Originally published in The Tribune and posted here with the kind permission of the author, Mr. Richard Coulson
During the recent U.S. Congressional elections, when the Republicans threw out the Democrats from the majority position in The House of Representatives, much of the talk around the nation was not about the Republican Party or the Democratic Party but about the Tea Party.
Which was unprecedented, for the Tea Party is not a political party at all in the traditional sense, simply the name taken from the famous 1773 heaving of crates of tea into Boston harbor by colonists enraged at new taxes imposed from distant London It ran no candidates under its own name; it had no official leaders, no staff, no headquarters, no structure, no budget. It took shape simply as an amorphous group of politicians (often brand new to the game), pundits, and followers around the country who shared some – by no means all – political and philosophical views and promoted them vigorously. The main spokesman was the irrepressible Sarah Palin, who was a candidate for nothing, except probably for election as President in 2012.
Yet this unpromising agglomeration had enormous influence, far more than any official Third Parties, which have had little success in American politics. The most significant, Ross Perot’s creation, won 19% of the popular vote in 1992, less in 1996, and then vanished from the scene, although its aging founder still lives. The Tea Partiers followed a different strategy: they attached themselves like leeches to the existing Republican Party and forced it to change its spots. They ran tirelessly in Republican primaries in state after state and usually won, often to the discomfiture of party bosses backing more conventional candidates. Their individual success was mixed: in Kentucky the attractive Rand Paul went on to defeat his Democratic Senatorial opponent; in Nevada newcomer Sharron Angle gave a strong challenge to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, while in Delaware the eccentric Republican Tea Partier Christine O’Donnell lost decisively.
In general, the victorious Republican candidates for the House, the Senate or Governorships were those who supported Tea Party principles. Amidst the welter of ideas a put forwards, several strong common threads emerged: Keep government out of our hair! Private enterprise knows best! End deficit spending! Run a balanced budget! Don’t bail out big companies or banks! These axioms were not new; they had been the battle cry of far-right conservatives for over a century. Why did they suddenly gain traction with wide swathes of angry blue-collar voters and middle-class housewives, not simply rich Wall Streeters, captains of industry, and a few egg-head economists?
Clearly, it was not just the recession, the worst since the 1930s, when the nation went solidly Democratic. Although the problem was inherited, not created, by Barrack Obama, the voters saw, rightly or wrongly, his solutions as inept and misguided.
Unemployment remained stubbornly close to 10% and mortgage foreclosures widened. as billions of federal “stimulus funds” had no visible impact except to balloon the deficit and the national debt – meanwhile imposing barely understood health-care legislation and other “reforms” that appeared close to socialism – the f-word in American politics.
We in The Bahamas, so dependent on the U.S. economy, are in much the same boat. The question is, what will be the political reaction as we approach the 2012 election? Will voters trust Hubert Ingraham’s FNM to lead the country out of recession, or turn the job over to Perry Christie’s PLP? We already know that Mr. Ingraham has increased the public debt and the government deficit while imposing new taxes and fees – tough but necessary steps, he claims. While the PLP naturally snipes at these measures, it’s not clear that their approach would be much different if they came to power.
For it’s part of the elemental, in-grained thinking of both parties to rely on “statist” solutions for the national welfare. Indeed, with laudable exceptions, the Bahamian public itself relies on Government, not the private sector, to assure wealth and security – as seen by the view of public employment as a life-time sinecure. But in this recession, we may be seeing a slow ground-swell of opinion that opposes the traditional assumptions. It’s by no means certain, but there may be a growing body of citizens who feel like the Tea Partiers in the U.S. – that we cannot continue with “business as usual”.
But any such movement cannot go far without vigorous spokesmen. How are they to be found, and how are they to gain any political clout? At present, the only vocal Tea Party force is the well-meaning but specialized think-tank, The Nassau Institute, http://www.nassauinstitute.org whose members do not aspire to any elective position and are largely ignored by the leaders of the FNM and PLP. As in the U.S., the founding of an effective third party here seems a lost cause. Serious promoters of Tea Party principles will have to insert themselves into one of our two main parties and “bore from within”. Our parties do not hold formal primaries, but any determined resident can work hard to become known to the voters within a constituency and be selected by the constituency assembly, for formal recommendation to the party’s candidate selection committee. The task will not be easy and will be subject to plenty of competition from more “established” names.
That is similar to the course followed by newly elected Senator Rand Paul in Kentucky. A successful career ophthalmologist, he became well known as head of the Kentucky Taxpayers Union, and decided to run a grass-roots campaign in the 2009 Republican primary against the official party candidate, the Kentucky Secretary of State. He won, and went on to defeat his Democratic opponent in 2010 and become probably the leading Tea Party spokesman in the new Senate, while sitting as a Republican. If outsider Rand Paul could do it Kentucky, why not, say, the articulate Dr. John Rodgers in his home constituency in Nassau? He could choose the FNM, or probably the PLP, which seems more open to renegade candidates.
If elected to the House of Assembly, the platform of a committed Tea Partier would hit the obvious, though long-evaded, high points: speed up the endlessly delayed privatization process. Put not only BTC on the block, but BEC, Water & Sewerage, ZNS, BahamasAir, P.I. Bridge Authority, and any other public companies – don’t agonize about getting the best price, “Just Do It”, as Nike would say. The elimination of Government subsidies would soon compensate for any pricing short-falls. Establish and enforce the principle that merit, not longevity, will govern retention and promotion of public employees, including teachers – and resist the howls of complaint. Compel efficiency, by dismissal if necessary, in the myriad places where taxes and fees are collected, and often lost. Eliminate non-essential activities – why do we need a Prices Commission to control prices? Or a business licensing department? Specialized financial or health-related enterprises can be regulated by existing agencies that have the know-how; other businesses need not be licensed, simply registered and charged a tax (not a hypocritical “fee”).
These are just starting points for an imaginative Tea Partier. Not all of these proposals could be accomplished at once, perhaps some never. But they would provide the basis for shifting away from reliance on the welfare state and towards individual responsibility, which is the bed-rock Tea Party principle. While not endorsing all the extreme Tea Party positions, which would virtually abolish government, or its vitriolic attacks on President Obama, I do believe that adopting its spirit would invigorate our political and economic thinking.
Mr. Coulson has had a long career in law, investment banking and private banking in New York, London, and Nassau, and now serves as director of several financial concerns and as a corporate financial consultant.