New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google

This text will be replaced
About Frank Salvato
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of the International Analyst Network. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain's America Radio Show airing on AM1220 WSRQ and on the Internet catering to the US Armed Forces around the world and on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the USA Radio Network. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements.

Social Bookmarking

Past Articles
The Tea Party Movement, The GOP & Making It Work
The Time Is Ripe for Divide & Conquer
The Janus Face of the Progressive Democrats
At This Point It’s About Defining the "Win”
American Liberty v. Obama’s Social Engineering
Is the Constitution Just a Grand Suggestion?
Have Dems Been Marginalized within Their Own Party
Confronting the Spin on the Fort Hood Massacre
Pretending to Speak for an Entire Culture
When Ideology Masks Ignorance
It's Time to Pay Close Attention to the Politicians
The Only Real Strategy for Afghanistan
Why Obama Will Throw ACORN Under the Bus
"Please, God, No...It's So Hot, I'm Burning Up"
Missing the Larger Point on the Public Option
Challenging the Status Quo
You Say You Want a Real Solution
'You Have Awakened the Sleeping Giant'
"Birther" Label Overshadows a Real Issue
Reading Legislation...It’s Your Job!
A Government Run by Mrs. Kravitz
Instituting a Safeguard Against Political &...Tyranny
Amid All the Celebrity Deaths, A Reality Check
When In The Course of Human Events...
Genocide or Massacre, US Repeating Mistakes...
The Path to the Future Requires a Return to the Roots
With All Things, Facts & Truth Matter
Gitmo, Liberals, Politics & Deceit
Obama, Cheney & The Bright Shiny Thing
Nancy Pelosi: Damaged Beyond Repair
Radical Islam By Any Other Name...
Celebrating the Exit of a RINO, Cheering as Rome...
Specter: An Opportunist Guilty of Political Treason
A Week for the Earth; A Day for the Constitution
Left Is Making a Mistake in Ridiculing the Tea Parties
Obama’s European Tour: Arrogance, Ineptness &...
The Two-Faced Brutality of Hope & Change
The United States of America Is Not a Democracy
The ‘Give Obama a Chance’ Trial Period is Over
Recognizing the Reality of Radical Islam
‘Oh, God!’ It’s Bobby Jindal!
Determining the Intent of the Pres. Determination
It’s Not Obama’s "Stimulus” Bill
Time to Admit the Realities of Pakistan
Gaza & The One-World Media’s Propaganda
Illinois Politics, Chicago Corruption...I Told You So
Barack Obama: Neither Oblivious Nor Deceptive
Why the POTUS Needs to Be a Natural-Born Citizen
A Cornucopia of Gratitude
Giving Marriage Back to the Church

Frank Salvato, Managing Editor

The Tea Party Movement, The GOP & Making It Work
January 29, 2010

Only the most partisan and/or politically ignorant among us would fail to recognize the magnitude, importance and the consequences of the Tea Party Movement. To be certain, it is a force to be reckoned with. But, as with the science of storms, there is a danger when two forces compete to occupy the same space. We of the Right side of the aisle must recognize this danger and insist that actions are taken, definitions are designated and roles are recognized, lest we turn an important moment in time into catastrophic history.

The Tea Party Movement
The first thing we have to do is to recognize and understand exactly what the Tea Party Movement is, where it came from and why.

Many in the political world have erroneously identified the Tea Party Movement as a political group not unlike the Democrats, Libertarians or Republicans. In fact, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Proof to this reality is in the fact that people who have embraced the Tea Party Movement come from every flavor of politics. When over a million people descended on Washington in the name of the Tea Party Movement last Fall, the crowd was comprised of people from every political party – sans the Progressives, every social background, every religion and every race. To say that it is dominated by any one political party is to make a huge mistake.

The Tea Party Movement – and the name itself is symbolic rather than manufactured – is, in reality, the re-awakening of the American people to their obligation to civic responsibility; to governmental oversight. This is nothing new or revolutionary, as was the original Boston Tea Party of 1773.

This re-awakening is actually a return to the obligation of citizenry as envisioned by the Founders and Framers. People like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and Madison took for granted that the citizenry would understand their role in government: that of the overseer. The Founders and Framers believed that we would be vigilant in providing governmental oversight, in understanding just who we were electing to office and in holding them accountable for their actions. In short, they believed we, as citizens, would do our part by paying attention to government.

The truth is We the People began to abdicate this solemn responsibility with the advent of government entitlement and as apathy increased, political opportunists, ideologues and nefarious elements – such as the Progressive Movement, the globalists and their proxies – took hold in government. As we slid ever deeper into the abyss of political apathy we lost out government to special interest groups and those who would want to "fundamentally transform” our country from a Constitutional Republic to a cog in a new One-World Order.

The Tea Party Movement is – for all practical purposes – We the People re-establishing our rightful place at the top of the governmental food chain, from whence all the power of government is derived. It is not a political party. It is the American people re-establishing their constitutional right of governmental oversight and redress of government.

