Editor’s Note: This is the fourth article in a series about Nebraska politics, particularly as pertains to the Nebraska Republican Party and closely connected groups, particularly as relates to the “tea party movement”. Prior articles are linked here: 1, 2, 3.
If the tea party movement in Nebraska was a living room, there would be an enormous elephant in it. We have mostly avoided acknowledging the elephant’s existence and the job of describing that elephant for you. Instead, we have focused on policies and general political philosophy. When we have “aimed our guns”, or more accurately for GiN’s history, described Nebraska Republicans as “Deserving of Darts”, it has been almost solely for the purposes of highlighting problems with their stance on particular issues or with their voting records in the Unicameral or in Congress. In short, we’ve exercised restraint (to the point, at times, of biting our tongues).
We call our previous publications restrained because we have directly experienced and observed a great deal more than we’ve ever mentioned publicly. We have come to the unavoidable conclusion that, unless we begin to confront the elephant, we question whether there is much hope of accomplishing anything of substance.
Perhaps we’ve been too concerned that readers will “shoot the messenger”. That often occurs when any criticism is levied about groups or individuals perceived to be one of the “good guys” or members of one’s own “team”. That’s true even when perceptions of goodness and team membership are based almost entirely on party affiliation and verbal statements not backed up by consistent behavior. “Nebraska nice”, ordinarily a laudable quality, can be a hindrance in the context of politics. Nebraskans eschew controversy to the extent that real problems are frequently ignored. A default desire for pleasant discourse and an avoidance of conflict only favors the status quo. So, if someone is critical, they are often perceived as not really a member of “the team”.
It has become default practice, as well, in the country as a whole, to label all matters political in terms of a Republican versus Democrat paradigm. But, it’s not for nothing that we have pointed over and over again to an essay written by Angelo M. Codevilla, “America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution”, as the best available articulation of America’s current political landscape. It is not so much that Codevilla revealed new information to us, it is that he provided the best available tool for how to put America’s many, many problems into a perspective that finally makes sense. As he made clear, our problems should no longer be defined in terms of Republicans versus Democrats. There are two opposing groups in the American political landscape, but they are not the two major political parties.
One of them is the ruling class, and then there is everyone else. With a ruling class elite, there are clients, beneficiaries, supporters and wannabes. The everyone else Codevilla defines as “the country class”. Whatever we wish to call it, it is comprised of Americans who are not members of the ruling class, who have no desire whatsoever to become a part of it, who have no interest in supporting it, who do not wish to benefit from it, and who only wish to be left alone to quietly live their own lives, free of obstructions and barriers, succeeding or failing on their own merit.
Grassroots in Nebraska (GiN)
Our mission is to actively promote a return to Constitutional government according to its original meaning, as the most effective avenue to encourage public policy that promotes personal responsibility, protects individual liberty and property, and guarantees limited government, sovereignty, and free markets. Grassroots in Nebraska