Vermont is still by-and-large a mountainous idyll, an unimpeachably beautiful place that in many ways serves as a positive stereotype of itself.  From the time one leaves the city limits of Burlington and heads eastward, there are practically no big-box stores; there are no billboards; the highway ambles between compact, centuries-old villages, boxed into vales by shaggy hillsides.  This cultural and topographical preservation is not an organic development.  It relies on a cavalcade of comprehensive regulations, including the state’s revolutionary Act 250, which affords regional planning boards the ability to reject projects larger than one acre for any “adverse effects” they may have on local “aesthetics, scenic beauty, historical sites, or natural areas.”  Also included in these initiatives are an outright, statewide ban on billboards and hundreds of byzantine, yet effective local zoning ordinances that have single-handedly limited the number of Wal-Marts in the state to four.  If such regulations seem grounded in government intrusion into the minutiae of construction, it’s because they are; these comprehensive measures are made possible by the semi-collectivist nature of Vermont politics and the civic fabric of its citizenry, represented by an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature and a self-described “socialist” senator in Bernie Sanders.  As a liberal, I have no philosophical quarrel with this form of politics, and I imagine that even conservatives with a strong predisposition against the process would admire the sprawl-less, civically harmonious, and aesthetically beautiful end.  Nevertheless, I realize that the libertarian argument is deontological, focused on the intrusive means of government, rather than the aesthetics of the result.

Across the border in New Hampshire, this libertarian reasoning has definitively triumphed.  Upon crossing the Connecticut River while traveling eastward on Interstate 89, those with an eye for municipal planning might as well be crossing the River Styx.  This isn’t to say that I hate New Hampshire; it is, in many places, one of the most beautiful states in the nation.  But whereas the journey in Vermont is completely devoid of bland corporatism, the traveler entering New Hampshire is immediately confronted with pallid seas of asphalt and big-box obelisks, a Kmart, a Ninety-Nine Restaurant, a TJ Maxx, a Kohl’s, a Verizon outlet, an Olympia Sports, a CVS, and a Payless Shoe Source all lining the highway within its first mile.  A local conservative poet, Robert Frost, wrote in one of his anthologies, “Mountain Interval,” of a boy who is killed by a buzz-saw while he overlooks the Connecticut, a buzz-saw that churns out identical, monotonous slices of stove-length wood in a process symbolic of modernity.  Ninety-two years after the poem was written, it is clear that it was not only the boy who was killed by the apathetic strokes of the modern machine, but the community surrounding him as well.  In the violent expansion of sprawl, local identity has been gobbled up into strip malls, parking lots, and retail chains, making once compact yankee villages indistinguishable from the highways of Dixie or the suburbs of LA.  Far too much of the journey’s remainder is scarred by this demeaning form of development, a frustration expressed by author and New Urbanist, James Howard Kunstler, in his 1996 book, The Geography of Nowhere:

Most of this [new development] is depressing, brutal, ugly, unhealthy, and spiritually degrading – the jive-plastic Potemkin village shopping plazas with their vast parking lagoons, the Lego-block hotel complexes, the “gourmet mansardic” junk food joints, the Orwellian office parks featuring buildings sheathed in the same reflective glass worn by chain-gang guards, the particle-board garden apartments rising up in every meadow and cornfield…the whole, destructive, wasteful, toxic, agoraphobia-inducing spectacle that politicians proudly call “growth.”

Kunstler is generalizing a bit in the last part of his quote.  Many non-Republican politicians (and even, admittedly, some Republicans) can distinguish between responsible and irresponsible development.  But in the rural north of New Hampshire, where distrust of government is a societal dogma, the difference between responsible and irresponsible growth has become an irrelevant, peripheral point of argument.  Regulation has become poison, and the idea that government action could preserve local identity, heretical.

Upon reaching the borderlands of Maine and New Hampshire the traveler is offered a respite against the soulless sprawl that springs from this anti-government virulence.  Partially out of local design, mostly out of neglect and isolation, the most rugged uplands of the White Mountains are free of Arby’s and Applebee’s, and a lack of business investment softens the SmartGrowth debate.  However, once the traveler arrives in my home in a tourist-laden corner of bumpy western Maine, just to the east of the Appalachian spine, local communities are once again confronted by the continuous prospect of architectural conformity.  What’s more, the zoning debate here is made particularly contentious by the composition of the local population: a broad base of Ron Paul libertarians (multiple inland counties of Maine, from Piscataquis to Aroostook,  did vote for Ron Paul), sprinkled with a healthy number of Vermont-style, cosmopolitan transplants.

In 1997, current Harvard Business Review writer Joshua Macht wrote an article about this debate, focusing on the regional village of Bethel, Maine, titled “Entrepreneurs Collide: Will Zoning Take Town Downhill?”  Within its pages, one paranoid businessman, Rick Whitney, explicitly analogized local zoning proposals with Stalinist Russia, quipping “ ‘There were plenty of comprehensive plans and 10-year plans in the USSR.  But did citizens have their freedom?”  Another local entrepreneur effectively sums up the libertarian argument, adding  “ ‘There are people in this town that wouldn’t mind regulating everything.  But they take away some of the Maine heritage I know.’”

Fifteen years after Macht’s profile, the regulations have hardly strengthened, and Rick Whitney has by-and-large thwarted the Marxist-Leninist conspiracy afoot amongst a third of the county’s population (including myself, apparently).  What’s more, the same Rick Whitney has managed to build several hideous lumber warehouses on the outskirts of town, part of the wave of concentric sprawl that has emanated outward from Bethel over the last two decades.  In my own neighboring village of eight-hundred and two residents, a recent comprehensive planning proposal was voted down easily, but not before it exploded into an armed encounter between a belligerent anti-Zonist and one of the plan’s drafters.  Thus, it seems that my town of Greenwood will, for the foreseeable future, be as susceptible as ever to the prospect of corporate obelisks gobbling up our hamlets and degrading our community, naturally and architecturally.

In recent years, the political climate for those of us fighting against this “geography of nowhere,” as James Howard Kustler put it, has only deteriorated.  On the state level, Maine’s Tea Party-backed governor Paul LePage, former executive of the big-box retailer Marden’s Surplus and Salvage, has effectively destroyed the Informed Growth Act, our state’s watered down version of Vermont’s Act 250, which had previously mandated several town meetings before a community accepted a gross retailer’s construction permit.  The Bangor Daily News deemed that LePage opposed the act because he worried that the statutes contained a “bias against big-box stores.”  But LePage seems not to understand the spirit of the law.  Of course there is an ingrained bias.  Does the governor think, after all, that we’re interested in holding twelve town meetings every time a bohemian pottery shop moves to town?

