt and sidetrack the movement.

IBID from above.  Debate, be prepared; Avoid getting side-tracked,

angry or evasive.

2.     Love of/from Republicans

*       Perhaps the greatest external threat to the TEA Party movement is
the Republican Party.  Just as the TEA Party is set on eliminating RINOs
(Republicans In Name Only) through infiltration and pressure, the Republican
Party is also infiltrating the ranks of the TEA Party.  Michael Steele says
the Republican Party needs the support of the TEA Party and that their
direction will be a guiding force for the Republicans.  Most believe this to
be lip service to the organization.  However, with so many conservatives
within the TEA Party likely to vote for the more conservative candidate, the
Republicans stand to gain the most from the TEA Party’s efforts.  Expect the
Republicans to continue pitching TEA Party ideas to the organization through
the election season.

From past experience it ought to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that third parties

NEVER win.  And they almost always screw up the right.  It is necessary

to win over a large portion of the Republican party.  Reagan, after all,

converted enough of the Rockefeller Republicans–aka RINOs–to win

in 1980.  Call it what you will, but “the republicans” are the vehicle to

victory.  The question is how to subvert the left of center and center

of center Republicans to the cause.  Fortunately, Obama is going to make

that very easy this year.  He has plainly stated that he will neither back off

his agenda, nor attentuate his ideology. 

*       Cesspool to Hot tub.  Vetting the candidates not susceptible to
conversion and easily coerced upon arrival in their respective State
legislatures or Congress will be a monumental challenge.   Even respected
Conservatives erred in their journey when granted unexpected power.  Once a
TEA Party approved candidate wins their election the Republicans will
immediately target them as allies.  In doing so, the Republicans will be
working to gather numbers in their army while looking to draw the
credibility of the TEA Party candidate.  This has already happened to Scott
Brown before he has even been sworn in.  Thus far, and fortunately he has
been steadfast.

As Lord Acton observed: “power corrupts.”  The founders knew it, and we

all know it.  The post ‘94 Republicans proved it yet again.  Ultimately, the

goal has to be term limits, minimization of lobbying, etc.  How that is to be

achieved is open to serious question and doubt, but it isn’t so relevant right

now.  Winning back the Senate and the House is what’s important.  Before

the next presidential election this must be done, but not now.  For so long

as people are entrenched in Washington for decades, since they are ALL

corruptable, there is no second alternative.  When the governing body is

for sale, someone will buy it.  Only term limits will change that.  There will

be no reason to pursue security IN government if it is prohibited.  Further,

the Senate should again be appointed, as was the direction of the founders.

Ultimately, the goal is for the Tea Party candidates to co-opt the forces of

the Republicans.  Look at McCain.  He’s honorable, but not a conservative.

He may be defeated if opposed.  Same for a lot of others.  The TP has to

come up with electable candidates to oppose the “regulars” in the primaries,

and work like hell to be sure that is the TP candidates who oppose the Dems

this fall, and in 2012.  The WILL win, if the choices are TP vs Dem. The

public is as angry as I have ever experienced, and, perhaps, ready to vote

for REAL “hope and change” (though I’d advise against that mantra as a

selling point.  Somehow Barack has tainted that slogan.)

3.     Fragmentation

*       Division will lead to implosion.  The TEA Party has already been
splintered.  The Nashville fiasco and other offshoot TEA Party groups
capitalizing on the brand have emerged.  Michael Patrick Leahy pointed out
that if differences with the group are so numerous that resolution cannot be
found, fragmentation is the solution.  The point is well taken in theory;
however, in practice this sin will divide and allow outside adversaries to
conquer.  The initial instinct to solve this issue would be to form some
sort of a “Big Tent” as the Republicans attempted.  Two issues arise with
the “Big Tent”.  First, the “Big Tent” has never worked because the people
under the tent have never subscribed 100% to the theory.  This is a human
flaw, not a political one, but the results are sub-par.  Second, the “Big
Tent” should not be necessary if members of the TEA Party are tolerant of
one another provided they come back to the core principles as described by
the Dallas TEA Party:

Just so,  IBID again.  Fragmentation will lose.  As for differences, no

one a has greater variety of differences than the present Dems.  They

are in very deep s**t!  The violent left is angry, the (relative) right is

angry, and the centrists are confused and frightened.  They, too, know

that their party has been hijacked, but they have not yet decided just

what or how to deal with it.  Hence the TP HAS TO come to grips about

agreeing on a sufficient number of mutually satisfying positions to

adhere to the group like super-glue.  This is neither the time nor the place

to (as the Iron Lady advised Bush 41) go wobbly.  “Ten Points” (ala

Gingrich ‘ 94) isn’t likely to ring too well now, either, but the TP must

come up with a VERY specific, VERY defined list of things they WILL

DO if elected.  Then do it.  Gingrich proved it possible in a circumstance

similar to today, though it is much worse, and therefore much more likely

to carry the day.  They must do it soon, and they must hammer on it for

months until Nov.  And beware of Dick Morris.  He’s a brilliant political

advisor, but he’s still a whore!

