It’s Easy to Be Angry
The main thing I take away from the Times/CBS poll of Tea Party types as well as some of the analysis is that it very well could be a self-liquidating movement:
The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.
That the movement, such as it is, now commands allegiance from nearly one-fifth of the populace is significant. The qualification “such as it is” comes from their lack of agreement on what it’s all about. As my old pal Nate Silver writes:
The tea-partiers, likewise, are deeply distrustful and in fact quite angry at government — but have more trouble at putting their finger on exactly why. They aren’t especially likely to want Roe versus Wade overturned, for instance, or to favor restricted rights for gays, or to be preoccupied with illegal immigration, or to think their taxes are unfair, or to want Medicare and Social Security undone. It’s mostly, rather, in the way that all these events fit into their meta-narrative about American society, a society which they see as leaving them increasingly victimized and disempowered.
They also think that Obama’s policies are overly directed at the poor and yet also hate the stimulus, which seems like a nigh-contradictory set of thoughts to hold in your head. Anyway, being a movement of aging white males seems like a dead end from an evolutionary point of view, especially when you’re essentially a Republican splinter group, deny it or not. The Democrats can safely ignore you, because you weren’t going to vote for them anyway. Heck, they can cheer on Tea Party candidates in primaries and general elections - to the extent that they win the primaries and push the Republicans further out of the mainstream, that’s a win. To the extent they ever run against Republicans and Democrats in general elections, that splits the righty vote and it’s a win.
The danger is that the Tea-People pick up adherents from the mainstream. Again, this would be no problem if their movement was at all coherent, because we desperately need a people’s party rather than the two bought ‘n’ sold aggregations we deal with now, but much as with the party that fathered them, the Tea philosophy, such as it is–it’s really more of an attitude than a philosophy, would make governing impossible if they were actually elected. It’s oh-so-easy to be angry about things, not so simple to fix them (I have a good economic example from American history that I’ll post shortly).
Yes, the government spends too much. Yes, deficits that are too big and last too long are a bad thing. There are ways of fixing these thing, but none of these are acceptable. They involve higher taxes, particularly on those who can afford them, and cutting government services. Taxes and those that approve them are always vilified. As for the government, you could cut everything but entitlements and defense and we’d still be in the hole. There are no good answers, just people who want to stomp, spit, snort, and curse–and then vote Republican or stay home. Despite the media focus on these cats, the correct response is indifference, a hearty “whatever.”
Parenthetical postscript: I’m not the first to point this out, nor the millionth, but I want to do so anyway: where the hell were these deficit hawks when the Bush administration put two wars on Donald Rumsfeld’s American Express card, cut taxes for the rich without offsetting spending cuts, and also added the drug entitlement to medicare without paying for it? According to the polls, Tea People enjoyed the Bush administration far more than did the average American. It’s like we’ve been invaded by the Constipated Thinkers of Wonderland. Referring again back to Nate’s post at 538, it seems we see the shape of credulity in our society:
Tea-partiers are disproportionately attached to, and perhaps influenced by, FOX News. And they are particularly enamored of Glenn Beck. Nationally, just 18 percent of people have a favorable opinion of Beck (the majority have no opinion whatsoever about him). But most tea-partiers do. Do the math, and you’ll find that 59 percent of those who do think highly of Beck consider themselves a part of the tea-party. This is, in fact, the single biggest differentiator of any of the items that the NYT asked about: not ideology, not any particular political belief, but whom they watch on television…
Nate goes on to say that Tea People are not particularly conspiracy-minded according to the poll, and yet the influence of Beck tells a different story; this is the parade of the suggestible, that portion of the population that is easily aroused by demagoguery.
April 16th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
“Parenthetical postscript: I’m not the first to point this out, nor the millionth, but I want to do so anyway: where the hell were these deficit hawks when the Bush administration put two wars on Donald Rumsfeld’s American Express card, cut taxes for the rich without offsetting spending cuts, and also added the drug entitlement to medicare without paying for it?”
The deficits during the Bush years were not outside the historical norm for budget deficits. And yes that’s as a percent of GDP, which is the only good way to measure it. And most of it was 9/11 related and rebuilding the post-Cold War military.
The only exception was the last year due to the bailouts which was a one time thing and most of which will be paid back. Of course neither the Left or the Right will ever admit that.
April 16th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
It is clearly frustrating to the Left that no matter how they try to pigeonhole the Tea Party into nice, neat, comfortable buckets (racists, ignoramuses, rednecks, gun-toting angry white guys, etc.), it simply can’t be done. The Tea Party movement is exactly the type of “grass-roots” protest, comprised of independent-minded people from many different walks of life, that the Left has tried (and failed) for decades to assemble, and it clearly drives them nuts.
