As Tennessee gears up for the 2026 gubernatorial election, the race is shaping up to be a battle between principled conservatism and the entrenched status quo. On one side, we have establishment heavyweights (or puppets) U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn and U.S. Representative John Rose—seasoned politicians with deep ties to Washington and Nashville’s power structures. On the other, State Representative Monty Fritts, a self-described “staunch constitutional conservative” who is challenging the very system that has ballooned government spending and eroded individual liberties. In this pivotal moment, Tennessee voters must ask: Do we want more of the same—politicians who talk a big game on limited government but deliver expansions in scope and size? Or do we choose a leader committed to reestablishing a government that serves the people, not rules over them?
Let’s dive into the stark contrasts between Monty Fritts and his establishment rivals, backed by historical patterns and verifiable records. The evidence is clear: Establishment candidates have a long track record of undermining liberty while growing government’s reach, while Monty Fritts’s platform offers a bold return to constitutional roots.
The Establishment’s Legacy: A History of Expansion Over Liberty
America’s political history is littered with examples of establishment politicians—insiders beholden to party machines, lobbyists, and special interests—who promised fiscal restraint and freedom but delivered the opposite. These figures often exploit crises or popular causes to justify broader government powers, creating agencies and programs that outlive their “temporary” purpose and entrench bureaucratic overreach.
Consider the Progressive Era under Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt, an establishment darling of the Republican machine, championed the “Square Deal” but used it to vastly expand federal authority. He pushed for the creation of the U.S. Forest Service and the Antiquities Act of 1906, which allowed presidents to unilaterally designate national monuments—seizing millions of acres of land without congressional oversight. Wilson, a Democrat with deep ties to academic and political elites, took it further during World War I. He established the Committee on Public Information to propagandize the war effort and the Espionage Act of 1917, which curtailed free speech by criminalizing anti-war dissent—over 2,000 people were prosecuted, including Eugene V. Debs, who was imprisoned for a speech criticizing the draft. These “reforms” ballooned the federal workforce and set precedents for surveillance and censorship that persist today, all under the guise of national security and progress.
Fast-forward to the New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), another establishment icon. Facing the Great Depression, FDR created over 15 major agencies, including the Works Progress Administration and the Social Security Administration, which exploded federal spending from 3% of GDP in 1930 to over 10% by 1939. While sold as emergency measures, these programs entrenched lifelong entitlements and regulatory bureaucracies, eroding states’ rights and individual economic freedom. Critics like economist Murray Rothbard argued this “collectivist tide” shifted power from citizens to Washington elites, a pattern repeated in Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, which added Medicare and Medicaid, pushing federal outlays to 19% of GDP by 1968.
Even in modern times, establishment Republicans have followed suit. During the George W. Bush era, the PATRIOT Act expanded surveillance powers under the pretext of fighting terrorism, creating the Department of Homeland Security and authorizing warrantless wiretaps—tools that have since been used against everyday Americans. These expansions rarely shrink; they grow, as seen in the national debt tripling from $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $17.5 trillion by 2017, and now sitting North of $38T, fueled by unchecked spending on wars and entitlements as well as the money laundering scheme known as foreign aid.
The pattern is undeniable: Establishment politicians prioritize power consolidation over liberty, using rhetoric of “compassion” or “security” to justify bigger government. This isn’t conspiracy—it’s verifiable history, from the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 (the first federal regulatory agency, which ballooned into a transportation behemoth) to today’s $6 trillion federal budget. Liberty suffers as taxes rise, regulations multiply, and personal choices—from education to healthcare—fall under bureaucratic thumbs.
Marsha Blackburn and John Rose: Establishment Insiders in Action
In the 2026 Tennessee race, Blackburn and Rose embody this establishment archetype. Both are Washington veterans with voting records that reveal a comfort with government growth, even as they campaign on conservative credentials.
