TPMDC

Tancredo's New Home In The Constitution Party: A Religious, Paleoconservative Group Without Much Electoral Success


Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

So what exactly is the Constitution Party, the group that former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is now joining in order to run for governor of Colorado?

The Constitution Party is a religiously conservative, right-wing party founded in 1992 -- and a group that has not yet had success in Colorado politics, though they hope that Tancredo might provide a breakthrough. If Tancredo wants to use this third-party platform to beat the Republican nominee -- either Scott McInnis or Dan Maes -- and likely Democratic nominee Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, Tancredo will have to buck history. In the 2008 election in Colorado, the party's presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin received 6,233 votes, 0.257% of the votes in the state.

Overall, the Constitution Party's positions could be described as religious conservative and paleoconservative. They also strongly reject neoconservatism and American internationalism as threats to the country's independence and sovereignty. For example, in 2008 they nominated Chuck Baldwin, defeating Alan Keyes' attempt to win its nomination, with the Iraq War as a key issue. Keyes is a strong supporter of the Iraq War, while Baldwin described it as "the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis." And at their convention, Baldwin won by a landslide.

There was also an effort in 1996 to recruit Pat Buchanan as its presidential candidate, the party's national chairman Jim Clymer told TPMDC, though this bid failed.

The highest elected official from the Constitution Party was Montana state Rep. Rick Jore, who was originally elected as a Republican in the 1990s, and returned to the legislature with the Constitution Party in 2006. He was term-limited out in 2008, leaving the party without any elected officials at that level of government.

The Constitution Party's philosophy is rooted in religious conservatism. As Colorado's American Constitution Party explains on its website:

We, the members of the American Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessings of the Lord God as the Creator, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe and of our nation. We hereby appeal to Him for aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Divine Providence as we work to restore and preserve this nation as a government of, by, and for the people. Our republic is a nation governed by a constitution rooted in Biblical law and administered by representatives elected by the people to preserve, protect, and defend it against attacks by all its enemies, whether from without or within.

As the national party's platform explains:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Does the party have high hopes for a big win with Tancredo, we asked Clymer? "I'm not on the ground in Colorado, I don't claim to have a good feel of the political polls there. But from what I read I think he has a really good chance of winning. It sounds like this is the year when people have a new awareness, people are gaining a new awareness of the Constitution and what the Constitution Party means, and a new admiration and respect for limited government and the principles of government that we've always maintained."

"I'm happy that he's coming over," Clymer added. "I think he'll be a great asset to the party. It'll raise the visibility of the party nationally. I've always said that the Tea Party movement which I strongly support, the Constitution Party is really the political vehicle that is promoting and has been promoting the ideas and principles and issues of the Tea Party movement. And this gives us an opportunity to make that known."

The party was originally founded under the name U.S. Taxpayers Party, and then later adopted its current name in 1999.

There's some variation among the names of the state affiliates. The Colorado chapter, for example, is called the American Constitution Party, the Michigan chapter still calls itself the U.S. Taxpayers Party, and the affiliate in Nevada is the Independent American Party -- yes, it's the same organization that Sharron Angle was a member of in 1990s. The Taxpayers/Constitution party also absorbed the American Independent Party in California as its affiliate there. The AIP was originally created for George Wallace's anti-integration campaign in 1968 -- though Clymer said that other chapters, such as the one in Colorado, did not originate from the AIP, and that the Constitution Party is not a successor party to the AIP as a whole.

Comments (30) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

mcc

user-pic

July 26, 2010 4:36 PM   

The Constitution Party is this fascinating mix of hilarious and scary and it deserves a lot more scrutiny than it gets, so I'm glad to see this article. One thing I wish would receive more attention than it has is the connections between Ron and Rand Paul and the Constitution Party (random sample).

