The Freedom Fighter's Journal: "To Some Parts Sooner, to Others Later, But Finally to All"

The contemporary Tea Party movement is beginning to have global repercussions—just as it did the first time around.

Top News Stories

Commentary by Robert Tracinski

1. Radicalized

The big trend of this year is not just the voters' shift against the Democrats. On a more profound level, it is the radicalization of the pro-free-market right. This is the big message from the final round of Republican primaries and particularly the victories of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Carl Paladino in the New York governor's race.

Both candidates have significant problems that would otherwise make them unsuitable as candidates. (Paladino's flaws are extensively rehearsed by the New York Times, while O'Donnell has, well, this, among other problems.) But it was clear what Republican voters were doing: they were voting for the most radical candidate on the ballot, period.

They were also out to tear down the "moderate" statist Republican establishment. The Washington Post quotes one Delaware Republican:

"We just had a belief that we could beat the heck out of the GOP," said Lynn Brennan of Rehoboth, who helped form the Delaware Conservative Coalition this summer. "The way [Delaware GOP Chairman] Tom Ross has treated the conservatives in this state—oh, my Lord. No true conservative could come up through the ranks of the GOP, because Mike Castle and Tom Ross wouldn't let them."

Overall, I think beating down the establishment is a good thing, even if Republicans lose a few races that they might otherwise win. In this extraordinary year, it's better to go too far than not far enough. Note why we got Christine O'Donnell on the ballot: the Delaware GOP establishment has locked all other radical pro-free-marketers out of the party. My hope is that this year's primary result will break that lock across the country.

The goal is to encourage more radical candidates to come out of the woodwork. Many of them, precisely because they are—how shall I put this?—on more of an even keel than O'Donnell and Paladino, have stayed on the sidelines of politics because they thought they stood no chance. But now, for at least the next few elections, they may conclude that the political environment is open to them.

And of course the latest election results will encourage the Republican establishment to put forward more radical candidates than they would otherwise be inclined to do, precisely in order to stave off challenges from future O'Donnells and Paladinos.

And the big prize is the Republican presidential nomination. A New York Times analysis notes—no surprise here—that all of the 2012 contenders are moving to the right, and that some politicians are considering running who would not otherwise have done so. (Unfortunately, this includes Newt Gingrich, whose only firm ideological conviction is his belief in his own greatness.)

In the meantime, we're going to get a much more radical group of Republicans in Congress. See, for example, the profile of Alaska's Joe Miller in the main link below. And most deliciously of all, The New Republic wrings its hands over the fact that the new Congress is likely to be dominated by an incoming wave of global warming skeptics.

But as I've been saying, this radicalization of the Republican voters should also have the Republican Party terrified, because it burdens them with the responsibility of living up to their promises. As the Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger points out:

In a sense, the GOP's impending victory is meaningless, a win by default. If the Republican rookies entering Congress next year don't do something identifiably real to stop the federal-spending balloon, voters two years from now will start throwing the GOP under the bus. Absent action, the political rage and cynicism on offer in 2012 could make this year's tea parties look like, well, a tea party.

This takes us back to Tony Blankley's point about how the real shift to the right happens after the election—if the Republicans manage to act on a radical agenda and have a positive impact on the direction of the country.

"Fighting for Alaska," Robert Costa, National Review Online, September 7

After toppling Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's GOP Senate primary, Joe Miller is in no mood to compromise. Nor, he says, are fellow tea-party favorites who have won primaries across the country. "The people being elected outside of the establishment, like me, are not going to be co-opted," he predicts in an interview with National Review Online.
Miller, a Fairbanks attorney and Yale Law grad, touts his primary win as the latest example of Americans' expressing their frustration with Washington. He urges Republican leaders to "catch the wave." If they don't, he warns, "they will not be able to bring the new faces into line." His reasoning is simple: "We are being elected for a purpose: to transform the federal government, to get us away from the brink of bankruptcy. The leadership has to embrace that message or else there will be real problems."...
As much as he appreciates Palin's support, Miller hopes that his campaign will be about more than tea-party buzz. "I want to go after federal dependency," he says. Bringing that message to the 49th state, long reliant on federal dollars for infrastructure projects, is like ripping the bottle out of an overgrown baby's hands. "We need leaders with the courage to confront the entitlement state," he says.

2. Tsunami

With an unusually contentious set of Republican primaries behind us, we can now fully focus on the general election, and it is becoming clear that the anger turned against the Republican establishment is nothing compared to the public's repudiation of the Democrats. The main article below gets the right analogy: this is not a "wave" election; it's a tsunami.

