Are the Tea Parties just glorified Revolutionary War reenactments?
Image via Wikipedia
There is a quality to the modern iteration of the Tea Party movement which is rather similar to the festivity surrounding historical reenactments. Indeed it is not at all rare to see people show up at the Tea Party rallies dressed in late 18th century attire, sporting tricornes and waxing poetic about the glories of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the days of yore.
The good ol’ days are seductive. Some bygone era attracts us all with its promise of a better time. To some it’s the Leave it to Beaver days of the 1950’s. Others dress up in pantaloons and imagine the Renaissance was a time of good cheer, plentiful mead, and busty wenches. And some imagine that the government set up after we defeated the British over two hundred years ago should never have changed, as though the brilliant men who wrote our founding documents expected their words to remain set in stone forever.
This is strange to me. Thomas Jefferson insisted that a country’s laws should be re-written every generation to avoid the tyranny of past generations over the present. If John Adams had had his way, the United States would have been a watered-down monarchy. Alexander Hamilton would likely look on many of our current institutions with approval, since it was always his intent to centralize as much power as possible.
Essentially, the Founding Fathers were a motley bunch with varied opinions on how government should be run. They set up a system which allowed checks and balances and limited the power of the state because they were rightly afraid of what a too-powerful state could do to inhibit freedom, and because they had to appease one another if they were to ever form a union. They were reacting to the tyranny of the British crown after all, and many – though not all of them – were wary of power, and of course they each had to look out for their own interests.
But these modern Tea Parties seem less concerned with power, per se. In years past, before they went mainstream, I think they were a different species altogether. If they were complaining of the extraordinary power invested in the Executive branch that would be one thing. But that power is largely over foreign affairs, and one of the chief modern architects of that power is Dick Cheney, and I see very little evidence that this generation of Tea Partiers is all that interested in limiting the president’s foreign policy powers, or in rebuking Cheney and Bush’s unprecedented power grabs.
Until they do, I’ll keep thinking of the Tea Parties as little more than rallies for people who fear change, miss the myth of the good ol’ days, and sometimes prefer to dress like a colonial blue-coat than a citizen of the 21st century. There’s nothing wrong with any of that, it’s just hard to take very seriously.
(P.S. – this is where Glenn Beck may end up playing a key role.)
(video via The Dish)
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
It is easy to denigrate a new movement on the basis that it doesn’t speak with a uniform voice or that it doesn’t meet one’s personal requirements in terms of what it argues against. The Tea Party movement is a work in progress, made up of people who, typically, are not joiners and certainly not ordinarily political activists. But the state of our nation has roused these folks and convinced them that they must speak up.
Do all the people who attend these Tea Parties believe the same things? Of course there is going to be a spectrum of belief, just as there is in any group or organization.
But generally, the thrust of the Tea Party viewpoint is that government has become too intrusive, too fiscally irresponsible, too interventionist, too willing to trample individual rights, too deaf to the interest of Americans, too corrupt, too BIG.
And they DO complain about the centralization of power in the Executive branch. Many also were vocal during the Bush years — why do you think that Ron Paul received as much money as he did during the last election?
Admittedly, some people who are now speaking up did not do so before Obama and this Congress came to power. Although I can’t speak for them, my impression is that most of those had been becoming steadily more worried about the state of our government (at all levels) but finally, especially with the economic crash, realized they could not longer be passive citizens. They finally realized they had to wake up and deal with the reality of a runaway government. More people are waking up every day. Thus far, those who are awake are still a fairly small percentage of our populace, but each day more are realizing that if they continue to be silent and leave governing to the “professional politicians” they will have a country they no longer recognize. The U.S. dollar is in danger. There are still economic problems that have not properly surfaced yet — such as the commercial mortgage crisis. We’ve got a federal government that wants an empire the world over and a nation in which the private sector would be seconded to a burgeoning public sector. We’ve got a government that wants to intrude in the media, the Internet, private conscience, etc. We’ve got a government that, despite its promises, is not transparent. We’ve got a Congress that isn’t responsive to its constituents. Of course, there is rising worry and anger.
Such events as the Tea Parties are a reasonable response to all these abuses of power. But this is just the beginning of this movement. Like all fledgling movements it needs time to decide how it will proceed. Go ahead and discount the Tea Party participants, but the basic discontents that are fueling this movement are here to stay and something substantive will come of the rising concerns of Americans who see their country disintegrating.
I think what is worthy of concern is the tendency of some such as yourself to focus on and make fun of the Tea Parties. What ought to be the focus, in my opinion, are the many serious issues that are fueling the Tea Parties. Our country is a serious risk! Let’s talk about that….
Hello Kirstin,
You wrote:”But generally, the thrust of the Tea Party viewpoint is that government has become too intrusive, too fiscally irresponsible, too interventionist, too willing to trample individual rights, too deaf to the interest of Americans, too corrupt, too BIG.”
I have heard this said before by others close to the Tea Party but I have had to laugh a bit when I hear it. Where were these people during the Bush administration? On January 1, 2001 there was no deficit in the federal budget and the debt was in danger of disappearing. The country was at peace, there were secret prisons where people were held without right to a hearing or appeal, and the government could not legally intercept emails, letters, or telephone calls without a warrant. President Bush reversed all of those things and more yet none of these Tea Party conservatives said a word. Now a Black, liberal, Democrat gets elected and they are now carrying on like it is second coming of Hitler because he might use the very same powers that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney grabbed years earlier when they were so conspicuously silent.
