Authenticity in Short Supply

The U.S. Republican Party is in crisis. It ought to have won the majority in both houses of Congress in the fall. President Barack Obama was, according to every conventional measurement, down and out for the count; nonetheless, he won a comfortable victory. Another bitter pill: There were politicians with potential who chose not to run against Obama. Why not? Some had private reasons, but more quite simply did not want to be associated with their own party.

The party is deeply divided between two factions, where one faction can be likened to traditional East Coast Republicans. The second phalanx — lazily summed up as the tea party movement — is both unusually powerful in relation to the establishment and unusually uncompromising.

The tension that has always characterized the party is now more akin to open contempt between the groups, which do not seem to belong to the same party — the pragmatic group is more reminiscent of the Democrats than their own conflict-prone party comrades.

One of the party’s most powerful and skillful strategists, Karl Rove, has built an organization with the aim of producing candidates who can actually win elections. However, just as one would expect, he has thrown gasoline on the fire: The grassroots faction feels that he has allied himself with the party elite and for the first time, Rove’s position in the party is under serious threat.

The problem is that Rove’s analysis is in essence is justified. Elections are won from the middle ground; if a large party is dominated by a fringe element, the other major party will win. Tea party movement members are enjoying the sleep of the righteous at the cost of ever-decreasing influence.

Thus stands the political party situation in America; it is being vigorously discussed on editorial pages and political talk shows. Even if the description of the tea party movement is unfair (it is as much a successful Democratic spin as a description of reality,) it would be idiotic not to see that there is some truth behind it and, most of all, that this movement was the single most important reason for the GOP’s failure in last year’s election.

However, I have an objection that I believe is very important. The tea party supporters’ greatest difficulty is not politicians who compromise (even if they don’t like them) nor opinions that lie too near moderate voters (even if they are perceived as a problem.) What they detest most is the lack of authenticity. More than anything else, the tea party movement (and now left-wing pundits are laughing their heads off) is expressing that voters are not stupid. They can tell when a politician says one thing and does another. They see if a politician acts for his own power, not for that of the voters or the country’s best interest. They see if politicians retreat from their own opinions due to low tactical motives. And they know, above all, that this has been more detrimental to the political system in the U.S. than anything else, from JFK onward.

The tea party movement would consider every opinion and compromise, if politicians spoke to its members like adults. Their problem with Obama has never been his opinions, but that his maneuverings seemed to have no limits. If Rove can capture those feelings, he will make a fantastic comeback — that is, if his career isn’t already over and the GOP’s wandering in the desert continues.