Marsha Blackburn: Elected to the Senate in 2018 after years in the House, Blackburn positions herself as a fiscal hawk, voting against the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 that raised the debt ceiling. Yet her record tells a more nuanced story. She supported the CARES Act in 2020, a $2.2 trillion spending behemoth that included direct payments but also ballooned federal deficits and created new bureaucracies like the Paycheck Protection Program—criticized by libertarians for favoring corporate cronies over true relief. On liberty issues, Blackburn has backed expansions like the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, which reformed but ultimately extended NSA surveillance powers post-Snowden. And in her gubernatorial bid, she’s advocated expanding Tennessee’s voucher program to 40,000 slots—a move Monty Fritts and every true constitutional conservative calls “fiscally irresponsible” for diverting public funds without accountability. Blackburn’s ties to DC PACs and endorsements from groups like the Club for Growth and Americans for (no)Prosperity underscore her establishment bona fides: She’s raised millions from special interests, ensuring her votes align more with party leadership than grassroots liberty.
John Rose: As a six-term Congressman and former state Agriculture Commissioner, Rose has a business background that should scream “small government.” He opposes abortion and champions gun rights, earning conservative nods. But dig into his votes: Rose backed the 2021 infrastructure bill ($1.2 trillion), which included green energy subsidies and regulatory expansions—growing government’s footprint in transportation and climate policy. He’s also supported farm bills that balloon agricultural subsidies to $1.5 trillion over a decade, propping up corporate agribusiness at taxpayer expense. On immigration, Rose pushes border security but has voted for bills increasing federal enforcement budgets without addressing root causes like overregulation. Like Blackburn, Rose is polling strong among establishment donors, with over $6 million raised—far from the outsider he claims to be. His career trajectory mirrors the historical pattern: Enter as a reformer, emerge as a cog in the spending machine.
These aren’t anomalies; they’re symptoms of an establishment that rewards compliance over conviction, which has contributed to growing Tennessee’s budget from $34 billion in 2018 to $59.5 billion today—much of it on “corporate welfare” and overreach Monty Fritts decries.
Monty Fritts: A Platform to Serve, Not Rule
Enter Monty Fritts, the Army veteran and nuclear industry retiree who stunned Nashville by announcing his 2026 bid in September 2025. Unlike his rivals, Fritts isn’t chasing PAC money or D.C. glory; he’s a grassroots challenger, carrying just $11,000 from his House campaigns into the race. His platform is a clarion call for constitutional fidelity: Cut spending, end overreach, and restore government as a servant to the people.
Key pillars include:
- Fiscal Restraint: Fritts voted against Tennessee’s $59.5 billion budget in 2025, one of few Republicans to do so, blasting “frivolous expenditures.” He pledges to eliminate the grocery sales tax and roll back property taxes, putting money back in Tennesseans’ pockets.
- Education Freedom Without Overreach: Opposing vouchers as “unconstitutional,” Monty wants to suspend the program and refocus on public schools per the state constitution—prioritizing accountability over corporate handouts.
- Liberty Protections: A fierce 2nd Amendment defender, Monty slammed Governor Bill Lee’s appeal of a ruling striking down gun restrictions, vowing to block “Nashville’s elitist class” from infringing rights. He also eyes bans on chemical climate controls and artificial meat mandates, safeguarding personal and economic choices.
- Government Accountability: Monty alone voted against reauthorizing the Department of Education in 2025, arguing it diverts from local control. His vision: A “David vs. Goliath” recalibration where government answers to Tennessee’s 95 counties before spending.
Monty Fritts’s record in the Tennessee House—opposing Lee’s “socialist-leaning programs” and prioritizing “liberty and less government”—proves he’s no talker. Endorsed by conservative Christians and liberty groups, he’s the anti-establishment force Tennessee needs.
A Call to Tennesseans: Choose Service Over Rule
History warns us: Establishment candidates like Blackburn and Rose may shine in polls and fundraisers, but their paths lead to bigger government and dimmer liberties. Tennessee can’t afford more Washington-style expansions—our state budget has doubled in seven years, squeezing families while elites thrive. Monty Fritts offers the antidote: A governor who serves the Constitution and the people, slashing waste, protecting rights, and fostering true freedom. In 2026, let’s reject the rulers and elect the servant. Visit fritts4tn.com to join the fight for a freer Tennessee.
What do you think? Share in the comments—will Tennessee buck the establishment?