To be sure, this hatred of SmartGrowth by the Tea Party tranche of the Republican Party is not a purely local phenomenon.  Focusing on the anti-sprawl Agenda 21 passed by the United Nations in 1992, the Republican Party has denounced compact-growth policies as a form of “destructive and insidious” internationalism, and Tea Partiers have occupied countless zoning meetings throughout the country in an attempt to thwart the supposed multilateral conspiracy.  In any case, this brand of Republicanism is not a force for the ironic destruction of local autonomy just in my mountainous slice of Maine, nor in just the states of northern New England for that matter, but in all crannies of the nation where civic-minded citizens are attempting to wrest a sense of cultural uniqueness from the slings of architectural conformity.  Such realizations give me a headache, and I’ll have to go down to the new, obeliskoid RiteAid in order to medicate myself as the local apothecary has been driven out of business.  Perhaps my neighbor down the slope, the one with the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag on her lawn, will ascend the hillside to ask if she can borrow my axe-helve.  I won’t be here, but that is no matter.  She can simply travel down to the newly constructed Wal-Mart and purchase a new blade, sold by a man she has never met, manufactured in a country she can’t pronounce, destined to cut the boundary lines of a subdivision populated by flatlanders with whom she’ll never interact.  Hopefully, she’ll experience a cathartic moment beforehand, but if not, I my fear that only by surrounding herself with defeated geography and hollow interaction, will this Tea Partier realize which parts of “the Maine heritage,” as she put it in Macht’s article, are most worth defending.

But, this former political juggernaut is slowly fading into the background. Nearly three years later, the Tea Party website that promoted the 2009 protest no longer exists, and the remaining Republican presidential contenders are not significantly associated with the Tea Party. Simultaneously, the co-founder of the prominent Tea Party Patriots has resigned due to internal turmoil while the movement struggles to unite divergent factions to promote a consistent message.

While the Tea Party will likely remain politically relevant for the near future, its previous influence over the national agenda is over. The movement that originally claimed political independence has largely been co-opted by the Republican Party.

A Party in Transition

Naturally, some are loath to admit the Tea Party’s decreasing political relevance. Lucas Scanlon, a Texas transplant who founded and leads Harvard University Tea Party chapter, told the HPR that, “people are frustrated because nothing has gotten done [and] there’s no value in a political party,” creating an environment ripe for the Tea Party to flourish.

But outside observers see a different story. Van Jones, author and founder of Rebuild the Dream, an organization dedicated to progressive goals, characterized the Tea Party for the HPR as, “a dying gasp of a particular kind of racialized, divisive, small-minded politics from the right.”

John Halpin, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, also disagrees with Scanlon’s analysis, telling the HPR that, “there’s no infrastructure currently in place that suggests the Tea Party will be around in the long-term.” Regardless though, the Tea Party’s prior impact on political discourse in this country is indisputable.

One of a Kind or More of the Same?

The modern Tea Party’s roots stretch back to a televised rant by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli less than a month into the Obama presidency. The Tea Party Patriots, the most prominent Tea Party grassroots organization, confirmed in November 2010 that Santelli’s rant, “started [the] entire movement.”

Nevertheless, Tea Party enthusiasts stress that, despite popular perception, the movement is actually quite distinct from the Republican Party. Scanlon, who questions why Democrats have not adopted any Tea Party principles, said that both major parties were caught off-guard. “I think the Republicans and Democrats have been scared by the response to the Tea Party.” Scanlon also stressed that many individuals, himself included, became politically involved for the first time through the Tea Party.

Though Jones believes the Tea Party’s message was, “a repackaging of ideas that have been around for a very long time,” nobody could not deny that this, “particular uprising pulled in new leaders and new voices.” Halpin offered a similar analysis, saying that the movement primarily was, “just a clever rebranding of right wing activism,” spurred by Obamacare.

Strategy (or Lack Thereof?)

The Tea Party’s initial success in gaining press coverage and plugs by prominent conservative legislators led Obama’s supporters to inquire whether he could turn around the Democratic Party. Feminist Camille Paglia asked this very question in Salon magazine as early as September 2009. Though the Tea Party likely cost Republicans key senate races in Delaware and Nevada last election cycle, overall the midterm elections swept Tea Partiers onto Capitol Hill, leading most pundits to characterize the election as a triumph for the movement.

Scanlon however says this emphasis on the Tea Party’s electoral strategy misses the movement’s larger goals, claiming, “I see more focus on messaging [than electoral strategy].” Indeed, nearly every congressional Republicans signed the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” created by Americans for Tax Reform leader Grover Norquist. This document, which reflects Tea Party principles, states that legislators will not support net tax increases. Similar pledges with socially conservative goals also experienced immense popularity among Republican candidates.

The pressure the Tea Party has exerted on Republicans to adopt their views is largely undisputed by liberals and their allies. Halpin said the influence of Tea Party members in the House has put Speaker John Boehner, “on a leash,” and Jones noted the Tea Party can, “push the buttons of the Republican Party.

However, this messaging does not necessarily translate into electoral success, as Halpin notes, “They were not very successful at all at the senatorial level and they won’t be successful at the presidential level because they’re a marginal ideology.”

Indeed, the Tea Party’s message generated discourse, though not always for positive reasons. Jones discussed how the rigid ideology of the Tea Party prevent members from celebrating landmark pieces of legislation, including the New Deal safety net and environmental protections. He argues that those “are seen by the Tea Party as betrayals of the republic rather than our greatest achievements.”

Back to the Future

The impending Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of Obama’s signature health care legislation has kept the Tea Party movement animated. One journalist described Tea Party protesters, “flood[ing] the steps” of the Supreme Court during oral arguments, protesting in a fashion reminiscent of summer 2009. Scanlon adds that, regardless of its decision, the Supreme Court’s verdict can only help the Tea Party. Should the legislation be overturned, the Tea Party will “see [the ruling] as a huge victory and it will bolster its ranks.”

Others are not quite as optimistic. Halpin argued that though as a, “grassroots group of people… [the movement] should be lauded,” their long-term prospects are dim. “I think they’ll have to do a lot more to define an agenda, a set of candidates, if they want to exist in the long-term.” Many have also highlighted the lack of a viable Tea Party candidate in the presidential race as a harbinger of their waning influence.

Such rhetoric does not bother Scanlon though, who sees the Tea Party’s message beyond a black and white electoral strategy. “I think there’s a question right now in what our country is going to become … as long as that question remains, I think the movement will continue.”

While Scalon remains optimistic, the Tea Party’s future is uncertain, and as voters have seen over the past year, the Republican Party will continue to subsume Tea Party rhetoric and candidates. The movement that once prided itself on its political independence is increasingly nothing more than a small, yet vocal, interest group within a larger entity.

These connections have reinforced the perception that Romney is “out of touch” with ordinary Americans. Romney has attempted to distance himself from Harvard and cast himself as the conservative standard-bearer during the campaign with mixed results. The right’s perception of Romney as disconnected will continue to haunt him throughout the nominating process, but it is unlikely that this would harm him significantly among Republican voters in the general election.

