Notes on the Tea Party Movement-5/5

                                                October 6, 2010

                                                Michael Molenda

                                                Bloomington, Indiana, USA

.

5. Finally, some evaluative observations about the Tea Party movement, based on the facts noted above:

.

a. This is not a coherent movement.  Many of its local grass-roots members are proud of its anarchic, anti-hierarchical lack of organization.  This has allowed the movement to grow by attracting individuals with “fringe” beliefs, such as the “ birthers ” (who claim Barack Obama was born in Kenya), overt racists, and religious zealots.  The Tea Party movement provides a self-proclaimed patriotic umbrella that allows people with far-out ideas to feel part of a larger and more respectable group.

.

b. This movement is rife with logical contradictions.  Some examples:  i. They purport to oppose government deficit spending but were invisible and totally silent during the Bush administration when tax cuts and wars created deficits far more massive than all of the actions of the Obama administration.

.

ii. They vilify the Obama administration for the bailout of financial institutions, but the TARP program was begun by the Bush Republican administration.  The only thing added was financial aid for American auto-makers.  Both the bank and auto bailouts have already produced partial returns of the “bailout” money.

.

iii. They vehemently oppose progressive taxation, although progressive taxation is a benefit to the economic class for whom they claim to speak.

.

iv. They claim to speak for “ordinary people,” but their infrastructure is provided by a very small cadre of super-rich individuals, and the policies they endorse will benefit primarily those super-rich individuals.

.

v. They claim to suffer the oppression by the “elites,” but polls show Tea Party supporters to be older, better educated, and wealthier than the average person; so “elites” are well represented within Tea Party ranks.  Populists posture as an oppressed majority, but Tea Partiers are neither oppressed nor the majority.

.

vi. They claim to represent a general, non-partisan citizen anger, but all the political candidates they support are running as candidates of right-wing parties—Conservative, Libertarian, and/or Republican—closely mirroring the interests of their funding sources.

.

vii. Ironically, their anger has been directed at those (progressives and Democrats) who historically have worked for the interests of the lower and middle classes and who have been trying to reverse the laissez-faire policies that have crushed those economic classes.  Instead, Tea Partiers support the politicians and policies that manifestly failed to protect the economic interests of people like themselves.

.

In conclusion, the Tea Party movement springs from several different traditional elements in American political life, packaged under a new brand name.  In perilous economic times, it offers an alternative to the current policies, and thus is appealing to those who are dissatisfied with the status quo.  It is attractive to many because, in addition to any possible appeal of its policy positions, it taps into reservoirs of American patriotic rhetoric.  The World Wide Web has provided a cheap, ubiquitous, and effective communications medium for the movement; the mass media have amplified the voice of the Tea Party by paying a lot of attention to it due to the entertainment and conflict values of its extremist views.  Finally, it provides neither a coherent nor logical approach to America’s social and economic problems.  It may experience some political success in terms of electing people to public office but it is unlikely to lead to the rational solution of real problems.