The turnout for the meeting, in and of itself, is proof that this “movement” is not dead or even on its deathbed. On a Saturday afternoon of a holiday weekend, 120 people packed into a small room at the Doubletree Galleria to hear what the leaders of this movement had to say. I dare say that 90{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the churches in the area would love to have 120 people on a Sunday morning. Or even half that number.
I’m not certain what the ultimate goal of the conference was or even if there was one. Ms. Arceneaux had these topics listed on her website:
- What has the liberty movement accomplished thus far?
- What are the challenges we face in the future?
- How can we, leaders and participants, strengthen the movement?
- What action-oriented solutions can every day Americans do?
One thing is for certain, there is a lot of hostility between the “people”, those who attended the conference, and the “leaders”, those that sat on the panel. I couldn’t help but laugh at Ms. Arceneaux’s attempt to corral the crowd during open questions time, as people kept insisting that the “leaders” be quiet and let the “people” be heard. It reminded me of the 20 or so town hall meetings I attended this summer, with the “people” telling their Congressional Representatives to listen to them. But dissent is not such a bad thing, as noted by one of the panelists and leader of the Houston Tea Party Society, Felicia Cravens, in her response to my question “How’d you think it went?”:
Definitely a lively discussion!
As I said in my closing, the fact that there is such disagreement is proof the movement isn’t dead; it’s still a vital part of the political landscape. And though we want the same things, we may just disagree about how to get there. The room was filled with dedicated and active people, and I hope they came away with the understanding that we can find ways to work together while pursuing separate means.
More on the disagreements in a moment. The meeting started with Ms. Arceneaux introducing each of the panelists. They were, in order of their seat at the table, from left to right:
- Thelma Taormina, Founder of We the People are the 9-12 Association, Inc.
- Neal Grant, Founder of Quorum for Constitutional Restoration
- Felicia Cravens, Lead Organizer for Houston Tea Party Society
- Jennifer Heiden, President of Katy Tea
- Bill Tofte, Houston Area Liberty Campaign (HALC)
- Apostle Claver T. Kamau-Imani, Chairman of Raging Elephants
Of the six, I’ve met Felicia and Claver and know of Jennifer. The other three were new to me. After the formal introductions, each person was allowed to give an opening statement, up to two minutes. Remarkably, Claver kept within the time frame. On this day, at least, Neal Grant received the ire of the timekeeper, talking for three and a half minutes. Jennifer receives my coveted brevity award, making her point succinctly and quickly, using less than a minute of her alloted time. Kudos!
Although it will make this post rather lengthy, I’m going to post each person’s intro and my notes on their statement, in the order that they gave them.
- Claver – need more people of color to win elections, Democrats hanging on to blacks and Latinos through plantation politics, Republicans have neglected them since the 1960’s – how tea partiers can get more infiltration, more penetration into the voters of color, must do that if they are going to be viable in the future.
{vimeo}7870676{/vimeo}
- Bill Tofte – “be reasonable, do it my way” attitude among volunteers. Essence of liberty is individualism. Motivate voters to vote for liberty, get out the vote.
{vimeo}7873106{/vimeo}
- Jennifer Heiden – get past rallies and holding up signs, boots to the ground.
{vimeo}7872169{/vimeo}
- Felicia Cravens – long haul, not going to be fixed by 2010, 2012. We’re all going to be tired and exhausted but keep our eyes on goals rather than each other. Stick together and hang together.
{vimeo}7871057{/vimeo}
- Neal Grant – education. Need to be able to define and articulate our beliefs. Read several quotes. Does not like Woodrow Wilson, whom he claims is the founder of the modern progressive movement. Which side of the battle are we on? The side that is parallel to the founding fathers or the side that is perpendicular?
{vimeo}7871968{/vimeo}
- Thelma Taormina – we can’t do it alone but it is an individual decision to join in and be committed. It is not just about the leaders, it is about the individuals.
