The Tea Party

The election is coming up, and there’s more talk about the role of the so-called “Tea Party” movement in influencing the outcome.  There’s also been a fair amount of ridicule heaped upon it from the usual liberal quarters, particularly Doonesbury, but also Tom the Dancing Bug.  Of course, when I hear it, I recall David Hockney’s clever observation, amidst “Tonight Let’s All Make Love in London”, about bars in London having tiny chairs, so that “it like an organized children’s tea party,” (I also liked his quip about “tartan on the walls” and “a pound for a drink”).  Note: I don’t recall Doonesbury lampooning ANY of the liberal protests.  He’s clearly trying to turn the tables now that it’s the other side of the spectrum doing the protesting.

 I have not been to any of the Tea Party protests, in DC or otherwise.  Ironically, I have been to a protest in DC against Israel, although I was not particularly participating, more like observing.  And here are my observations:

 It seems that the more people you get involved in these type of events, the wider the net cast and the more variety of viewpoints end up expressed in various ways.  In particular, the lunatic fringe truly emerges.  At the World Bank/IMF protests these ended up being the paper mache puppet crowd, vying with the anarchists for shock value.  I’m sure the liberal media is going to fixate on the “It’s the WHITE HOUSE, N*gga!” goofballs who make up a small minority of the Tea Party group.  At the WB protests you end up with oddballs accusing Bush = Hitler (sorry, Saddam makes a much better comparison) or “FREE MUMIA!” 

 I didn’t vote for Obama – I voted for Bob Barr (that’s another story….).  But here’s my problem with Chocolate Jesus as of October 2010.  As far as I’m concerned, he lowballed us in the election.  Even if he didn’t expressly promise to solve every damn problem he inherited from Bush, he certainly didn’t deny anything or stop his supporters from claiming that.  This whole business of “WE CAN” had the implicit underlying message of “if we can elect a black man as President, we can do anything.”   If you’re going to promise the Moon, don’t be surprised when people are dissatisfied at getting anything less.

 Well, we’re waiting.  I think he’s certainly a smart guy, very articulate, and very likable.  But so are a lot of other guys his age.  His problem is a lack of experience: he is in over his head.  

 Would McCain have done any better? Or Bob Barr?  Maybe not.  But neither of them promised to solve everything. 

 Getting back to the Tea Party.  I find it hard to discern a consistent or coherent message or ideology amidst all the rhetoric and flag waving.  What seems to be the beef? The two most vocal “beefs” are that Obama hasn’t fixed the economy (+ bailouts), and socialized medicine.  At a very basic level the Tea Party movement considers Obama to be socialist and opposes the policies of what it perceives to be the left wing of the Democratic Party, “liberals” in general as personified by their beloved Chocolate Jesus.  In a sense, the Tea Party opposes the vague and nebulous collectives who showed up to protest the Iraq War.  So let’s look at the sides.

Tea Party.   Clearly they have found a wide range of dissatisfied people. 

            A.         Hardcore racists.  Not everyone wants a black president, no matter how articulate he may be.

            B.         Opponents to socialism.  Count me in.  While I agree that the health care system is messed up, I’m not convinced that mandatory health insurance is the answer.

            C.         Opponents to corporate welfare.  Count me in this group too.

            D.         Vague “patriots”.  Just people who love waving flags and considering themselves “true American” or “patriots” (whatever that means) and who somehow sense that Barack Obama represents something anti-American. 

            ** How can Obama be funneling $15 billion to AIG and other greedy American businesses (who presumably don’t deserve the bailouts), yet be socialist at the same time?  Aren’t socialists AGAINST big business?  Probably the more appropriate label would be fascist, in the Mussolini/corporatist sense of the word.

 Anti-War Group.

            A.         Pacifists.  These are “peace at any price” people who believe that surrendering to evil is the best policy – anything to avoid bloodshed.

            B.         Anarchists.  These guys view themselves as the radical, violent vanguard of the movement against government oppression and the capitalist system.  As you can imagine, it’s a VERY small group, too small to be of any threat to anyone except themselves.

            C.         Socialists/communists.  They rarely call themselves that.  They supported the USSR, Mao’s China, every communist regime which ever existed – and now Cuba is their favorite (for some reason they avoid mentioning North Korea).  “Trotskyist” is a label they like now that Stalin can no longer assassinate them.  Michael Moore and Ralph Nader are in this category although for public relations reasons they would never admit it.

            D.         Vague “leftists”.  This forms the majority.  These are people who simply oppose the war, not due to a sincere preference for peace or due to any explicit ideology. 

             Most liberals understand that command economies like the USSR and North Korea don’t work.  They value private property and recognize that the market usually provides the best results, they just believe that it fails too often and needs to be fixed by the government.  Given the choice between trusting the private sector to do the right thing and assuming the government can regulate away any problem (given enough money and power – and when the government “solution” doesn’t fix the market failure their “solution” is more money and power to the government, not to admit failure) they’ll trust Uncle Sam rather than Bill Gates.  Their ideal ranges from Sweden to Cuba depending on the issue.  90% taxes?  Well, we’ll take that if it means free health care.  But most Americans wouldn’t accept that tradeoff. 

 ..and faced with that prospect, many Americans get upset.  Upset enough to protest!  Thus we have…the Tea Party.