There is much being made about the debacle that was the Tea Party stand against Obamacare and the futile shutdown of government that they led. However, while many are prognosticating the demise of the Tea Party, it hardly seems likely. In the final vote to avert the debt default, 18 Senators (all Republicans) voted against the deal on debt and to reopen the government, and in the House a staggering 144 Congressmen (all Republican) voted against it. Let's put that in perspective: 40% of the GOP in the Senate and 61.5% of the GOP in the House voted against a deal to avert the US defaulting on its debt. Does that seem like a walk back from their core beliefs?
The power of the Tea Party to paralyze government made me wonder what does the Tea Party really believe in?
To answer that question, I started with what the Tea Party's own website says. A lot of the language on the site is very inspirational. The call to action on the site says: "We stand by the Constitution as inherently conservative. We serve as a beacon to the masses that have lost their way, a light illuminating the path to the original intentions of our Founding Fathers. We must raise a choir of voices declaring America must stand on the values which made us great. Only then will the politically blind see and deaf hear!"
The site lists 15 "non negotiable core beliefs." Here's a verbatim reproduction of the list:
The statement about Christian nation didn't surprise me. It isn't so vastly different from views held by most of the GOP. It's a little misleading given the fact that when setting up the Republic the framers were very deliberate in not making the nation a theocratic state. That is why, the US is not governed by the Bible but the Constitution.
The idea of a Christian nation taken together with the Tea Party's core belief that "Intrusive government must be stopped" and that "Traditional values are encouraged" does seemingly create a problem. The issue is that "traditional values" are a matter of personal choice as is one's religion. State religion or state imposed values are inherently intrusive. So, how does the Tea Party reconcile these seemingly conflicting views?
It seems not very well.
You may remember that Tea Party darling and Virginia's gubernatorial candidate, Ken Cuccinelli had come out in support of a law that would require women seeking abortions to have medically unnecessary vaginal probe ultrasounds. Public outcry had caused the measure to be dropped. During the gubernatorial campaign, slammed by his Democratic opponent McAuliffe and others for his war on women, he has backed off his views. He currently trails McAuliffe in the polls which pollsters attribute to his close association with Tea Party and the government shut down. However, if you think the Tea Party is backing off its stances, you'd be mistaken. In this article, Maggie Gallagher argues that the lesson is that Cuccinelli and others are erring by offering a truce on abortion etc. and that they would win if they only stood firm.
In other Tea Party news, a Tea Party leader and Sean Hannity are seriously contemplating filing a class action suit against homosexuals on the basis that homosexuals are more likely to contract AIDS.
Non interference by government it seems only applies to things they don't like. When it suits them, the Tea Party is perfectly sanguine with government interference.
Another serious proposal by the Tea Party is that they should abolish the 17th Amendment, which allowed for the direct election of Senators. This took my by surprise. Why in the world would they be demanding this? Let me reproduce some of the more notable arguments by eminent supporters of the Tea Party. Here is Judge Andrew Napolitano on the subject:
The power of the Tea Party to paralyze government made me wonder what does the Tea Party really believe in?
To answer that question, I started with what the Tea Party's own website says. A lot of the language on the site is very inspirational. The call to action on the site says: "We stand by the Constitution as inherently conservative. We serve as a beacon to the masses that have lost their way, a light illuminating the path to the original intentions of our Founding Fathers. We must raise a choir of voices declaring America must stand on the values which made us great. Only then will the politically blind see and deaf hear!"
The website goes on to say: "The Tea Party includes those who possess a strong belief in the foundational Judeo-Christian values embedded in our great founding documents. ... Yes, we are a Christian nation. However, you do not have to be a Christian to enjoy freedom. The Tea Party welcomes all red-blooded U.S. Citizens."
- Illegal aliens are here illegally.
- Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
- A strong military is essential.
- Special interests must be eliminated.
- Gun ownership is sacred.
- Government must be downsized.
- The national budget must be balanced.
- Deficit spending must end.
- Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
- Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
- Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
- Political offices must be available to average citizens.
- Intrusive government must be stopped.
- English as our core language is required.
- Traditional family values are encouraged.
