On the Infiltration of the Tea Party Movement by Loyalists of the Democratic-Republican Two-Party State

Tea party activists who advocate infiltration of the Democratic-Republican Party rather than independent and third party opposition to the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government would do well to re-open their history books. Imagine if, in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, colonists had not maintained their determination to achieve political independence, but rather sought accommodation with the British parliament and crown. Imagine if these colonists argued that the best way forward was not opposition to and confrontation with the ruling political establishment, but rather that the best strategy was to join with the Tories and Whigs in the British Parliament under the heel of the King to cement the relations of power that led to the groundswell of political discontent in the first place. Of course, there were such colonists. They sided with the crown against the revolutionaries and were derided as Loyalists by the Patriots of the American revolution. Sadly, in today's tea party movement, true patriots can be difficult to find while loyalists are a dime a dozen. Worse yet, the latter are even celebrated for their political cowardice and their reactionary support for the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government.

Among the most vocal supporters of the infiltration strategy are Eric Odom of Tax Day Tea Party and Erick Erickson of Red State. Following this year's CPAC conference in Washington DC, both of these activists have reiterated their reactionary support for the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and their opposition to freedom and independence from the ruling apparatus of the political class. Erickson's inability to properly diagnose the sickness ailing the American body-politic is perfectly clear when he writes:

it is not the Republican Party that is the problem. It is the Republican leadership . . . if you are tempted to go with a third party, don’t. Instead, get involved in the Republican Party. Change it.

The contradiction inherent to Erickson's position is revealed at the end of the piece, when he writes:

This year conservatives must take risks instead of staying with the status quo just because it is easier. Conservatism is on the ascendency. But it will ascend within the GOP, not via a third party.

So, the Red State duopolist ideologue argues that conservatives must "take risks" against the "status quo," but he advocates a strategy that requires immediate accommodation with the ruling status quo, as represented by the Republican and Democratic Parties, because it is the safe and easy alternative to struggling for real political freedom and independence! In a similar vein, Eric Odom argues that support for third party and independent alternatives to the Democratic-Republican establishmentarian ruse would be nothing less than a disaster:

Some tea party activists still think a third party is the right way to go. We get email every day that suggests the two party system has failed us and we should try a third party. The problem is, however, the third party route has already been tried and failed. Not only has it failed, it has never really had any success at all! . . . this is the time for us as a movement to choose the vessel most likely to carry new candidates into Washington. And more importantly, replace incumbents in Washington.

What Odom fails to mention in his revisionist history lesson is that infiltrationist strategy has also "already been tried and failed." Infiltrationist strategy does not even hold out the possibility of achieving freedom and independence from the ruling political establishment. Even if it is successful, an infiltrationist strategy ensures nothing more than the reproduction of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government. Its success is failure. It neither confronts nor solves the political problem facing the people fo the United States, but rather re-creates it: the infiltrationist advises a strategy of capitulation from the outset. On the other hand, even if an independent, third party campaign is defeated, the result is effectively the same as that of a successful infiltrationist campaign – a Republican or Democrat is elected – but it nonetheless demonstrates real support for freedom and independence from the dictatorship of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and creates momentum and infrastructure necessary for the ongoing struggle against the establishmentarian political class. However, if any independent or third party campaign is successful, it strikes a blow for political freedom and independence from the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government everywhere and in its entirety.

Those who argue in favor of accommodation with and infiltration of the Democratic-Republican Party are actively opposed to political freedom and independence. They represent the betrayal of that which the Boston Tea Party stands for. They make a mockery of the American revolutionary tradition and the struggle for political freedom and independence. They are the loyalists of the two-party state and duopoly system of government.