It was a rag-tag group at best: they came from all corners, some more experienced than others, but all with a passion for upsetting the status quo.  They were restless.  Inspired by some undisciplined Tea Partiers, they agreed that taxation had gotten out of hand.  They disagreed on as much as they agreed upon, but they were united in their desire to be free of a government so remote that that it had lost understanding of the plight of the real person.

In the battles that followed, this army (if you could call it that) took its lumps.  There was little chance of mounting an offensive that would strike a knock-out blow to the other side.  Theirs became a guerilla war, of sorts, seizing upon the other side’s arrogant blunders, incorrect assumptions about their opponents’ intellect, abilities, common sense, and the public’s deep-seated agreement with the rebels’ unifying views.

This motley group’s leader was a man from the establishment; he had served faithfully for years in circles of relative power and learned from the best what works and what doesn’t.  Of course, that association made him suspect: Did he share the passion?  Did he have the commitment?  Could he deliver as a leader?

And then too he was not spectacular when it came to delivering results.  Often against overwhelming odds, he would make some small sign of progress, but worked into a position of inevitable loss, he would—dare I say?—retreat.  His detractors, who were many, demanded his resignation; the press was critical; even some of his colleagues wondered what would become of their movement and themselves.

Over time, however, this concept of “strategic retreat” became a hallmark of the movement’s eventual success: a series of small victories which wore down their opponents, educated the masses, and gained popular support.  It was an outcome that was not meant to be, but it was a victory no less.

The time was the American Revolution; the leader was George Washington; the army was the Patriots who risked all for what they believed.

*****

Analogies are never perfect.  Speaker of the House Boehner is no General Washington, the Tea Party caucus is not the Patriot army of the Revolution, and the often mind-numbing blather in the Capitol cannot truly be compared to the heroic actions on the Revolutionary battlefield.  Yet similarities exist and are worth noting.  For one, General Washington seemed to appreciate Tacitus’ adage, “He that fights and runs away, may turn and fight another day; but he that is in battle slain, will never rise to fight again.”

More than a convenient excuse rationalizing retreat, it is a time-honored military tactic to assess the cost-benefit of any particular action and proceed accordingly.  No military leader would rush into a situation that is knowingly unwinnable without considering the probability of success and cost of such action.  Passion for one’s cause is noble, but it must always be tempered with a realistic view of possible outcomes.  And sometimes, to both Tacitus’ point and Washington’s actions, the better option is strategic retreat.

So it was in our Nation’s capital recently during debate to raise the debt ceiling.  After a recent success in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which that chamber passed the so-called “Cut, Cap, and Balance” bill—which the SATP and most Americans supported—the Senate’s inaction and the White House’s announced veto ensured that action would go nowhere.

The subsequent House proposal, though possibly agreeable to the Senate and the White House, would have been (in the minds of many conservative House members) a bridge too far, a compromise they could not accept, and it was withdrawn without a vote.

That proposal was followed by a third that gained tepid approval from both the Senate and White House.  It was the eleventh-hour deal that ultimately passed by a vote of 269 to 161 in the House, and later in the Senate.  It was a vote that split the Tea Party Caucus fairly evenly (32 for to 28 against).

A retreat from the original intent of the conservative leadership?  Yes.  A compromise with the “enemy”?  Yes.   A reason to disparage those conservative leaders who voted to accept the deal?  Not necessarily.

Without compromising our own beliefs or our commitment to seeing them enacted, Tea Partiers, as General Washington, must never lose sight of the big picture.  Success of this movement does not hinge on one vote, but the forward movement of our cause over time.  The United States of America did not arrive at this political, economic, and social brink overnight, and we surely will not move back from it overnight.  Much as the American Revolution, it will be a protracted war, with many battles.  In some we’ll see tremendous strides; in others we’ll see baby steps; and in still others we may encounter retreat or even loss.  Ronald Reagan would say, “The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted; it belongs to the brave.”  The brave aren’t those who are willing to end it all in one battle, but those who wisely navigate the ebb and flow of the war to achieve the desired goal, often realizing small victories along the way.

