Yes It’s True: Tea Party vs. me philosophical difference

Not long ago and not far away, I learned that the crucial difference between me and the Tea Party stalwarts in American politics was in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

It was the summer of 2012, and I decided to attend a meeting of Tea Party enthusiasts of the 80^th State Legislative District promoting the candidacy of Randy Brink. Though a Republican, Brink was touting his Tea Party credentials against incumbent fellow Republican Bob Genetski in the August primary.

Because he wrongfully was regarded as an outsider and because he didn’t have the support of the party machinery, he polled only about 33 percent in the primary.

But in July 2012, I wanted to get an up close and personal view of this Tea Party, which crashed the national political scene in 2010, right after the election of Barack Obama.

I listened to several speeches and comments, including those by Brink, and rose to try to articulate what I saw was a crucial difference between my political philosophy and theirs, which only numbered about a dozen at the gathering.

I told them they seemed to hold fast to the idea that the Founding Fathers were special men of God who were inspired to craft the most unique governing document in world history. Tea Partiers seemed to worship the Constitution like the Bible and the Founding Fathers like the twelve disciples.

Because of this core belief system, they consistently held the Constitution should be the revered law of the land, to be followed as written, just like fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who insist the Bible is inerrant.

I told them it was my position, one I still follow to this day, that the Founders indeed were intelligent and capable men, but not infallible. I suggested that indeed they created a governing document the world had never seen before, but it was not perfect, and neither were they.

I pointed out that many of them were slaveholders, a serious sin all by itself. I also insisted that the rights they outlined in the iconic Bill of Rights only applied to free, while male landowners at least 21 years of age.

The Bill of Rights wasn’t in the original Constitution. It made up the first 10 amendments, or changes, to the hallowed document. That by itself proved the document wasn’t perfect.

Since 1789, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times, the most recent in 1972 with the voting enfranchisement of 18-year-olds.

It has always been my understanding of American history that almost all rights to vote, the most important rights in a democracy, have been fought for and won by the people — particularly for women and people of color, including Native Americans. These rights did not magically appear with the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, they were the result of a lot of blood, sweat and tears of common people, not politicians.

And, I suggested, the struggle continues. I insisted the Constitution is a living, breathing document, not just a snapshot in time for us to follow as it was originally written.

My comments were not well received, though the dozen or so Tea Party enthusiasts were polite in their dissent.

Brink in 2014 decided to try again by running in the GOP primary, but this time he picked up only 4.4 percent of the vote. Cindy Gamrat of Plainwell won the race and Mary Whiteford was second.

Since then, I have been unable to distinguish Brink’s political views with those of Gamrat, Whiteford, or for that matter, Genetski.

Besides shedding light on my philosophical differences with the Tea Party, this whole story confirmed my cynical contention that issues really don’t matter in political debates and contests.

The huge exception is God, guns, guts, gays and abortion, but they all agree on those. As former Barry County Commissioner Bob Wenger said 20 years ago at a political forum, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference (between you). I should have stayed home and planted corn.”