It isn’t exactly a secret that the best if not the only way for a conservative or Republican to get published in the New York Times is to attack their own party (the same formula applies to Jews who know the surest path to a byline on the op-ed page is to condemn Israel). So it is hardly surprising that David Welch, a former Republican National Committee research director and campaign adviser to John McCain, got his moment in the sun today by echoing the newspaper’s liberal editorial line about the sheer awfulness of the Tea Party. Of course, Welch tried to write the piece from the perspective of a conservative, but in doing so he reverted to another standard from the liberal playbook: using dead conservatives to criticize the current ones.
To that end, Welch dragged William F. Buckley from his grave in order to cite the National Review editor’s purge of the John Birch Society from the conservative movement in the 1960s as a precedent that Republicans should now apply to the Tea Party. One can debate whether the Tea Partiers have too much influence in the GOP or whether some of the candidates they have foisted on the party were ill-advised choices, but Welch’s “Where Have You Gone, Bill Buckley?” couldn’t be more off target. The Tea Party has its cranks, but the notion that it is in any way comparable to a hate group like the Birchers isn’t merely a figment of the liberal imagination; it’s sheer slander. That he would make such an outrageous analogy says a lot more about the liberal agenda to brand most Republicans as extremists than it does about the smart way to oppose President Obama’s agenda.
Welch is right when he says Republicans would do well to keep Bill Buckley’s rule that they should support “the most right, viable candidate who could win.” Had they done so, the GOP caucus in the U.S. Senate would be a lot bigger these days since Tea Party insurgents like Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell turned likely Republican victories into Democratic triumphs. There is an argument to be made on behalf of what he calls “adult supervision” being applied to the party, especially when it comes to picking candidates.
I would also concede that although I take a dim view of those urging Republicans to cave in to President Obama’s demands on taxes, conservative ideology need not dictate every decision the House leadership makes as it negotiates a budget deal with the president to prevent the country heading over the fiscal cliff.
But these are tactical decisions, not questions about the nature of the party or the state of modern conservatism. That is why Welch’s cri de coeur on behalf of a revived Republican establishment and moderates like Chris Christie is not only wrong-headed, but an insidious attempt to further the efforts of liberals to smear all contemporary conservatives as extremists.
The John Birch Society that Buckley consigned to the margins from his bully pulpit at National Review had nothing in common with the Tea Party. The Birchers were a relatively small, though loud group percolating on the fever swamps of the body politic. They were dominated by racist and anti-Semitic elements and deeply immersed in conspiracy theories about Communist infiltration of every segment of American society. They were dangerous to conservatism not because they were numerous but because their presence in conservative ranks stood to compromise the entire movement. Buckley had little trouble routing them because they were genuine outliers with little support among Republican activists or voters.
By contrast, The Tea Party sprung up in 2009 and 2010 in response to President Obama’s stimulus boondoggle and the passage of ObamaCare. Despite liberal canards about it being the creation of rich Republican donors, it was a textbook example of a grassroots movement that grew up in spite of the wishes of many party leaders. Though, as is natural for any broad-based surge, its support has gone down since its 2010 heyday, it prospered because it spoke to the basic instincts of many Americans about the danger of out-of-control spending and taxing by the government. Far from espousing extreme ideology, its point of view was very much to the point about the concerns that the president’s unchecked liberalism in his first two years in office had provoked.
Democrats assumed that a Republican Party dominated by the Tea Party was dooming itself to defeat, but the election results of November 2010 proved them wrong. Though the willingness of some Tea Partiers to dump moderate Republicans cost the party some seats they could have won, the GOP’s landslide win that year would not have been possible without the fervor of the Tea Party and the fact that their beliefs resonated with a broad cross-section of voters including many who would never call themselves conservatives.
Though liberal newspapers like the Times have been working hard to brand the Tea Party as extremists, the idea that there is any link or even an analogy between a group focused on reducing the size of government and one steeped in hate like the Birchers is deeply offensive.
It is understandable that some would-be establishment Republicans such as Welch don’t like their party being held accountable for betrayal of conservative principles. And in some limited circumstances they may even be right to claim that Tea Partiers have exercised poor judgment in terms of the candidates they’ve imposed on the GOP as well as the policy decisions they would like to see implemented. But that has nothing to do with what Bill Buckley accomplished.
While one should hesitate to speak in the name of the deceased, I’m sure I’m not alone among conservatives in thinking WFB would have smelled a rat when reading Welch’s piece. Buckley sought to purge extremists from conservative ranks in order to preserve the movement’s principles. Welch wants to purge Tea Partiers specifically in order to dump conservative principles and replace them with the sort of watered-down liberalism that Buckley rightly despised. Buckley spent far more of his career seeking to oust the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party from the GOP than he did the Birchers.
What the GOP needs today is for grassroots Tea Partiers and more establishment types to work together to build a coherent opposition to the liberal agenda that the president and the Times wish to foist on the country. Any Republican who wants to purge the Tea Party is merely doing the dirty work of those who want to destroy conservatism. Nothing could be more dishonorable or less in keeping with the legacy of Bill Buckley.
