During the national elections of 2010, a revolution of sorts occurred in the American political landscape. A whole host of citizen candidates entered the race as individuals with conservative and even America First predispositions. They rode a wave of discontent with the increasing centralization of government, runaway spending, and a foreign policy that simultaneously coddled our enemies abroad and engaged in interventions that were not always in America’s best interests. Grassroots groups challenging this status quo included the localized Tea Party, 912 groups, and grassroots conservatives. One foreign and economic policy sacred cow that many localized Tea Party groups challenged was so-called “free trade” and the devastation it wrought on communities, our social fabric, tax base, and strategic capabilities to prosecute war under the rubric of industrial self sufficiency.
Karl Marx predicted that free trade would destroy the concept of the nation state and heighten internal social dislocations, thus paving the way for Marxist socialism to triumph. In an 1848 speech called “On Free Trade,” Marx stated:
In general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is
destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social
revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free
trade.
Hence, short-sighted free trade is the highway to socialism and the ultimate destruction of the free enterprise system.
The globalists who hijacked both the GOP and Democratic Party subscribe to this “free trade” ideology, and now are worried by grassroots conservative opposition to this destructive doctrine. A Pew Research Center poll for November 4-7, 2010 reported that 63% of professed Tea Party supporters thought that free trade agreements were “bad for U.S.” The Mellman Group and the Alliance for American Manufacturing reported that their poll indicated that 74 percent of self-described Tea Party supporters would support a “national manufacturing strategy to make sure that economic, tax, labor, and trade policies in this country work together to help support manufacturing in the United States.” This poll also revealed that 92% of Tea Party supporters wanted to protect US manufacturing, while 56% supported tariffs on goods from countries with low environmental standards.
Globalist special interests took note of these nationalist feelings within the grassroots conservative movement and sought to co-opt the Tea Party-aligned politicians. Christopher Wenk, Senior International Policy Director of the US Chamber of Commerce, predicted:
“We’re going to have our work cut out for us…But we’re going to do aggressive outreach to them across the board. We’re not taking anything for granted. These folks are going to have to hear from the business community and their constituents about why trade is important.”
Several national groups formed or led by establishment Republicans like Freedomworks, Tea Party Express, and Americans for Prosperity co-opted the Tea Party label for the purposes of advancing trans-national interests under the rubric of unlimited freedom of action for these same global entities. While their anti-socialist and free market positions are laudable, their open borders positions are deeply disturbing. Vice President for Policy Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity stated that his organization supported all free trade agreements, opposed the House-passed Chinese currency re-evaluation bill, and supported the entry of Mexican trucks into the United States as called for in NAFTA. Shockingly, the Institute for Liberty supported the right of an Indonesian company—Asia Pulp & Paper—to dump their products in the United States, thus undercutting US producers of paper employing Americans. Meanwhile, native Indonesian private enterprises had long been subsidized by their government. Sadly, the Institute for Liberty found itself defending foreign interests as opposed to the well-being of their own countrymen in the business world.
Curiously, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has supported free trade to the detriment of his state’s textile industry—specifically seeking permanent normal trade relation (PNTR) status for Red China—and voted no on withdrawing from the sovereignty-destroying WTO.
Despite this record, Senator DeMint is nonetheless beloved by many individuals in the Tea Party and grassroots movement.
American nationalist/conservative candidates who challenge establishment GOP picks find themselves under intellectual assault, as witnessed in the Davis-Corwin-Hochul Congressional race of 2011. Industrialist Jack Davis mounted a third party challenge to the GOP and Democratic candidates under the Tea Party label, campaigning on the issue of the damage wrought by free trade and illegal immigration. Not surprisingly, the establishment GOP fronts, such as Tea Party Express and Freedom Works, launched a smear campaign to discredit Davis because of his outspoken commitment to national economic interests, as opposed to the special interests that profit from our slow industrial decline.
The Tea Party, 912, and other grassroots conservative activists provide a wonderful patriotic jolt for Americans to realize their valuable national traditions of patriotism, respect for our constitutional republic, and opposition to socialism. However, they must closely follow and then unseat the globalist usurpers on Capitol Hill, who are supported by front groups attempting to co-opt the Tea Party label in order to exploit it for something diametrically opposed to America’s renewed strength. Groups and individuals, such as Americans for Prosperity and Senator DeMint, need to be held accountable for their votes and public positions supporting open borders, the destruction of our industrial base, and trade with countries such as China who plan our downfall as a free and independent nation. In closing, it seems appropriate to make reference to a statement made by Teddy Roosevelt that clearly articulates the battle for the heart and soul of America:
The mere materialist is above all things, short-sighted…
To men of a certain kind, trade and property are of far more consequence than the great
thoughts and lofty emotions, which alone make a nation mighty. *