So what were the victories in this latest episode?  Here are several:

1) The bill prevented a default, with a credit downgrade and weakening of the U.S. dollar it would bring.  Many will argue, and rightly so, that default was not inevitable: it’s a matter of priorities of how the revenues will be spent.  Obviously it’s a choice on whether the U.S. will pay its debts to creditors, pay entitlements such as Social Security and pensions/benefits, or pay discretionary spending.  It could have even been forced to shut down certain government functions and agencies.  Given who currently controls the Executive Branch of government and its current priorities, this could have been disastrous.

2)  The bill mandates significant savings over ten years by capping discretionary spending.  Granted many of these cuts do not phase in until 2013 and there could have been more and sooner actions, but this represents a step in the right direction.

3)  The bill sends a wake-up call to the Nation on the hazards of overspending when the raising of the debt ceiling has been almost a routine event over recent decades.  It shows that Washington’s spending culture is beginning to change and the conversation has shifted from an agenda of ever-growing government and increased taxes. It marks the new conversation about cutting spending.

4)  The debate reopened discussion on a Balanced Budget Amendment, which the SATP has long advocated.  It begs the obvious question that if a BBA is good for most of the states, why is it not good for the Federal government?

5)  The bill forced the President and big-spenders to back off on some of their liberal demands.  Until now, the President showed no intention of abandoning his out-of-control spending agenda, which always included raising taxes on at least some part of the population.  That discussion came to the table having given up the idea of kicking the can down the road and raising taxes on hard working families and businesses. Otherwise, it seems like the Republicans should have taken the President’s initial offer of an 83/17 spending cut/tax increase.

6)  The debate showed government leadership that we Tea Party patriots will not submissively follow what we didn’t believe would bring at least some, even small, success to the battle.  As famously noted in the second round of House discussions, Tea Party Caucus members and others let Speaker Boehner know he could not count on their support unless other key concepts were part of the final bill.  That was impetus for the final discussions that produced a bill that many could support.  It’s ironic that our detractors see our success as greater than we see it, with the mainstream press and commentators disparaging the Tea Party because of their success, and even the Vice President reportedly referring to us a “terrorists.”

It’s not time to celebrate: the budget deal is far from perfect.  It may be, however, the best deal we conservatives could get at this point in time, controlling only half of Congress, minus the Senate and the White House.  Consider this: in 2009 we had no chance of being heard on these issues, much less influencing a vote.  2010 brought us a major success as We the People spoke loudly and clearly that promises of “hope” and “change” weren’t working, and sent to Congress several dozen new representatives.  Since January 2011, they have navigated the bureaucracy, learned the ropes, and most recently demonstrated they are willing and able to take a strong and principled stand on the core issues.  The modest actions of 2011 are not an end; they are only a plateau from which to continue the climb.

As columnist Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute noted in the National Review Online, “It could be worse. President Obama started out the year calling for an increase in government spending. Instead, the deal included cuts or at least reductions in the rate of spending growth. And, Republicans stood firm against any tax increase. … And a precedent has been set. Call it the Boehner Rule: Future increases in the debt ceiling will almost certainly have to include additional spending cuts.”  In short, the deal was very likely the best that conservatives could get under the circumstances.  The way we will know if it were a surrender out of fear or a strategic retreat is the action our representatives take in the future—whether it is back to subservience and acceptance of government growth, or a stepping stone to true and proper change for America.

*****

Washington knew that for the Revolution to succeed the war would be long and costly.  A minority of Patriots, even one fervently committed to grand success, would find small, sometimes imperceptible, successes along the way. Ultimate success would be through thoughtful actions that would from time to time require strategic retreat.  These are not abandonment of core principles, but an acceptance of small victories as building blocks for great future successes.

We, as Washington, must understand success will not come overnight.  Conservatives must now capitalize on momentum and ensure movement resumes in a forward direction.  That action must come with our monitoring and directing their focus on moving America in the right direction.

Only time will tell if these warriors we sent to our Nation’s Capitol are of the true conservatives they profess to be.  We will trust for the moment they are simply emulating Washington’s heroic actions, even in strategic retreat.  If voters find, however, it is a surrender, an abandonment of the core principles we hold dear, these weak soldiers will pay the same price in November 2012 as did their predecessors in November 2010.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.