Re-Establishing the GOP Brand
Understanding that the Republican Party can never "own” the Tea Party Movement – essentially because the Tea Party Movement is a mindset and not an entity – there remains the issue of re-establishing the Republican brand.

The fact that the Republican brand is in trouble – and has been since at least 2006 – is attributable not only to the lack of governmental oversight by We the People, but by the lack of oversight targeting the political party hierarchy by rank-and-file Republicans. The GOP allowed itself to be co-opted – to a great extent – by inside-the-beltway political operatives that cared more about winning elections than advancing Republican principles.

To recap, aside for its staunch stance against slavery and its support of the Missouri Compromise, the original platform of the Republican Party circa 1856 establishes that the Republican Party stood for:

▪ A rededication of government to constitutional principles, philosophies and limitations

▪ A strong, prudent and principled national security

▪ A well-maintained infrastructure

And perhaps the most important and defining provision,

"RESOLVED, That we invite the affiliation and cooperation of the men of all parties, however differing from us in other respects, in support of the principles herein declared; and believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.”

Simply stated, the platform of 1856 created the "big tent” party that Republican National Committee members say they quest for today by limiting the planks in the platform and by employing the understanding that it is more important to safeguard an individual’s right to advance their own "special interest” agenda (please understand that the term "special interest” doesn’t necessarily mean something unsavory) than it is to champion that special interest as a part of the party’s platform.

This concept is brilliance in practice.

The Republicans who crafted the original platform understood that legislating the micromanagement of specific societal mores was a no-win proposition. If one administration choose to advance legislation – or even the establishment of a constitutional amendment – to champion a specific special interest issue, it was understood that all that would be necessary to render that legislation moot would be for a future administration, in possession of an opposing view on the issue, to simply overturn or craft legislation nullifying the prior legislation. They recognized that legislated solutions to societal and/or cultural ills would never – and could never – render the issue resolved. A perfect example of this comes in the issue of prohibition.

Instead, the Republicans who established the original party platform understood that protecting the right of the individual – the right of the individual – to affect societal change and establish cultural mores outside the confines of government was the singular effective political component in resolving societal differences. The Republican Party of 1856 stood for defending the individual’s right to affect society and the societal norms, and they expected that the citizenry would be self-motivated and self-sufficient enough to embrace that freedom and the self-ordained civic responsibility to engage on behalf of their societal beliefs.

Today, aside from recovering from the moniker of spendthrift, the Republican Party has morphed into a mirror image of the Progressive-held Democrat Party. They say "black” and the GOP says "white.” They have planks in their platform about separation of church and state, abortion, gay rights, etc. and the GOP simply takes the opposite viewpoint. This tactic does not create a choice, it creates division. It does not advance the principles and philosophy of Americanism, it advances factionalism with the body politic, something James Madison and George Washington identified as a direct threat to the Republic.

In re-branding the Republican Party, the leadership would serve its members – and the country – best by refusing to expand the platform to include special interest planks and, instead, returning to the limited plank platform of its roots, where the party championed individual freedom and individual responsibility and engagement where issues of societal mores were concerned, not the legislation of ideological solutions or social engineering. The GOP must resign itself to defending an individual’s right to affect change, not to being the vehicle for that change.

The Role of Today’s GOP & The Tea Party Movement
As I stated in the beginning, in the science of storms, there is a danger when two forces compete to occupy the same space. This is exquisitely illustrated in the dichotomy of power now playing out between the Tea Party Movement and the Republican Party, most significantly where candidates for office are concerned.

I was heartened to hear that Republican National Committee Political Director Gentry Collins stated the RNC would exercise a "light touch” in the 2010 midterm elections. This approach promises to diminish what could have been a disastrous confrontation between candidates championed by the Tea Party Movement and candidates "mandated” by the RNC. But this is simply a commutation of the inevitable unless a reformation is undertaken by the RNC hierarchy.

In re-branding itself, it would wise for the GOP to take the opportunity afforded by this unique moment in American history to re-invent itself. The Republican National Committee – along with Republican organizations at every level – must re-structure itself to be less the inside-the-beltway command and control entity (an entity that mandates candidates and strong-arms platforms and agendas, which it has most certainly evolved into) and re-dedicate itself to becoming more of a mammoth and viciously efficient support and organizational tool that embraces candidates sent up from the grassroots; Conservatives re-awakened to their constitutionally mandated civic responsibility who have taken it upon themselves to run for office in 2010, 2012 and through the future.

If the Republican Party can wrap its brain around the strategic brilliance of this re-invention, it will position itself to be the preferred political party of those in the Tea Party Movement; it will be the avenue and political structure through which the Tea Party Movement advances their preferred candidates.

If the Republican Party refuses to understand the dramatically changed political landscape of the country, if they refuse to evolve from the inside-the-beltway mentality that allows for the existence of egotistical power-players no different from the elitists now in control of Congress, should the GOP insist on maintaining the status quo, they will be compromised, marginalized and, perhaps, even destroyed by the re-awakening of the American people to their constitutionally mandated obligation to governmental engagement and oversight.

Simply put, the GOP can either adapt and enjoy a promising future or become ineffective.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review