The Albatross of Elitism

“Harvard is the symbol of elite America,” Vanessa Williamson, co-author of The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, told the HPR. This symbolism has been evident for decades with Richard Nixon calling Harvard, “the Kremlin on the Charles” during the 1970s. Even today, conservative commentators dub HLS professor Elizabeth Warren a member of the “Harvard elite.”

According to Williamson, when conservatives refer to Harvard elites, they criticize cultural or liberal elitism. “Fear of elitism is a fear of cultural elitism … the Tea Party is concerned about liberal, coastal elites who look down on average Americans,” she explained.

Harvard professor Brett Flehinger agrees, telling the HPR that conservatives like Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum express, “a critique of liberalism.” Republicans and Tea Party supporters do not want those associated with elite institutions and liberal surroundings in positions of power. This Republican definition of elitism may explain why Mitt Romney is confronting a larger issue with his association with the Ivy League than both President Bushes, who attended Yale. They had the benefit of a Texan identity, while Romney’s connection to the elite Ivy League is compounded by his history as Massachusetts Governor.

With conservatives holding these beliefs, Romney clearly began his campaign at a disadvantage when it came to connecting with Republican voters. Indeed, Romney has experienced what Harvard-affiliated Williamson found when she researched the Tea Party. She comments, “As a general rule, people were suspicious before they met me.” Romney similarly has to shatter this barrier of suspicion.

Trying to Break Through

Romney has taken several measures to connect with conservatives; on a superficial level, Flehinger notes Romney has been wearing open-collared shirts and jeans this campaign cycle. He also has placed, “great emphasis on patriotism” to stave off perceptions of disconnectedness from ordinary citizens, and singing ‘America the Beautiful’ has become a regular feature on the stump.

More importantly though Flehinger believes Romney is “running as a businessman.” While this positioning as a businessman highlights his wealth, giving him a more traditionally populist definition of elitism among Democrats and Independents, it actually plays well with conservatives. The Tea Party members Williamson interviewed “weren’t [classic] populists.” She reasserts the idea that, “right wing populism aims at cultural symbols of the left wing…being rich is not a bad thing, and in fact is something to be admired.”

Furthermore, Flehinger observed that throughout the nomination process Romney’s opponents have not paid attention to his multiple houses. Such an attack on personal wealth would likely sit poorly with Republican voters, even though Newt Gingrich has not shied away from criticizing job-cutting aspects of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. Still, even this attack earned Gingrich criticism because fellow Republicans found parallels with liberal attacks on the free market.

Although Romney’s personal wealth itself does not raise concerns for Republican voters, he has made several gaffes regarding his wealth, earning widespread criticism from the media, Democrats, and even some Republicans. He infamously bet Texas Governor Rick Perry $10,000 at a debate over previous statements on the individual mandate. He even jokingly referred to himself as “unemployed” while speaking with a group of unemployed Floridians. Both incidents were widely covered by the media and Democrats sent out email blasts to supporters in hopes of raising money from Romney’s perceived aloofness. Some Republican opponents, like Rick Perry, criticized the bet as, “a little out of touch with the normal Iowa citizen.” The bet, however, along with his unemployment joke, proved unimportant with the Republican electorate.

In addition to attempts to separate himself from perceived elitism, Romney has explicitly put distance between himself and Harvard. He has repeatedly criticized Obama as out-of-touch, asserting that the President’s Harvard-linked foreign policy advisors advocate for more diplomatic engagement and reduced military strength. In a strong address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention, Romney criticized these advisors, stating, “That may be what they think in the Harvard faculty lounge, but it’s not what they know on the battlefield!”

But Romney’s attempts to distance himself from Harvard are often little more than words. Romney retains many Harvard professors and alumni as advisor, including economic advisor Professor N. Gregory Mankiw and key foreign policy advisor Kennedy School Professor Meghan O’Sullivan. Romney additionally continues to donate substantial sums to Harvard Business School according to recently released tax returns, and he has received over $56,000 from Harvard professors and their spouses in campaign donations since 2002.

Fixing Perceptions

To Williamson, Romney in a way has become “a Tea Party candidate.” Not only has he, “made a big effort to show he’s not still the guy who passed Romneycare,” but he has, “done things like show support for the Ryan budget.” Through these actions, Williamson claims Romney has sent signals to conservatives that he shares their orthodox views. Many leading conservatives have responded positively to these demonstrations of conservatism. Tea Party favorites South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Delaware 2010 Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell, and many others have endorsed him.

There is evidence however, that despite his support among leading conservative figures, Romney has not made a favorable impression on voters who express strong anti-elite sentiments. He has struggled with Tea Party supporters and self-identified “very conservative” voters throughout the nomination process. He also has lost several caucus contests, which tend to be smaller and filled with more conservative members of the Republican base.

Explaining Romney’s losses thus far, Williamson said, “No one I interviewed a year and half ago liked Romney. They still don’t like him.” She finds substantial evidence of his impalpability to many Republicans on Tea Party blogs. For example, the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation posted a link on their Facebook page to an article entitled, “The Mitt Romney Deception” while posing the question, “If you are supporting Mitt Romney as a Tea Party person, ask yourself – is he the kind of person that best represents Tea Party values?” A February Rasmussen Reports survey also showed Romney trailing Santorum among Tea Party supporters by 35 percentage points and “very conservative” voters by 36 points.

If Romney can reduce these deficits like he managed in Florida and use his vast organizational advantages to outlast his opponents, he should be able to arrive at the Republican National Convention with the nomination sewn up. His ability to counteract his elitist image will matter little in winning the conservative votes, although he will certainly face Democratic attacks on his fabulous wealth. According to Williamson, “Beating Obama is the number one concern…He doesn’t have to worry that [anti-elite conservatives won’t] come out to vote in the general election.”

Focus on November

Romney may be a Harvard-educated governor from Massachusetts, but he is nothing like Obama in the eyes of conservatives. Nevertheless, Obama does not have an elitist image problem with his own party as Democrats subscribe to more economic-based populism, and consequently see Obama as the son of a single mother who broke through significant social barriers to achieve success. The President is, however, roundly criticized by Republicans for elitist viewpoints. Flehinger noted, “Obama’s personality, aside from other issues like race, makes him more susceptible to that criticism [elitism].” Additionally, Flehinger observed, “Figures of the far right have done a good job of keeping him ‘foreign.’” For conservatives, Obama is emblematic of the cultural or liberal elitism Williamson described. This disdain for Obama will keep conservatives from staying home on Election Day even with Romney as the Republican nominee.

For Romney to win, he must focus on November, given that time is running out for Romney to successfully shed his Harvard and Massachusetts background. While mitigating his elitist image is certainly important, his success will ultimately entail convincing Republican voters that he remains the strongest contender in the general election.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

HR 2306:

HR 2306 is a rare example of bipartisan collaboration in a particularly divided Congress. Congressmen Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.), both prominent members of their respective parties, are cosponsors.  But the fact that the bill tackles a seemingly untouchable issue, federal marijuana regulation, is even more interesting.