In addition to the Paul/Angle stuff the Alaska Independence Party incidentally also has some pretty close ties to the Constitution Party (though I don't know how much their ideologies line up) so there's an arguable Sarah Palin connection there too!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 4:46 PM   

Paleoconservative? Isn't that like Ugg the Repug? Or is he more of a Pleistoconservative?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 7:21 PM    in reply to Signalman

Gyak. Time like this, Ugg wish he never been defrosted. Would call them Asshole Conservatives, but that be redundant. Har har har.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 7:33 PM    in reply to Ugg the Repug

"...(They're) just dumber than a sack of hammers." -O brother where art thou

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 9:21 PM    in reply to CityGuy

"...and as smart as a box of hair"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 10:40 PM    in reply to Signalman

I'm thinking even Jurassic conservative would be too modernist for the Constitution Party. Precambrian Conservative. There we have it. It's the most raw, un-evolved life form. First God created the Constitution Party Conservative. Then he started on the amoeba. Or, paraphrasing Gunter Grass, "The Beast is in all of us."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 12:05 AM    in reply to decisivemoment

"First, God created idiots.
That was just for practice.
Then He created conservatives."

- apologies to Mark Twain

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 5:19 PM   

What is it about conservative extremists that they feel the need to hijack concepts that they are in direct opposition to? The "Contitution Party" is the very antithesis of the actual Constitution, just like the "Susan B. Anthony List" is about as anti-women's rights as you can get.

Maybe "The American Religious Paleofascist Klub" didn't quite roll off the tongue like "Constitution Party" does...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 9:04 PM    in reply to Sir Craig

…and while you're talking opposites; they also are forever accusing their opponents of what they are most guilty themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 6:36 PM   

Sir Craig, when you have a movement that is propped up primarily by metaphysical interests, then almost anything becomes "reasonable."

We've already passed through the Post-Modern era, yet these individuals are still grappling with Modernity. They're roughly a hundred years out of step, and they're still fighting battles that have long since been decided.

It is difficult for them to adjust their attitudes in the presence of new evidence, and still feel at peace, so they merely adopt entirely new sets of definitions and understandings that are then massaged into their foundational principles. Of course, these definitions are generally arbitrary, and may only make sense to them.

I could draw parallels with Liberal Academia, but that would be giving them far too much credit. They're much less intellectually honest about their positions.

Conservatives are used to being able to shift their attitude towards articles of faith. They've had to apply such ever-shifting reasoning to alleviate the cognitive dissonance that inevitably comes with failed policy, and the passing of time.

The distant past will always be better to them, because it's dead. It can't answer back, and disappoint.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 7:28 PM   

I'm really missing the Constitutional part of the Constitution Party. I got the Lord and Savior parts and the Biblical parts, but somehow the whole Constitution part seems to have missed the bus - unless you count the reference to "a constitution rooted in Biblical law" as being it. For all of that they could be referring to some other constitution than the U.S. Constitution since they used a small "c."

I wonder if they have in mind that they'd rewrite the U.S. Constitution to what the founders "should have" written?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 9:44 PM    in reply to toxophilite

There are some in that end of the political spectrum who are rewriting the bible:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html
so I guess rewriting the Constitution wouldn't seem like that big a deal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 4:02 PM    in reply to toxophilite

Has anyone checked these dudes for a connection to the New Apostolic Reformation?The only difference I can see between these guys and the Taliban is a bunch of Kalashnikovs, beards and these guys don't and probably never will have the power to create the society they desire.Whatever else they are they're definitely an offshoot of the "christian" dominionist movement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 10:11 PM   

The man is insane.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 10:39 PM   

Eric, there is nothing paleoconservative about the COnstitution party unless you think that paleoconservative is a synonym for Neanderthal In most parlance about politics,, paleoconservative means pre-Reagan "revolution" conservatism, which the Constitution party is not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 10:57 PM   

Wow, what shocker seditious progressives are against the Constitution Party as a matter of principle because it has religious overtones and professes enumerated constitutional authority and limited smaller government.

It sounds like a Party I would surly entertain because the Party is hoping to....

Restore the Republic and Constitution to its rightful place in government!

...maybe the Constitution Party will borrow my sound bite, it works for me and progressives hate it!


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 11:26 PM    in reply to DugFmJamul

Actually dearheart, it doesn't work for you, and the constitution is at its rightful place in the law right now.

But then, your whole platform is based on not knowing (for example) that there were no representative democracies in 1780, and other historical ignorance. You're just annoying like a child that insists the sky is black because it is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 11:37 PM    in reply to DugFmJamul

Your statement "I would surly entertain..." is quite revealing.