{vimeo}7872695{/vimeo}
After these intros, Ms. Arceneaux asked a series of questions directed to the panel. One of her questions/topics related to this paragraph from the Politico article referenced above:
The organizational chaos — combined with a widening apathy at the edges of the movement — has produced a growing consensus among local, state and national tea party leaders that for the movement to evolve from the loose conglomeration of fired-up activists who mobilized this summer to register their dissatisfaction with Obama and Congress at town hall protests and marches across the country into a sustainable bloc with the power to shape the GOP and swing elections, it will require the emergence of a national leader, group or structure.
Listen here for the context and set up to the question:
{mp3}solm_question_party{/mp3}
Her questions were:
Is this all just about the current President in office? Would it be better if we all just went into the GOP?
At the end of the audio above, you hear Ms. Cravens say, no, it isn’t about the current President. Which is true enough because spending did get out of control under the Bush administration. But I think that the back half of that question is the key to the long term viability of this “movement”. At some point, reality is going to have to set in and these guys are going to have to realize that there is only one party out there that offers them an opportunity to effect the change that they seek and that is the GOP.
Mr. Grant inadvertently proved this point. In an effort to prove the opposite, he asked everyone in the room to raise their hands if they had previously considered themselves to be Republicans. Predictably, 95{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the room raised their hands. Then he asked for a show of hands from people that considered themselves to be Democrats. I counted four hands but others told me there were six. At least two of those I know to be LaRouche followers, so subtract them. That leaves us with, at most, four of the people in the room, or 3{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}, from the Democratic party. Yet Mr. Grant thought that this proved that the movement should focus on Democrats because there were four in the room. Let me ask this: if a business focused its efforts on reaching out to 3{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of its current customers, ignoring the other 97{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}, would that be a viable strategy? Of course not.
Leave it to Claver to bring this point home. Love him or hate him (because you can’t really be indifferent about him), Claver has a knack for getting to the bottom line. And the bottom line is that for any political group to achieve its goals, whatever they may be, they must win elections. Period.
{vimeo}7874168{/vimeo}
I think that he is absolutely correct. Working within the Republican party, and changing those things about it that have weakened it, is the fastest way to effect change and is also, in the long run, the only way to remain viable. Face it, the Democratic Party has not embraced these groups and in fact their leaders, including the President, have mocked the people that attend. For all the condescending and patronizing talk about “educating” people that the “movement” puts forth, the bottom line is that winning elections is the only thing that matters. Rhetoric about Woodrow Wilson, repealing the 17th amendment, and this romanticized view of the founding fathers that many have isn’t going to cut it in the long run. Win elections, then you can make the changes that you want to make.
Now to the dissention. Fitting the bill for every stereotype that the left can think of, a lady from Porter stood up to denounce the tactics and egos of the group of “leaders”. She was just one of many that criticized the panel.
{vimeo}7874602{/vimeo}
Now, it would be real easy to dismiss her because of her demeanor and anger. But doing so would miss a very valuable point and that is that all of the rallies have focused on national issues, when the real problem starts at home. I think that the “movement” has begun to realize this and has shifted focus to precinct level politics but as I scan through the filings for precinct chairs in the Harris County Republican Party, most precincts do not have contested races and many will still be vacant after the filing deadline has passed. That is a shame because now is the time to make the changes needed in the only party that is comfortable with the majority of the views most of those in the “movement” hold.
Was the meeting worthwhile? Absolutely. Was it productive? Perhaps. I say that because two of the challengers to the current chair of the HCRP, Ed Hubbard and Paul Simpson, were in attendance. They were listening to the people, trying to understand them, trying to understand how to appeal to them, trying to get them back into the party. The current chair was missing in action, as usual, taking for granted that these folks will go the GOP route. That is absolutely the wrong way to approach this potential GOP voting block and if he is re-elected and remains arrogant towards these people, the GOP will lose this opportunity as they turn towards a third party solution. And if that happens, it will be disastrous for the party and the country.