Natural Allies

Two complementary movements have formed over the past few years. One is older and making a comeback, the other rather new and making headlines all over the nation. Both have conservative and similar agendas. It's up to the Republican leadership to reconcile the views of each with the other, and up to conservatives to make it all work at election time.

The two groups I refer to are the Republican Study Committee and the Tea Party Movement. The Republican Study Committee (RSC) is the older of the two groups, and has definitely suffered its history of ups and downs. Centered in "the people's house" (the House of Representatives), which is more volatile and more in touch with grassroots sentiments than its counterparts in the Senate, this caucus within the Republican Party has been to the top of the mountain--and slid nearly back to the bottom. Today, it is climbing its was back to the crest of the political ideology known as conservative Republicanism.

Meanwhile, a much more recent phenomenon which sprang up nearly overnight has had far fewer political ties, but shares the RSC's general political philosophy--less government, lower taxes, and freedom to conduct our lives without perpetual government intrusion. The RSC is known largely only to political insiders and political groupies, where the Tea Party Movement has drawn national attention. Nobody in the mainstream media which is so loyal to the Democratic Party has attacked the RSC, but the strength and agenda of the Tea Party Movement has brought massive retaliation from the left. This indicates the quiet non-attention grabbing strength of the RSC and the broad American spectrum strength of the Tea Party Movement.

These two entities are natural allies, and the sooner they discover each other, the better for Americans and the Republican Party. The RSC must translate its insider conservative agenda into votes. The Tea Party Movement can provide those votes, and bring along disaffected Democrats and independents with them. I look at it as the perfect melding of Special Ops Forces with the US military. Shock troops joining in a common goal with a powerful army. Both can energize the Republican Party, but neither owes it unswerving loyalty.

A short history of the RSC goes something like this. Its early leader was Tom DeLay who had become the chairman of the caucus by 1991. By 1993, the caucus had 130 members, and the Republican leadership had no choice but to listen to the ideas of the caucus, which was no longer a leftover Goldwater fringe group. In 1994, the Republicans took back the House of Representatives, in no small part as a result of the RSC's powerful positions.

But the RSC fell victim to the old adage "be careful what you wish for." The caucus had targeted budget-cutting as a goal, but too much of a good thing can turn bad. House Speaker Newt Gingrich took budget-cutting all the way to cutting committee and caucus budgets almost to zero. Without serious funding to support its goals, the caucus was unable to stem the flow of Gingrich's consolidation of personal power. That left Republican leadership in the House as well as the real power in the Republican National Committee almost entirely under the Speaker's thumb. The RSC reduced its membership (or had it reduced for them) and concentrated on two issues--abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts and defunding of the Department of Education. It even changed its name to the Conservative Action Team, and it became ever more marginalized. Even when the Speaker agreed with the CAT, he was not about to allow his leadership to be challenged. Said Gingrich: "We don't need any of this crap, because I'm here, and I've got more ideas than anybody."

After nearly disappearing into the pages of history, a new and more realistic RSC began to emerge. By 2001, it was again becoming a power within the Republican Party. Gingrich's one-man rule had come to an end, and conservative Republicans were seriously questioning "big government conservatism" along with the easy accommodations reached with the Ted Kennedy Democrats. First, new chairman John Shadegg of Arizona reinstated the name of the caucus and performed yeoman's labor in increasing membership. The RSC promoted even deeper and more permanent tax cuts than those proposed by the Bush administration. Sympathetic to the war in Iraq, the caucus supported carefully-monitored increases in expenditures for the military, but serious cuts in domestic spending. Sue Myrick took over in 2003 and expanded the RSC's interests into internet and telecommunications freedom along with domestic energy promotion. Mike Pence took over next, and led the charge against out-of-control politically-correct expenditures for recovery from Hurricane Katrina and the expansion of Medicare Part D (prescription coverage). Former chairman DeLay fought Pence over those issues, but his own downfall left Pence free to pursue his goals.

Most recently, the RSC has consistently opposed both Bush and Obama stimulus packages as wasteful, nearly useless, outrageously expensive, not to mention government-intrusive, and of no assistance whatsoever in kick-starting the moribund economy. That put the RSC athwart the leadership of John Boehner, who subsequently lost the battle within his own party over the issue. A much-chastened Boehner learned his lesson, and as a spokeswoman for the Center for American Progress said, "it's the only way Boehner can keep his job and relate to that caucus."

Today, Pence has risen to the chairmanship of the entire Republican conference, and continues his RSC ways by defying the traditional leadership of the party. He was highly visible in the recent special elections by butting heads with Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in refusing to support far-left Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd Congressional district. He also drew the ire of Boehner and House whip Eric Cantor for that move. Although Scozzafava lost to a Democrat in a traditional Republican district, Pence was able to point out that if the Republicans had supported the upstart conservative instead of the ultraliberal "safe" candidate, the conservative Republican who ran as an independent would have won in a walk.

Today, the RSC is proposing an updated, modernized and more Reagan-like version of Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America that largely brought about the astounding Republican victories in the off-year elections. Not a statement of party principles and credos, it will instead be a slate of legislative proposals. And the RSC has made it clear that it will not allow itself to be sidetracked by the old Republican guard. That would provide guidelines for conservative candidates as well as countering the Democratic nonsense that Republicans have no programs and are only capable of saying "no." Among the proposal recommendations are the elimination of "czars," fiscal transparency, a waiting period to read bills, and a top corporate tax rate of 25 percent (effectively undoing the horrendous damage done by Sarbanes-Oxley). Grover Norquist, who can easily discuss inside politics and public movements said "I think it will come from the field. It will come from the tea party guys, from the RSC, from the grassroots guys. To come through the Hill, it has to be put into legislative language."

Which brings me to my point. The tea party and the RSC have almost identical goals. One can produce that legislative language and herd the Republican sheep in Congress, while the other can bring the full-throated support of an angry public determined to get the government off their backs. The Tea Party Movement knows what it wants, and the RSC knows how to get it. Either without the other is much less effective. Together they may be nearly unstoppable, and they can certainly convince the Republican leadership at large that they are a force to be reckoned with. Steele and the traditional Republican leadership will have to go along with the two movements, or work carefully with them to produce a workable agenda. Opposing them would be suicidal for the old guard.

My other opinion is that without clear leadership that includes insider political sophistication, the Tea Party Movement could easily drift into obstructionism, or fall prey to the danger of being taken over by ideological purists or demagogues who don't know the first thing about winning elections. Even worse, they could fall victim to the siren call of third partyism. It would be a terrible shame and perhaps a national tragedy if the Democrats held onto power because people of good faith simply couldn't see the need for unity, their natural affinity for the Republican party, and a powerful and experienced force within the Republican party that would produce a winning conservative alliance. The Tea Party Movement already has a voice in the Republican Party if it chooses to recognize it, and it's time for that winning coalition to start scaring the hell out of the Democrats.