Charlie Harper: GOP's false prophets for profit

A little more than two weeks ago, the people who proclaim to be the "true conservatives" and "the base" of the Republican party got their wish. John Boehner got "fired." He actually agreed to resign, upon the naming of his successor. No matter. From those demanding his head, and those more than willing to pour gas on that fire, victory was declared.

Last week those same folks claimed victory again. Those whose entire plan for the U.S. House stopped at "fire Boehner" are now claiming success in that Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy will also not be Speaker. This time, however, the group of roughly 40 representatives most willing to appease the naysayers settled on a plan: They wanted Daniel Webster of Florida.

Never mind that Florida is undergoing court-ordered redistricting and according to NPR's Jessica Taylor, Webster's seat is proposed to go from a +4 Republican advantage to a +18 Democratic advantage. The House Freedom Caucus isn't known for setting up long-term strategy, so asking them not to set up a Democratic defeat of a sitting Speaker would apparently be too much to ask.

Long-term strategy isn't important to those who have hijacked the "conservative" label. These are the people who see no irony in calling themselves "the base" yet threaten to sit out every election. What is important to these folks -- or at least to those who prey upon them -- is the ability to keep them angry. Angry people are usually willing to put aside pesky details like strategy or even truth so long as their anger is fed. And there are plenty willing to feed this anger -- for a price.

The "Tea Party Leadership Fund" has been sending constant emails to draft Trey Gowdy for Speaker. The problem is Gowdy has stated emphatically he doesn't want the job. These emails claim Utah's Mia Love is behind the effort. Love had been supporting Jason Chaffetz for the post. The one consistent non-debatable point of each email? The request for donations to support their effort.

Anti-establishment leaders are famous for challenging their supporters to follow the money. I hope those who have donated to this ruse will demand the same of whichever leaders are being funded by this effort.

Then there's FreedomWorks. This organization sent out a self-congratulatory email on Boehner's announcement stating "We did it! We've forced Boehner to resign as Speaker of the House!" Upon McCarthy withdrawing from the race they dispatched another email claiming victory.

What is the victory? The defeat of another Republican leader. There are no victories beyond that. Conservatives have moved from "Fire Boehner" to "Defeat McCarthy" to no one is really sure.

It is now easier to nail Jell-O to a wall than it is to get conservatives to define victory. Why is that? Because Jell-O is a clearly defined product with an established brand. Conservatives have no idea what their brand represents, nor have any desire nor apparently any idea how to actually define victory.

Paul Ryan is reluctantly waiting in the wings, understanding that he is the closest person trusted by mainstream conservative Republicans and mostly acceptable to the "conservative" far right. I say mostly because that goal post too is being moved.

Writers at Brietbart have called Ryan the "Absolutely worst choice." Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly calls Ryan "the same type of leader as outgoing Speaker Boehner." And of course, she invokes the most famous line of those who articulate problems but no actual strategic plan for success, saying, "This is not about personality, it's about principle."

Ah, principles. Those things that you hold dear, but not dear enough to take the time to articulate a plan to have them enacted or protected.

The point is clear. The False Prophets for Profit -- those who make money off of conservative donors by attacking conservative leaders -- will waste no time in "leading" by opposing whomever may try to lead next. Otherwise, they too may be called "establishment" or even worse -- they may actually have to assume some of the responsibility of governing.

There are many who only want to point out problems. Too many of them make a good living off doing that, and little more.

There's nothing wrong with making money in a capitalist system. There's a bit more of an issue of those that assume a moral superiority by asserting "principle" when their end goal appears to be "principal."

We have an entire generation of activists and grassroots who have allowed themselves to be defined by what they are against, and thus now have no idea how to select a leader who can articulate what we are for. Those who make money off what we're against are quite adept at changing their message as fast as leaders can put new plans on the table.

The result is that we enter an election for the White House where Republicans will ask the nation to trust them to lead the one office that has been elusive for the last two election cycles. One where the heir apparent to the incumbent is unliked by independents and is mired in scandal. And Republicans will ask those same independents to trust them to lead, when they can't even decide a leadership position among themselves.

It's an interesting strategy if one expects electoral success. It makes a lot more sense when you understand that many of our grassroots leaders make more money by complaining while being in a minority party than by being a constructive part of a majority one.

Charlie Harper, author and editor of the Peach Pundit blog, writes on Georgia politics and government; www.peachpundit.com.

This story was originally published October 13, 2015 at 4:50 PM with the headline "Charlie Harper: GOP's false prophets for profit ."