The statement about Christian nation didn't surprise me. It isn't so vastly different from views held by most of the GOP. It's a little misleading given the fact that when setting up the Republic the framers were very deliberate in not making the nation a theocratic state. That is why, the US is not governed by the Bible but the Constitution.
The idea of a Christian nation taken together with the Tea Party's core belief that "Intrusive government must be stopped" and that "Traditional values are encouraged" does seemingly create a problem. The issue is that "traditional values" are a matter of personal choice as is one's religion. State religion or state imposed values are inherently intrusive. So, how does the Tea Party reconcile these seemingly conflicting views?
It seems not very well.
You may remember that Tea Party darling and Virginia's gubernatorial candidate, Ken Cuccinelli had come out in support of a law that would require women seeking abortions to have medically unnecessary vaginal probe ultrasounds. Public outcry had caused the measure to be dropped. During the gubernatorial campaign, slammed by his Democratic opponent McAuliffe and others for his war on women, he has backed off his views. He currently trails McAuliffe in the polls which pollsters attribute to his close association with Tea Party and the government shut down. However, if you think the Tea Party is backing off its stances, you'd be mistaken. In this article, Maggie Gallagher argues that the lesson is that Cuccinelli and others are erring by offering a truce on abortion etc. and that they would win if they only stood firm.
In other Tea Party news, a Tea Party leader and Sean Hannity are seriously contemplating filing a class action suit against homosexuals on the basis that homosexuals are more likely to contract AIDS.
Non interference by government it seems only applies to things they don't like. When it suits them, the Tea Party is perfectly sanguine with government interference.
Another serious proposal by the Tea Party is that they should abolish the 17th Amendment, which allowed for the direct election of Senators. This took my by surprise. Why in the world would they be demanding this? Let me reproduce some of the more notable arguments by eminent supporters of the Tea Party. Here is Judge Andrew Napolitano on the subject:
I would repeal the 17th Amendment [which provides for the popular election of U.S. senators]. Can an amendment to the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? Yes, that one. If you read Madison’s notes from the constitutional convention, they spent more time arguing over the make-up of the federal government and they came up with the federal table. There would be three entities at the federal table. There would be the nation as a nation, there would be the people, and there would be the states. The nation as a nation is the president, the people is the House of Representatives, and the states is the Senate, because states sent senators. Not the people in the states, but the state government. When the progressives, in the Theodore Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson era, abolished this it abolished bicameralism, the notion of two houses. It effectively just gave us another house like the House of Representatives where they didn’t have to run as frequently, and the states lost their place at the federal table.
That was an assault, an invasion on the infrastructure of constitutional government. Even kings in Europe had to satisfy the princes and barons around them. And that’s how they lost their power, or that’s how their power was tempered. Congress believes it doesn’t have to satisfy anybody. Its only recognized restraint is whatever it can get away with.
Note, Judge Andrew Napolitano is arguing that the feudal power of barons and noblemen was necessary to temper the excesses of the King, therefore a less democratic Senate would temper the excesses of the President. In another articulation of this view in the National Review, Charles Cooke is even more explicit in his condemnation of democracy. He explains:
... the United States is not in fact a democracy but a constitutional republic, and her virtues lie as much in her undemocratic institutions as in her ample provisions for self-rule — more, perhaps. ...
As Madison makes clear in the Federalist Papers, in order to defend the vertical checks and balances that allow America’s federal system to function, senators would be “elected absolutely and exclusively by state legislatures.” The Senate was not intended to be the people’s representative body, but that of the states. Lest the federal government “swallow up the state legislatures,” (if you are interested, here is Salon's counterargument)
How seriously are they about this? Well, in the recent Texas Senate primaries, all but one of the GOP contenders agreed that they'd repeal the 17th amendment.
I could go on with many more interesting points of view expressed by the Tea Party, but let me stop here and focus instead on two interesting themes that emerged for me.
- Much of the Tea Party's rhetoric seems to be about an abridgement of liberties. None of the leaders really explain what this means. I have searched in vain for a cogent explanation. What I have surmised from the articles, blogs and comments though is that much of this abridgement of liberties has to do with a paranoia about freeloaders and minorities, which they appear to use interchangeably.
