By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 06/17/12
Intra-party struggles are nothing new. In a two-party system
as we have, there are always party members who feel theirs is either too
liberal, or too conservative. What we have experienced this past year in local,
state, and national party structures is nothing new, as ideologies are parsed,
and attempts are made by individuals or groups of individuals to swing party
allegiance one way or the other.
Typically internal party challenges are ideologically
oriented. That’s what the primary election process is all about; selecting
candidates for each of the two major parties that are felt by party voters to
best represent their respective parties.
The intra-party struggle for self-identity can be
characterized aptly by the Asian yin and yang, the symbol closely identified to
Taoism. The light and dark teardrop shapes are constantly in a state of flux or
self-identification, and yet share the majority of their border with the other.
This connection indicates how perceived contrarian forces are truly
interconnected as well as interdependent.
Likewise, the forces of party self-definition, seeking their
ideological identity, are constantly in a state of flux, where current economic
and political climate, candidates, and ascending ideologies affect the overall
composition of the party. One is not good while the other bad, but they’re both
critical to the overall composition of the party as the forces vie for
ascendency in every election cycle.
Political labels are unavoidable, as political parties,
candidates, pollsters, and media all incorporate them for purposes of
identification and classification. Some, however, are used pejoratively, as in
the classification of “RINOs,” (Republicans in Name Only), and the “Old Guard,
which are sometimes used interchangeably, though incorrectly.
The “Old Guard” in most cases constitutes the long-time,
sometimes life-long, party leaders who have been in the trenches fighting the
good fight for conservatism all along. They are, by definition, not synonymous
with “RINOs,” as they have been the standard bearers shaping the party platform
over the years, where RINOs clearly reject many if not all, of the conservative
planks.
Headlines in the Journal of late have indicated a schism
within the ranks of the Bannock County Republican Party apparatus. The
headlines are based falsely, in my estimation, on a difference in ideology. Having
been on board from the earliest stages of the Tea Party movement locally, I
know what the movement is based upon. The ten planks of the Tea Party movement
are: eliminate excessive taxes, eliminate the national debt, eliminate deficit
spending, protect free markets, abide by the Constitution of the United States,
promote civic responsibility, reduce the overall size of government, believe in
the people, avoid the pitfalls of politics, and maintain local independence.
This past week I had the opportunity to visit extensively on
ideology, campaigning, organization, and electioneering with those classified
as the “Old Guard” of the Republican Party in Bannock County. With each one, I
reviewed the core principles of the Tea Party movement, as listed above. And
without exception, each one agreed in toto.
Having known these men for years, I would’ve been surprised
by any response to the contrary, for they are honorable, civic-conscious
conservatives who uphold and defend the Constitution and have spent the
majority of their adult lives advancing conservative principles.
This presents a conundrum for the relative newcomers to the
party, the Tea Partiers and Ron Paul supporters, for if there is no ideological
chasm that exists between them and the “Old Guard,” what is the source of
animus?
It seems to me that the original source of the schism seems
to be an artificial one created by a neophyte who appeared locally on the scene
a few years ago and then left just as suddenly, who somehow convinced the
newcomers that the Old Guard was the “enemy.” And without an ideological basis
upon which to make such an assertion, the “Old Guard” became disparaged and demonized.
In the absence of ideological differences, all that remains
is more superficial stylistic distinctions of leadership style, organization,
and management, none of which are sufficiently substantive to warrant the
degree of acrimony recently observed.
This brings us to the Tea Partiers and the Ron Paul
libertarians. The Tea Party movement found traction in the perception that
President Obama and his facilitating congress were racing the country to a
constitutional and fiscal precipice, at which the republic would be cast to
ruin. Ron Paul, as a libertarian Republican, capitalized on much of the Tea
Party momentum with his no-nonsense approach to reducing spending, basing
federal governance on constitutional principles, and denouncing the devaluation
of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Notice I said much of the Tea Party
momentum. One can be a Tea Party conservative and not be a Ron Paul supporter,
as I have illustrated in earlier columns, and which fact I stand in evidence
of.
Tea Party conservatives are opposed to the direction the
country is headed, and strive for a return to the constitutional precepts,
economic system, and classical-liberal ideals that made America great, and can
make her great once again. Ron Paul supporters, for the most part, believe
similarly, but with the proviso that inextricably connects a single persona with
those principles. As a result, they fall subject to the same errant “messiah” complex
that Obama sycophants connected with him as the standard bearer of “hope and
change.” A messiah complex is creepy enough on it’s own, but in politics, is both
disturbing and illogical. It is a mistake to embrace one person as the
embodiment of correct principles, unless one is speaking eschatologically of
The Messiah, for there’s only one of Him.
One of the dogmatic and idyllic characteristics of these
groups is the rejection of compromise, for that’s a “sin” in their lexicon. If
compromise is seen as abdication and acquiescence, I totally agree, it should
be a “sin.” But true compromise on legislation and political issues is the way
to get things done, and can be done without sacrificing one’s principles. For the
reality is, nothing in politics happens without some compromise; each side
giving up a little in order to facilitate governance.
If we approach politics as we do our personal religious
convictions, we will forever live in disillusionment over the political
process, lose our zeal and motivation, and never have a positive impact on the
process, for we can never have things entirely our way. But compromise to bring
reality closer to our ideality, is not only requisite, it’s fundamental to
having an incrementally positive impact on our political system.
There’s a simple three-step process for the local GOP to function
cohesively and in unison for this election cycle and the future: For all
factions and persons involved in the perceived schism to realize that there is
no ideological divide! We’re all essential spokes in the same wheel. Follow
Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a
fellow Republican,” and discontinue the divisive and demonizing speech and inferences.
And finally, get to work, together, for united we stand, but divided we fall.
If we’re not part of the solution to create such cohesiveness, we’re part of
the problem of divisiveness and failure.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is
President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in
Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political
Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial
Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.