The definition of surly that I find most appropriate in your case is

  1. (obsolete) Lordly, arrogant, supercilious.
  2. Irritated, bad-tempered, unfriendly.
  3. Threatening, menacing, gloomy.

Your self-referential use of the word is quite appropriate, Duggy. I am quite certain that you "would surly entertain...."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 11:51 PM    in reply to Richardxx

I protest your insinuations...I'm never, "Threatening, menacing, gloomy"...ha..ha..me gloomy, well maybe to seditious progressives who want to undermine our constitution and republican form of government...maybe!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 1:18 AM    in reply to DugFmJamul

The lady dost protest too much, methinks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 11:22 PM   

If our Constitution is Bible-based, why on earth isn't it footnoted with chapter-and-verse references? Shouldn't they be able to tell us exactly what chapters and verse, out of which Testaments, all those Biblical constitutional clauses came from?
And what about Amendments? Are they the result of Divine Revelations, or are they heretical apostasy? Seems to me Biblical inerrant precludes any Amendments. So why did we ever give up slavery? Slavery was cool with the Bible dudes, why aren't we following suit? Seems like most of our ills could be traced to so flagrantly dispensing with God's word. And monogamy? The Patriarchs wouldn't have stood for that!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 11:38 PM   

"It sounds like a Party I would surly entertain"

And you're the can't-spell-to-save-your-ass genius who thinks that our Secretary of State is going to wrest the nomination from the incumbent President. Have you placed your bet in Vegas yet? I'm beginning to think you're a parody troll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 11:56 PM    in reply to bluestatedon

"And you're the can't-spell-to-save-your-ass genius"

I missed the 5th Grade due to a very bad poison oak infection, I have been struggling even since, a thought liberals were suppose to be loving and kind hearten to the less fortunate ones?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 1:27 AM    in reply to DugFmJamul

When challenged, dodge and play for sympathy. Straight out of the bully/Braitbart playbook.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 26, 2010 11:44 PM   

Baldwin described it (the Iraq War) as "the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis."

I have no problem with that statement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 8:38 AM    in reply to Gary

Gary,

I thought I was the alone in focusing on that statement on the Iraq war. The Constitution Party most certainly has its flaws but on this score it would appear to be a beacon of enlightenment when compared to the Big Two.

When of when will we as a nation have a rational discussion about the size of the Pentagon? So much of our political discourse is completely one-sided. Witness the latest dustup over extending jobless benefits: the Democrats were right in pushing for the extension but the Republicans had a valid point about funding the costs with offsets.

I know it's been said and said often but do we really and truly require annual military appropriations that exceed the combined total of the rest of the world? If we pared these outlays back, how much might be available for healthcare, education and paying down the national debt?

Serenity (and sanity) NOW!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 1:49 PM    in reply to jacks45

jacks45, The worry that military spending, and a permanent war based economy, would dominate and then destroy the American economy and society was first clearly stated by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I think that for Democrats to try to cut military spending, they will need to start by with adopting Eisenhower's arguments. I am not optimistic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 4:27 AM   

"The highest elected official from the Constitution Party was Montana state Rep. Rick Jore, who was originally elected as a Republican in the 1990s, and returned to the legislature with the Constitution Party in 2006."

This is inaccurate. In 1999 U.S. Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire briefly joined Constitution Party affiliate the U.S. Taxpayers Party to seek its presidential nomination, but later left, claiming the party resisted his Catholicism.

The party is heavily dominated by Calvinists. This could be relevant to Tancredo's decision, as I think he is an ex-Catholic Presbyterian.

Also the "paleocon" description is pretty accurate in my view. The party's platform is much in the line with someone like Pat Buchanan or the underrated Chronicles Magazine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 10:34 AM   

Silly fellow, the whole New Testament is an Amendment to the Old Testament. God got ambitious, and decided there weren't enough Jews to keep him company in Heaven, so he changed the recruitment standards. Sort of like the Amendments to the US Constitution that abolished slavery and extended the franchise to men of all races and then to women.

See, even God changes his mind. Would that some of his followers were so flexible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 27, 2010 11:20 AM   

Maybe Colorado will secede.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on