                                                                        i.
Limited Government

                                                                      ii.
Fiscal Responsibility

                                                                     iii.
Personal Accountability

                                                                     iv.
The Rule of Law

                                                                       v.
National Sovereignty

4.     Intolerance – Dallas is heading in the right direction

*       Unification under these tenets should provide a clearer direction.
Note that none of these principles touch on social issues; the most divisive
for any conservative movement.  Note that the charter documents of the
United States do very little in the way of regulating any social elements.
If the TEA Party is serious and focused on these fundamentals, then any
party crasher seeking to distract a group with issues of abortion, gay
marriage or religion would not be a concern.  During the keynote speech of
the Leadership Tea Party a gentleman sought to derail the group by firing
the abortion gun at Richard Viguerie.  Viguerie has defended himself for 50
years against such attacks and is always prepared for such an event.
However, he shot back a standard conservative response and the crowd became
upset with the gentleman for taking a stand for what he believed.  This the
same tactic the TEA Party used at town hall meetings.  The biggest effect at
the town hall meetings came from those who reacted so passionately and yet
too many in attendance fell for the same tactic.  At a TEA Party conference
abortion should never come up and when it does it does not deserve
recognition. Abortion is one of the most fragmenting social issues of the
century.  Abortion, as other social issues, is also not one of the core
principles of the TEA Party.  Social issues are a distraction, divisive and
will be used as weapons by those seeking to do the TEA Party harm.  

Again . . . stay cool.  It’s the hardest thing to do when you’re passionate,

but it never carries the day, except, perhaps, in actual military combat.

And even then, the “thoughtful, controlled” soldier usually wins.

Warriors fight as individuals, and are ALWAYS defeated by armies.

T’was so beginning with the Greek Phalanx, was so with Patton, and

was again in (the original) Gulf War and Afghanistan.  Thus, by whatever

definition, the TP must become an army of sorts: all for one and one for

all.  It’s the only way it’ll work.  Leaders are necessary, to be sure, but

all must share the same goal.  Victory.  And work at it together.

Have a look-see at this link.  It’s about teamwork:

http://www.curmudgeonalia.com/blog/pontification.html

5.     Undefined Leadership/Direction

*       The TEA Party has made a commitment to be less like the “spider” and
more like the “starfish” in Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom’s The Starfish
and the Spider – The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations.  The
premise is that a spider is vulnerable as cutting off its head destroys the
beast but an organization that has no centralized leadership, similar to a
starfish, may suffer blows to one organ but survive and regenerate the
damaged section.  Again, this is an utopic look at the world as no
leaderless organizations or societies have ever found lasting success.  In
fact, the closest examples of successful “starfish” organizations are terror
networks.  Even within the Al Qaidas and Talibans of the world, there is
still a central brain.  Examples of Indian nations that survived for long
periods without a centralized leadership neglect to say that eventually,
they fell to the power of a well organized military.  The most successful
organizations throughout time have a very well defined leadership model with
men and women of high integrity at the helm.  The glaring impairment to the
TEA Party should it implement such a structure would be the abandoning of
the grassroots movement; something the TEA Party holds very near and dear.
Finding the proper hybrid between the Spider and the Starfish will ensure
continued flexibility while maintaining direction.  Finding the right mix is
something the Patriot Caucus <http://patriotcaucus.pbworks.com/>  has
already identified as a goal and is working on with impressive vigor. 

What I said, before reading this far.  I agree with this paragraph.

The question is HOW to achieve this “army.”

*       The TEA Party has yet to define what it wants if to assuage
successfully the onslaught of big government, unbridled spending and
destruction of personal liberties.  Certainly, like the Revolutionary
Patriots, the TEA Party Patriots unite against an oppressive regime.
However, once victory is attained, the TEA Party must identify the permanent
changes to make.  The TEA Party is a collaboration of people eager for the
government to do nothing.  Ideally, TEA Party favored legislators would go
to their respective posts and introduce bills repealing the government’s
roll.  TEA Party members will be asking the voters to elect them to go to
the Capitols to do less work for the people.  The Progressives, on the other
hand, will be campaigning on the promise of delivering more to the people.
This has enormous resonance with those who are either suffering or believe
themselves to be suffering.  As Alexander Frasier Tyler said

“A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only
exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the
public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the
candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to
be followed by a Dictatorship.”