During the previous two Congresses, Frank introduced legislation curbing federal enforcement of marijuana usage laws.  Both times, the bills had bipartisan support, but never made it beyond committee, and its latest incarnation will likely meet that same fate.  Since its introduction last June, HR 2306 has been recommended to both the House Judiciary and the Energy and Commerce Committees, but neither has acted.

Regardless, the topic is certain to galvanize groups seeking drug law reform, and the two prominent cosponsors add greater legitimacy to the marijuana legalization movement. Indeed, there are already proposed ballot initiatives in California, Colorado, and Washington state to decriminalize marijuana. Victories there could encourage the federal government to seriously examine the issue, as supporters of legalization are increasingly encouraged to advocate on both the state and federal level.

Currently, little discussion exists regarding this legislation, but as November approaches, accompanied by the aforementioned ballot initiatives and a Presidential campaign, HR 2306 will likely gain additional attention.  ¶

HR 3806: “One Subject at a Time Act”

While pundits are criticizing Congress for its inaction, Congressman Tom Marino (R-Pa.) is claiming legislators are doing too much simultaneously.  HR 3806 states, “Each bill or joint resolution shall embrace no more than one subject,” but this seemingly simple bill could have serious repercussions if signed into law.

The practice of attaching riders, or typically irrelevant legislative items attached to popularly supported bills, would be prohibited.  Indeed, many controversial bills have been attached as riders in recent years, and the most famous one was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In reality, the Democrats introduced it as an amendment to the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009”.

HR 3806 has yet to pass the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, and has only received five cosponsors.  However, the importance of this bill lies not in its potential passage, but in its implications. Assisted in its drafting by the Williamsport, Pa. Tea Party, the bill’s focus is very appealing to small government conservatives and libertarians.  While HR 3806 may not become law, any discussion indicates sincere thoughts about restructuring the way Congress conducts its business. ¶

HR 1981: “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011”

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) stole the legislative spotlight for January, but the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), has another bill, the “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011” under discussion.  While the title suggests possible bipartisan support, HR 1981 would significantly change the federal government’s role in monitoring the Internet.

Among the new punishments for possessing or creating child pornography are mandates for Internet service providers to maintain databases tracking convicted perpetrators’ IP addresses for one year at minimum. The goal is to locate individuals exchanging child pornography, but the implications extend well beyond that.  Essentially, information the government previously required a warrant for, Internet service providers would have to submit to authorities upon request.

The online community has remained silent, however, and because this legislation affects users rather than major service providers, few are protesting the bill.  Service providers have expressed disagreement with the expansion of federal authority, but the lack of outrage is most likely a product of minimal opposition from major online organizations. HR 1981 has passed the House Judiciary Committee, and is awaiting discussion by the full chamber. Expect for this bill to dominate discussion about civil liberties in the upcoming months.

Tea Party Supporter and Media Critic Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart is a conservative political commentator and the founder of an online media empire: Breitbart.com, breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism. He has also worked for the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report.

HPR: You’ve defended the Tea Party against charges that it is racist and violent or merely the work “Astroturf” organizers.

Andrew Breitbart: The most threatening thing in a Tea Party event I’ve gone to are people who dress their dogs in patriotic garb. These people have hand-made signs. It is not Astroturf. The opposition to the Tea Party is clearly Astroturf. Their signs are mass-produced. Organized labor is behind it: AFL-CIO, SEIU, the egg attackers I’ve caught on camera, Democratic Party field directors…

What’s interesting  is the power with which the Democratic Party can set the agenda and set up a baseline of propaganda. When the Tea Party movement started to emerge, the Democratic Party immediately called it racist and homophobic. It is a natural tendency of the cultural Marxist to use multiculturalism and race division in order to intimidate and marginalize a movement. It was expected. That’s why I go to the Tea Party events. I am not so much a political figure as a political media figure. I am trying to create equality in the mainstream media, so that the Tea Partiers do not have to be on the defensive against baseless accusations that cast their motivations in the worst, most horrific light.

HPR: What is the real meaning of the Tea Party in your view and what do you think is its proper role?

AB: There’s never a collective sense of being aghast when the Left organizes and protests and even gets violent. But there is a threat to the Democratic and media establishment when the conservative movement discovers the power of protest. Everybody thinks they are somehow not susceptible to the collective persuasion of media. We are immersed in a media world right now in which we are being inundated and hit from countless different angles. And the Democratic Party has understood far more than the Republican Party the power of popular culture, collective messaging, and aesthetics. Right now, the Tea Party is the sign of early adapters who are starting to recognize, “Wait, we can do the same thing that they’re doing.“

The media establishment is losing the viewership of red-state Middle America conservatives who have recognized that the media has behaved unfairly towards them for more than a generation. They’re starting to stand up and form an insurrection against the Democratic Party and the media. And both the Democratic Party and the media are threatened by this group of people. I’ve even stated that there may have to come a day when we do a Tea Party to the tune of millions of people on 6^th Avenue, Media Row in Manhattan, to show these people that we are serious, that we recognize the power of their propaganda. We recognize their power to frame decent Americans who are worried about the economic trajectory of this country, who are raising legitimate questions about who is going to pay for this Utopia, with baseless and reckless charges of racism.

HPR: We saw large increases in entitlement spending, an expansion of the national security state, and two wars under the Bush administration. Why don’t you think there was this kind of reaction then?

AB: If you’ve ever listened to conservative talk radio, there was no love lost with George Bush leaving the presidency. Many conservatives supported his wartime policy after we were attacked on 9/11, and the Right, which is much more oriented towards national security, recognized the collective threat of radical Islam to a great extent. They looked at the map and looked at where terrorist attacks had occurred around the world, and saw where the money was flowing, and noticed the demographic shift of unassimilated Muslims into Western liberal democracy, and recognized that we are going to have to figure out a long-term strategy to deal with it. It cost money to do.

George Bush tried to make accommodations. These were attempts to accommodate liberal entitlement programs, to try to make nice with the Ted Kennedys of the world. And he got burned for doing it. They still hated him, they still ridiculed his policies, and they still blamed him exclusively for votes that they took in favor of his war.

So George Bush was hoodwinked and bamboozled by the Democratic Party. He made accommodations with them that many would say were not wise, because he didn’t get as much bang for his buck as he could have. But he did make a commitment to the troops that he would follow through on the mission. He did. And I think history will look kindly on him for what he did.

The Tea Party is a radically different approach to what government is obligated to do, and the amount of money that should be put towards government as hundreds of billions in deficits turn into tens of trillions in debt. Tea Party people have legitimate concerns.

HPR: What do you see as your place, your niche, in the movement?

