And We Wonder Why Good People Don't Get Involved in Politics…

(Originally posted shortly after midnight, and carried to the top or near the top throughout Friday. The item is by BizzyBlog author Rose.– Ed.)

__________________________________

“Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping the shadow.” ~Aesop

An email is floating around, attempting to discredit a local Republican & Tea Party leader that I'll refer to as “this guy,” lol.

Now I know “this guy,” so I know that while we all watch out for foul play (but would never dream we could be a part of it, lol), the character assassination against him personally, is pure bunk. But since I have also heard (all flipping day, I might add, ha) from Republican and Tea Party leaders alike, who are pretty upset that he has been unjustifiably attacked, I will attempt to provide some context. I also removed the names to protect those involved and to focus on recognizing the pattern/tactic for future reference…

The email is as follows; it was addressed to Committee members/leaders, and went out the day after “this guy,” a local Tea Party warrior, announced his candidacy for State Representative (which puts him in a primary with an established candidate whom the sender is probably supporting):

When I joined the tea party movement and then the Committee, I had very high hopes about bringing tea party values and transparency to politics and government. I had hoped that we common folk could do better than the people that had been in charge. Concepts such as openness and transparency were key values that I was looking forward to being part of.

I didn't recognize the problem at the beginning. Perhaps I just didn't really want to. Let's review the history of how we got started.

Select members of the community were encouraged to attend a tea party meeting at the Center. It remains a mystery as to how these “select” citizens were chosen for notification, but I'll continue. We all gathered and learned about tea party values and learned about the republican central committee. There was much talk about the corruption of secret meetings and backroom deals. I whole heartedly agreed that this perceived corruption needed to be stopped and I was looking very forward to being part of a process of openness and transparency.

So what did we do next? Again, I really didn't see it at the time (or didn't want to), but we held a secret meeting and made a backroom deal. We secretly decided to “go for the gavel.” We even went as far as to decide who would be the four officers of the committee. Again, this was a backroom deal held in a secret meeting. We won! The election and hostile takeover of the committee went exactly as planned.

We stumbled a little when we attempted to stack the deck and slam through the “block vote” for [candidate] for judge. Although we were initially successful, the process stank of corruption and then blew up in the face of our leadership. We learned from that and will make sure that future “block votes” will require that all tea party members put aside our ability to think independently and simply go along to get along.

So lately, I've been finding myself scratching my head and trying to figure out what happened to our initial charter of openness and transparency without any secret meetings or backroom deals.

Throughout this letter, I've been using the word “we.” If you read it again, take out the word “we” and insert “this guy”, you'll get a better picture of the problem.

Why has “this guy” wanted all of the individual township tea party groups to disband and consolidate as one tea party under his control? Has “this guy” been using the tea party for his own personal political gain? Why has “this guy” been telling some people that he's definitely running for state representative, other people that he's just thinking about it, and still other people that he's definitely not running? Is “this guy” secretly engineering a tea party “block vote” to use the tea party to promote himself? Has he been keeping his intentions secret so as not to appear to be self-serving? Now that he has publicly announced his intentions, does this mean that his “block vote” is in place? Why are not all the committee members invited to these caucus meetings? I now understand the need to utilize more than one email listing for the committee. and yet told it was my error when that mulligan had already been used.

Have any of you read the book “Animal Farm ” by George Orwell? In this 1945 publication, the animals represent certain characters during the Stalin era before WWII. It is about government and revolution and how power corrupts leadership. The book and movie on DVD are available for free at the library. I am encouraging all of you to read it (or watch the movie) and see the unfortunate parallels to “him” and our tea party. I'm personally disappointed and wish I didn't have to express my opinion and understand the repercussions.

Don't misinterpret my intentions. I don't want to replace “this guy” as the tea party leader and couldn'’t as I don't have his communication skills. Nor do I know of anyone interested in that role. I simply want him to not insulate himself with other members when any problem arises, but mostly be transparent about his political ambitions, wear one hat at a time, and not to pervert the tea party for his own personal political gain. We need to get back to our original charter of transparency and openness and stop these political shenanigans.

While this type of thing could very well be going on in Tea Party land, those who have worked with “this guy” from the get-go, will tell you that it isn't going on with him, period (that's if you care to ask the people who would know).

It's ironic that we so sanctimoniously claim to value fairplay and transparency, then refuse to sit down and have a conversation with someone before we trash them, nice. We clamour for leaders to represent our core principles and the minute someone steps up, we – with malice aforethought – allow someone to convince us that we must beat them down. Crabs in a bucket…

We get the government/candidates we deserve by continuing to give our REAL enemies the means of our own destruction.

Here is the first response I received:

Excuse me sir, but we started at SB's with a handful of people trying to figure out how to begin a new tea party, under the driving mechanism of the time that it had to be an organic movement – like a plant that grows from place to place by spreading shoots. We worked hard at it, but had no idea whether it would be successful at all.

