Independent Caucus: John Kerry Worried About Teabaggers

I got this email from John Kerry, or so it said, likely mega-distributed to me and tens of thousands of other people whose email addresses are known to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), asking for contributions in order to defend against contests with future Republican candidates who are actively raising lots of money by appealing directly to the various "Tea Party" groups. The email said this:

"Either we match the passion and activism of these new forces in the Republican Party, or they'll be choosing who's sitting in the Senate, steering our country's course. If we don't match them dollar-for-dollar, we will lose Senate seats in 2010. And the loss of even one or two would flip crucial votes in their favor and doom President Obama's agenda."

I had the following reaction. I sent it just as a "reply", a reply to an email no doubt that was never intended to be replied to. So I'm sure my reply was read by no one. By posting on this blog I make sure it is read by everyone who matters. :) Here it is:

****************************************************

Dear Senator Kerry,

I'm sure your email was not intended for a reply, so I assume you won't get this. On the off chance you do, I humbly offer this brief reply.

Even President Obama often talks about the never-ending quest to build a more perfect union. It's partly why I voted for him, that he gives voice to that fundamental mission of democracy and representative government.

But our current form remains far from perfect, and that is a key impetus behind the so-called Tea Party movement. Our form of union, of government, of democracy persists under this as past presidents, Speakers, majority leaders, and committee chairs as not sufficiently or fairly enough representative of what was expressed at the ballot box in the last election or last several. Until that changes, you will have frustration, partisanship, and outrage by the minority in this country, and minority movements like the Teabaggers will enjoy both energy and funding.

Until power wielded in our government is a fair representation of recent elections, you will have these angry minority groups. They simply have no alternative but to be angry, because they have no hope of seeing the government respond to them legislatively in anything remotely relative to their numbers at the polls.

When the country can split at the polls 52% to 48%, for instance, in a given district, state, or in aggregate across the nation, and yet the victor(s) in the election legislate as if the vote were 100% to nothing, then all that is left for the 48% is anger, frustration, and partisanship.

When the country can basically be split legislatively 52% to 48% across the country, and yet 100% of the committee chairmen in the House and Senate are from the party of 52%, then the 48% can only be angry and frustrated and motivated to do all they can to make the majority fail so that they might win back the majority as the only possible means for legislatively getting anything at all that they and those who voted for them want.

If you want to defuse groups like the Teabaggers, use your power in a manner very much a profile in courage and start an effort to change the rules in the House and Senate such that the number of chairmanships by party reflects each party's relative numbers in each body. Change rules which majority parties currently use to deny votes on minority bills or amendments. And be a key figure in our wonderful American saga and American history in advancing for her and her future generations a more perfect union. Please consider going that route rather than the well-worn and less-perfect route of trying to beat the minority into submission by attempting to marginalize them, raise more money than them, and so on, and using undemocratic means to do so. In a 52/48 America, I care what the 48 wants, and I care very much, whether I am one of them or not, and I implore you to care as well.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph Intili

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joe,

I'm thinking that you might be up to something, but I'm not sure what. It almost, almost sounded like you were part of an Independent Caucus or something like that.

I will agree with your prediction that your reply was not read; the good news is that your reply died quickly as a staffer swiftly fingered the delete button. But I must disagree with the premise that because the country may be split closely at 52%-48% that entitles the 48er's to a shared voice. They have a voice, it's the voice of dissent, or as some may call it, the party of no. To the victor go the spoils has worked for a long time, and I don't want it changing now. As you're well aware, elections are supposed to have consequences. Sometimes they are much anticipated, other times they are unexpected, but they are what they are.

One consequence, good or bad, may be that this country ends up with a single payer health care system, or even something short of that. And if it does happen there will be more consequences at the next election. If that's the case, the consequence for Harry Reid will be that he won't likely be re-elected. The consequences of one election always lead to consequences in subsequent elections.

I am fine with that, and will be happy to wait our turn. If the democratic party does things the way American's want them to, they will stay in the majority, if they don't, oh well. The minority party isn't responsible for putting forth ideas because right now, they are suffering the consequences of what they brought upon themselves. If they take back the majority and do what the voter's want they will stay in power, if not, here we go again, oh well.

Posted by: Marty Lynch | December 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM