Weak Tea
I did not attend any tea parties yesterday, as the whole phenomenon leaves me cold. Yes, I think that the level of taxation ought to be quite a bit lower than it stands today, but I can think of several more pressing issues and more dire threats to our liberty. In any rational perspective, it’s hard to take the whole piddling idea too seriously.
This doesn’t stop Conor Clarke from sifting through the substance of our national fiscal policy looking for some raison d’être for all the fuss. Unsurprisingly, he finds none. (ht: Chuck) Likewise, Abdul wonders what the efficacy of all this energy will be. Aside from some canny interest groups data-mining the crowds, the impact on actual policy will be close to zero. Both of these lines of questioning miss the point of these tea parties.
These demonstrations are little but exercises in group identity. As discussed previously, conservatism has devolved into a kind of low-brow subculture that thrives on partisanship and eschews self-reflection. Identity groups require signals that show who is in the in-group, how fervent they are, and what the putative characteristics of that group are. Tea parties do all of this marvelously: they connect a disempowered minority to each other and to the trappings of original patriotism. Even better, the members can do so at a very low cost in terms of time or money — nothing’s to give them pause, a reason to ask themselves whether this whole charade is really worth it. So rather cheaply, the disaffected and the frustrated can feel both beleagured and self-righteous complaining about . . . well, whathaveyou — that’s not as important as the fact that they’ve all gotten together in one big group with one big enemy. This is what passes for good feelings among the die-hard, 30%-ers, and good feelings are ultimately all the motivation people really require.
Anyone who tries to invest these tea parties with any deeper import is poking around at the margins — which is where the conservative movement is likely to remain.
8 Responses to “Weak Tea”
Your running thesis of “Republicans plagued with identity politics” is as compelling as any. I think a history lesson about how prior parties shook such plagues would be useful.
I think it is actually pretty common in politics, though I do not know how often in the past it has become this big of a distraction.
I do not think that this problem will be difficult to address, though. The people at the tea parties may have lacked a common agenda, but that is not the same as saying that the people at the tea parties are no longer interested in supporting a specific policy agenda. (I do not know how much thought we will be able to encourage them to put into the idea, on average, but I do realize that movements are not made of philosophers.) Many of the individuals and sub-groups supported specific policy agendas. In Indianapolis, at least, I know that groups of libertarian-conservatives were involved, for example. They know what they want.
We can deal with identity “conservatism” by interesting our fellow conservatives with a well-designed agenda (that can be implemented). There is a little more to it than that, but I am sure that the identity politics can be replaced with something of value.
Is it any different from other protests? People didn’t decide that the anti-war movement lacked intellectual substance because there were protests and rallies…
I pretty much agree with Jason Kuznicki and others on this one. There may be some elements in the the tea party protests to agree with, but these kinds of demonstrations, as with the anti-war protests leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, tend to attract all kinds of fringe elements that tend to obscure the more salient points underlying the movement. Angry mobs tend to have a mob mentality, with all the smarts to boot.
I think that these “parties” have much less to do with actual government fiscal policy than with a reaction to a seeming future of political obsolescence for the GOP.
The primary motivator of the tea parties was NOT anger over future tax increases. As much as you (and the MSM) want to argue against that straw man, the reality is that the tea parties were inspired far more by anger against 1) the $1 trillion bailout and 2) related irresponsible spending and 3) deficit spending from both the left AND the right and 4) state level tax increases which have already been enacted and DO affect average people.
In my own state of CA, for instance, the recent increases in the sales tax, income tax, vehicle registration tax and reduction in dependent tax credits directly affected average Californians. Having attended the Sacramento Tea Party, I can attest that these tax increases were a major motivation for the entire protest. Many signs protested the increases and most of the speeches focused heavily on them.
It’s a no brainer that anger over the bailouts motivated the tea parties. If you couldn’t figure that out without attending a tea party, five minutes at one and the huge number of signs protesting the “stimulus” would give it away. In my opinion, this movement has far more to do with protesting irresponsible use of tax dollars and oppressively high pre-existing taxes than with protesting coming tax increases.
Also, speaking as a registered independent voter, I believe this is a primarily post-partisan movement. Once again, five minutes at a tea party would have revealed that a huge number of participants were angry at both major parties and were likely unaffiliated and/or disaffected voters. In fact, several of the speakers at the Sacramento protest blatantly condemned the GOP from the stage. Just because the GOP is trying to co-opt it does not make it a Republican exercise.
I think that the protests are about mammoth spending AND mammoth tax increases. One will ultimately lead to the other (not to mention mammoth inflation), and people do tend to care a lot about government activity that impacts their personal finances.
Rand Simberg has a handy chart that should explain the tea protesters’ sense of urgency.
Love the photo, Alan.