Misguided + Misinformation = Mistake

I like to read commentaries of those I disagree with, just to see which fallacies they use to arrive at their conclusions. There are so many up and coming wannabe progressive pundits trying to break through the inner veil that leads to notoriety, and their writings are saturated with mischaracterizations and misinformation.

They are training for the next generation of progressive hackery and actively seeking approval from the established hacks who are in many cases already in charge of the mainstream media. It is these kinds of op-eds that go far to show there really is a professional left, like the one described recently by Robert Gibbs.

Take this misguided piece of writing by someone who calls herself Holly Bailey, for instance. The title says much of it all:

Big primary night highlights limits of tea party insurgency

The goal here is two-fold.

One objective is to draw in Tea Party haters, who will immediately buy into the title because they seek some shred of evidence that the movement is waning. They desperately want to believe that their statist vision is not in danger of succumbing to the same demise, as other statist systems which have failed.

These are pundits who wish a similar but more modern and more effective, Soviet-style system governing the United States. They want a planned economy and government intervention in every aspect of Americans' lives. To them, it is clear that the Tea Party is the biggest obstacle to realizing that dream.

The second objective is to demoralize the Tea Party membership. This is desperation playing out in textbook political fashion. When the establishment and its defenders cannot win the argument of ideas, they use their platforms to minimize and shrink the influence of those that stand against it by demonizing the movement as racists, hilljacks, and fascists.

Not all are as blunt about it, but from the opening paragraph of Bailey's commentary the subtle negativity is openly apparent to this reader:

Insider versus outsider: That's been the major theme of the 2010 campaign so far, and it was no different as voters in five key states, including Florida and Arizona, headed to the polls in nominating contests 10 weeks before the November midterms. But in the GOP contests that dominated the night, the influence of the tea party movement, which for the past year has fueled so much voter anger — and media coverage — showed some important signs of flagging, particular as nominees on the right ponder the best way to frame a campaign message to appeal to independent voters in the general election campaign.

Her use of the term "flagging" is a weak and feeble attempt to signal that the Tea Party is stopping or slowing its advancement of the highly esteemed principles just to win an election. Her implication is that now they will most certainly need to recenter themselves for the general election, to have any chance of winning whatever seat they are seeking. In other words, those who were endeared to the Tea Party stand a good chance of compromising their core principles.

I cannot help but think she is not able to grasp what the Tea party is trying to do in this election. She certainly is not able to see what it is NOT trying to do. It is not trying to be a party unto itself.... or within a party. It does not openly endorse candidates. But when limited government is the primary focus, the candidates they support  are easy to spot.

I am sure there will be Republicans who will use the Tea Party anger to propel them into office, and will forget how they got there during the time they serve. I have no doubt about that, at all.

But this is not a one-time shot.

This is the beginning of what could turn out to be a restoration of that which has been lost. At some point, those same users will face re-election and will face the same voters who supported them earlier. If they have not measured up and the voters remain engaged, they will be fired in the next election.

I also have no doubt that some efforts have fallen and will fall short. Not all establishment candidates will fall in one election and it's unrealistic to believe it will. Hayworth's campaign against McCain is one example. The establishment poured a lot of money into McCain's war chest, and he spent it to fight back the challenger. But this is not an indicator of the Tea Party's lack of success.

Baseball seasons are 162 games long. There is never a team that wins them all. The same holds true for politics.

Right now, the goal of all constitutionalists should be to get the Democrats out of power. If this means supporting the establishment GOP candidate, so be it. Right now, the worst GOP is better than any Obama lap dog Democrat that will blindly support his failed ideological positions.

There's always another opportunity down the road, so do not cave into the progressive liberal delusion that the Tea Party is just a fad. It's not. And that will become clearer in November.