AB: I’m an individual. I don’t look for a leadership position. I’m trying to use my media savvy to protect these people, to guide them through a treacherous process. The media and Democratic Party have a political interest and self-interest in maligning them. Most of the Tea Partiers are not media-savvy. They’re not used to public debate and congregating publicly to vent their political concerns.

As a Jew, I guarantee you that if I sensed I was walking into a racist or anti-Semitic group of people I would run away from it. And I have not been shy to criticize [the Birthers]. The Tea Party has a series of legitimate grievances, and that to me is not one of them.

My involvement in the creation of the Huffington Post was an intentional sign to people that I believe, “May the best ideas win.” I believe in the free exchange of ideas. I helped to create a platform for the anti-war movement to exist. I am now trying to create a platform for the [conservative] side to be able to openly express its concerns about politics. The Left and its cultural Marxist tendencies, steeped in Alinsky and critical theory, tries to deconstruct every opposing argument into multicultural conflicts that put the other side on the defensive, as if they are secretly motivated by racism or homophobia. These desperate tactics are becoming too plain to the American people.

HPR: Do you think that it would benefit the Tea Party to stay as independent as possible of the GOP?

AB: Oh yes. I find it beautiful. Democrats are going to be put on the defensive about whether they are 100% for repeal or not. And the Republican Party is going to find that it now has checks and balances, which should have existed before, which would have kept the Bush administration more honest on issues of fiscal conservatism.

I believe in democracy. I believe in public debate. I am a staunch enemy of political correctness and the Left’s typical and predictable tactics of intimidation to stifle dissent. Wherever the Left finds itself in control, it stifles debate. Whether it is Cuba, or Hollywood, or the mainstream media. Wherever the orientation of the political Left becomes the dominant force, these tactics are used to shut people up.

I take this battle very personally. Having lived in L.A. most of my life, and I have an apartment in New York, I know how Leftists are. I know how they believe that their enemies are evil like Nazis. It’s not inexplicable that when given the choice between hiring someone who agrees with them politically and hiring someone they think is a Nazi, it is understandable that they would hire the non-Nazi. So that’s where I come from. I’ve witnessed and studied the Left. I find their tactics and their mindset deplorable and anti-democratic.

HPR: You have already launched several blogs focused on the “institutional Left,” such as Big Government, Big Hollywood, and Big Journalism, and you’ve said there may be more to come. Should we expect some kind of Big Academia, which would focus on the academy as a bastion of the Left?

AB: Yes. It’s going to be Big Education. It’s the one I will be the most passionate about, because that is the origin of this problem, that the Left took over academia at some point. There had always been a strong movement towards progressivism and even a movement towards economic Marxism during the 1930s and the Depression. But the arguments of economic Marxism never took hold in the United States in the way they did in other countries, because America had a unique makeup and a unique narrative. It was the idea that anyone could come from Ellis Island, and within a generation their family could pretty much be at the top of the heap.  So economic Marxism was not a particularly strong [ideology] in America.

But it was the Frankfurt School—people like Marcuse, Horkheimer, and Adorno, who fled from Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy—these people were Marxists who translated economic Marxism into cultural terms. That critical theory, that “deconstruction,” that language of [dividing] the country from e pluribus unum and split us up into little multicultural segments pitted against each other. And that is what I fight against—how the Left has used culture, especially academia, to pit people in groups against each other in order to achieve political gain.

That is my battle. That is what Big Education will fight mercilessly using video cameras and Alinsky tactics, to make life hell for totalitarian Marxist professors. [Families] are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, or, God forbid, students are taking out hundreds of thousands in loans in order to be turned against the system that they are about to graduate into. And I was one of those idiots.

And now I’ve turned against my master, and I’m pissed.

Alexander Sherbany ’11 is the Managing Editor. This interview has been edited and condensed.

Photo Credit: Flickr (shalf)

The State of the Union has hindered the 112th Congress

After Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives last November, they vowed to repeal major legislation passed by the previous Congress and satisfy the Tea Party, whose conservative votes and voices lifted them to victory. However, despite months of rancorous debate on topics ranging from health care to the notorious debt ceiling, Congress has not accomplished much.

Bills pass one branch of Congress only to be immediately shut down by the other. This phenomenon has characterizes many previously divided Congresses, but today’s historic polarization signals a shift in how the government functions. Analyzing the circumstances surrounding this impasse provides a glimpse into political debate in the near future.

Business as Usual

A cursory glance at history indicates that Congress has seen similarly dire circumstances before. Midterm elections have often ushered in legislatures dominated by reactionaries hostile to the incumbent president. Yet it is unfair to lambast this Congress with the ‘Do-Nothing’ label, as Harry Truman did to his Republican opponents in the 80th Congress. Joseph Postell, professor of political science at the University of Colorado, told the HPR, “It’s hard to define what it means to be a do- nothing Congress. It seems like obviously compared to the Congress before it…this Congress has done much less. It’s certainly a do-less Congress.”

Yale Professor David Mayhew asserts, “Generally speaking, major enactments come later in a Congress under divided party control. It takes longer to cool down the antagonisms and make the deals.” This indicates that any greater progress under divided Congresses this early would be surprising. “The current Congress seems more or less typical in actual enactments,” continues Mayhew. Indeed, this session’s major achievements remain limited to free trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and the debt compromise, which, while controversial and tricky in its negotiation, eventually passed.

A Different Political Climate

Several factors underlie the dearth of progress. Postell believes these include, “greater polarization, the Tea Party, and the circumstances in which the country finds itself.” The current economic crisis has dominated Congressional attention, preventing most other issues from emerging. Reaching meaningful compromise on the incredibly broad issue of economic recovery has been difficult. While the American people hope for quick remedies, both parties are careful to not upset their bases with fiscal or economic heresies. Members of the Tea Party, for example, have been particularly vocal in their emphasis on shrinking the size of government. Liberals, likewise, have consistently refused to reform entitlements: the problem which economists agree will become the largest driver of future deficits. A growing focus on ideological purity, including GOP pledges to not raise taxes, has stalled negotiation by forcing legislators to toe the party line or face primary challenges.

The changing Republican base has also made compromise with the Democrats increasingly difficult. Theda Skocpol, Harvard government professor, maintains that Republicans, “have a huge Tea Party- oriented caucus that has really made it impossible for Speaker Boehner, even if he wanted to, to make any kind of compromise.” While party feuding has occurred since time immemorial, Skocpol believes that “Republicans in both the House and the Senate are determined to do nothing at all. Their top priority is to defeat President Obama in 2012… I don’t think the Republican Party can go a whole lot further to the right.” The data support Skocpol’s claim. According to National Journal, the 112th Congress is the most polarized in modern history. The moderates of years past have largely disappeared, wiped out in wave elections and replaced with dogmatic ideologues.