The primary turnout continues to show a strong enthusiasm gap: Republican voters are motivated to turn out in unprecedented numbers, while Democratic voters are demoralized and apathetic.

And then, of course, the Democratic Party is doing everything it can to hasten its implosion.

Christine O'Donnell is a weak candidate, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just helped her out by describing her Democratic rival, Chris Coons, as "my pet"—not once, but twice. Now there's a campaign ad, ready and waiting.

And the Democratic National Committee got the press all spun up about a major announcement that was supposed to change the direction of the general election. It turns out to be a new logo and slogan. Try to contain your enthusiasm.

The Washington Examiner's J.P. Friere looks at the new logo and sees the same thing I saw: a target. How appropriate. I'll have to print me out one of those logos, run it out to 100 yards at the range, and see how many hits I can put inside the "D."

"The Tsunami Heads to Shore," Wall Street Journal, September 17

The pros tell us that 2010 will be a "wave" election, and if that's true then think of Republicans as passengers on a ship who have just watched the tsunami roll over them. A few were washed overboard on the port side, but the GOP is likely to suffer no more losses. Now the huge wave is roaring toward shore, heading directly for the Democrats who are running American government....
The real story of this election year is that the voters are massing to repudiate two years of the most liberal governance in two generations. It is Mr. Obama's agenda that has polarized the electorate and set off this voter backlash. Democratic candidates, incumbents or not, are admitting as much by fleeing from Mr. Obama, his priorities and even their own voting records.
In New York, Democrat Andrew Cuomo sounds like New Jersey Republican Chris Christie as he campaigns for governor by running against Albany, which is run by Democrats. In California, Jerry Brown is trying to regain the governorship by saying he won't raise taxes without voter approval. In Missouri, Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan is attacking Congressman Roy Blunt from the right—as an "insider" who supported earmarks. Across the country, the only Democrats running on ObamaCare are those who opposed it.
These stories and so many others show that the primaries have already moved the national debate sharply to the right. They have ended the boasts, so trendy in 2009, about a new era of liberal dominance. The tsunami is about seven weeks from shore, and the only question now is how many Democrats it washes out to sea.

3. "To Some Parts Sooner, to Others Later, But Finally to All"

The contemporary Tea Party movement is beginning to have global repercussions—just as it did the first time around, come to think of it.

So now, following the American example, we now have an Italian Tea Party and even one in the Philippines.

But I have the highest hopes for the new Tea Party in Australia, described in the main article below. It's a small start, but Australia's culture and political atmosphere is relatively close to America's, so it could have a real chance to take off.

Our Antipodean correspondent Tom Minchin comments: "In a small tentative way the Tea Party has arrived in Australia. If the US elections are a landslide, the beneficial effect can only grow. And if the new Congress actually blocks spending, Australians will fly to the US to learn how it's done."

All of this reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson said about the Declaration of Independence: "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be—to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all—the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government."

"Tea Party Comes to Australia," James Massola, The Australian, September 16

An anti-tax, anti-government Tea Party has set up shop in Australia, inspired by the US-based movement that has turned the Republican Party upside down.
The Australian T.E.A. Party (an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) will be targeting pre-selections across the country and heavily promotes its links to "our friends" in the United States.
Reluctant spokesman David Goodridge—"just call me the website editor"—says the grassroots movement has no plans to register as a political party, won't stand candidates and won't accept politicians as members....
"Basically it's based around...three general propositions," Mr Goodridge said.
"What should be the role of the government in the economy, what should be the role of government in people's lives and do you believe that you can spend your money better than government?"
The T.E.A. Party in Australia announces on its website that it is a "worldwide movement united for free markets, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited small governments and individual freedom."

4. Separation of Mosque and State

Among the things I don't like about Carl Paladino, the new Republican nominee for governor of New York, is his vow to use eminent domain to seize the land on which the Ground Zero Mosque is supposed to be built. This is a very bad idea, a dictatorial use of an illegitimate government power—which is diametrically opposed to what the Tea Parties stand for. (Of course, there are even worse ideas, like bombing the mosque.)

Incidentally, I think I've put my finger on the real motives of the imam of the proposed mosque, Faisal Abdul Rauf. He's working the "moderate Muslim" racket. He says just enough, to his overseas Arab and Muslim audiences, to make them think he's sympathetic to Muslim prejudices and Islamist values. Then he comes home and says just enough in the other direction to convince gullible leftists back home that he is opposing the "extremists."

But his real trick—and his real purpose in building so close to Ground Zero—is to turn himself into a celebrity and his mosque into a politically correct cause. That was the main point I took from his New York Times op-ed, especially this passage.