Steven can’t wrap his head around what it is that unites the Tea Partiers, yet their main issue is clear and consistent: less government. Specifically, less government spending.
Steven asks why these same people weren’t outraged when Bush increased spending and drove up the deficit. He clearly wasn’t paying attention, as Bush’s approval rating (among Democrats, Republicans and Independents) was in the toilet throughout most of his second term.
If President Obama had merely maintained the same level of deficit spending in his first year in office, there would likely be no such thing as a Tea Party movement. The final straw, however, was in watching Obama and the Democrat congress TRIPLE the deficit in just one year, all while taking over the auto and banking industries, the student loan industry, and (soon enough) the healthcare industry.
So what we have now are several different groups of people throughout the country, comprising millions of Americans in total, who are angry. They’re angry that their interests are not being represented (i.e. taxation without representation.) They’re angry with the federal government’s takeover of private industries, which seem to be the first step toward European-style socialism. They’re angry with the amount of debt this administration has accumulated in such a short period of time — debt that will likely lead to massive tax increases. And they’re angry with the fact that this president’s policies have been so harmful to businesses and investors that the unemployment rate remains at a decades-long high.
Steven implies that Republicans have no solutions to this problem, but this is simply not true. Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap to America’s Future” is just one example of a Republican idea that has been shot down by the Democrat majority before it ever reached committee. Until the Republicans retake the House and/or Senate, no Republican idea will ever be brought to a vote by this congress.
The hard fact remains that unless major changes are made to our entitlement programs (something Bush tried to do while in office), we are facing massive debt that will eventually cripple this country and send us into an economic tailspin the likes of which we’ve never seen.
And all the while, the liberals who wailed over the deficit under Bush continue to applaud and celebrate a deficit that is now three times larger.
April 16th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
There is evidence to suggest that at least some the Tea People may be rational folks looking to legitimize themselves and their movement. They just uninvited birther nut-job Orley Taitz to some Tea Party tax-day rally. Of course, the Tea Folk did INVITE her in the first place, so maybe that’s wrong, too …
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0414/tea-party-group-rescinds-invite-birther-orly-taitz/
April 16th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Everyone wants less government, lower taxes, and fewer entitlements. That is, of course, unless it starts to hit too close to home. It’s one thing to deny benefits to illegal immigrants (something I’m in favor of) but keep your hands off my stuff. I still want my police force, my fire brigade, my military, my public schools, my Social Security, my Medicare, etc. It’s too easy to just say “we need less government” because we all have a certain amount of animosity to big goverments and excessive spending. Nobody loves paying taxes. The problem arises when it starts getting down to the particulars. That’s when the double standards and the hypocrisy start to kick in, because all anyone really wants is “less government except for the stuff I like.” Well gee, isn’t this going to be different for each individual? I could do with a little less military (particularly all of the bases we have in peaceful countries) but many on the right don’t believe in ANY defense cuts, ever.
And then there are the pesky social issues. Somehow the mantra of “less government” is never invoked when it comes to legislating morality. It strikes me that a government that governs least would have no business interfering in the marrying practices of homosexuals, yet the Michele Bachmanns of the world want to actually introduce a Constitutional Amendment doing just that. Shouldn’t she be trying to decrease the government’s involvement in such a personal issue? Double standard.
April 16th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
“And then there are the pesky social issues. Somehow the mantra of “less government” is never invoked when it comes to legislating morality. It strikes me that a government that governs least would have no business interfering in the marrying practices of homosexuals, yet the Michele Bachmanns of the world want to actually introduce a Constitutional Amendment doing just that. Shouldn’t she be trying to decrease the government’s involvement in such a personal issue? Double standard.”
How is opposing gay marriage, in other words, maintaining the status quo in contradiction to “less government”?
April 16th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Um, because the leading anti-gay/marriage voices want to go out of their way to put a federal law on the books outlawing it?
That’s the polar opposite of “less government”.
April 16th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Andrew, the government cannot avoid being involved in marriage practices. After all, it’s the government that marries people. The government must decide whether 2 men or 2 women can be married, because the government has to know whether or not to issue a marriage license.
To be clear, the above is not meant as an argument against gay marriage. I’m just saying that the question of legislating morality is the wrong argument.
Note that contrast with Lawrence v. Texas where the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. This was a case where the government had indeed been legislating morality and had no business doing so.