Compounding this scenario is a rather perplexing occurrence: the American people may not even know what they want. Postell thinks that “At this point no one knows exactly what the public mood is… Maybe the public is still waiting to see what the economic stimulus and health care acts produce.” History has shown that the country’s mood can rapidly swing when dissatisfaction is widespread. When no dominant voice of the people emerges, however, Congress treads cautiously. Indeed, despite the fact that Congressmen and Senators typically have their own clear-cut agendas, Skocpol states, “Voters in general often don’t know what to do when they’re disillusioned with things.” Representatives in Washington can only sit and wait while their constituents make up their collective mind.

The Eternal Campaign

The lens through which the public sees its representatives has also shaped the discussion, or lack thereof. The sheer volume of media analysis and criticism continuously assails Americans, overwhelming all other discourse. Postell believes there is great significance in “the amount of political commentary the people are subjected to these days.” As pundits offer constant reminders of Congressional gridlock, general dissatisfaction with the political system becomes an unavoidable outcome. While intense scrutiny of politicians before an election is nothing new, this focus is now relentless. Immediately after new legislators win elections, the next campaign cycle begins.

Augmenting this obsession with campaigns, a core to conservative politicians’ plans for 2012 is convincing the public that the Obama administration bears the blame for continued economic distress. While opposition to a president by the opposing party in Congress is standard practice, Skocpol believes that “what we’re seeing under Obama is new. The Republican popular base…outright hates and fears Obama.” Delivering any major legislative victories would increase Obama’s standing, creating a conundrum for GOP leaders seeking to leave their mark. Others feel that contention has simply become the new norm, with Postell citing the deep-seated opposition liberals had against President Bush. However, he does believe, “There is a problem here with the constant campaign.”

Eyeing 2012

With an increasingly conservative Republican base and outrage surrounding the sour economy afflicting both parties, the current legislature is certainly a “Do-Less Congress”. The media’s fixation has fired up partisans of every stripe. In this toxic environment, national policy-making has stagnated. Regardless, America is facing major changes.

Skocpol says that “the 2012 election is probably one of the most pivotal in American history; [if the Republicans win, they] will restructure the role of government in society.” A sweep of the House, Senate, and White House by Republicans would constitute a national mandate for overturning of Obama administration policies. However, if Obama wins reelection, Skocpol believes, “The Republicans may take a step back and realize that they have gone too far.” Such a victory would constitute an endorsement of the President and a rebuke against the ‘Do-Less’ Congress’s policies and practices.

John Prince ’13 is a Staff Writer. Thomas Esty ’14 is a Contributing Writer.

Photo Credit: House GOP Leader, Flickr

“I think I have time for one more visit.”

Starstruck, my group eagerly scooped up a handful of signature green pocket Constitutions and took turns offering pleasantries and “fight the good fight”s. The line reached me.

“I sympathize with many of your views, Dr. Paul.”

The room fell silent. On our way out, a friend turned to me and explained: “You’re supposed to support him!”

Ron Paul … deserves your consideration. Although I’m possessed of too many caveats to offer an explicit endorsement, his unique and genuinely interesting candidacy merits all the sympathy it can get from both sides of the aisle – especially during a primary season light on dissent, ideological diversity, and intellectual rigor.

Like most qualified defenders of the Paul candidacy, I have little patience for gold standard nostalgia or immigration nativism. But I infinitely appreciate having around the only voice in American politics (perhaps besides Dennis Kucinich) who understands the destruction wrought by the senseless war on drugs, can remember a foreign policy from before jingoism became the norm, and believes in genuine limits on executive power.

To be sure, Paul does not reach many of these conclusions the way that I would: I share with him neither a zeal for constitutional originalism nor a radically libertarian vision for the size of government. But like many of his more liberal supporters, I’ve come to appreciate Paul for speaking truth to power – for bringing stark reason to an arena where only slick political truisms are allowed to play.

Many politically ‘radical’ planks on Paul’s agenda are simply taken for granted in the realm of experts. Council on Foreign Relations task force reports, former Latin American heads of state, and economists alike support the normalization of illegal drugs. Despite differences over foreign aid and domestic policy, field experts writing in Foreign Policy have offered more praise for Ron Paul’s quasi-realism than for nearly any other political voice on foreign policy.

Moreover, Ron Paul is of the rare class tuned in to the grievances of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, touching upon the conclusion that government and corporations need to be held accountable for the socioeconomic crisis at hand. Unlike the rest of the Republican field, whose lip service to free markets ends at the door of monopolistic corporations, Paul carries through with an orthodox take on economic conservatism that aims to privilege the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations.

Whatever his platform amounts to on balance, Ron Paul has much more to contribute in the way of unique substance than any other Republican candidate – and would force a reconsideration of Barack Obama’s tepid record as a defender of civil liberties. On these points, I suggest reading either of Conor Friedersdorf’s excellent qualified defenses of Representative Paul in The Atlantic.

And as it happens, the business of considering Ron Paul is no longer just an intellectual exercise. The Texas congressman is effectively tied for second place in Iowa, and has inched into the upper teens in New Hampshire. As Romney and Gingrich spar over the fickle, dissatisfied mainstream of the Republican electorate, Ron Paul’s loyal, well-organized base of supporters stands out as a rare asset that could surprise big on caucus/primary day.

Let’s hope that it does: support or merely sympathize, it’s high time for someone to shake up politics as usual. Give Paul a chance.

Penned by our Founding Fathers 224 years ago, the Constitution has long been construed differently by political forces to justify their own political agendas. Conservatives in particular have been active in using this document to advocate for fundamental changes in government policy. Their efforts have culminated with congressional proceedings questioning legislation’s constitutionality, an effort led by Republicans like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), who told the HPR that “The resurgence of constitutional conservatism has to do with the growth of the federal government.”

The roots of “constitutional conservatism,” the term applied to the GOP’s recent rhetoric, trace back to Barry Goldwater’s emphasis on individuals rather than government as the driver for prosperity. Though Reagan’s smashing electoral success brought this fashion into the norm, today’s conservatives have strayed from Goldwater’s and others’ original intent.

Conservative Discontent

As Peter Berkowitz of Stanford’s Hoover Institution wrote in January 2009, renewed focus on the constitutional question originated with the Republican Party’s immense losses in 2008. The devastating setbacks inflicted on Republicans rallied an ideologically narrow base and fostered new rhetoric. Further, the libertarian sect of the Republican Party had grown discontented with President Bush, whose administration had substantially increased the government’s purview over fiscal matters and civil liberties. Once President Obama began to implement his agenda, conservatives began to rally against a president they viewed as guilty of fundamentally unconstitutional actions. Trevor Burrus, a legal associate at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, told the HPR that the bailouts were “the main culprit.” Conservatives, unable to defeat the President’s agenda in Congress, attacked legislation on constitutional grounds.