The wonderful outpouring of support for our right to build this community center from across the social, religious and political spectrum seriously undermines the ability of anti-American radicals to recruit young, impressionable Muslims by falsely claiming that America persecutes Muslims for their faith. These efforts by radicals at distortion endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide. This is why Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides.

Remember that Rauf wants to make himself master of a $100 million complex, which makes him a "big wheel" by any measure. But from what I can tell, he hasn't raised even a fraction of that money. So his trick is to convert the entire left-of-center wing of American politics into his fund-raising apparatus. The message is: advance my career, in order to show how much you care about "tolerance." That's the con game he is running.

The irony is that, despite Rauf's claims, most of the Muslim world doesn't seem to care and even seems impressed that in America such matter are not summarily settled by the decree of a dictator. And at least one American Muslim has written eloquently about how the freedom America provides for Muslim immigrants is such an enormous and undeniable value that it is irrelevant whether Americans accept the Ground Zero Mosque.

But my real point in returning to this issue is to emphasize the positive: how good most conservatives have been at identifying and sticking to the proper philosophical principles, opposing the mosque while still upholding the First Amendment. I particularly liked the editorial below, from the Washington Examiner's David Freddoso, because it identifies the issue in terms of separation of mosque and state—and grasps that if we want that separation in one direction, to keep Islam from grabbing state power, we have to enforce it in the other direction, too.

"On Separating Mosque and State in Lower Manhattan," David Freddoso, Washington Examiner, September 7

Carl Paladino, a Republican candidate in next week's primary election for governor of New York, styles himself as a conservative "Tea Party" candidate. Here's what he says about the proposed Park 51 Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan:
"As governor, I will use the power of eminent domain to stop the mosque, and use the site as a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country."
For a Tea Party movement whose adherents rail against bureaucracy and socialism, decry the legalized plunder of the corporate welfare state, and cite Hayek and Bastiat on their makeshift protest signs, Paladino's message seems like a bandwagon headed in the wrong direction, and fast....
American freedom of religion arose as a reaction to centuries of secular powers that cynically used religion to increase their own power and justify unholy wars and confiscations of wealth. We reject this paradigm and the circumstances under which it arose. Our Constitution unequivocally prefers religious fanaticism to its alternative—state-enforced orthodoxy against religious fanatics....
There is no sugar-coating the reality that the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 were inspired by the Prophet Muhammad and the religion he founded. But we all understand, I hope, that they did not represent the entire Muslim world.
Assuming that the backers of this mosque cannot be linked directly to terrorists and arrested, we're faced with a simple choice. We can either follow the lead of Ferdinand and Isabel by expelling every Muslim from America, or we can let them "build the danged mosque" and be done with it.

5. The Empire Without the Emperor

Our anti-American president is dedicated to the elimination and retraction of American power—but one thing we can count on, to mitigate the consequences of this retreat from the world, is that America's allies will do what they can to step in and fill the gap. America's pre-eminent power and leadership in the world is such a value that they will help us sustain it during temporary periods of debility, such as the Carter and Obama administrations.

Hence a recent dispatch from the Middle East Media Research Institute, which passes on a report that India—which is now an important American ally, even though our "special relationship" has not been formally cemented—is stepping in to prevent appeasement of the Taliban in Afghanistan, backing a coalition in the Afghan government that opposes negotiations with Taliban leaders.

"India in Move to Form Anti-Taliban Coalition in Afghanistan," Tufail Ahmad, Middle East Media Research Institute, September 7

The formation of the High Council for Peace is part of President Karzai's moves for peace talks with the Taliban, a strategy that seeks to reintegrate the militants into Afghan society by giving them administrative and police jobs. The Karzai initiative is supported by the United States and the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which backs the Taliban. The ISI hopes that some Taliban leaders will be part of the Kabul government as a result of the talks....
In recent months, the ISI has pursued a dual policy of supporting the secret talks with the Taliban in order to gain a foothold in Kabul, as well as of encouraging the Taliban to increase their attacks on the US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The prospect of the Taliban returning to power in Kabul as a result of the talks worries India the most, as it has poured in hundreds of millions of dollars in reconstruction works in Afghanistan. Now, India is recalibrating its Afghan policy.
According to a report in the Pashtu-language Afghan newspaper Wrazpanra Weesa, India and other regional powers are moving in the direction of forming an anti-Taliban coalition.
Over the past two weeks some former leaders of the Northern Alliance, which assumed power after the US troops dislodged the Taliban from power in 2001, have held secret talks with Indian officials to build an alliance against the Taliban in Afghanistan.