"The Tea Party Movement - For Good or For Evil?"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“The Tea Party Movement – For Good or for Evil?”

April 7, 2010

It is not so much liberalism in Washington – though taxing and spending certainly played a role – that prompted the Tea Party movement, it is the arrogance of those in charge who appear to disdain the sense of the people. Political movements are often born in anger and frustration. The Boston Tea Party was a response to taxes imposed by a distant government intent on bringing to heel a rebellious commonwealth. In 1828, Andrew Jackson spoke out against “economic royalists”. Henry David Thoreau, in 1849, published Civil Resistance to Government, which, in its urging of civil disobedience, struck a chord with the people. At The 1896 Democratic Convention, William Jennings Bryan called out the “idle holders of idle capital.” It was anger at an embedded system of racial discrimination that was behind the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The MoveOn organization was a response to the Clinton impeachment trials.

And it was Rick Santelli of CNBC, angered at President Obama’s recommendation – in a precursor of parsimonious Germans being asked to come to the aid of profligate Greeks – that fiscally responsible citizens should bail out their recklessly wasteful brethren with mortgage assistance, who yelled out, “President Obama, are you listening?” The President may not have been, but millions of Americans were.

Attempts to trivialize the movement were made. Nancy Pelosi dismissed the significance of “right-wing” activism. Others attributed the movement to Glenn Beck. Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times, dismissed the group following the defeat of Douglas Hoffman in New York’s 23rd District last election day with a headline reading, “The Night They Drove the Tea Party Down.”

Like all its predecessors, the Tea Party is not a cause of anger, it is a consequence, a reflection of the anger formed because of the increasing distancing and arrogance of those in Washington. President Obama, in a Fox TV interview before the House vote, could not understand Brett Baier’s insistence on focusing on the “process”, when he (the President) wanted to talk about the “substance” of the health care bill. This conviction, on the part of Mr. Obama, that ends justify the means indicates a misunderstanding of the democratic process, as people understand it.

It was the “Ancien Regime”, a social and aristocratic group of the privileged elite that had lost all connection with the people, which precipitated the French Revolution. A comparison with late 18th Century France may be unfair, but today’s arrogance in Washington of people divorced from the problems of their constituents should be reason for concern. The health care bill was an example: a 3000 page bill, difficult to interpret and certain to impair coverage and raise taxes, will apply to all citizens – except those in Congress and those in the Executive branch. If this bill is so good, why won’t it extend to those who voted for it and signed it into existence?

Wall Street also bears responsibility for the anger that exists in the Country. Washington – both Bush and Obama – did a terrible job of explaining to the people the need to bail out the banks in the fall of 2008. All that is known is that a few hundred billion were lent to the banks, banks who politicians subsequently bashed If Washington had clearly explained the necessity of saving the banking system – the consequences of failing to act – and had returned to tax payers directly the loans as they were repaid, they might have saved themselves some grief. If banks had acted with less arrogance and more common sense and not paid out $140 billion to a few traders while millions are still unemployed, they would not be characterized as selfish institutions indifferent to the suffering of so many.

While there are certain elements about the Tea Party movement that I personally find objectionable, it does reflect the current mood of the people. For politicians to dismiss it as inconsequential is a mistake. It is hard to know exactly how large the movement is, but according to reports, more Tea Partiers were in Washington for the 9/12 march than attended President Obama’s inauguration. The Winston Group conducted a national survey between December and February of this year and found that 17% were Tea Party members. Of those, 57% were Republicans, 28% Independents and 13% Democrats. It is not, according to Winston, a “purely homogenous” group.

Movements such as these are usually positive agents for change, though the full extent of their goals is not usually achieved and it takes longer to do so than they would like. And the change this movement portends is not the change Mr. Obama spoke of during the election.

David Brooks, in yesterday’s New York Times, headlined his column, “Relax, We’ll Be Fine.” He refers to a book that I would also recommend, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050 by Joel Kotkin. Mr. Kotkin writes that our nation will be younger than Europe, Japan and China, due to immigration and fertility. With a quarter of the world’s GDP, we expend a third of the world’s R&D outlays. He writes: “As the world gets richer, demand will rise for the sorts of products we are great at providing” and, later, in a sentence with which I am in accord: “The U.S. has always been good at disruptive change.” That, I believe, we can expect. So, while the Tea Party movement brings concern to some, the change it portends, over the longer term, should be positive for most.