This appeal has manifested in many forms. Presidential candidate and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has hallmarked her campaign as one motivated by constitutional conservatism, which includes  repealing  “Obamacare.” The current House, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), mandated that every piece of legislation passed by the lower chamber identify the relevant portion of the Constitution that provides legal legitimacy. Even more, Joe Miller, the 2010 Tea Party-backed Senate candidate in Alaska told the HPR, “In 2010, a number of Tea Party candidates, including myself, self-identified as constitutional conservatives in order to differentiate ourselves from ‘compassionate conservatives’ who nearly bankrupted the country while leading us into wars and nation building.”

Though Miller narrowly lost his election, over the past two years, constitutional rhetoric has become winning vocabulary and spurred a movement that, according to TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson, has “decided to follow in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King” in peacefully accomplishing   goals   and   gaining “the attention of our leaders.”  Some, however, are more dismissive. Ian Millhiser, political analyst for the Center for American Progress, tells the HPR, “This notion that the primary purpose of our Constitution is to handicap our national leaders’ ability to solve national problems has been around, and it rears its ugly head every now and then.”

Constitutional Rigidity? 

Prominent conservative minds like the late political philosopher Frank Meyer and National Review founder William Buckley promoted a certain constitutional conservatism that, as Berkowitz suggested, is accurately  grounded “in America’s founding ideas, and the intellectual coherence of the alliance…between partisans of freedom and partisans of tradition.” Berkowitz adds, “It’s a characteristic…of  conservatives to respect the wisdom of the past contained in tradition.”

Nonetheless, as Georgetown professor Jeffrey Rosen suggests, “Citizens disagree plausibly and legitimately as to the meaning of the Constitutional text.”  For instance, though many conservatives view universal health care legislation as unconstitutional, there are few who would argue for complete repeal of New Deal programs such as Social Security. Offering a different perspective, Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus and Constitution Party founder, suggests that conservatives “are cautious about the political impact of being comprehensively critical of Social Security.”

Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon notes that, in interpreting our Constitution, those on the “left, right, and center all think that if people knew more about the Constitution then we would have a better polity than we have now.” But, Fallon adds, the “vast majority of what Congress does is constitutional…and  these numbers do not vary much from administration to administration.” The political tension over interpreting the Constitution has seen the right challenging what  it perceives to be overly expansive legislation and liberals deferring to the vagueness of constitutional wordage. This debate, which Burrus views as revolving around “the very important principle…that the Congress cannot have unlimited power,” is  challenged by those who naturally resist against substantial changes. Fallon notes, “The fact that, when Congress does something dramatic of a kind it has not done before, people ask the question of whether or not it is constitutional is not a surprise.”

Gone Astray?

The Tea Party movement, citing the Constitution as the basis for smaller government, has also received considerable criticism. Rosen, when asked about the Republican presidential candidates, argues that hypocrisy exists in that “those same candidates that hope that the courts will strike down health care reform and much of the welfare state…then bash those same courts for judicial activism.” Rosen also critiques the conservative employment of constitutional arguments, saying, “There is too quick a tendency on the right to run to court to reverse their political defeats by invoking the constitution.”

Neither has the constitutional issue reconciled the conservative and libertarian GOP wings. Berkowitz says, “I don’t think there has been a philosophical meeting of minds of the two conservative camps.” Indeed, one might well wonder whether the constitutional conservatism espoused by today’s Republicans has strayed from the roots originally examined by Meyer and Buckley, and put into practice by Goldwater and Reagan.

As the pseudonymous W.W. wrote in The Economist in June 2011, liberals, when speaking about the constitutional movement, often hint “at a far more radical agenda than meets the untrained eye.” Yet, some like Joe Miller advocate for this radical approach, saying, “Time is not any patriot’s ally in this fight. Moderation in advocacy and delay in reform will almost certainly fail in its attempt to save the Republic.”

What the Future Holds

By Robertson’s estimation, “The job of the Tea Party is far from over because we have a lot of work to do before we are able to bring back a constitutional  form of government.”  Senator Lee adds, “What happens in 2012  in the direction of constitutional conservatism is going to make what happened in 2010 look like a Sunday picnic.” However unsettled the debate over the significance and intent of constitutional conservatism may be, conservatives have found a winning electoral message, even while legal scholars anguish at its usage.

Tom Gaudett ’14 is the Circulation Manager. Simon Thompson ’14 is the Interviews Editor.

Photo Credit: Flickr (Gage Skidmore)

It goes without saying that the outcome of the 2012 elections will have serious implications for many of the issues that Occupy protesters have highlighted.  These include the future of the social safety net, the ongoing fight over President Obama’s health care law, and the potential cuts to entitlements from the Congressional super-committee.  Tax rates for “the 1%” and corporations remain on the table, as is obvious by the ongoing fight over the Bush tax cuts and Obama’s “Buffett rule”.  The Dodd-Frank law and repeated attempts to weaken it continue to spark heated debate over regulation of Wall Street.  The battle is also on-going over consumer protection and Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

However, weighing in on these issues may become more difficult.  In advance of the 2012 elections, many states have passed or are considering tighter voter ID laws.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, eight states (compared with two at the beginning of 2011) have so-called “strict photo ID” laws, which require voters to show a photo ID in order to vote.  Seven more states have less strict photo ID laws in which voters are asked to show a photo ID but may provide other information instead.  Overall, in 2011, voter ID laws have been introduced in twenty states that did not previously have them.  Fourteen states that already had voter ID laws, but did not require a photo ID, considered or are considering proposals to add a photo ID requirement.

Supporters of these laws argue that they are needed to combat voter fraud and that they are not unduly burdensome.  However, cases of voter fraud are few and far between.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the voter fraud rate in 2004 in Ohio, a crucial swing state, was a whopping 0.00004%, about the rate at which Americans are struck and killed by lightning.  Ohio did not require a photo ID then, but it is considering doing so now.  Meanwhile, the photo ID requirements disproportionately impact key portions of the 99%: the poor, minorities, and the elderly.  Some have suggested it is no coincidence that these constituencies tend to vote Democratic, while the photo ID laws are generally being pushed by Republican legislatures and governors.

Unfortunately, voter ID laws have yet to figure prominently (if at all) into Occupy’s list of grievances.  Indeed, many Occupy protesters, out of frustration with “the system,” seem to reject voting as a means of effecting change.  Pro-Occupy signs posted on streets near Harvard declare:  “Our system is out of balance and my vote doesn’t change things.”  The Crimson recently reported that IOP volunteers who tried to register voters at Occupy Boston’s Dewey Square encampment found that many protesters were not interested in registering or voting.  As long as Occupiers decline to vote, politicians will not take their demands seriously.  Case in point:  when warned by a protester that he would soon be out of office, Oakland City Council President Larry Reid (who called for the Oakland tents to come down in the wake of a shooting on November 10^th) responded, “You didn’t elect me.  You probably ain’t even registered to vote!”

