Returning to my occasional bout with politics on this here blog, I thought I’d mention the somewhat wry amusement with which I’m watching the complete misunderstanding of the whole Tea Party thing. Even among allies of the movement, small and large-L Libertarians such as myself, saw the nomination of O’Donnell as a WTF moment since the conventional wisdom is she can’t win the general election. And of course the completely unbiased mainstream media is all a-cackle about the potential of a schism in the GOP.
It misses the point, and most people who bitch about the Tea Party never get the point because they receive their only info about it from the establishment, be it the establishment politicians, or the establishment press. Both of which cannot understand the Tea Party because at root it is a deeply anti-establishment movement. It is, in fact, the most widespread anti-establishment movement since the radical groups of the sixties.
You want to understand it, a good start would be reading this:
But, tea partiers say, if you think moving votes and passing bills are what they are really all about, you have not taken the full measure of their ambition. No, the real point is to change the country’s political culture, bending it back toward the self-reliant, liberty-guarding instincts of the Founders’ era. Winning key congressional seats won’t do that, nor will endorsing candidates. “If you just tell people to vote but you don’t talk about the underlying principles,” Martin says, “you just have to do it again and again and again, in every election.”
What will work, they believe, is education: DVDs on American history; “founding principles” training; online reading lists; constitutional discussion groups; cultural and youth programs. In Tennessee, says Anthony Shreeve, an organizer there, groups are giving courses on the Constitution and “socialism and the different types of isms,” bringing in speakers from around the state. “Our members have gotten more involved and learned about our local government, how it works, and what kind of influence we can have,” Shreeve says. “Education has been the biggest thing.”
The Delaware election wasn’t about winning the senate seat (though that’s really not as far out of the question as conventional— i.e. establishment— wisdom holds) and it wasn’t even really about sending a message to the Republican leadership (though one was sent) it was a demonstration by the people, to the people, that their votes actually can change things, and they don’t have to blindly accept dictation from the self-appointed masters of the political process.
7 Comments
Steve Buchheit · September 17, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Congrats. Message sent. You helped nominate a freeze-dried whackaloon. As I’ve been saying on my blog, the proof is in the pudding. The Tea Party claims party independence and libertarian ideals (smaller government, free market, lower taxes). However, all the candidates they’ve helped nominated are hard right, social conservatives. I would think there would have been some activity around Blue Dog Democrats, but pretty much nothing but involvement in Republican Primaries.
Also, what I’m seeing from the outside, is that the Tea Party movement is being co-opted by the Social Conservatives and moving away from the libertarian roots. I don’t believe it still has the values you’ve stressed as your motivation, except as a nod to keep you in the fold (sort of how Reagan gave a nod to the Social Conservatives to gain their votes, not understanding how bringing them into the fold would skew the party away from its roots, I think because he never foresaw how far they would be integrated into the platform). But then I don’t listen in on the phone conferences or any of the other things. I’m just looking at the actions and results.
And I agree with the education. I think it’ll be interesting to see what happens at the Constitution Reading Parties when people realize our founding fathers didn’t believe in direct election of Senators or the President, a standing army, or pretty much all the services we take for granted now (like the National Weather Service).
S Andrew Swann · September 17, 2010 at 4:01 pm
My thoughts:
First, your use of pronouns betrays the fact that you’re still viewing the Tea Party through the establishment paradigm– as some sort of centrally organized hierarchical structure under the command of George Soros’ evil twin. It isn’t a political party, or a political action committee. It’s a self-selecting category of the electorate that’s more ideologically diverse than either doctrinaire Republicans or Democrats.
Second, you posit a false dichotomy. Small government/free market/lower taxes vs. social conservatism. The latter is not incompatible with the former, a perfect example being Ron Paul. “Social conservatism” is only incompatible with a small government ideology when someone wishes to use the State (or in the context of the Tea Party, the Federal Government) as a tool to enforce the social norms they happen to prefer. My own leanings aren’t toward the social conservative side, but I’ll gladly support a devout catholic/Mormon/Orthodox Jew if their opposition to gay marriage takes the form of pushing the decision back to the states, or taking the Government out of the whole marriage recognition business entirely. Someone saying “porn is not good” is not necessarily saying “we must ban all porn.” (Feel free to replace “porn” with “abortion,” “premarital sex,” “masturbation,” “burning Korans,” “trans-fats,” “video games,” and “reality TV.”)
Third, it would be a good thing IMO if the body politic decided to revisit “all the services we take for granted now,” and ask of each of these things, why is this the Federal Government’s job?
Lastly, remember what I said about the Tea Party being anti-establishment. People like O’Donnell are winning because their opponents happen to be establishment Washington candidates. She trounced a 70-year old semi-permanent congressman who had the blessings of the party elite; who also voted for TARP, which is probably the least popular thing the Congress has done in this century. Congress in general has a lower approval rating than O.J.Simpson. Incumbents have it bad, and Democrats have it worse because they’re the party in power. And God help anyone this cycle who runs a campaign as if they are somehow entitled to win.