The move to the center was a big deal for us. We had no idea how many people would show up. Obviously, we succeeded beyond our wildest hopes.

Your charge that the Tea Party has tried to eliminate other tea party groups rings hollow. All groups continue and “this guy” (et.al.) were firmly behind me for my own until I had to abandoned the effort due to personal reasons. On me, not him.

I don't know if you were at the first caucus meeting or not, but I agree that it was a bit messy. We just did not have the rules of the road defined, and I am not sure that we ever will. Tea Party people tend to be well informed, with strong opinions and convictions. There were no “backroom deals”. This is all just in your imagination. Except for the steering committee, we meet in public, all of the time.

Even the steering committee is a relatively open process.

I am uncertain what your particular complaints might be, but the charge that everything has been somehow “backroom deals” is simply not true.

And another…(emphasis is mine):

Mr. -,

With a few exceptions, perhaps more than anyone, I understand the dangers of becoming what you fight. I have been there & try each day to be more aware of preventing that very thing from happening. What has helped me is separating process from tactics. A process is the series of actions one must go through to reach an ultimate goal (e.g., liberty). A tactic is very similar, though dangerous in that the goal is more immediate (e.g., an endorsement) and as such prone to dysfunction. Tactics can be strategic & unifying (rare in politics), or they can be emotional/destructive (typical).

1. All like-minded groups caucus, if they didn't go through that process, then their agenda (which in our case is limited government, free markets & fiscal responsibility), would neither get heard nor advanced. Everyone is invited – even the ones who like the status quo & want to stop our progress – and no one is turned away. Doing so would be a tactic that would ultimately fracture the group & thereby diminish its capacity to affect change.

2. Discussion, debate & disagreement are an inevitable part of that process. The key tactic we can use to maintain integrity/unity is to communicate through it effectively, respectfully, and w/o malice (I say this from experience): Blasting your opinion throughout the county that “this guy” has had nefarious intentions from day one, without going to him first, is an undesirable tactic, that has –inadvertently or not- made you a pawn of those who want the TP to fail.

This was confirmed this morning after I received calls from folks outside of those on this distribution list. Turns out that your email has been forwarded by people on this list who are either running against a TP candidate or have a favorite candidate who is. So your email has become a dirty tactic for the [genuine] “personal gain” of those who want the TP candidates to fail..

3. On that topic, perhaps we need to redefine “personal gain” if we think that the countless, thankless hours that “this guy” and other (NONE of whom knew each other beforehand) – or anyone else in this movement have spent, represent that term. From day one, “this guy” has implored everyone to step up if they felt so led, bring new people to our meetings and to lead groups in their own community. That's incongruent to your accusation that his intention all along was to “stack the deck” and “insulate” himself for some power grab. Additionally, every position in which “this guy” has been placed he either didn't want/expect or no one else felt ready to step up. As a natural leader, “he” isn't going to ask someone else to do what he isn't willing to do himself. And frankly, if we don't get liberty-minded people into key positions, nothing will change.

4. To infer that corruption & backroom deals in favor of one candidate going into the straw poll vote, given the refining & discussion that ensued, would be hysterically funny if it weren't such an insult to everyone involved, regardless of where they stood. Ask L- who was in charge of the email notification (your claim assumes he was complicit). Ask H- about the true goal of that process (your claim assumes that he has no discernment).

I can't speak for “this guy” (I don't have his communications skills either, ha), but I'd bet he isn't as disappointed in your email, as he is at the thought that you might pick up your toys and go home. He invites EVERYONE into the discussion & debate b/c he believes that iron sharpens iron. This is blatantly evident at every meeting. If you can't make every meeting, “this guy” is one of the most accessible leaders around, I'm sure he would meet you to discuss your allegations. Then perhaps we can discuss them at a future meeting. Again, from someone who has failed miserably in the past with regards to separating process from tactics, even if we agree to disagree, then at least we will have modeled for those who want us to fail, the types of tactics we'll allow to come out of disagreement more informed & comfortable with our position in the process.

What?! You mean establishment candidates who don't think Tea Party folks have a right to run in a primary were forwarding a disparaging email about the Tea Party?! Say it isn't so, lol!?!

There were several other responses in support of “this guy” and it is a fact that this particular Tea Party has recruited rock-solid candidates to run for positions at the township, county & state level. So my guess is that a few establishment types – some of whom have gotten caught with their hands in the taxpayer's till – are behind this misrepresentation, so be careful out there, ha. History has shown that they will discredit and/or destroy anyone who tries to take what they view as their “preccccioussss” positions. A condition that I'm sure is pervasive throughout the Tea Party movement.

Identify, isolate and demonize…straight out of the Alinsky playbook. Oh wait a minute, that's the other team-

And we wonder why good people don't want to get involved in politics…