In Defense of the TEA Party Movement (3/4/10)

[Ferguson Foont]

"In Defense of the TEA Party Movement." For those of you who are familiar with my writings and my views, I'll bet THAT got your attention!

Believe me, I am not going to defend Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or any of the actual leaders or followers of this weird movement which, as most of us have forgotten, stands for "Taxed Enough Already" (which is why I write it correctly as "TEA Party Movement, capitalizing the acronym) here in the country that already has the lowest taxes in the western industrialized world. Furthermore, I am quite certain that this is not a grass roots movement in any genuine sense of the word, and was instead cleverly instigated and nourished by minions of the health insurance industry largely to exploit the ignorance and racism that serves as the driving force for many opponents of the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional efforts to enact a mildly progressive agenda.

Nor am I going to focus on the damage that this movement could do to many Republican elected officials as it pushes them to take increasingly irrational positions in a quest to move ever rightward on the political spectrum in their largely futile efforts to appease these strident lunatics, thereby jeopardizing their own chances to win in the general election. I am, however, grateful for this effect, although its salutary impact will be mitigated by the loss of enthusiasm we on the left have suffered as we have compromised away so much of what we thought we had voted for in the 2008 election.

No, it is nothing that cynical or self-serving. Instead I am prepared to defend it on what I see as firmer and more sincere grounds. Basically, in their deepest essence, they actually have a point. The sentiment behind the fervor on the part of many of the participants of this twisted and artificially populist movement is valid in many ways. They feel in their hearts that something is wrong here, and they also sense, without actually being able to articulate it even to themselves, that much of what is wrong revolves around the increasingly plutocratic and oligarchic nature of our government and its policies. They yearn for a return to an era, a time that never really existed, when the nobler aspirations of our Founding Fathers held greater sway, and the sovereignty of the individual was one of the chief and most inviolable characteristics of the society they viewed as "America."

Like I say, that time never really existed except in the dreams of our Founders, whose views were molded at the very pinnacle of the Age of Reason from the works of such great philosophers as Locke and Rousseau, and a hatred of monarchy to match that of the early Roman Republic. Where their design for our nation had many aspects that never really existed (a genuine equality of opportunity being chief among them), and they never really envisioned the needs of an urbanized society, not realizing that we would actually grow beyond the availability of such liberties as the ability to homestead in a boundless wilderness, for instance, or the ability to achieve our sustained livelihood as independent and self-reliant farmers. They never foresaw the industrial revolution or the inception of mass media. They never foresaw a time when medical expenses could not only bankrupt individuals but could bankrupt our nation. And of course they never imagined the proliferation of handguns and automobiles.

But just like the cultural conservatives who think that if only we could have arrested our cultural development during the 1950s of "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver," also a time that never existed in the real world, then God would still love us and would not have visited upon us such evils as civil rights, the women's movement, and internationalism, the TEA Partiers have been led by demagogues on the right to believe that a return to a time before social programs became a major aspect of the Federal budget would result in a return to the liberty our Founders desired.

Like so much of the TEA Party movement's twists and turns, this is just silly. But most of the silliness comes from the exploitation of these people's ignorance and emotionality by the Movement's creators and by the Republican Party for their own ANTI-populist political advantage. The basic sentiment that moves the supporters -- that something is very wrong here and that our liberties, our personal security, and our sovereignty as individuals is now forfeit on the altar of political and economic power -- is accurate in every respect, but it has been exploited for evil purposes revolving around greed and power.

These people, if only they could be reached, are natural constituents of the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party. It is OUR party that advances populist ideals like fair opportunity, broad-based prosperity, and peace. It is OUR party that advances the rights of workers and that tries to improve the lives of those with less economic and political leverage. This -- the achievement of OUR party's ideals, NOT the Republicans' -- is what these people actually yearn for and what moves them to make such noise. It is such a pity that they do not have the wit to bring them to identify their wishes with us, rather than being suckered by the demagoguery of the right that plays on their resentments and racist prejudices with such pristine hypocrisy and deceit.

Of course, our side always takes governing seriously and responsibly. We do not campaign on an anti-government platform and we eschew such effective political tools as demagoguery and vindictive prosecution, and even less inflammatory methods as the use of congressional rules to implement majority programs, because we strive always to calm rather than to incite the mob, and to find some shifting illusion of a "center" where we can please both those who need effective government and those who strive to thwart and impede its effectiveness.

Part of my high hopes for Obama, just as they were for Bill Clinton nearly two decades ago, revolved around their rhetorical skills. In both cases, however, my hopes dried up as they refused to employ those abilities to achieve the desired effects, and instead seemed to attempt to rise above the fray of partisan strife to serve some concept of "the entire people." In doing so they watered down our "brand," so to speak, and did a grave disservice to both the American people and to the world. I mean, where would we be today had the President we elected in 2000 been inaugurated in 2001 with strong congressional majorities? My guess would be that we would be clean, prosperous, at peace, and astride the world as an unchallengeable colossus, with our hegemony extending to all areas of industry, education, economics, military affairs, and human rights.

Had Clinton, and Obama as well, been less reluctant to employ demagoguery in service to the needs of the American people, not only would we be better off, but Clinton would be remembered alongside FDR for his achievements (remember, FDR had no reluctance whatsoever to play the demagogue in service to party politics), and Obama's popularity would have continued the upward trend it experienced between the election and his inauguration.

Demagoguery has a bad name, but politicians of all stripes have well understood that society is largely made up of people of the same type that are now following the TEA Party Movement, and demagoguery in service to shared political ideals is a way through which they might be reached. Like them, we want to reduce the influence of the robber barons. Like them, we want to ensure job and financial security for workers and families. Like them, we want our children and grandchildren to know a better world than ours. But the key to their support, if perhaps not their understanding, runs through their emotions, not through their reasoning capacity. Therefore, it is through demagoguery -- ONLY through demagoguery -- that we might win them over.

It's really not hard. We should try it. I can help -- I'm pretty good at it!