Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

'Tea Party' Founder: Why Our Movement Will Succeed -- and Why It's Good for America

Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

'Tea Party' Founder: Why Our Movement Will Succeed -- and Why It's Good for America

Article excerpt

A cofounder of the St. Louis Tea Party lays out his vision for a better America.

Imagine that the "tea party" movement continued to expand in size and influence. At some point in the future, tea partyers, regardless of political party affiliation, would dominate the executive and legislative branches of federal government. Our influence on the courts would increase. In this scenario, the tea party would eventually change the face of the federal government.

What would America look like then?

Before we answer that question, remember that no single person speaks for the tea party movement. Tea partyers hold political views that run the gamut from traditional Christian conservative to libertarian. We can't describe a tea party future without answering the question, "Which tea partyer are you talking about?"

If we select the most common points of agreement, however, we can paint a fairly accurate picture of the changes tea partyers would likely make to our government and how those changes could alter your relationship to Washington. First let's look at the most common themes among tea partyers.

While many local tea party organizations involve themselves in local or state issues and races, the movement's primary interest lies in Washington. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans distrust the federal government, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. Among tea partyers, that statistic is closer to 9 in 10. That's important because it highlights a very important common theme: a libertarian view of Washington's role.

Tea partyers would reduce the scope of federal power in two ways. First, we would trim federal legislation, reducing the Federal Register - the daily publication of federal rules, regulations, orders, and notices - from more than 69,000 pages to, say, 10,000 pages, as it was in 1950. Second, we would eliminate the legislative power of federal departments and agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency would no longer be able to declare the mud puddle in my backyard federally protected wetlands citing nothing more than bureaucratic fiat.

For you, this means that Washington would have less direct influence over your life. You could plan for the future knowing that your property is your property. You would not need a Washington bureaucrat's permission to paint your house blue or to put in a swimming pool. You would not have to buy government-approved health insurance or drive a government-made car.

This change will significantly increase your personal political power. Today, Washington has undue influence over your life. And changing federal law is nearly impossible. You either have to hire an expensive team of lobbyists or convince at least half of all Americans voters to support the candidates for Congress who support your idea of reform. Do you have that kind of time and money?

Tea partyers want to restore the balance of power in America, making state and local governments more important than the federal government, as was intended by the US Constitution, and which was the case for the first half of US history. Under this arrangement, the number of people you'd need to influence to change the law drops quickly. Federalism and a smaller national government means individuals carry more power.

The Constitution lists a very limited number of activities that the United States may perform on our behalf. The tea party movement would implement a plan to phase out those activities, departments, and agencies that came about outside the amendment process of the Constitution. Expect to see the departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs disappear over time. Homeland Security, which comprises some legitimate activities, would be splintered into more manageable parts.

If we want to hold on to an existing department whose mission is beyond the constitutional roles of government, then Congress and the states would have to adopt a constitutional amendment to establish that new power. …

Author Advanced search


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.