Tea Party's Contract From America

I'm trying to better understand the stance of our modern day Tea Party. Descriptive party names have come and gone in U.S. history. Though the U.S. political system was born of the 19th century, the party system was more than a simple "either or." There were three key early 19th century parties: Whigs, Jacksonian Democrats and Republicans. (NB: The Republican party of Lincoln did not form until much later in the antebellum period [1854] and should not be confused with the National Republicans [1828], the Jeffersonian Republicans [active around the election of 1800], or even with the Jacksonian Democrats of the late 1820s who, in honor of Jefferson as well as the Jeffersonian Republicans also referred to themselves as Republicans.)

Besides these three main antebellum political parties, early 19th century parties included: Antimasons, Anti-Relief, Barnburners, Bucktails, Conscience Whigs, Cotton Whigs, Doughface Democrats, Free Soilers, Hunkers, Know-Nothings, National Republicans, Liberty Party, Locofocos, People's Party, Relief, Silver Grays, Wooly Heads and Workies (the Workingman). Party loyalty often crumbled when faced with new ideas and increasing ideological differences, and infighting was common as ideologies compelled members to split and form new political groups. Citizens formed these groups as they sought to articulate a political philosophy that grappled with ensuring equality.

So this brings me back to the Tea Partiers. Do its members have a political philosophy and, if so, what is at its core? In order to better understand the Tea Partiers, this morning I read the Contract From America on the website of the Tea Party Patriots (www.thecontract.org). The website opens with, "The Contract from America serves as a clarion call for those who recognize the importance of free market principles, limited government, and individual liberty. It is the natural extension of a movement that began in the local communities and quickly spread across America in response to unprecedented government expansion, reckless spending, and a blatant disregard by our leaders of the nation’s founding principles."


As this morning's blog is already rather lengthy, tomorrow I will respond to the first paragraph of the contract: individual liberty. "Our moral, political and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices."

Tea Partiers & Civil Rights

Tea Partier Paul Rand, who recently won the Republican party nomination in Kentucky, got himself in a bit of hot water over the Civil Rights. He believes the 1964 act is too broad and should not apply uniformally (e.g., to private businesses).

Reading about this contretemps brought back to mind the Tea Party's espousal of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. I would remind people that the Constitution as originally written contained (Art I, section 2), the now infamous 3/5ths compromise (aka the Great Compromise of 1787). For the purpose of determining representation (U.S. House of Representation and the Electoral College) and tax distribution, an slave was counted as 3/5ths of a person. This compromise was to assauge the worries of southern states that, though large in land mass, had few people who could legally vote (e.g., white property owning males).

That was the original intent of our Constitution. In 1865, the 13th amendment ended slavery and three years later the 14th amendment ended the 3/5ths compromise in re representation.

So a question forms in my head: How far does the "go back to the original intent of the constitution" go?

Tea Partiers & 17th Amendment

Recently, David Broder (Washington Post, 5/20/10), noted the Tea Party's outcry against the 17th Amendment. That's the amendent to the U.S. Constitution that changed the way U.S. senators are selected in our country. People who vociferously argue that the 17th Amendment was just another way of rejecting the principles of our founding are well advised to look to the origins of the 17th amendment.

Our Founding Fathers debated quite vigorously over several key issues - for instance, how large should the central (federal) government be, how much independence should states have, and how direct should the country's democracy be. The tension is captured by the Federalist Papers (written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton), and various papers written by Antifederalists (Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Bryan, and an array of others - often under pennames).

One of the key issues at the time was how much political influence should the ordinary citizen have? (By the way, at the founding, voting citizens were white males who owned a certain amount of property.) The Federalists feared the "passions" of the masses and believed that elites were more suited to republic virtue. Thus it was the duty of the elite to make decisions for the ordinary citizen and to guide the new republic. Hamilton, in fact, proposed making the presidential office hereditary - something Patrick Henry described as "squinting toward monarchy." The Antifederalists decried the elite-popular split and believed the ordinary citizen could learn republican virtue.

The original Constitution and the Bill of Rights represent many compromises on these issues. While members of the U.S. House of Representatives were directly elected (2 year terms), U.S. senators (seen as a more august body with 6 year terms , were elected by each state's legislature - not by each voter. The 17th Amendment (1913) did away with that process, and since then U.S. Senators are directly elected by voters.

The selection of the president was also removed from direct democratic control. We still have the Electoral College.