James Madison once said in his Federalist Paper 10 that “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” In speaking of factions, Madison was referring to citizens who come together under the banner of a “common impulse of passion or interest” which works against the needs of the greater community. While the United States has progressed greatly in the ways of governing and in social progress since Madison’s time, his words regarding factions still hold truth and value today, particularly in light of the growing Tea Party movement. Many Americans are aware that the Tea Party has grown from a grassroots movement into a national phenomenon since 2009, developing under an umbrella of dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration. While some look at the Tea Party as a valid political force, and others see the group as a transitory movement, the Tea Party is first and foremost a faction which has transgressed into a group focused upon destructive rather than constructive change. Led onward by slogans such as “By ballot or bullet, restoration is coming,” the Tea Party’s effects need to be controlled in order to prevent damage to American government on a larger scale.
The phrase, “By ballots or bullets, restoration is coming” brings forth concerns about the Tea Party which have little to do with whether one leans to the political left or right. Rather, the destructive and revolutionary qualities implied in the statement force the question of whether or not the Tea Party can bring about change and reform in a constructive manner. This concern was evident throughout the campaigning season as Tea Party supporters threw attacks at all sides of the political spectrum, drawing criticism for radical views and condemnation of African-Americans, homosexuals, and other minorities. Even Karl Denninger, credited as one of the founders of the Tea party, said that it has been overrun by people obsessed with “guns, gays, and God.”
While passionate concerns are not immediately detrimental to progress, the Tea Party has focused its electoral efforts on taking votes from the Democratic Party with support from figureheads such as Sarah Palin as well as putting forth statements of anger and malcontent. With such professed willingness to damage the current system, and without a set mandate, political pollsters and analysts are already beginning to question the Tea Party’s ability to govern, citing the possibility of gridlock in the judiciary due to an inability to compromise. Lisa Mascaro of the Tribune News predicts that, “Moderate Republicans will be less likely to
cooperate across party lines for fear of primary challenges from conservatives unwilling to compromise.” While this would allow the Tea Party to prevent measures of legislation with which it does not agree, ultimately, a lack of compromise and forward movement in government will not be beneficial to the American Public.
In light of the emergence of the Tea Party, a modern American faction, it is important to consider the implications of political activism. We cannot expect immediate progress by way of ballot or by bullet. Neither nor anger can immediately change the face of the governmental system, and while the rights to free speech and protest are protected within the Bill of Rights, successful change must go beyond the initial stages of demonstration to construct clear plans for progress. Factions, by their definition fail in this respect and therefore lose the power that can be obtained by a focus upon not only what is disliked, but what can be achieved within a population comprised of people of varying livelihoods and perspectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment