All Politics Is Local

---

---

The late Tip O'Neill is often quoted as saying that. I don't know if he did or not — but he did write a book that had that as part of its title so I assume he must have said it at least once.

Whether it originated with him or not, it is about the truest statement about politics, particularly the care and feeding of House districts, that you will ever hear.

And I believe it holds the key to the historic primary in Virginia in which Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, was beaten by a Tea Party–backed economics professor.

Clearly, when a seven–term congressman who holds the position of House majority leader and has his eyes on the House speakership is denied renomination, there will be many attempts to explain what happened. A House majority leader is not rejected by his constituents every election, and I believe this is the first time that a House majority leader has lost a party's primary.

It is historic.

In the last couple of days, the most prominently mentioned causes of Cantor's loss that I have heard are (1) the Tea Party is back and has seized the Republican Party, and (2) this was anti–immigration backlash.

Let's examine both of these suggestions — and, as we do, let's look at the results of another primary election conducted on the same day in South Carolina, where Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham easily defeated six challengers.

First, the assertion about the Tea Party.

I really get tired of hearing the Tea Party referred to as if it is an actual political party. It is not. It is a grassroots movement, not really different from the "Occupy Wall Street" movement on the left.

In the aftermath of Cantor's loss, I have heard the Tea Party mentioned as if it had thrown its enormous political heft into the campaign and crushed Cantor. To be sure, there are some national Tea Party organizations that do promote certain candidates and make an effort on their behalf — but, from what I have heard, nothing like that happened in Virginia. Some Tea Party sympathizers favored Cantor's challenger, but there was no coordinated effort that I have seen.

Perhaps Tea Party groups wanted to jump into the race — but no one thought Cantor could be defeated.

The thing that seems to shock people the most is the huge advantage Cantor enjoyed in campaign funds. He spent millions; his opponent, it is said, spent about what Cantor's campaign staff spent in steakhouses.

My guess is that particular revelation sent shockwaves through Republican incumbents — but it should have been a cautionary tale for Democrats, too. Neither side is immune to the illusion that a monetary advantage will always win an election. This time, though, it wasn't about who spent the most.

Nor, I think, was it about immigration. Cantor is conservative, but he supported a pathway to citizenship, and some have suggested his loss was due to backlash on immigration.

It is true that some of the voters in Virginia's Seventh District voted against Cantor on the basis of immigration, but from what I have been reading and hearing from reporters on the ground, that wasn't the most significant issue for most voters.

That hasn't kept immigration reform from taking the blame.

The Breitbart News Network says it was a "referendum against amnesty."

The Washington Post and Miami Herald say Cantor's loss means the end of immigration reform in the foreseeable future. Halimah Abdullah of CNN writes that immigration reform already was a longshot before Cantor lost, and the campaign for it should continue.

The Chicago Sun–Times, too, says the campaign for immigration reform is separate from the campaign for Virginia's Seventh District House seat.

I agree, mostly because what O'Neill said is still true. All politics is local, especially in House districts, which are divided up based on population. Except for those rare cases in which a state's population is so low that it only qualifies for a single at–large representative in the House — and there are currently seven of those — House seats are about as local as it gets in Washington.

The House of Representatives is known as the "People's House" because its membership is intended to reflect the people's will and conduct the people's business — and what I am hearing from Seventh District residents is that Cantor essentially forgot the people he represented. He wanted to be speaker. He wanted to be a player on the world stage.

That is something that Graham did not do. Graham and Cantor are similar in their politics. In the past, they've had the support of self–described Tea Party voters, and there was talk that their support for immigration reform alienated Tea Party voters.

But on Tuesday, as I say, Graham easily won renomination. Every political analyst I have seen regards his seat as safe in November's general election.

I don't dismiss the influence of the Tea Party any more than I dismiss the influence of any other politically active group. What I am saying is that any incumbent — in either party — who is not perceived as a public servant is going to have trouble, especially in this political climate.

Cantor paid the price for that perception, and now Republicans will choose a new majority leader next week.

That is the lesson incumbents should be taking from this.

Thoughts on 'T' Day

---

---

"T" stands for a lot of things — "taxes," for example, and "tea," which inspired the "Boston Tea Party" protest and, in turn, inspired today's conservative tea parties protesting the government bailouts.

Today was chosen for the modern tea party protests because today is, of course, April 15. Income tax returns must be postmarked by this date.

Interestingly, today is also the 97th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, which was thought to be unsinkable before it departed on its maiden (and only) voyage. Another "T" word — one which may be appropriate ...

Because I think these tea parties are misguided and foolish.

Is it really necessary, at this stage, to point out that this country is facing the worst financial situation it has faced in three–quarters of a century? That unemployment grows by leaps and bounds with each passing month? That millions have been forced from their homes by foreclosure?

As Barack Obama observed only yesterday, ordinary citizens cut back on spending when times are hard. And when spending dries up, it contributes to a downward spiral. With demand for products down, most employers are more likely to cut workers than hire them.

And the virtual implosion of the housing bubble has made matters worse.

To give spending the temporary boost that it needs to get the economy moving again, it was necessary for government to get involved with the bailouts and the stimulus package.

It isn't the kind of thing that most of us, Republicans or Democrats, would have preferred. But these are — as I have observed before — unusual times, and unusual times demand unusual measures.

I'm inclined to believe that many of the people who planned to participate in today's tea party protests would like to go back to the days before the 16th Amendment, which imposed the income tax, was ratified in 1913.

But is that really practical? Nobody likes taxes, but they make it possible to pay for services that we all want and need.

In an ideal world, I suppose, people could keep every cent they make. But, before government began collecting income taxes, I guess fires had to be put out with neighborhood "bucket brigades." And I suppose law enforcement was left up to volunteer posses, many of whom were more likely to hang a suspect on the spot (as in "The Ox–Bow Incident") than wait for a legitimate judge to come to town.

And, before Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, there was no safety net for the less fortunate members of society — the unemployed and the disabled, for example.

Without taxes, how would we pay for things we take for granted, like trash collection? How would we pay for community parks and recreation programs that keep young people active during the summer months? Where would we get the funds that support public libraries and museums that enrich all our lives?

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," said Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Fortunately, according to Robert Schlesinger of U.S. News & World Report, Americans don't mind paying taxes.

They seem to understand what Holmes was saying. And they seem to understand that times have changed. We're not living in prosperous boom times. We're living in a recession, and those who have jobs must share the burden of helping the economy get back on track.

Here in Texas, the largest of the so–called "red states," the tea parties have been getting a lot of attention. Matt Mackowiak issued a call for citizen participation in the Austin American–Statesman because "a not–so–silent majority of Americans increasingly feel as though their hard–earned dollars have been wasted on Wall Street and Detroit and there's no end in sight."

I have no evidence to back this up, but I think Mackowiak's "silent majority" simply doesn't like taxes — period. But, without them, I tend to think that our culture would sink more rapidly than the Titanic after it struck that iceberg in 1912.

Yesterday, in the Dallas Morning News, Mark Davis said the tea parties were a success before they began. That's kind of a hard sell for me.

Incidentally, my pastor has a different take on all this. He's a reformed coffee drinker who switched to tea around the start of the year, and he says he'll be glad to take any unwanted tea you may happen to have. He has some other insights on today's events, which you can read at his blog.

(He also makes a reference to the phrase "tea bagging," but he wisely leaves it up to readers to learn the slang definition for it on their own.)

It will be awhile yet before we know if Obama's economic strategy is working. But, considering that the stimulus package didn't receive congressional approval until February, the smart thing is to give it more time to have an impact.

Obama says we're already seeing some of the fruits of the legislation. I hope he's right.