BALANCING HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC POLICY AND POLITICS: Why the Tea Party Movement Makes the Left Nervous

Balancing Healthcare, Public Policy and Politics with Linda de Seife

On April 15th, tax day, I attended my first Tea Party in front of Town Hall in my community of about 60,000 residents. All in all, it was a pretty sedate affair. It drew about 200 people, some from neighboring towns. Mostly, it was comprised of known Republican activists. Many of the speakers were Republican candidates for statewide office. We were welcomed by our First Selectman (the New England equivalent of mayor). Both my friend and I were surprised that he would publicly support the tea party movement. And, there were a couple of known Democratic leaders who quietly listened, but were subsequently quoted in the local paper, defending their President’s policies.

Prior to rally day, the national tea party movement sent e-mails containing instructions on behavior and warning about potential rowdy infiltrators seeking to paint the movement in an unfavorable light. By preparing, and outing these hooligans, the tea party organizers almost guaranteed that they would not show up. Good for them!

Whether through infiltrating rallies or trying to marginalize the movement, as the President and his supporters have, my question is, “why do they feel it necessary?” What are they afraid of?
Maybe they’re afraid of these statistics:

• An April 13th Rasmussen poll indicates that 24% of U.S. voters say they consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Another 10% say they have close friends and family who are.


• 48% of voters now say that the average tea party member is closer to their views on major issues than President Obama. 52% believe that the average tea partier has a better understanding of the issues facing America than the average Member of Congress.


• Just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government now enjoys the consent of the governed.

Add to this the results of a new Pew poll which finds historic levels of unhappiness about the federal government and its role in Americans’ lives. Only 22% said that they can trust the federal government always or almost always, the lowest level in 50 years.

While this level of discontent is a worry for all incumbents, two factors should cause more worry for Democrats: first, they have the most to lose; and, second, the Pew poll also found that the discontent runs more deeply among Independents and Republicans. Those who are highly dissatisfied say they are absolutely certain to vote. Historically, passion and intensity are strongly correlated to turnout and results, especially in mid-term elections.

What else are the tea party bashers afraid of? Maybe what they’re afraid of is that a majority of the American people is not buying in to their culture of dependence. Michael Barone’s April 19th commentary in the Rasmussen Report nailed it. “The Obama Democrats’ vast expansion of the size and scope of government is really not just about economics. It is really a battle about culture… (they) see a society in which ordinary people cannot fend for themselves. They are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens’ dependence on it.”

The tea partiers, on the other hand, believe in the culture of independence which motivated the Founding Fathers and which has enabled America to become the most productive and prosperous nation. We believe in American exceptionalism, Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on the hill.”

Barone further points out that Obama won election in 2008 with a “top-and-bottom” coalition – those dependent on government transfers and benefits, and those in what David Brooks calls “the educated class.” Obama barely exceeded 50% among those between the two extremes. These are the believers in the culture of independence who are fueling the tea party movement.

Although the tea party movement is a grass roots, decentralized one, their message comes together in the “Contract from America” (See www.thecontract.org for more details.) The #1 plank in the contract is protect the Constitution. This is followed by: reject cap and trade, demand a balanced budget, enact fundamental tax reform, and restore fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government in Washington.

George McGovern learned the power of the “silent majority” in 1972. When almost half of voters say that the average tea party member is closer to their views than the President is, today we are a not-so-silent majority who support the moral values of the culture of independence and the constitutional values of limited government based on the consent of the governed.

Archibald Mac Leish said, “Criticism in a free man’s country is made on certain assumptions, one of which is the assumption that the government belongs to the people and is at all times subject to the people’s correction and criticism.” The criticism has been loud and clear. November should bring the correction.


Quote of the Month: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
-- Ronald Reagan


For more information, please visit Linda's TNNW Bio.

---

The National Networker Companies™

“Empowering Emerging Enterprises”

Membership in TNNWC’s Global Interactive Cooperative Business Community is free of charge and entitles you to receive both The National Networker Newsletter and The BLUE TUESDAY Report, as well as access to our unparalleled Suite of Business Services.

Join Us! Simply click on http://bit.ly/JoinTNNWC

Visit our website at http://www.TheNationalNetworker.com

Forward/Share This Article With Colleagues And Social Media:

BALANCING HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC POLICY AND POLITICS: Why the Tea Party Movement Makes the Left Nervous

BALANCING HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC POLICY AND POLITICS:Massachusetts Leads A New American Revolution -- What it Means for Health Care and the 2010 Elections

Balancing Healthcare, Public Policy and Politics with Linda De Seife

On January 19, 2010, the citizens of Massachusetts once again fired a shot heard ‘round the world – or at least across the United States. The election of Scott Brown, a Republican, to fill the vacancy left by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, should send a strong message to Washington, and to Democrats in particular, that the movement for smaller government, less federal intrusion into the lives of its people, and reductions in spending and deficits is not the creation of Fox News, right-wing nuts, and tea party extremists as Democrats in the Congress and the White House have tried to spin it.