Frustration with current Washington politics is understandable.  However, it is difficult to argue that voting cannot change Washington.  The Tea Party began as a loosely organized protest movement.  However, it quickly focused on the 2010 midterm elections, with impressive results.  The influx of Tea Party-backed representatives and senators has shifted the debate in Congress to the right, helped bring the deficit to the top of Washington’s agenda, and made traditional Republicans reluctant to vote against the movement’s agenda, lest they face a Tea Party-backed primary challenge.  Some have noted a philosophical irony here.  The Tea Party is largely an anti-government movement, yet worked through the system to change the government.  Many of Occupy’s core demands can only be met through government intervention, yet the movement seems disinterested in participating in the political process.  Moreover, if Occupy truly is the voice of the 99%, then surely those people (provided they can obtain voter IDs) would support its agenda.

Furthermore, if the Occupy movement attempted to translate the energy it has generated into power at the polls, it would probably be forced to confront some of its other problems along the way.  It would need to develop a clearer, more focused platform by honing in on its central grievances and moving from identifying problems to proposing solutions.  This would help respond to those who argue that the movement’s goals are vague and unrealistic, or that they differ from day to day and from city to city.  In the process, it would have to distance itself from some of its more extreme and controversial supporters—helping to combat the growing image of urban Occupy camps as havens for anarchists, drug dealers and addicts, and troublemakers in general.  A more cohesive organizational structure would also develop, both within individual camps and between camps in different cities.

Ultimately, the only way to change Washington is by working through the political process—a task that will best be achieved when all voices are heard at the polls.  Admittedly, it is a daunting task to sort through various state laws to ensure that as many of the 99% as possible can cast their votes.  However, protesters who have left their homes (or their dorms) and braved the cold while living in tents have shown a willingness to sacrifice comfort.  Perhaps they should now devote some of their time and energy to the surely more productive task of working to register some of the countless eligible voters who are not currently registered, especially where voters may need help acquiring photo IDs.  Instead of just speaking for the 99%, help them speak for themselves at the polls.

An Old Debate

Claims of constitutionality are no new phenomenon in American politics. In 1832, President Jackson famously decried the Bank of the United States as unconstitutional in validating his opposition to the institution. Over one hundred years later, the Supreme Court struck down several of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs under a similar rubric. Labeling legislation as at odds with the will of the founders is as old as the Constitution itself, as Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet, told the HPR. “It’s always been the case that people say that controversial policy proposals they oppose are unconstitutional.”

Further, constitutional arguments have a cyclical nature. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe asserts, “If you go back some decades, it was common to attack lots of attempts to use federal power… as an unconstitutional excess.” These past few years have been a throwback of sorts. “We’re simply going into another cycle in which people are questioning the extent to which the movement from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution really did give the central government such types of powers,” Tribe continues. While Tushnet and Tribe are correct that the Constitution has long been relevant to American politics, a perfect political storm in today’s environment has heighted the import of constitutional debate.

The Great Revival

Politicians seeking reelection in the polarized political climate have faced extraordinary fundraising and ideological demands. Policy arguments alone frequently fail to satisfy the base. Recognizing this limitation, politicians have capitalized upon the fact that Americans appear to align the morally good with the constitutionally permissible. As Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon elaborates, “The more sharply divided people become… then the more people are likely to roll out the heavy guns of constitutionality.” Politicians, seeking the ammunition that the Constitution provides, seek to take advantage of the moral weight of the founding document. Already, such claims paid huge dividends for Republicans in the 2010 elections, propelling firebrands like Allen West to Washington.

The never-ending media cycle adds fuel to the ideological fire. “How did the debate play out 200 years ago in a newspaper people read once a week because it was delivered to them by pony?” asks Roll Call editor Christina Bellantoni. “Now we have a debate at warp speed because of the Internet and 24/7 news media.” Steven Hayward, a political commentator and policy scholar, succinctly profiled what has become of national debate. Referring to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement “Are you serious?” when asked about the constitutionality of the health care law, he reflected, “In a century, we’ve gone from three days [of discussion] to three words.” Because short sound bites are far more likely to garner attention than detailed policy speeches, substantive discussion about whether legislation is constitutional is almost impossible. Even the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates would likely be summarized into several succinct sentences by today’s media.

Moreover, the endless news cycle has allowed the Tea Party to play a significant role in elevating the Constitution in the public discourse. Bellantoni offers her perspective, stating that “The Tea Party sort of burst on the scene; they put on colonial garb and used the Constitution as their sort of weapon. And once that happened… you just got more and more lawmakers echoing what they heard at those rallies.” With the Tea Party championing a revival of the Constitution and the pressures of fundraising frenzies, invoking the founding document has become difficult to avoid for those seeking public office. Tea Party sympathizers and opponents have similarly been drawn into this discussion, laying the groundwork for continued heated rhetoric.

Who’re You Calling Unconstitutional?

Increased references to the Constitution, however, do not conflate with greater legitimacy. The debate over who has the right answers to these important constitutional questions rages on. Representatives Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Ron Paul (R-TX), among others, have called everything from the EPA to Obama’s health care policy unconstitutional. Scholars like Hayward nonetheless defend both claims. With regards to the EPA, Hayward fears that, “more and more we’re governed by administrators rather than by Congress,” which could have implications for the separation of powers. Regarding health care, he explains that, “with something like Obamacare, we are testing the limits of what is left of the Commerce Clause… if Congress has the power to [mandate that all citizens buy health insurance], what don’t they have the power to do?” Here, Bachmann and Paul’s constitutional arguments are rooted in deeply held ideological beliefs that government has exceeded its powers.

Yet others feel that such views run contrary to the very spirit of the Constitution. Tribe, for instance, views such positions to be “both ahistorical and functionally problematic.” Bachmann and Paul espouse, “a kind of literalist reading which would cripple the economy and which one couldn’t accept without, in fact, dismantling the entire federal structure.” Tribe goes so far as to label such rhetoric as “Neanderthal” emphasizing that the demands of modern society make such views antiquated. Indeed, opponents to landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act similarly claimed that the Acts were unconstitutional.

Regardless of where the answer lies, broad discussion of constitutional values has some inherent value, simply because public discourse promotes civic awareness. Unfortunately, however, the heightened rhetoric has generally not translated into a deeper understanding of the Constitution among the American populace. In fact, Bellantoni explains, “most young people don’t have as much familiarity with the Constitution… as they did 30 years ago.” Ultimately, today’s intensely partisan rhetoric has created a toxic environment in Washington, with the result that the 112^th Congress is on track to becoming one of the least productive ever, a particularly dire situation, given its incredibly challenging tasks. For all the attention America has given the Constitution in recent years, Americans have failed to follow the founders’ wish to amicably resolve our differences.

Daniel Ki ‘15 and Jacob Drucker ’15 are Contributing Writers