Bravo. Bra-vo! This entire column is music to this liberal's ears. Yes, anyone who criticizes or offers an opinion that is contrary to the author's heterodoxy is…*shudder*…a liberal. They are furthering the liberal plot to destroy conservatives. Here's a tip, you guys are doing more than enough to destroy conservatism on your own. n nDon't stop at Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnel. What about Akin? What about Mourdock? Have you so recently forgotten the entirely winnable Senate you just threw away by nominating those lunatics? The Tea Party are lunatics, and the majority of Americans agree. n nSo here come some old party hands trying to put semblance of respectability back in your party, and how do you respond? n n"That is why Welch’s cri de coeur on behalf of a revived Republican establishment and moderates like Chris Christie is not only wrong-headed, but an insidious attempt to further the efforts of liberals to smear all contemporary conservatives as extremists." n nYes, Welch is in on our vast liberal conspiracy. I myself turned him to the dark side. You guys are just too, too smart for us liberals. Game over man. You got us. Agent Welch is now a burned asset. </sarcasm> n nYou guys are really dolts. n n
seems like you don't have mirrors in your house. look carefully in the mirror and you will see the carbon copy of what you are despising. An ideological, egotistical liberal maniac. Last time I looked, the House was solidly in republican hands and, even in this 2012 year, Year four of the Lord Obama, you were not able to make a dent in the republican majority. Unless His Lordship overturns the Constitution and takes over dictatorial powers in 2016 (something he is quite capable of doing,btw), your party will revert to the usual losers, Biden, Clinton, Cuomo and will be trounced, first in 2014 and then in 2016.You seem to imagine that the Lord Obama won in a landslide- he did not- he barely won, with being the first President that got less votes in his second term thn in his first. He has no madate for anything and he is just trying to throw his weight around, in his arrogant way. Wait till his policies effectively condemn millions to the scrap heap and see the voters revolt.
You lost me at carbon copies of mirrors. n n"look carefully in the mirror and you will see the carbon copy of what you are despising. An ideological, egotistical liberal maniac." n nLet me get this straight. I should look into a mirror and see a carbon copy of what I am despising? And I am despising an ideological egotistical liberal maniac? Which is a carbon copy of myself? That I observe in a mirror? And this relates to David Welch as a liberal plant how? n nIt's stuff like this: "Unless His Lordship overturns the Constitution and takes over dictatorial powers in 2016 (something he is quite capable of doing,btw)" that makes you so laughable. n n"he barely won" — really? Last I checked it's edging up to 51 – 47%/ n nYou write these things, and I'm sure you think they make sense. Perhaps in your conservative argot they do to you and the others in this forum. However, to most people, it really does come across as unhinged and incomprehensible. n nExample: "You seem to imagine that the Lord Obama won in a landslide- he did not- he barely won, with being the first President that got less votes in his second term thn in his first."
Where have I been reading that Jews/Israel have too much influence on American politics. Was it the latest from John Birch society? No it was a series of op-eds and editorials in the New York Times!
The problem is the urge and tendency to demonize. Nowaday's one's opponents are not merely wrong, they are evil. It began with hate radio lashing out wildly at "liberals." The left has returned the favor with even more bitter spitting. Now Republicans are repugnant, Repugs, when not Nazis and congenitally stupid. Now the Tea Party is made up of crazies and Neocons who espouse Jefferson's "empire of liberty" are war mongers. n nIt is our need to simplify our disputes into good and evil, into wise and stupid, into patriotic and traitorous. The reason is, our politics, as our population, has become progressively more simple and reflexive, less able to understand and appreciate nuance. Look into the corner bar. Men quietly talking have been replaced by a roar of voices as the walls tremble with climactic scenes from sport events. We are addicted to cutting to the chase, to booing and cheering, and the hell with the game.
We lost an election. It is not the end of the world. The Democrats have also lost elections. 2004, for example. They did not purge anything, escept maybe Clinton centrism. And they came up big because Bush thought all those votes were for him, not against Kerry. So too with Obama. He thinks the public voted for him while, in fact, they voted against Romney. This too shall pass. We need to be true to our fiscal conservative principles. Only then will we get credit if a fiscal catastrophe is averted. It's time to turn the party over to the next (Ryan) generation.
Watching you guys talk to each other is just like the old "Telling jokes in prison" joke. You might remember it; instead of telling the joke, you just say, "21" and everyone laughs. n nQuoting Rush about Begala….hmmm….so let me see n nDavid Welch is like Kathleen Parker who is like Paul Begala, who Rush doesn't like. Therefore, David Welch is a pseudo-conservative. Quod Erat Demonstratum. n nAnything that doesn't mesh with your ingrained beliefs is dimissed as "liberal" even if it comes from conservatives. I only hope that someone doesn't denounce you "gad_fly" as a pseudo-conservative. n nYou guys are worse than communists with the denunciations. n n n
hmmm…..we are worse than communists? and this comes from the blogger accusing me of being "over the top"…..and ,if you would just have an ounce of historical perspective and been able to count on your fingers and toes, you'd know (check it out) that His Lord Obama won re-election with less votes than the first time around any previous president . Is that clear enough? And- if you care to learn to read results- check out the election numbers for LBJ,NIxon, Reagan.Clinton and you will see that those votes were conclusive (clinton won by nine-nine!- points). so, His lordship won-but he did not win in any kind of landslide. And the republicans kept the House- you do know that, don't you?