I say, “should” because until now this group has been so arrogant and out of touch with what the people believe, I’m not sure that they still will “get it.” The results in New Jersey and Virginia were the first signal, but those events were rationalized away by some. Anyone who tries to rationalize Massachusetts, on top of the other two results, is simply delusional. As moderate Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana said, “If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.”

So, what does the Massachusetts result mean for health care reform? As I write this, speculation is rampant, and the Democrats are still trying to figure out their game plan. The bills (House and Senate) in their current form may be dead, but I do not believe that health insurance reform in general is dead, although it will take longer and look different.

When I first started to write this Nancy Pelosi had just announced that she does not have the votes to pass the Senate bill in tact.

Now two weeks and the State of the Union have passed, and the President is calling a bi-partisan health care meeting to be televised from Blair House. The Republicans are considering boycotting the meeting, if the President refuses to start from scratch on a health insurance reform bill.

By the time you read this who knows what the state of the health care reform debate will be. So let’s look at what the Massachusetts results mean for November 2010.

America is basically a center/slightly right leaning nation. The election of 2008 was a vote against the recent past, not a mandate for far left, big government as the Democrats believed. The change that was promised has not been delivered. Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. So blaming Bush for everything doesn’t work any more; it’s their record now.

In December I discussed recent poll results showing the Democrats losing the Independent voters, the young voters who showed up in 2008 not turning out, and older voters being alienated by their policy positions. Those trends seem to be continuing. In a current Washington Post/ABC News survey just released (1/20/10), 62% of the American people said that the country is on the wrong track. This is down from November results which showed 55% saying wrong track. And the numbers are worse among Independents – 66% wrong track. Similarly, a post-election poll of Massachusetts voters by The Washington Post, the Kaiser Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health shows 63% saying that the country is seriously off track. As of February 4th, these numbers remain pretty stable at about 62% saying the country is on the wrong track.

But, the Republicans also need to be careful. It’s about the message, not the party. The American people are “mad as hell and not going to take it any more,” to quote the movie Network. That could impact both parties, but the Democrats have more to lose. Remember, all politics is local; however, there are consistent messages that can be adapted to local conditions. Scott Brown probably could not win in South Carolina, but Jim DeMint could not win in Massachusetts. So Republicans need to focus on their principles of fiscal conservatism, small government, and national security, and let the local political environment determine the rest.

Early last year, the Republican party was written off, and some suggested that it lacked strong leadership. Today, the apparent lack of strong leadership seems like a good thing. Let each Republican candidate run the campaign that works for him or her in each state or district. The only time the parties are at all national is in presidential campaigns. What the Republican party looks like, the mosaic, will come to light only after 2010. And that’s okay. I believe that the attempt at the RNC meeting at the end of January to impose a litmus test on Republican candidates is a mistake.

Perhaps more telling from the post-election Massachusetts poll is that the 2008 Obama coalition splintered the same way it did in Virginia and New Jersey. There was significant erosion among whites, independents and working-class voters. Could we be seeing the re-emergence of the Reagan coalition?

Two days after Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court fired another round into the 2010 election season by striking down campaign spending limits for corporations and unions. This has caused much hand wringing and the Administration is vowing to put forth legislation that would “correct” this, declaring that the decision will only increase special interest spending and influence.

My personal opinion is that this is just more grandstanding, trying to re-take the populist ground. Corporations are in business to return profits to shareholders; so there is a self-imposed limit on how much they will spend on political advocacy. And, private sector labor union membership is at a record low, meaning fewer dollars available for them to spend also. So, as the Court found, this is just an upholding of the First Amendment right to free speech; the market and good business practices will determine the spending limits.

Before we get too caught up in bashing the interests of big business, we need to remember a couple of things: a) the millions of Americans that are employed there; and b) the millions who have 401Ks, IRAs and pension funds invested there. It is in almost everyone’s best interest to see business succeed. Even unions should be interested in seeing their employers remain healthy; they sometimes forget that without the companies there would be no unions.

To come back to the analogy of politicians and brands, advertising agencies and media planners know that there is a saturation point. All sides will be spending a lot of money; that will increase competition and help the economy. So, let the games begin!

Quote of the Month: “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude.” -- George Washington

For more information, please visit Linda's TNNW Bio.





Published by THE NATIONAL NETWORKER Newsletter. All rights reserved. Subscribe Free For Your TNNW Newsletter and THE BLUE MONDAY REPORT! - Click HERE.
The National Networker Companies

Forward/Share This Article With Colleagues And Social Media:

BALANCING HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC POLICY AND POLITICS:Massachusetts Leads A New American Revolution -- What it Means for Health Care and the 2010 Elections

BALANCING HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC POLICY AND POLITICS: A Political Phenomenon -- Sarah Palin

Balancing Healthcare, Public Policy and Politics with Linda de Seife

Since her vice presidential run, and with the recent publication of her autobiography, Sarah Palin has become even more of an American curiosity. In addition to her autobiography, our local library has no less than five other books about her. And, a 2009 year-end Gallup Poll found Sarah Palin to be the second most admired woman in the nation, only 1% behind Hillary Clinton; and first among Independents as well as Republicans. Yet, she remains a polarizing figure -- either loved or loathed. The goal here is to objectively analyze Sarah Palin as a political phenomenon.