S Andrew Swann · September 17, 2010 at 4:49 pm
PS: For your perusal. It’s not only (or even primarily) about winning seats in Congress:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ab-stoddard/119061-tea-partys-already-won
Steve Buchheit · September 19, 2010 at 11:42 am
Well, for pronoun use, since the groups are organized under the rubric of the Tea Party, it becomes hard not to refer to the groups in the singluar.
And I will posit that social conservatism, as practiced by those who claim the mantle “Social Conservative” is at odds with “smaller government.” The SC, by action and proclamation, intend to both legislate and skew the judiciary to their moral value set. They do intend to make “social actions” both legal and illegal. I understand that you may not wish this, however I only need to point to the arguments about the Supreme Court direction and the intent of the Right to Life Movement. I’ll also point to the popularity of “abstinence only sex education”, the denial of same-sex marriage (which marriage is an very intentionally government function as the bonds of marriage are financial and legal, which definitely comes under contract rules and enforcement, which is one of the major government functions), “covenant marriage”, and even the re-establishment of “blue laws.” Social Conservatives want the “nanny state”. They’re building it brick by brick.
As to the third point, our government has always been reactionary. That is, hardly any laws have been passed, or programs enacted, that aren’t a response to some injury or popular need. No programs or laws (that I’m aware of) have been enacted solely on a “we think this is the best way to move forward” basis. While you may not recognize the problem, it doesn’t mean such a problem doesn’t exist (as in our discussion about the HCR).
Lastly, the Congressional Republicans actually still have lower approval ratings. It’s one of those thing you don’t hear about in the “mainstream press.”
But I’ll agree with your last sentence. Nobody should ever feel they’re entitled to the job of elected official. And I’ll agree that the victories the Tea Party have claimed are mostly against candidates who did believe they would be elected. I don’t think there are many who are facing TP endorsed candidates who are making that error in this cycle.
But, please, could the TP endorse people who aren’t fringe lunatics with paranoidal tendencies? Especially if you intend to win those seats.
S Andrew Swann · September 20, 2010 at 12:35 pm
To address your last point, I’ll quote from here: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/09/20/why-msm-cant-let-go-of-christine-odonnell/
To address your second to last point. I see a lot of entitlement here: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/18/can-murkowski-win/
Third to last, what you say here is almost a tautology. Everyone who passes legislation believes they are addressing some sort of “problem.” Of course, that’s no guarantee that said legislation actually addresses the problem. (Case in point, HCR, in which most now admit there will be no real change in the cost curve at all.) Also, just because a “problem” exists does not mean that the State is the proper mechanism to fix it. Teenage pregnancy is a problem. High rates of obesity is a problem. A 50% divorce rate is a problem.
You define “social conservative” as someone who has a particular view on social issues combined with a statist agenda to impose them on everyone else. That definition makes it hard to argue the point with you. Let me just say that using someone’s religious views to serve as a proxy for their policy positions in a secular society is a dangerous tack to take.
Steve Buchheit · September 23, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I have no problem with those social conservatives who want to live their lives the way they want. By all means, please do. Keep to the straight and narrow, I’m fine with that. When the Social Conservatives (notice the caps) then believe I have to live by their rules and morality, enact legislation to that affect, “stack the court” to overturn rulings they disagree with, and want government involved in our daily lives, I have a big problem with that.
As to my comments about the insanity of these candidates, it’s not just one statement, position, belief, etc. It’s the totality of the world view. And O’Donnell’s dabble with “witchcraft” isn’t disturbing because she “did it”, but how she portrays it. As for the paranoidal tendencies, I’m referring in a large part to her statements about Biden taping her phone in the last campaign, how her IRS audit was “politically motivated” instead of about her wonky finances, and the “they’re all out to get me” conditioning against the MSM. To the last, all I can say is, “Hi. Welcome to public life. Get over it.”
It’s sort of like the Right to Life movement; Social Conservatism at its biggest. There are a lot of people who support the RtL movement without understanding the whole platform that the RtL movement represents. And the RtL intentionally underplays the other parts of their agenda to keep their numbers high (as the Social Conservatives the Tea Party is helping nominate do as well). If the RtL people had to defend their “abstinence only” sex-ed position, their objection to any birth control (as in, not just behind the counter, but not available), covenant marriage (why that’s in their platform, I have my ideas, but not how it relates at all to RtL issues), etc they would see their numbers of support drop to the low 20% range (the composition of US citizens who are Social Conservatives).
As to what government should fix and what it shouldn’t, I believe we can have an honest argument about.
S Andrew Swann · September 24, 2010 at 7:51 am
Might I point out that these people would probably be a lot less scary if we hadn’t spent the last 100 years pouring as much power into the Federal Government as we possibly can. I mean, we finally got the massive health care bureaucracy you all wanted. And, I don’t know if you noticed, but that bureaucracy is now in direct control of a good part of that right-to-life agenda– and it all only answers to the executive branch. So next president who doesn’t like a particular medical procedure can effectively ban it by presidential order without recourse to congress or the courts. Not just ban it, but actively penalize doctors or facilities that engage in it outside the system.
Comments are closed.