"The Tea Party - Is It Only a Fad?"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“The Tea Party – Is It Only a Fad?”

September 22, 2010

First, let me state unequivocally I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of any “Tea Party”. I do not say that from a sense of remorse or of pride. It is simply a statement of fact. I also would never be a Rotarian or an Elk. My problem with the Tea Party – if it is a problem – is of two parts. It stems, first, from my sense that Tea Party members invoke “God” too often; second, I am generally uncomfortable in crowds and, in fact, dislike joining most any organization. That social reluctance probably stems from my being raised by parents who were artists and who preferred individualism to collectivism. In terms of the use of “God”, it is my belief that religion is a personal matter and should be celebrated individually. I have nothing against temples, churches or even mosques, all of which I am sure satisfy multiple needs. However, I do not like others to impose their beliefs on me and I have no interest in imposing mine on them. While morality, I believe, is universal, formal religions tend to be parochial – important to individual congregations, but not necessarily to those on the outside.

Nevertheless and having written the above, there are certain tenets for which the Tea Party stands with which I have sympathy. Robert Merry, writing in Stratfor, cites three general principles of the Tea Party: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. These are what I would term “directional” as opposed to “precise” terms and depend upon one’s definition or interpretation. Most people would agree that to be “fiscally responsible” is an admirable trait. A “constitutionally limited government”, to invoke former President Clinton, depends upon one’s definition of “limited”. Certainly, a non-intrusive government is preferable to a meddling one. I am a believer in “free markets”, but I also believe in reasonable regulation. In my opinion, government should set the rules and private enterprise should provide the players. Historically, though perhaps not histrionically, the difference between the two main parties has been a question of emphasis or degree, more than definition. The rise of the Tea Party reflects concerns that Mr. Obama may be leading the country down the path toward European Socialism, not simply tilting left.

Despite the inclusion of the word “Party” in its name, the Tea Party has not become, at least not at this point, a third party. The history of the United States is replete with third parties. While some of those Parties were distinctly out of the mainstream, others have been in the vanguard of change and influenced future elections. Two examples cited by Mr. Merry in Stratfor, are the 1968 and the 1992 elections. In 1968 George Wallace took 14% of the popular vote and won an Electoral College plurality in five Southern states. Richard Nixon won the election with only 43% of the popular vote, but, by incorporating the angry Wallace voters, Nixon won a landslide victory in 1972 – winning the popular vote with a 23.2% margin, the fourth largest in U.S. history. The second example Mr. Merry writes of was Ross Perot in 1992. Mr. Perot ran on the platform of the Reform Party. Bill Clinton won the election, ironically with the same percentage of the popular vote (43%) as did Nixon 24 years earlier. While Mr. Clinton did not address the concerns of the disaffected Perot voters in his first two years, after Democrats lost the House in 1994 he moved to the center and then won re-election with their support in 1996, with an 8.5% margin. (Mr. Perot ran again in 1996 and, even though excluded from the Debates, still garnered eight million votes.)

In a front page article, “Bloomberg Pushes Moderates in National Races”, Michael Barbaro in the New York Times on last Sunday wrote: “Mr. Bloomberg described the Tea Party movement as a fad, comparing it to the short-lived burst of support for Ross Perot in 1992.” Perhaps, but an Eastern elitist trivializing a few million voters (most from the heartland of the South and Midwest) does not make a lot sense for someone who appears to have higher political aspirations. Appearing to rise above Party frays, Mr. Bloomberg “is trying to pull politics back to the middle, injecting himself into marquee contests and helping candidates fend off the Tea Party.” However, his support for Senator Harry Reid, hardly a centrist, suggests to me a politician who is less interested in the “middle” than one concerned with the right, as represented by the “dreaded” Tea Party.

On Monday, President Obama referred to the Tea Party movement as part of a “noble” American tradition. He is right. Two sitting U.S. Senators were elected as third party candidates – Joe Lieberman, by the Connecticut for Lieberman Party and Bernie Sanders as an Independent in Vermont. Wikipedia lists 25 active micro parties, 22 regional parties, 22 inactive micro parties and 64 historical parties. Some of these parties, such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Progressive Labor Party, have been around for fifty or more years. The Liberal Party of New York was formed in 1944. Others are (or were) ephemeral.

For the last 150 years two Parties have dominated American politics: Democrats, since Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and the Republicans since 1860. In the early years of the Republic, the Federalist Party of John Adams morphed in 1834 into the Whig Party and then, with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, into Republicans. Today the two main Parties, not surprisingly, look upon third parties as spoilers, but the real role they play has been to serve as an outlet for the frustrations of voters who feel disenfranchised. Polls representing both Democrats and Republicans indicate disenchantment with Washington politicians of both Parties. While the President’s numbers have declined, they are far above those for elected members of Congress. Many, though not all, of elected officials have been in office so long they feel a sense of entitlement – that the seat they occupy is theirs, not the people’s.

The Tea Party is a manifestation of the estrangement people feel today. Politicians who choose to marginalize and trivialize the movement do so at their own peril. The Party has become a collection of a diverse group of people, some of whom, like Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, just seem nutty, while other like Marco Rubio of Florida and Joe Miller of Alaska seem more reasonable. The history of Third Parties suggests that it will eventually peter out, not because it is a “fad”, but because many of its ideas will be incorporated into the Platforms of the two main Parties. It is the way in which both the Democratic and Republican Parties, in an ever changing world, survive.