You see this paranoia in the list of core beliefs. Three of the 15 core beliefs listed overtly deal with immigrants, one is a tautology about illegal immigrants, a second deals with pro-domestic employment (which is protectionist) and a third is about English being the language in the US and seems a direct jab at Hispanics.
You can observe this paranoia in public statements by Tea Party representatives where they openly rail against freeloaders and minorities in lamenting the size of government, redistribution of wealth and government handouts, never mind that most of the Tea Party dominant states are the biggest net recipients of Federal handouts (i.e. they receive much more in benefits than they pay in).
Even proposals that deal with more esoteric points of law, like their obsession with the repeal of the 17th amendment on closer examination appear to be designed to shift power from urbanized minority dominated urban areas to more homogenous and sparsely populated rural areas. Tea Party supporters' comments in the blogs frequently reference "illiterate, ill informed, basement dwelling freeloaders and minorities who are stealing elections" as being the primary target of the repeal.
- To explain the second theme let me recount a recent conversation I had with a Tea Party supporter. I was discussing climate change with a Tea Party supporter. During the course of the conversation the person explained that the obsession with climate change was silly. "If climate change is true and sea levels rise, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced or will die," he said, "So what? Stuff happens! Humans won't go extinct. Some people will die and suffer, but most will just move. Things will be fine."
In one respect, he's correct. Global warming does not necessarily mean human extinction. In the worst case it means massive, destructive and very costly readjustments that would include wars, famines and mass migrations. However, he is correct that humans as a specie, will likely survive.
What took me aback was the values underpinning his assessment. His point was that bad stuff happens to people all the time. As long as he isn't likely to be badly affected himself, he sees no reason why he should be inconvenienced to prevent a poor outcome for others, however likely or devastating that outcome may be. The question he was asking himself is "what's in it for me?" In the case of solving climate change, his answer was resoundingly not much. So, he didn't see the point of panicking.
Stepping back and glancing through the blogs and articles by Tea Party supporters, I can't help feeling that this value judgment is exactly what underpins all of the Tea Party. The question the Tea Party always seems to be asking "What's in it for me?"
If you take the two themes together, what you might conclude is that much of the Tea Party's platform can be explained by the thesis that: (a) they are always driven by "what's in it for me?" and (b) they do not include minorities, underprivileged, LGBT, feminists, non Christians, etc. in their version of "me" and so, they balk at anything that disproportionately benefits anyone not like them.
Taken together this explains why the Tea Party is so sanguine about state governments, so vehemently for protecting liberties while using government's powers to restrict personal freedoms, how they can reconcile their opposition to some government spending while advocating profligate spending in other areas (witness the hundreds of billions in farm subsidies in the Tea Party inspired Farm Bill). It is why some who support them suggest democracy as an ideal in other nations but lament the democratic Senate at home.
The Obama coalition is about a social compact where our rights are coupled with a responsibility to one another. Its inclusive message has been incredibly successful in attracting women, LGBT, minorities, educated urban elite and the underprivileged. This group is more diverse and faster growing than the traditional WASP demographic that has been the bastion of the GOP, leading many in the GOP to worry about the GOP's future.
Unsurprisingly, the Tea Party's target audience is the exact opposite - mostly WASP more predominantly rural, white and staunchly conservative Christian.
The Tea Party's appeal to their target is very lofty. As the Tea Party site puts it: "By joining the Tea Party, you are taking a stand for our nation. You will be upholding the grand principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. ... Many of America’s dilemmas lay squarely on the shoulders of We The People. Meanwhile, economic issues burden small businesses. However, we must not define ourselves by the calamities in our lives, but by our resolve to pick up the pieces and move on. The power of a few can change a nation, save a people and illuminate a generation. Commonsense, Conservative, Constitutional Self-Governance Is Our Mode Of Operation. ..."
Yet, under the veneer of lofty ideals, a closer examination suggests that the Tea Party platform is driven by Darwinistic groupism and survival instincts that draw their strength from a combination of self interest and a disregard or even antipathy to everyone not like them.
No comments:
Post a Comment