A Party Without a Mandate is Damaging

            Across the nation, the Tea Party Movement is taking American politics by storm. In November’s Midterm Elections, the momentum the Tea Party has generated within recent years was more than noticeable. This can be attributed to celebratory figures within the Tea Party, such as Sarah Palin. With her eloquence and strong presence in the media, Sarah Palin has been able to foster growth and support for the party by endorsing various candidates. However, due to Tea Party’s lack of mandate, the growth and support of the Tea Party is more of a danger to the future of American politics.

            On the national level, Sarah Palin has endorsed 64 candidates running in the House, Senate, and Governor elections. “Campaign 2010: The Politics of Palin” illustrates that of these 64 candidates, 32 were elected. Endorsements in excessive amounts endanger the future of American politics because they create biases towards the candidate. From a psychological perspective, people who favor Sarah Palin are more likely to favor the candidates she endorses because they will believe the candidates are like her. This perspective coincides with the voters’ inability to inform themselves on specific candidates. By believing the candidate is similar to Sarah Palin, the voters will not feel the need to educate themselves on where the candidate stands or the past experiences of the candidate. Ultimately leading to the possibility of electing an under qualified candidate. Furthermore, endorsements endanger the future of American politics because the elected candidate may skew or completely change their original principles in order to keep in favor of their endorser. Due to the Tea Party’s lack of mandate, the idea of candidates falling to the principles of their endorsers is entirely possible. In this sense, Sarah Palin is a puppeteer and the candidates she endorses are her puppets.

            In “Campaign 2010: The Politics of Palin”, the large amount of endorsed Tea Party/Republican candidates gives way to the large citizen population who support the Tea Party. While these candidates and supporters are spread across the nation, it goes without saying there is much diversity amongst the ideals of the candidates and their supporters. In “Tea Party Comes to Power on an Unclear Mandate”, Kate Zernike emphasizes this point by quoting the conflicting viewpoints of Tea Party supporters on how they believe the Tea Party/Republican candidates ought to act once they are elected.

             With the elections come and gone and the Tea Party having no set mandate, it can be argued the Tea Party’s inability to set a mandate is damaging to the future of American politics and the Tea Party itself. The absent mandate is allowing the individual ideals of elected candidates to linger and develop, which in time these ideals will become more precious to the candidates. Therefore when the time comes to set a mandate, the elected Tea Party/Republican candidates will be unwilling to compromise on a mandate if their ideals are not all represented in the way they wish. From here arises the possibility of the elected candidates moving away from the Tea Party and the ideals of their endorser, Sarah Palin. This has the potential to stall American politics because each elected candidate may only want to work for their agenda and be unwilling to work with their counterparts in other parties as well as their own.

                        Tea Party candidates have greatly benefitted from the endorsement of Sarah Palin. In “Campaign 2010: The Politics of Palin”, the graph shows many Americans are willing to stand behind the Tea Party endorsed candidates. Therefore the Tea Party and its elected candidates must realize the importance of setting a mandate in order to bring about beneficial change for the people who elected them.