Is The Tea Party An Inadvertently Moderating Force?
If you heard a loud crash yesterday, that was the collective sound of thousands of tea cups dropping out of shocked Tea Party members hands as they saw their new sweetheart Scott Brown help break a Republican filibuster and allow the jobs bill to a final vote. Brown wasn’t even the only Republican vote in favor of cloture, for a spending bill no less. It should be noted that just because a Senator votes for allowing cloture, they could still vote against final passage of the bill. Yet this is worth noting both for the influence and power of the Tea Party, and of the unprecedented use of the filibuster in the United States Senate.
I’ve already read today nasty recriminations on Twitter for Senator Brown from spurned Tea Party members. Yet what really has the Tea Party done electorally? Their first major involvement was the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district. They put their force behind the third party candidate Hoffman and only succeeded in giving the seat to a Democrat for the first time in over 100 years. His vote was crucial to passing health care reform in the House. In the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia, most would admit that those seats came down to better run campaigns by the Republican candidates. But the next involvement was to glom onto Scott Brown’s campaign for Teddy Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. This despite the fact that he distanced himself from the movement even before the election. Senator Brown, despite echoing the same stimulus talking points of his caucus, has yet to cast a vote against cloture on health care reform and has sided with the Democrats on the jobs bill in the Senate. Far from being that final nail in the coffin for the Democrat’s Senate super-majority, the elections in New York and Massachusetts with Tea Party activity have shown them inadvertently to be a moderating force. With the Tea Party having been co-opted by the radical right as a wholly owned subsidiary of Republican Inc, the electorate that would be ripe for a Republican wave is fractured. Republicans are going to gain seats this November that’s a fact, but this fracturing hampers what could be a monster year for them.
As for the filibuster in the Senate, the Tea Party looked to Scott Brown to solidify the unified refusal to allow legislation to an up or down vote. Senator Brown’s and other moderate Republicans moves to allow cloture on the jobs bill may quite talk of reforming or eliminating the practice. I don’t think they should, but it’s telling that for all the talk of partisanship we should look at history. Bill Clinton’s first budget did not gain one single Republican vote much as President Obama’s first. Democrats employed the filibuster with rare exceptions mostly with judicial nominees. Saying no to even an up or down vote and using the procedures of the Senate to stop it is not an electoral virtue. It also doesn’t entitle you to any talk or demand that the other side be more bi-partisan.
Related posts:
- On Preemptive End Zone Dancing For Scott Brown And Massa
- What Did Olympia Snowe’s Yes Vote Really Mean?
- Duval County Almost Followed Me Out The Party
- The Political Realities Of A Scott Brown Win Tonight
- Conservatives Inadvertently Argue For Separation Of Church And State
Loading ...
Ignoring the electoral politics of the tea party movement, they stalled health care reform, and I think ultimately it will die. That’s a pretty big accomplishment. And they have helped more conservative Republicans in primaries thus far, such as Rubio over Crist.
The health insurance lobby stalled health care, and there was conservative discontent brewing against Christ long before the first tea party was held here.
Congressmen being concerned about their futures had they supported health care reform stalled it. As to Crist, the tea parties represent conservative discontent, so while the tea party label may not have been affixed when Crist’s support started to lag, it’s the same thing.