TEA Party "Ideology" is Just "Power."

Much digital "ink" has been spilled of late trying to sort out the ideological basis of TEA Party politics. It's a waste of time.

One thoughtful case in point is this essay by Sean Wilentz in Democracy Journal, which argues that the party is not "Jacksonian" in the strict sense. Wilentz is a smart guy, and he's a heckuva lot more famous than me, but I think he misses the point entirely. As he notes himself in this piece, Jackson was not entirely consistent in his own behavior -- that is, he was not always a "Jacksonian." He opposed the growth of federal power until he himself was at the pinnacle of federal power. He railed against undue influence from the rich, but he was among the wealthiest men in North America. In theory, though, Jackson ran for the White House as the champion of the little guy, as the uncorrupted, transparent remedy to the cabal of insiders who had been running the country until then. Jackson tapped into the same strain of paranoia that fed the Antimasons and the attacks on Mormons.

Andrew Jackson

In that sense -- the most important one -- Ted Cruz his ilk are exactly like Jackson. What they want is control. They want to protect their own personal interests, most of them racially and economically exclusive. It's no coincidence that Jackson made his wealth on slavery and expelled the Cherokee from Gerogia. It's no coincidence that Ted Cruz barely conceals his racism when he complains about immigration reform and Obamacare. Cruz just wants power.

Ted Cruz

Cruz is a dangerous man, just as Jackson was. Let's not confuse ourselves by pretending that he has an ideology beyond Himself.

What Civil Debate Can Do

Republicans are still throwing temper tantrums over the end of confirmation filibusters, but maybe that the new rules will allow the whole federal government to begin functioning more effectively. Already we have people stepping into major jobs in the administration, and the Washington DC Circuit Court may actually be adequately staffed for the first time Obama was elected.

Meanwhile, Congress actually passed a budget bill without bringing the world economy to the brink of a crisis. Bad-ass budget boy Paul Ryan helped broker the agreement, and at least one fellow Republican even praised him for it.

Paul Ryan

Even Fox News seems to think that passing a budget is not a major moral failing.

Maybe these people are actually planning to do their jobs now, instead of engaging in endless nonsense. 

Why "Right-Wingers" are Right on the 17th Amendment

According to this piece in the Huffington Post, it's "right-wing" to have reservations about the 17th Amendment. I don't consider myself "right-wing," but I'm no fan of this particular amendment.

Before 1913, when the constitution was changed, federal senators were chosen by state legislatures. The Senate was to be removed from popular opinion in a way the House of Representatives was not. Not only did senators serve for six years, but they would never have to campaign in the way that their colleagues in the house had to do. In theory, the filter of the state legislatures would provide more able senators than the base tastes of the masses could produce.

In the early 20th century, Progressives systematically opposed government by elites. They advocated for popular votes in primaries and Senate elections, demanded greater transparency in local executives, railed against special interests like railroads and food producers who did harm to people, and defended the rights of minorities, women and children, all of whom were essentially defenseless against the back-room power of caucuses and state legislatures. And for sure, cronyism and corruption wafted from the halls of capitol buildings everywhere from Albany to Sacramento. Calling for greater public accountability made (and makes) a lot of sense.

But the direct election of the US Senate does change the basic structure of the federal government and alters the way the constitution works. It's not at all clear to me, for example, that a guy like Ted Cruz could have made it to the Senate through the Texas legislature, because the crass demagoguery characteristic of his campaigns would be irrelevant. Maybe the Texas legislature is also filled with TEA Party yahoos, but in the case nothing could be done. Both houses of Congress now must bow to popular whims; would people like Arlen Spector lose their jobs if they were not directly elected? And look at the effect of direct election on the House: John Boehner has to behave like a craven dog at the feet of a tiny minority because he's worried about the next election.

So repeal of the 17th Amendment, or even an end-around of it, may not be the best idea, but at least it's not just "right wing."