Are you asking if I know that Obama won? Yes, I do know that. n nDo I know that the Democrats gained seats in the Senate and House? Yes I do know that. n nDo I know that by all accounts, if the Republicans weren't so extremist and focused on kicking "RINOs" out on some sort of purity quest, they should have won the Presidency and Senate? Yes I do know that as well. n nHere is my message to you: You are the ones killing your party. That you listen to David Welch and say "He's a liberal plant" is your problem.
Parties lose elections all the time…Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, MOndale…etc…. and yet, your party did not abandon its philosphical underpinnings..to some extent, you re-inforced it (pelosi, Obama) so, please spare us your sympathy and advice. And, if His Lordship is such a great leader, shouldn't you have won more governorships?more congressmen? the fact is that it is a stalemate and this will be replayed in 2014,2016…let's see who fares best then!
Also, can you please explain the carbon copy mirrors thing from above? I am still baffled.
coming from a party hack that has drummed out every pro-life candidate, that has banished any sign of moderation, that sees only losers on the other side…..mirroring your comments about the conservatives….
Tobin is an Obot. Angle lost because Harry Reid & Son ran a vote fraud operation. O'Donnell lost because Karl RINOve made it his mission in life to campaign for the Democrats. There does need to be a purge in the GOP, and it needs to be of the RINOves, Bushiecrats, Bonehead Boehner, Eric Cantor-won't and a long list of other Democrats masquerading as Republicans. They are the Democrats 5th Column within the GOP. They all need to be jettisoned from the party.
Rove now? The denunciations continue apace. Who isn't denounced? You do realize that the more and more people you jettison, the smaller and smaller the party? n nBTW — please see my argot comment above. "RINOves, Bushiecrats", are these terms of art? n nAnd again with the conspiracies. For being (generally) so anti-marijuana, you sure do go on like you've got a lot of paranoia. n n
Angle also lost because the Sparks and Reno mayors (Martini and Cashell), state senator Ragio, and a bunch of others, all RINOs, stated they were voting for Reid. Jerks. Angle and O'Donnel were very articulate and would have fought for common sense not blotacents.
Yeah, and this year we jettisoned 115 Million people who simply see no purpose in voting because Dems are out to destroy their lives and the cowards running the GOP can't wait to help them do it. n nNo I'm not hunting for your comment to someone else. Don't like the nicknames, don't read the posts. n nYou can give the conspiracy nonsense a rest too. As for the rest… what are you talking about? Sounds to me like you smoked some before you read the post.
This article denounces David Welch as a part of the liberal conspiracy. You identify "the Democrats 5th Column within the GOP." The Tea Party always denounces conservatives who doesn't agree or criticize as "Not real conservatives." n nWhat I'm saying, quite clearly, is that your paranoia about RINOs conspiring with liberals to bring down conservatives is nonsense. It is a conspiracy theory. n n
The only one with any paranoia is you. And, you should be paranoid. Because if you're RINO, your influence collapsed the moment Obama won. If (more likely the case) your a Democrat, you have a lot to be paranoid about. Especially when Fuhrer Obama tells you to get in line for your little pill. A 5th Column doesn't require a conspiracy. Educate yourself, rather than just memorizing DNC talking points. No, this article is trying to have it both ways. Tobin is an Obot, but the truth is getting in the way of his nonsense and he knows it.
Paranoia? "Especially when Fuhrer Obama tells you to get in line for your little pill." ?? n nThis particular statement is of a piece with the state of conservative discourse. Lots of shibboleths that mean something to the conservative mind, but to general people, makes no sense and comes off as unhinged. n nI mean…is it a joke? Or do you really mean that? Cause from here, it looks like you mean that. And you think I'm paranoid?
Yep, your a Democrat….lol Goodbye fool. n nSTRAIGHT off the DNC website….lmao "This particular statement is of a piece with the state of conservative discourse. Lots of shibboleths that mean something to the conservative mind, but to general people, makes no sense and comes off as unhinged."
Straight off the DNC website…that would be absolutely amazing if I were to have typed that in, and that same phrase were to appear on the DNC's website. Really, what would be the odds. n nI don't really understand what you mean here. What exactly are you trying to say? What is the point you think you made?
What if the purge of Tea-Partiers is tactical? Is it possible the GOP is planning to let the Dems own the economy lock, stock and barrel?
Lol. The ignorant author of this piece clearly knows nothing of the John Birch Society
Why slander an organization you clearly know absolutely zero about?