In mid March, a bankruptcy examiner suggested that executives at Wall Street financial giant Lehman Brothers used "materially misleading" accounting gimmicks to delay its collapse. At the same time, the national press speculated about the evolution of the Tea Party movement. The juxtaposition of the two articles raised the question, "What would Tea Party activists have done about Lehman Brothers?" How does inchoate rage translate into pragmatic political policy?
Sarah Palin's appearance at the Nashville Tea Party Convention was an opportunity for the movement to spell out what it plans to do about "too big to fail" banks and Wall Street corruption, in general. But her speech, like those of other presenters, was primarily a rant. After blaming Obama for America's woes -- "How is that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?" -- she recycled conservative banalities. When asked, "what do you think are the top three things that have got to be done?" Palin responded with platitudes, "We've got to rein in spending," "We have got to jump start these energy projects," and "It would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again."
The Tea Party movement has received a lot of press attention, but we know little about what they stand for. A recent CNN poll found Tea Party adherents are 60 percent men, 80 percent white, middle-income, non-urban, middle-aged, Protestant, self-described conservatives who usually vote Republican. New York Review of Books journalist Jonathan Raban attended the Nashville Tea Party convention and observed: "It wasn't until the last night of the event, when Sarah Palin came on stage, that the Tea Party movement, a loose congeries of unlike minds, found unity in its contempt for Barack Obama, its loathing of the growing deficit as 'generational theft,' its demands for 'fiscal responsibility,' lower taxes, smaller government, states' rights, and a vastly more aggressive national security policy."
After thirteen months, the Tea Party movement has emerged as a "party" of platitudes rather than of policies, a group united by fury rather than a unifying philosophy. After the financial crisis, the spontaneous mobilization of their resentment was high-jacked by the Fox News Network and by Freedomworks, a conservative advocacy organization, as documented in a recent AlterNet article.
Tea Party activists oppose anything Barack Obama is for -- including long-lived social programs such as Social Security and Medicare -- but lack alternative proposals and have little appreciation for history. Most Tea Party activists believe the financial crisis was started by Obama and Democrats, rather than by Republican policies instituted by Ronald Reagan, reaching their nadir under George W. Bush. Lacking a realistic perspective, they are prone to repeat falsehoods fed to them by Freedomworks and other conservative manipulators: "the government caused the financial crisis," "there wasn't a need for bailouts," "If left alone, the market would have corrected itself." This confusion was typified by a recent Tea Party sign: "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare."
Tea Party adherents share nostalgia for nineteenth century America when states' rights prevailed. Not surprisingly, some aspects of the movement are racist. Many Tea Party activists insist that Barack Obama stole the Presidency because he is "not a citizen."
One of the marks of contemporary liberalism -- at least, the brand practiced in Berkeley -- is the desire to reach out to those who do not agree with us. How should Liberals communicate with Tea Party activists?
A first step is to let them, as individuals, rant. Liberals should take the time to hear what Tea Party activists have to say. Search for points of agreement.
The second step is to agree that changes need to be made in America.
A third step is to search for common ground. Espouse the philosophy: These are tough times, but we're in this together. In the past, Americans got out of hard times by making government work for them. If citizens pull together we can make the necessary changes.
Next, suggest areas of agreement and focus on these. What about Lehman Brothers and the other firms that looted Wall Street? Don't you agree that they need more supervision? If this approach succeeds, move to more general themes: What about the banks deemed "too big to fail"? Don't you agree that they should be broken up? What about other monopolies?
A fruitful place to conclude is campaign finance reform. Grassroots activism, such as the Tea Party movement, is an American tradition. Don't you agree that we need to reform campaign finances to get big money out of politics?
Of course, some Tea Party activists are hard-core fiscal conservatives -- fed up with the Republican Party as much as the Democratic Party -- but many are Independents who lack a forum for their anger. The Raban article indicates that many of these Independents are potential allies if Liberals take the time to talk to them, to listen to their anger.
Stuart Whatley: The Tea Party Movement Is a National Embarrassment
The Tea Party movement is the latest installment in an old American tradition: the exploitation of mostly frustrated, desperate, and susceptible people by monied interests and profiteers.
I loathe deficits and so sat the Tea Baggers complain about deficits, although they weren't yelling about them when the present crop was initiated. But they are incapable of systematic thinking about budgets. No idea from anyone would meet with their agreement.
In fact, they are incoherently angry. Probably many of them never gained much stature in life. In the last 8 years, the Bush economy put them further behind. American has also lost relative position and stature in the world. They have neither the tactics nor patience to improve this. They'd rather find kindred souls who are just as angry. Or go to a town hall meeting to shout down people who want to ask their congressman questions. Or put a brick through a window.