The recently reported, Contract For America
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100202/ts_csm/277681>  is a step in the right
direction.  However, unless this contract lays out specific details and
guidelines for achieving long-term goals, it will be another charter with no
teeth.  There must be something to present to the American people to assist
in conveying the message that liberty, which is often taken for granted, is
far more valuable than any other asset they may possess. 

6.     Corruption

*       As long as the TEA Party does not have some sort of leadership model
in place, they are “winging it.”  This opens the door for a smooth talker to
convince a few who will spread the word virally through the TEA Party
channels.  A Trojan Horse takeover of the TEA Party is as much a possibility
as the National Precinct Alliance’s plan to perform a Trojan Horse takeover
of local Republican organizations.  This may start as a well intentioned
individual who becomes very active and highly visible within the
organization.  Over time, as people gravitate toward natural leaders, one
could potentially begin issuing marching orders that benefit their own
personal agenda rather than the long-term goals of the group.  Just as
Republicans of the 90s found themselves corrupted over time, well
intentioned TEA Party members may lose sight, become corrupted and cause
problems for the organization. 

7.     Hubris

*       Republicans have the power to take down the TEA Party from the
outside, but the most sizeable risk to the group is from within.  Hubris
combines many of the themes of prior sins but adds a new element of foolish
pride.  This was widely evident at the TEA Party Leadership training.  Talk
of high school curriculums and blind applause permeated those in attendance.
The TEA Party must put itself in historical perspective.  The TEA Party is
in its infancy and less than a year old.  It has had tremendous influence
during that time, but just as the fervor of Hope and Change quickly eroded,
the cheers for this group fighting for liberty are bound to subside as
America’s focus changes from the economy and taxes to other issues not
included in the TEA Party’s charter.  Many activist groups have sprung over
the two and half centuries America has been fighting to gain and sustain her
freedom.  Once influential political parties are little more than footnote
references in today’s discussions.  .

I do not believe the Republicans CAN prevail over the TP if, and only

if, the goal of the TP is to take over the party.  There’ll be a fight,

of course, but that is what the TP was organized for: to take the

fight to the enemy.  And the enemy is, today, the whole G.Damned

government, and most of the people in it.  I’d almost support a movement

to vote out ALL of the incumbents this time around, and in 2012.  That

way, in 3 years we’d have only 1/3 of the Senators and no one in the

House, with a new president.  How much worse could it be?  And we’d

make the point that we can, AND WILL remove them all if necessity

requires.  Theonly caveat is that we’d have, perhaps, a more rational,

more conserative version of the Obama administration which also

believes in what it preaches, but cannot execute because they are

so damned inexperienced.  Otherwise I’d wholeheartedly support

throwing out every one of the schmucks in Washington.

*       The perverse belief that for what the TEA Party stands is the only
true and right cause is of narrow mind, short sight, intolerance and
contrary to the Founding Fathers’ vision of America.  The only principles on
which the Founding Fathers were able to agree, after many arguments and much
convincing, were that they wanted to be free of British rule and that they
would create a country that granted people certain inalienable rights.
History would instruct TEA Party members that there were, in reality, a
number of Founding Fathers whose political leaning more closely resembles
today’s liberal Democrats.  The TEA Party is very Jeffersonian, but may not
accurately describe the climate of the Continental Congress; however, more
likely it reflects the spirit. 

I’d take very serious issue with this segment.  NO ONE of the founding

fathers EVER considered anything vaguely similar to the present day

Democratic party.  That really came about when America became very

prosperous–the most powerful nation ever to exist on the planet–in and

around the 1880s, at which time the “elite” decided that things had just

gotten to complex NOT to be managed.  Adam Smith, etal., had NEVER

spoken to such a complex problem.  Well . . . they had, and there have

been others since.

I’d higly recommend that every TP member read, very very carefully,

both of F.A. Hayek’s books

The Road to Serfdom

and

The Fatal Conceit

and, maybe

Free to Choose, by Milt Friedman

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Haziltt

A Conflict of Visons, by Tom Sowell

*       The TEA Party is a bias group.  Whether the members have an interest
in accepting their bias or not, they will continue to be a bias group as
that is the nature of politics.  Without coming to terms with the facts of
the movement and putting it into historical perspective, the TEA Party will
be just as the Whigs, Bull Moose and other non-third party groups which were
necessary in their time, but ultimately short lived. 
 

Again, I’d take issue.  The Whigs just wore out, but they weren’t a

“flash in the pan” party.  They were just eclipsed by the Republicans

at the time of Lincoln.  The Bull Moose party was Teddy Roosevelt,

the most powerful of the original “progressives” who wanted to be

president again.  I can’t see that they accomplished anything, let

alone were “necessary in their time.”  It was just an ego trip for TR

Popularity: 1% [?]