The mad tea party
They’re proud; they’re loud; they are selfish in the extreme, and simple in their thinking. And none of those traits is inherently bad or stupid. Within the extremely generous confines of American political discourse, at least when it comes to the rightward end of the spectrum, the Tea Party Movement is just another outbreak of self-righteous me-first I-want-my-country-back ideology. It’s the thinking of people who believe a mild and flawed health care reform law imperils their very way of life.
This isn’t intrinsically bad or wrong, although it’s bad and wrong in some ways. We are all entitled to our views, especially if we don’t expect them to prevail for all mankind. What is bad about the Tea Party is really two things, one of which is good/bad, and the other bad/bad.
What’s bad/bad is the extremism of many of the views espoused by its adherents. Not just the nut cases like the Senate wannabe in Delaware, who in past years badly mismanaged her own finances and now wants the federal government to shape up fiscally. (She also came out forcefully against masturbation; Delaware Democrats should sport bumper stickers that proudly proclaim: “I masturbate and I vote.”)
What’s bad/bad, rather, is the intolerance – not just of masturbation but of whole swaths of society, like illegal immigrants. (Ship them home, or just make them feel really unwelcome so they leave, and watch Arizona’s economy collapse.) Bad/bad is the extremism that tends to breed, reflect, and encourage intolerance of others. The Tea Party is rife with it. At worst, it dismisses the rights of others; and at best, it disparages their dignity and their values and the right to be different. The Tea Party, like conservatism in general, is all about me and mine.
What’s good/bad is the inherent right of the right to espouse libertarian, small-government views on the economy. This is a healthy antidote to liberal dogma that I, for one, espouse. It reminds us that the stimulus package (which every reputable economist has said was about half as large as was necessary to revive the economy) kept us from having the kind of depression we really needed. Market orthodoxy, upended by the recent crisis, simply becomes more extreme. Voting more Republicans into office should fix everything and smack us back down into a severe recession.
Economic conservatism may be wrongheaded, but it isn’t undignified. That’s why it’s the good/bad part of the Tea Party. Eight years of Republican rule and deregulation let Wall Street run amok, and the rest was history. (And let’s not exempt Bill Clinton from some blame, for adding 22 million jobs to the economy and balancing the budget).
The theory that returning to Bush era economic policies will actually lift us out of the huge mess that Bush-era economic policies left us in is an interesting one and it deserves an airing. Republicans who complain about Obamanomics are a little bit like Germans in 1947 complaining about the administration of the Allied Occupation, but never mind. Let’s face it, the economy is a heck of a complex thing, and from any point of view (except that of radical free marketers) a bit of a mystery; no one really knows exactly how to run the thing, although there are good recipes for things like creating or destroying jobs, raising or lowering interest rates, etc. Economics is one of the things we ought to be able to argue about civilly. Unlike morality, religion, or sex, for example.
So the Tea Party is a mix of good/bad and bad/bad strains of American conservatism. Its salutary aspects, as the midterm elections approach, become harder and harder to discern. But a dose of this tea seems to be heading our way, like it or not. It’s one party that will give this nation a whopper of a hangover, and possibly even the broad Democratic resurgence that the me-firsters so desperately fear.
Latest posts by Jeff Scheuer (Posts)
- Appraising the Moment: A Cowardly New World - January 20, 2017
- Some Thoughts on Charlie Hebdo - January 12, 2015
- The Matter with Kansas - October 28, 2014
- And for What? Reflections on the First World War - August 10, 2014
- A passage through India - February 12, 2014
Print This Post
I think you miss the mark with this piece, Jeff, for two reasons:
1) It argues that TEA Partiers are extremists, then labors to prove how reasonable you are right up until you hypocrically take the exremist position: Republicans are “like [post WWII] Germans” (defeated Nazis). The thing is, if you think Republicans are like Nazis, that’s an extremist position.
2) The larger issue is that you completely mis-read the movement. To suggest as you do that TEA Partiers are advocating the same policies of Bush’s “eight years” is flat out wrong, evidenced by their dismissing of incumbent Repubs and establishment candidates. The TEA people would throw Bush out of office today, I think. He was a big government, big spender. By and large the movement wants to restore a stricter interpretation of the enumerated powers doctrine. They don’t want a return to the “policies of the past” (which is a talking point slogan of the Administration referring to Bush); they want a return to pre-1930s federalism.
I think many of them would agree with you that the economy is “complex” but disagree that a central planner can direct it.
Wait–what? So it’s me-first to want to enforce immigration laws? It’s me-first to want to remove the shackles of government regulation to allow small businesses to grow? It’s me-first to want to reverse the $18 Trillion debt (and rising!) which the Federal government has already incurred, and the $120 Trillion (and rising!) in future obligations?
As for “deregulation” causing the current private-sector debt crisis, it isn’t that simple. Massively contributive are Fannie and Freddie, plus the CRA and a bunch of other ways the housing sector has been distorted by Federal regulations and incentives.
As for disingenuous “let’s pile on past Democrats for their successes” trope, most actual conservatives were mad at Bush ’43 for being Democrat Lite, eclipsed only by their inchoate rage at Obama for the massive increases in Federal spending only surpassed by Federal debt.
Sorry, try again, sir.
Okay, so I guess Obama is cleaning up Clinton’s mess?