You've been around longer than many people realize, of course. You were here well before the term 'tea party' was coined. I saw you in the 'Republican revolution' of 1994. And I saw hints of you in the Reagan administration. From what I can gather Herbert Hoover and his Republican party were a lot like you. But I'm wandering into areas where I'm no expert. My point is that you're not really new and the rest of us can see you for what you really are far, far better than you think we can. You're a lot more transparent than you realize.
You've made impressive, and frankly frightening, gains in recent years. One thing you've offered voters is to be the protector of freedom. But what kind of freedom did you offer us? The freedom to keep and bear arms? But, you see, that didn't really help anything. We have enough of that particular freedom and there's no reasonable threat to it anywhere on the horizon. So you offered us something that we didn't need. And, sure, it got you a great deal of cheap votes from folks who didn't bother to think it through. But voters like that are often fickle. And the die-hards are few in numbers.
You also promised us the freedom to ram our particular religion down the throats of unwilling neighbors. But we don't really want that. Not most of us, anyway. Many of us want freedom from religion. Others just want freedom from other religions. And that accounts for most of the voters in any civilized society. So, you see, that was a short-sighted card to be playing.
Did you offer us any sort of protection from exploitation and abuse at the hands of the more powerful private entities around us? (Do you even understand what that means?) No. You didn't. You don't give any indication that this even registers as a matter of concern to you. And while this won't meet any dictionary definition of 'freedom', it's a sort of kindred spirit principle. And it matters an awful lot to those of us who have played by the rules and pulled our weight in our society in our modest way. The people who take the world by storm are able to buy this sort of protection. Those of us who had more modest careers lack the funds to do so and we rely on our society to give us this type of protection. Our society has been failing to do so pretty badly, by the way. Yet your domestic policy boils down to, "So......you're not a big shot? Sucks to be you, doesn't it?"
Your fiscal policy is to deny government the funds to even, for example, fix the roads. Just getting you to pay lip service to the idea that this is something that ought to be done is like pulling teeth. And what about you coming up with some real funds to do the job? Not on your life. You won't do it. And we know it. And this sort of infrastructure neglect works to further deny us opportunities to get ahead. Meaning that 'it sucks to be us' might very well get worse. And you don't care about that. And we know it.
You did have one real source of strength, it seems, in 2010 and thereabouts. Speaking to the voters, you pointed at the party elites and said, "They've been treating you so badly for so long". And that seems to have resonated with a lot of voters. They voted for you, I suppose, out of a feeling of relief that a candidate, or a political movement, had finally recognized their plight. Now you didn't actually say, of course, that you'd pursue policies that would help the little guy. I suppose your prattle about 'freedom' was meant to cover that. But what you didn't say turned out to be the reality. You had no plans to do anything about it other than punish a few elites who'd done some profiting. You had no plans to actually reform anything.
You disappointed an awful lot of your supporters. It's only been a couple of election cycles since your zenith. And had things gone normally this disappointment would probably only be showing itself about now in the form of gradual vote loss.
But Donald Trump came along and stole your best line. And you won't be able to get it back.
And he added to your best line. "They've been treating you awful badly. And I'm gonna do something about it!" And the people who voted for you six years ago are now deserting you for Trump. In numbers large enough to matter.
I have a feeling he means it. But that doesn't matter. The result is the same. Some of his ideas are kinda hare-brained. But it won't help you.
You're finished, finished, finished!
You came amazingly close to taking over 'the drivers seat' of this nation. But it's crumbling away now and your moment has passed. Many of you, of course, still have your seats in Congress, the state legislatures, governorships and so on. You won't keep them forever. But a few of you will probably hang on for some time. And when you go there'll be others to take your place. Probably fewer in numbers than right now. But you'll be around. And you'll be capable of making trouble for those who are actually trying to do something.
But before you settle for such a diminished role why don't you consider a new strategy? Take a little time and ponder this question; "What is really so terribly wrong with legislation crafted by consensus and, even, deal making?"
I'm talking about the sort of legislation where each faction gets a little bit of what they want. No one gets everything, but everyone gets something.
The only criticism that I can think of is that it's inefficient. Yet even that seems hollow to me. A better way of looking at it would be that this keeps this legislature from going off in some wild direction in the attempt to change everything overnight. As folks who claim to be conservative, I would think you'd find some comfort in the fact that legislation by consensus offers such protection.
When a society is run this way then each faction can hope to influence things in their particular way over the longer run. What they're really hoping is that their policies will be beneficial enough that the track record established translates into attracting more voters. Which, in turn, translates into more strength for this particular faction in this legislature. This is actually a very good way of determining which factions have the best philosophy and platform, the best agenda, for the nation. This is a very good thing.
So why not join in? You don't need to give me an answer to this question. But, please, spend some time thinking it over for yourself. I certainly do hope that you'll conclude that this really is better than, "We want everything our way or we're burning the whole damned house down!" But you don't have to have this change of heart simply because I say so.
But I do think it's your only constructive alternative. As fire-bombers, your political capital is spent.
I suppose you could try to co-opt Trump by embracing his policies. And you could add to the ferocious atmosphere of it all. But you'd risk the formation of a serious coalition of progressives and moderate Democrats and Republicans against you.
This would actually be a very good development for the nation. It just wouldn't be good for you.