The Tea Party's Low Expectations

Tea partiers admirably call for fiscal responsibility, honesty and openness. Yet in Delaware they have backed a candidate who hasn't shown any of these traits

Christine O’Donnell’s showing in the Delaware GOP Senate primary was a victory for the Tea Party movement, a defeat for Republican moderates and pragmatists, but most significantly, a triumph for tragically low expectations.

It is altogether understandable that Tea Party supporters and activists have tenaciously backed political candidates who share their convictions. It is admirable that they have done so in spite of “electability” arguments, for that debate can often prove meaningless, political “inside baseball”. But it is troubling when they have done so – as in the cases of Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell – without concern for the quality of the candidate. In short, Palin, DeMint, et al seem more interested in boosting conservative talkers and less interested in actually cultivating conservative leaders.

A wealth of troubling facts have emerged regarding O’Donnell’s past – Politico describes her as “a perennial candidate with a sketchy employment history who has dissembled about her education, defaulted on her student loan and her mortgage, sued a former employer for mental anguish, railed against the evils of masturbation and questioned whether it would have been OK to lie to prevent Nazis from killing Jews during World War II” – with more details emerging every day. If leaders inspire by example, then O’Donnell is no leader.

In their endorsement message, the Sacramento, California-based Tea Party Express lauded her for having established “a reputation as a strong voice for conservative constitutionalist principles.” This is the height of political cynicism. How can we expect her to be a strong voice for fiscal responsibility in the Senate when she has been anything but responsible with her personal finances and campaign mismanagement? How can we expect her to bring more honesty and openness to the Senate when she has exercised neither virtue in describing her academic background and campaign history? And how can we expect her to hold her ground against Senate Democrats and the president when she cannot do so against a conservative, hometown radio talk show host or a primary opponent without resorting to absurd accusations? At a time when the country requires elected officials of the highest caliber, the Tea Party movement has enabled the nomination of a candidate who meets an exceedingly low standard for membership in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

As they campaigned for ratification of the Constitution in 1788, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison laid out their vision for the U.S. Senate in magnificent detail in Federalist No. 62. As so many Tea Party activists call for a more originalist interpretation of the Constitution, I turn now to the words of two of our Founding Fathers to illustrate their own high hopes for our senators at the dawn of our nation. Senators – by virtue of being members of the upper legislative house – would require “greater extent of information and stability of character,” they wrote, and be unyielding “to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and [seduction] by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.”

Messrs Hamilton and Madison, please forgive us.