JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 20, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest Post by Noam Scheiber:]
Just a quick data point in support of Chait's excellent post about the increasing tactical radicalism of the right--the belief that ideological purity is perfectly consistent with (in fact, the best recipe for) electoral success.
Politico reports today that:
With the official formation of a congressional Tea Party Caucus, Rep. Michele Bachmann has thrust an existential question before House Republican leaders: Are you in or are you out? ...
Minnesota’s Bachmann, a favorite of the tea party movement, earned approval from the Democratic leadership for her caucus late last week. It came as a bit of a surprise to her leadership, whom she didn’t forewarn before formally applying to create the caucus. ...
Indeed, the tea party movement is a loaded political weapon for Republicans heading into the midterm elections.
Until now, they have had the luxury of enjoying the benefits of tea party enthusiasm without having to actually declare membership. But now that Bachmann has brought the tea party inside the Capitol, House Republican leaders and rank-and-file members may have to choose whether to join the institutionalized movement.
In most cases, there's a kind of implicit alliance between tactical radicals of one party and the establishment of the other--both are gunning for the same thing, albeit from different directions. (One recalls Karl Rove cheering on Howard Dean during the 2004 presidential primaries.) But in this case the alliance was nearly explicit: The tactical radicals in the House wanted to form an organization that would create all sorts of headaches for the GOP leadership, and the Democratic leadership worked with them to expedite the process. Nicely done.
5 comments
Doesn't making the Tea Party a formal congressional caucus threaten to tame it via institutionalization? Establishment politicians might join it, but they might change the caucus more than it changes them. Would Democrats consider this a double bonus?
- propjoe
July 20, 2010 at 11:16am
The problem with your proposition, prop, is that the Republican Party is an institution and it isn't being tamed; it is becoming more crotchety, nay-saying, and ideological. Also, being members of the Grand Comite de salut public didn't neuter Maxmilien de Robspierre and the boys during the French Revolution. It took the guillotine to accomplish that.
- liberal reformer
July 20, 2010 at 11:44am
I take your point, but as messed up as things are, this isn't the French Revolution, and Boehner et al aren't as interested in reflecting the general will as they are in raising money from lobbies like the NRA and Big Tobacco. When that imperative clashes with Tea Party outsiderdom, I have no doubt that they will follow the money. If a critical mass of the Tea Party caucus does that, then what is the Tea Party movement? Or are the goals of the interest groups the same as the Tea Party movement? If that is the case, then, well, it's not much of a movement.
- propjoe
July 20, 2010 at 12:04pm
They used a guillotine to neuter Robspierre and the boys? Yikes!
- nacnud1
July 20, 2010 at 12:08pm
I utilized the verb "neuter" to mean "slow down." Well, I was being facetious by invoking the FR but I wasn't being jocular when I cited the increasing radicalization of the Republican Party.
- liberal reformer
July 20, 2010 at 12:33pm