- Joe Biden: I can’t be president — my golf would suffer
- German authorities grab suspected hardline Islamist
- Rare lesbian HIV transmission case turns up in Texas
- Obama economy: Rich get richer, as millionaires’ list grows
- Army’s ‘Most Wanted’ fugitive on lam since 1977 nabbed in Florida
- ‘Seinfeld’-loving fraudsters busted on ID theft — of Eric Holder
- Spain, Morocco break up jihadist recruitment cell, arrest 7
- Muslim insurgents shoot then set on fire Buddhist teacher in Thailand
- Air Force cadets ‘revolt’ after officials remove biblical verse from whiteboard
- Rep. Lee: Paul Ryan out of touch with urban Americans
BARBER: Reagan uprising isn’t over yet
‘Racist’ accusation doesn’t stick to Tea Party stalwarts
What is the Tea Party? Who is the Tea Party? Big media types and the larger left have their demagogic spin: Tea Partyers are racist, backwoods, anti-government dunderheads with a predisposition toward domestic terrorism. In a word, they’re “extremists.”
This disingenuous political packaging was recently divulged as an official Democratic talking point in a gaffe by the ever-loquacious Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat. During a super-secret conference call with reporters he explained that, while referencing the Tea Party, “I always use the word ‘extreme.’ That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”
This characterization, of course, is twaddle and liberals know it. But when called out on what constitutes genuine extremism, the ad hominem attack remains the “progressive” device of choice for those endeavoring to “fundamentally transform” America. It’s impossible to make a secular-socialist omelet without breaking a few constitutionalist eggs.
Rule 13 of “community organizer” Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” presents the budding provocateur with a template: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
And so “progressive” ideologues like Chris Matthews, Sen. Harry Reid and the backbiting hate merchants over at the Southern Poverty Law Center busily paint self-serving swastikas across Tea Party Granny’s Ol’ Glory sweater. It’s dishonest, it’s tired and America isn’t biting. The more they do it, in fact, the greater the backlash.
Still, truth is that one can more easily nail Jell-O to a wall than precisely characterize the Tea Party demographic. Its membership crosses racial, generational and party lines. The Tea Party is not so much defined by “who” as it is by “what.”
I recently attended the Ronald Reagan Centennial Celebration hosted by the Republican Party of Virginia. It was co-sponsored by, among others, the Ronald Reagan Institute for Conservative Leadership. Michael Reagan, the oldest child of the man widely considered our greatest modern president, was the keynote speaker.
Mr. Reagan said something that I think concisely sums up the core values shared by the ragtag millions who comprise the Tea Party movement. “People often ask me if Ronald Reagan would have supported the Tea Party,” he said. “Ronald Reagan wasthe Tea Party.”
About three-quarters of the 1,500 or so in attendance erupted into enthusiastic applause. Those who did not responded, instead, with scowls of pragmatic disapproval. These hushed naysayers represent, I think, the dwindling minority of liberal-leaning RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) within the establishment GOP. Yes, Republicans can be snobs, too.
How true, I thought. Tea Party conservatives are simply Reagan conservatives by another name: same values, different decade.
I’ve said it before. Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds what I call “complete conservatism.” The legs symbolize a strong national defense, strong free-market principles and strong traditional social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.
A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.
A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.
By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues - such as abortion, homosexual rights or the Second Amendment - is not a complete conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.
I was discussing Reagan’s three-legged stool the other day with my friend Mark Lloyd, chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation and president of the aforementioned Ronald Reagan Institute.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
By Bob Dole
The industrious island has proved itself worthy of U.S. inclusion
Get Breaking Alerts
- EXCLUSIVE: FBI blocked in corruption probe involving Sens. Reid, Lee
- F-35 secrets now showing up in Chinas stealth fighter
- Rare lesbian HIV transmission case turns up in Texas
- Deportations come mostly from border, DHS chief says
- College group's diversity event canceled after excluding white people
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- PRUDEN: Sink sank own campaign in Florida special election
- EDITORIAL: Lois Lerner's dilemma
- BRUCE: The power of 'bossy'
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: De Blasio doing disservice to 'underdog' students
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Anti-God humanism will ruin nation
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Issue impeachment, not a toothless bill
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Put proof behind 'Bush lied' assertion
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Wind power less harmful to wildlife