August 11, 2026

Guest Post: “Observations on the Tea Party” by Keith Seegmiller

[This is a guest post by Keith Seegmiller, Republican and long time Utah resident from Cedar City, Utah. I’ve long swapped opinions with Keith, my uncle, over the years, over the kitchen table, at conventions, and in our correspondence. The opinions are his own.]

______________________

Having studied the Tea Party movement some, I’ve come to the following conclusions.

It’s a populist movement of dissatisfaction and desire for change.  Though an undetermined number of people claim to believe in and support its philosophies, it has no unified, national organization or platform.  Tea Party caucuses have been organized in both the House and the Senate and wield some influence there (mostly on Republicans).  Three or four non-profit organizations have been formed each of which claim upwards of a million members/adherents loosely organized in smaller organizations around the country.  In the last election, a number of candidates for federal office who espoused Tea Party ideals and were supported by Tea Party organizations were successful, some in unseating long-standing and respected incumbents.

Though individuals and subgroups claim a number of different issues under the Tea Party philosophical umbrella, only two principles stand out as being of universal concern among all adherents:  a return to fiscal responsibility and restraint, and a return to more constitutionally limited federal government.

If it is understood that:

1) Our nation is now over 15 trillion dollars in debt and adding to that amount by over a trillion dollars each year;

2) The primary cause of, and potential cure for, this condition lies with the executive, legislative (and to a lesser extent, the judicial) branches of federal government that have allowed the growth and cost of government spiral out of control over many years; and

3) If we have any idea what the consequences of a continuation of this condition will be for this once great nation; then,

How could any right-minded person not embrace these two fundamental principles of the Tea Party movement?

______________________

That being said, I have concerns relating to Tea Party politics. Let the voter beware.

(1) These fundamental Tea Party principles, however urgently essential on a federal level, have a more limited application at local and state levels, especially in Utah where we have generally balanced our budgets for generations and have little opportunity or influence to effect changes to the U.S. constitution or how it is applied. Therefore, supporting and voting for state and local candidates whose platforms are based mainly on Tea Party principles of limited applicability locally, may be shortsighted at best and disruptive at worst because they expect to fix what is not broken and change systems that have proven effective for many years.  This is not to say that some improvement in government is not always needed, but we should be careful we aren’t trading the wisdom, experience, contacts, reputation and influence of respected and effective candidates for the vigorous idealism (and little else) of Tea Party challengers in local and state races.

(2) In my experience, Tea Party candidates are generally long on idealism and short on realism. I.e., they are so intent on changing a corrupt and misguided federal system that they may not realize that the system has deteriorated over many years and cannot, under the best of circumstances, be completely turned around in the near term.  Though this major effort must be unrelentingly pursued, I’m concerned that with uncompromising single-mindedness and tunnel vision, Tea Party candidates, once elected, will neglect the fights that still need to be won—now, under the present system—while tilting at the windmill of federal system change that will realistically take years to accomplish.

(3) We also need to be wary of those opportunists who seek to ride the wave of change for their own benefit, caring little for the fundamental ideals of the Tea Party movement.

Related articles

Comments

  1. Fantastic article. Hits square on with ideas which have been bouncing around my head for a while now.

  2. Interesting take. I hope to see more guest articles from Keith.

    I’ll admit, I’ve had a bit of tunnel vision lately, where I basically just want to get rid of all of the incumbents and “Lifers” in congress, even though there would be some collateral damage of losing some great ones. But it’s frustrating to watch each election cycle, as the re-election rate continues to be high, while the approval rating of congress continues to be low, and to see so many log-jams and inefficiency.

    But the point you make of “we should be careful we aren’t trading the wisdom, experience, contacts, reputation and influence of respected and effective candidates for the vigorous idealism (and little else) of Tea Party challengers in local and state races.” is a good point, and a good note of caution. But I also don’t think it’s wise to idly rely on and naively trust the “wisdom, experience, contacts, reputation and influence” of the elected officials–something many people seem very willing to do.

    But in order to make those informed decisions of who to keep, and who to boot out, we have to be more informed as voters…which requires proactive study, and more political involvement on the local level… and that requires more work than a lot of people are willing to do–instead relying on commercials, mailers, and whatever their friends think in order to make voting decisions.

    But the involvement and fervor and pro-active study I’ve seen with the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul supporters, while I don’t agree with every idea they espouse, has felt like a breath of fresh air–feeling like we are heading away from “they the politicians” and back towards “we the people.”

    • Several folks have applied my Trade-off comment in Concern paragraph #1 to U.S. Senate and Congressional races–and maybe they should, but that comment was originally intended to apply to state and local races.  Concern PP#2 is more applicable to federal races.  Thanks for your balanced and measured response.  I like those fresh air feelings too; I wish they were tied to realistic electability.
      Keith S.

  3. Keith,

    Well said!  Let us be careful not to “throw the baby out with the bath water” in our exuberance for change.

    Fred Steinfels