After reading Lorenzo Benet’s book, Trailblazer, An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin last fall, over the holidays, I read Palin’s book, Going Rogue, because I was interested to learn her side of her story; and now I have also read Sarah from Alaska by Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe. Let me tell you, after three books, my brain is overloaded with information on her. But, based on my experience working with politicians, there are enough consistencies among all three to provide a pretty good picture, though an outsider’s one.

The bottom line is that no one of any political stripe should underestimate Sarah Palin. In her there is part Ronald Reagan (one of her idols), part the young Newt Gingrich, and believe it or not, part Barack Obama.

Whatever else she may be, Sarah Palin is a great communicator; she instinctively knows how to connect with people on an emotional level – not unlike Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Having studied journalism and gotten her start as a sports reporter in Alaska, she knows how to make headlines. She knows how to get your attention. How many phrases are now a part of the American vernacular as a result of Sarah Palin? Phrases like: “putting lipstick on a pig,” “hockey moms,” “only dead fish go with the flow,” to mention just a few. In addition, she has an excellent memory for the details of people’s lives and never ceases to amaze them with recollections of previous conversations – classic traits of a good politician. These talents, along with challenging the establishment, are what propelled her to the governorship of Alaska.

When it comes to the national arena, however, I believe that Sarah Palin was naïve in her expectations. Like Dorothy from Kansas, Sarah was not in Alaska any more. This is not meant to be a commentary on the 2008 campaign, but it does seem that the professional political operatives in the McCain campaign did not handle Sarah Palin well. (They should have talked to the Alaska supporter quoted by Conroy and Walshe below!) And, on the other hand, Palin did not realize the requirements of the national stage.

She is very capable of studying issues and getting to the heart of what is important. One of her Alaska commissioners commented, “I think she has an innate ability to cut to the chase (to determine) what is the primary issue she needs to be involved in for the topic at hand… she doesn’t get bogged down in extraneous issues.” On the other hand, when she “gets a bee in her bonnet,” she is capable of being very hands on. A supporter says, “She had remarkably good political instincts. She was her own campaign manager. You couldn’t micromanage her to say something.”

Sarah Palin is a much brighter, more complex person than her detractors and the mainstream media would lead us to believe. According to Conroy and Walshe, after meeting her at a Washington cocktail party, even Andrea Mitchell commented, “Boy, I’ve sure turned around on Sarah Palin. She is very smart and very nice.”

What makes Sarah Palin so intriguing and yet so frustrating is that she can be unpredictable and undisciplined. When she talks about challenging the establishment, one wants to say, “Go, Sarah.” Then there are other times when one thinks, “Oh no, how could she say or do this or that.”

Reading between the lines of her own explanation for leaving the governorship early and the comments of others, it sounds like it was difficult for her to return to Alaska from the national arena; she went back a different person from the one who left. As much as she loves Alaska, in many ways, she couldn’t go home again. Like the song says, “how you gonna keep ‘em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree!” No matter who you are, that would be a hard adjustment.

My view is that Sarah Palin is in the process of maturing as a politician and a leader. Based on my experience working with politicians new to the national stage, she is experiencing some growing pains. She was thrust into the national spotlight even more dramatically than most. She needs to figure out what kind of public figure she wants to be, develop a strategy and a plan to become that, and not go “off-strategy.” Going rogue can become going nowhere, if it’s not part of a cohesive strategy!

Working on ‘The Hill’ when Newt Gingrich was a freshman Congressman, I remember how he was perceived as a radical; then he led his party out of more than forty years of minority status to become Speaker of the House; and then to seemingly self-destruct. Today, however, he is considered one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking, innovative policy experts our country has. He is working with ideas to move our nation forward. He hasn’t strayed from his conservative principles, but he is perceived very differently today.

So, Sarah Palin needs to find her way too. I don’t know if she will run for President in 2012, or any other year. I believe that she has a future as a national spokesperson for her viewpoints; that she could become a powerbroker within the Republican party; and certainly she could make a lot of money as a conservative commentator. The one thing I’m sure of, after all my study, is that no one of any political stripe should underestimate Sarah Palin.

What it means and why it’s important: Foisting Sarah Palin onto the national stage was John McCain’s ultimate maverick move that could have repercussions long after he’s left that stage. The implications for the Republican party, and the nation, of Sarah Palin’s rise could be significant. Will she be a uniter or a divider? In her book, she calls herself a “Commonsense Conservative.” Will she develop her “brand” and how? (A future column will focus on politicians as brands.) Wherever she goes, she gets publicity, driving her opponents crazy. She will undoubtedly be a force to be reckoned with.

Quote of the month: “Sarah’s not retreating; she’s reloading!” – Chuck Heath, Sr. (Sarah Palin’s quoted in Going Rogue)





Published by THE NATIONAL NETWORKER Newsletter. All rights reserved. Subscribe Free For Your TNNW Newsletter and THE BLUE MONDAY REPORT! - Click HERE.
The National Networker Companies

Forward/Share This Article With Colleagues And Social Media:

BALANCING HEALTHCARE, PUBLIC POLICY AND POLITICS: A Political Phenomenon -- Sarah Palin