Or is he onto something?

It’s only been three weeks, and Marco Rubio, the newest Senator from Florida, may be in some hot water with his base already.

As reported Monday evening by Ricochet.com (one of my favorite blogs these days), Fox News, The Daily Caller, and others, Rubio has refused to commit to joining the Senate Tea Party Caucus. Though he was elected with undeniable and substantial Tea Party support only two months ago, Rubio recently told a Florida political blog that joining the caucus could potentially lead to the co-option and adulteration of the so-far relatively pure Tea Party movement.

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Rubio enthusiastically voiced his support for and participation in the Conservative Steering Committee, a similar group of senators headed by South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, whose conservative credentials are beyond dispute. Consequently, Rubio frankly asked, “Why do we need something in addition to the steering committee?” (Watch the video interview here).

His point: the Tea Party Caucus is redundant and unnecessary. What’s more, by allowing a group of senators to label themselves active representatives of the Tea Party while on Capitol Hill, the grassroots nature of the Tea Party would be almost certainly jeopardized. Such senators would inevitably proceed to dictate policy to the Tea Party, completely reversing the bottom-up structure that made the movement such a force to begin with.

This brings up a bigger question, though. The implication of Rubio’s reasoning here is that conservatives can make their voices heard in the Senate via previously established conservative channels. The Tea Party label does not necessarily have to be on a caucus to make it effective. Similarly, I have heard it said by a few doubting friends (whose conservative credentials, like Jim DeMint’s, are also beyond dispute) that the Tea Party itself is not truly necessary. Their line of thought goes as follows: “If people would take the energy and enthusiasm that they devote to their local Tea Party and instead show up to their local Republican Party demanding conservative candidates and principles, our problems would be solved and the Tea Party would be redundant.” A provocative statement, to be sure, but I remain unconvinced.

So here are the two big questions:

• Is Marco Rubio right in saying that the Senate Tea Party Caucus is unnecessary and redundant?
• If so, does this redundancy stretch into the grassroots, and could we make just as much of a difference through previously established channels such as primary elections and party conventions?

This may be more of an academic question (we obviously will not see the end of the Tea Party anytime soon), but I am interested to hear what you think. The Tea Party has obviously had a massive impact on elections these past few years, but some skeptics would contend that these same results could have been achieved without establishing an entirely new para-party movement.

Either way, all of us at American Majority are strong supporters of Tea Party groups and grassroots efforts of all kinds. We strongly encourage principled, everyday Americans to participate in the political process, most of all by running in primaries for local- and state-level office. Regardless of your affinity or skepticism toward the Tea Party, we encourage all caring citizens to get involved, bringing principled leadership to your local and state governments, and ultimately to Washington. At the end of the day, a politician’s choice to accept or decline an invitation to a Tea Party Caucus or some such group makes little difference; his or her principles count for everything.