Sure, some good people hitched onto this movement because they think something must be done. They'll be disillusioned fast. The movement has attracted too many racists, sociopaths, libertarians and people who didn't accomplish much with their lives. Nobody can have a coherent discussion with this group, much less a liberal.
Political thrusts tend to start energetically and then fade out. But this one's biggest success to date was ejecting a Republican from a "sure" seat in upstate NY and losing the election; expect more of their decisions to be destructive and fruitless. This movement will flame out in a series of excesses.
1. Sarah Palin is not the leader of the Tea Party.
2. Many Tea Party patriots favor a non-interventionist foreign policy.
3. Defending Obama's policies by saying "George W. Bush started it! does not justify his continuation of bad policies.
4. I will guarantee you that these patriots know more about history than most Obama supporters.
5. These patriots are angry because their rights are being stolen by an out-of-contral federal government. Their anger is justified. They were just as angry at George W. Bush. Many are Independents.
6. Calling them "teabaggers" makes you sound ignorant and childish.
7. Just because a lot of politicians have tried to hijack this movement, doesn't mean it isn't a real movement.
8. It is possible to disagree with Obama's policies without being a racist. That's a straw man argument that liberals resort to when they can't win a debate with logic.
What we all see on the news are nuts cases, rude, mean, obnoxious, and some gun carrying.
2. If you're referring to the Tea Party Patriots, www.teapartypatriots.org, the P in Patriots should be capitalized. It's part of a proper name.
And yes, there are some actual libertarians in the Tea Party movement, who opposed Bush's wars even when Bush was in office. But the mission statement of the Tea Party Patriots organization makes no mention of foreign policy, and principled libertarianism isn't an appreciable part of what's on display in news coverage, even friendly Fox News coverage, of Tea Party. I'm sympathetic toward principled libertarians. There's common ground to be had between liberals and libertarians. But 99% of the Tea Party movement is just plain social conservatives, who have no problem with statism when they think the government is on their side of the issue.
3. It's not supposed to justify the policies. It's supposed to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the vast majority of Tea Party protesters. And it does.
I don't think so. I'm not their mamma. If they aren't adult enough to have a real discussion on issues without losing their temper, then I'm not goint to try to conver them to rational thought.
Even if they do lose their temper, is it better to have things happen like Senator Scott Brown or to be sticklers for the rules of polite conversation? If "listen to their anger" will work, I'm all for it, even though of course we shouldn't have to.
They long for the mythical 1950's when straight white men ran everything, owned everything, and no other voices dared challenge them.
I know this progressive wouldn't cross the street to p*ss on them if they burst into flames.
See Tea Baggers ain't got the patent on FURY and OUTRAGE.
Many of these people see their fellow Americans as enemies and agents of America's destruction. A meme reinforced by FOX, and AM Radio hosts.
They are not interested in common ground, they are interested only in "Saving" their version of America, you know, one without minorities, Liberals or gays......
This is a gross oversimplification, based only on the signs presented at their rallies for 13 months.....
I will take issue with one of your statements though. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 were passed with the Democrats holding a 51-49 majority in congress. One republican Senator actually switched parties in protest to the tax cuts, to no avail.
Both parties deserve blame for reckless fiscal actions. but the Republicans were in a clear majority when they voted to extend the tax cuts in 2006, even when their own economists advised that the policy was unsustainable, and was contributing to a $350 Billion per year shortfall. It was clearly pointed out in the debate at that time that those earning more than a million a year were the primary beneficiaries of that policy. Three Democrats voted for that extension as well. (Three Republicans voted against it)
How fiscally responsible you are.
I think we can safely declare the berkeley model of liberalism an abject failure at accomplisghing anything except environmental policy where you didn't listen or talk. Hmm interesting. Where you didn't compromise you largely won.
As surely as Obama's bipartisanship has looked more like "appeasement," I really think it's naive to hope for "meaningful, open discourse" with these people. They reject facts and they are out of their minds. I mean, come on.
I tend to agree. Finding common ground is more the ideal rather than reality. While not everyone in the movement is narrow minded, a great number of them are. It is always said we should listen to them. I have listened to some of them, and they seem to be more focused on rants and raves against Obama and the administration, than actually setting a course of action that makes sense and sticking to it. Most of what occurs are bellicose attention-seeking protestations. They believe things that are not fact, and their anger has clouded their judgment to a point where so many of them are no longer capable of being open-minded.