Is the Tea Party really Advocating Anarchy?

While nobody in the Tea Party is likely to admit that their goal is anarchy, it is worth taking a closer look at the meaning of anarchy and the goals of those who wish to force a government shut down.  The dictionary definition of anarchy is:

absence of government.

It is not surprising then, that the next definition given by Merriam-Webster is:

a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

Grover Norquist has been actively involved in promoting the Tea Party and believes that it should serves as the “exoskeleton” that protects newly elected Republicans against the pressures bound to be imposed on newly elected officials by “the spending interests.”  His most famous quote is that:

Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.

The irony of this radical position advocating what amounts to anarchy, is that both Grover Norquist and every single Tea Party member enjoy the fruits of government on a daily basis.  They drive on government built and maintained roads.  They call the police and fire department and expect prompt service when necessary.  They collect Social Security and Medicare when they retire.  They expect our military to defend our nation when called upon.

So, if the Tea Party and Grover Norquist are not really advocating for anarchy, why does the Republican led U.S. House of Representatives pass a Continuing Budget Resolution that it knows will result in a government shut down?  Why does Senator Ted Cruz make a mockery of the Senate by engaging in a fruitless filibuster, including reading Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham, that even his own party’s Senate leadership disavows?

The clear hypocrisy of Norquist and Cruz and their minions can only mean one thing.  What  they really want is the power to control where government spends its money.  The best example of this is the Tea Party’s advocacy for private school vouchers.  This advocacy does not really shrink government spending.  It just shifts it to private interests who are free to discriminate against children with disabilities, as I wrote about previously.

In fact, the Tea Party’s blog says quite clearly,

Because Freedom isn’t Free.

So, House Republicans and Senator Cruz, get off your high horses and stop advocating anarchy, because as the Tea Party states quite clearly: Freedom isn’t free.


For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change e-mail Jeff Spitzer-Resnick or visit Systems Change Consulting.

Consensus Driven Leadership

As I have previously written, our political system has devolved into a state of Great Dysfunction, such that political leaders, such as Speaker of the House John Boehner and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, seem to thrive on conflict rather than actually reaching across the aisle to resolve problems faced by the people who elected them.  At the national level, Speaker Boehner persists in allowing the House of Representatives to vote over 40 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though he knows that such votes have no chance of becoming law.  In Wisconsin, Governor Walker persists on arresting peaceful Solidarity Singers in the Capitol, even though he knows that they will not stop their peaceful protests no matter how many times they are arrested.

The question our nation struggles with today is whether there is any room in our political system for consensus driven leadership.  Before exploring that challenge, let’s make sure we know what consensus means.  A common misperception is that consensus requires everyone to agree.  A much better definition, which avoids the sabotage of vetoing progress by refusing consensus is Merriam-Webster’s definition:

the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.

Using this definition would avoid the political gamesmanship of Speaker Boehner and Governor Walker that appears to be calculated for power accumulation rather than actual substantive policy leadership.

In 2004, then candidate for US Senate, Barack Obama, gave his famous speech at the Democratic National Convention, where he optimistically declared that:

The pundits…like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Given President Obama’s difficulties in bringing Speaker Boehner’s House along for consensus policy making, the question remains: can consensus driven leadership succeed?

It is well recognized that consensus driven  decisions provide the best results for the most people.  But how can we get there when power driven naysayers are committed to destroying consensus?  Key elements to achieving consensus are:

  • Providing sufficient information to decision makers.  Consensus cannot be achieved in a knowledge vacuum;
  • Consensus cannot be achieved in an atmosphere of fear or threat;
  • Quality leadership is essential to achieving consensus;
  • Consensus requires mutually accepted accountability to implement the decisions which are made.

In Wisconsin, Governor Walker’s new book, Unintimidated, is a declaration of war on those who disagree with him, rather than an invitation to lead through consensus.  His leadership style has resulted in Wisconsin becoming one of the most politically polarized states in the nation.  The challenge for his next opponent, in 2014, is to present a viable option to become the Governor for ALL of Wisconsin.


For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change e-mail Jeff Spitzer-Resnick or visit Systems Change Consulting.

Sun Prairie Drops Resisting Arrest Charge in Police Abuse Case

I have previously written about my case in which a Sun Prairie police officer violently slammed my middle school student client’s head to the ground at school, giving him a concussion and black eye.  While my client’s case against the officer, the Sun Prairie Police Department and the City of Sun Prairie winds its way through the federal court system, I was forced to defend my client in Sun Prairie Municipal Court because the police officer issued tickets to my client for resisting an officer and disorderly conduct. Sadly, it is not uncommon for a police officer who uses excessive force to claim that he had to subdue the victim because the victim was resisting the officer.

The Municipal Court trial on those charges was scheduled for today. However, at the outset, Sun Prairie’s Municipal Attorney stated that the City had decided to drop the resisting an officer charges.  In return, my client agreed to plead no contest to disorderly conduct because he swore at the police officer, which meets the technical grounds of disorderly conduct.

My client, his mother, and I are very pleased that the City of Sun Prairie recognized that it was likely to lose the resisting an officer charge as my client was simply trying to call his mother as his school behavior plan permits him to do.

Now we move on to getting justice for my client for being abused by the police officer.


For more information on how I can help you accomplish effective, progressive systems change e-mail Jeff Spitzer-Resnick or visit Systems Change Consulting.