April 17th, 2010 at 1:25 am
John Foley:
Stop speaking for everybody, I do not want lower taxes and less government.
“Everyone wants less government, lower taxes, and fewer entitlements.”
I have been in favor of higher taxes for quite some time, even before some republican call girl (a person who called me to ask me political questions, not the kind that Elliot Spitzer frequented) asked me if I felt taxes where too high. I responded with no and that I thought they should be higher and she hung up on me. That was at least 7 years ago.
I think we are a better country because of taxes. The taxes that help fund our public libraries, the taxes that helped build the Hoover Dam, the taxes that help survivors of domestic violence find a place to live and legal representation.
When taxes cuts happen, those are the programs that get cut. The people who make those programs and projects happen are the ones who lose their jobs in support of large corporations increasing their profits.
April 17th, 2010 at 1:50 am
MG:
I’m not going to speak for Steven or state for him what he means like you but rather for myself:
I don’t know what the tea party stands for because all I have read and heard from them are complaints with no solutions. I’m tired of it from both republicans and democrats.
So you say tea party is tired of taxation without representation? Been goin’ on for generations, nothin’ new boy. Deficit spending by Obama? Well, just continuing the Reagan/Bush policy interrupted by Clinton. Government taking over businesses? Started by Bush and repeatedly stated by the government about wanting to exit as soon as possible. No fear of lasting socialism there McCarthy.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:42 am
Dear WIll-
I apologize if I spoke out of turn. What I should have said is that most people are in favor of taxes in an abstract way, but aren’t nearly as enthusiastic when it comes time to actually start paying them. Or –as it works here in California– they say things like “just make rich people pay for everything.”
April 17th, 2010 at 2:47 am
“How is opposing gay marriage, in other words, maintaining the status quo in contradiction to ‘less government’?”
Coming up with a brand-new Constitutional Amendment that would render gay marriage illegal most definitely sounds like more government to me. The government has many important responsibilities, but telling two people who love one another that they can’t be married doesn’t sound like a great allocation of resources. And that doesn’t even take into account the cruelty and discrimination inherent in such a bill.
Also, since when is maintaining the status quo such a lofty ideal? What if the status quo is provincial and ignorant?
April 17th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Will, did you know there is a box on your annual tax return that allows you to voluntarily contribute additional money to the government if that is your wish? I’m just wondering how often you’ve checked that box, and how much more of your hard-earned salary you’ve given.
Just as you don’t want John to speak for you, do me a favor and don’t speak for me. If you’re concerned about building libraries and dams, or giving money to victims of domestic violence, you are more than welcome to give your money to those causes. It’s called “charity.”
April 17th, 2010 at 11:41 am
“Um, because the leading anti-gay/marriage voices want to go out of their way to put a federal law on the books outlawing it?
That’s the polar opposite of “less government”.
But gay marriage is already not allowed. It doesn’t take any effort or any growth of government to maintain the existing situation. All they’re doing is denying a marriage license to something that has never been considered marriage before. How is that “more” government?
April 17th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Will, if you really want to know what the Tea Party stands for, here is a link to their “Contract From America”: http://www.thecontract.org/
In a nutshell, they want less federal spending, less government takeover of industries, adherance to the Constitution, individual freedom and personal responsibility, a balanced budget and a simpler and fairer taxation system. Not exactly radical stuff.
April 17th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
When did Republicans become such sticklers for the Constitution? Apparently this is a new-found appreciation, taking place some time after waterboarding, after imprisoning people without due process, and after warrantless wiretapping, but before Health Care Reform. I just want to see a timeline, is that so much to ask for? And if they’re so in love with the Constitution and want it to remain unchanged, they should knock it off with all that talk of Amendments banning gay marriage.
April 17th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
John, when you refer to “waterboarding” and “imprisoning people without due process,” are you referring to American citizens? Or foreign enemies of the state? Because the Constitution only covers American citizens.
When you refer to “warrantless wiretapping,” are you referring to the Patriot Act, which was passed by a nearly unanimous, bipartisan congressional vote, as stipulated by the Constitution? If so, how, exactly, do you view this as un-Constitutional?
April 17th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Jose Padilla is an American citizen.
April 18th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
“But gay marriage is already not allowed. It doesn’t take any effort or any growth of government to maintain the existing situation. All they’re doing is denying a marriage license to something that has never been considered marriage before. How is that “more” government?”
But gay marriage *is* allowed, in five different states and DC. Passing a constitutional amendment overriding such state law is, again, the very definition of “more government”.