I for one am unimpressed.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello, David,
As I pointed out, the people who are going to Tea Parties are slowly realizing that the policies of the last decades have led us to a precipice. Many of those people were not “awake” enough during the Bush years to make the kind of activist statements that they now feel compelled to make. Yes, many now in the movement were late the party of political and economic reality. That’s the way it is, unfortunately. The Tea Party numbers are constantly growing as more see the danger. But I will note that there were conservative people who did oppose Bush policies of overspending, interventionism, and Executive power plays. The problem was simply that those people were a much smaller minority then than they are now. And many of those of us conservatives who were opposed to Bush were not in positions of power. I did what I could to object to the damage his presidency did, but the bigwigs in Washington don’t give a ____ about minority middle American voices. That’s why it is essential that more people wake up and address the serious problems our country faces. That past is the past. What matters now is saving our country from further damage. That should be the focus.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kristin,
I’m not really “making fun” of the Tea Parties. I think they are often as not genuine expressions of discontent, fear, and confusion – mixed with quite a bit of longing for the myth of the past. Why I can’t take them seriously is they are still very much in the ra-ra nationalist camp, advocating the biggest form of government of all – the security state, the national defense state, etc.
In response to another comment. See in context »Erik~
I suggest you study the basic principles to most Tea Party goers subscribe:
Fiscal Responsibility
Limited Government
Free Markets
Note the second: limited government, not a security state.
That said, of course, there is a desire from many who attend for a strong defense, some of whom believe in the Bush-type “defense” and some who definitely do not. There is a split there, no question.
Basically though, often defense (especially massive defense) doesn’t register very high on Tea Party issues lists. Here are links to confirm that last statement: http://www.contractfromamerica.com/Idea.aspx and http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#statement
and
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/what-are-9-principles-and-12-values-9-12-project
But again, I encourage you to change your focus. Poking at the Tea Party movement instead of at the problems it is trying to highlight is counterproductive. It is like seeing a raging fire and instead of fighting it, going around interfering or making fun of (or whatever you would like to call it) the firefighters. What really counts right now is not whether the Tea Parties or corrolating movements are having growing pains or aren’t quite in synch with your views. What matters is that our country is slipping toward becoming a State where freedom disappears and our economy is in shambles. Again, let’s concentrate on that!
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello Mr. Kain,
Well done you. That was a very well written and thought out posting. I think you hit most of the key points quite well.
The only point I would add is that most people today would feel none to thrilled about living post-revolutionary 18th century US of A. It was actually are rather un-democratic democracy. Only a small fraction of the population could actually vote. Outside of New Jersey, women could not vote. Non-taxable Indians, indentured whites, free Blacks, and “all others” (i.e. slaves) could not vote. Even many free white men could not vote in most states, one had to own a minimum amount of property to vote in most states. The US Senate was unelected, each state government appointed their two senators. The number of eligible voters varied wildly from state to state. For most of its history South Carolina had more black than white people, in some counties 2/3rds were black. This is why that least democratic of institutions the Electoral College was created. States would get votes based on their population (well counting “all others” as 3/5th of person), not on the number of voters! It was the very opposite of what we believe today, one person, one vote.
Good old days indeed.
Excellent information, David. Thanks.
In response to another comment. See in context »obama pelosi reid would be the redcoats…standing between the people and democracy
Jesus, and here you are again. This is totally off topic but I have to say it. Andy, i keep running into you on these pages, and I think if I have to read one more post by you I’ll stab my eyes out. You are the quintessential hit and run poster. Your one to two sentence posts are inane, idiotic, and contribute nothing to any conversation whatsoever. I suspect you think your making some pithy comment on the political situation, but you come off looking stupid. Please, either post something of value, with an actual argument behind it, or get the hell out of here.
In response to another comment. See in context »E.D. – Just a note. John Adams did have his way, considering he wrote most of the constitution.
The idea that he was a monarchist has been debunked over and over again.
He wasn’t a “monarchist” but he had strong monarchist leanings. He was enchanted with the British monarchy. He didn’t want to create an exact replica, but he certainly wanted to have something more akin to a king in the president.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Don Benfield, Elizabeth Milton. Elizabeth Milton said: Are the Tea Parties just glorified Revolutionary War reenactments … http://bit.ly/6nmv65 [...]
The problem with Tea Partiers is that they have an uphill battle convincing people that they were just asleep during the Bush years. Whatever is said, the fact remains that they did not wake up until a black liberal made it to the highest office in the land. It may be coincidence, but it is sort of hard to swallow.
Before anyone jumps up and screams about how unfair it is to bring up race I’ll go ahead and address it. Sure, a lot of people are against Obama and it has nothing to do with his race. Unfortunately, most of the people I know personally who dislike him do have a racial motivation for it, though they would never admit it either. But the jokes are there, the symbolic racism is there. For all their denials, the fact remains that they live in an area where the Republican Southern Strategy has been in effect and effective since Nixon. These people belong to that self-same party, in part because that Southern Strategy does resonate with them. Hell, even before Nixon, you had Thurmond and the Dixiecrats making inroads with these very same citizens, specifically referring to race. To say most of these people make up their minds in a racial vacuum is to deny the facts.
I think prior to Obama there were a few Tea Parties here and there, mostly libertarians, who really didn’t like Bush. It wasn’t until Obama that the mainstream conservative movement co-opted these parties and are using them today to push their own agenda.
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s what so aggravating about the whole thing. The, admittedly few, true Libertarians I’ve known have all seemed sincere in their beliefs. You’re absolutely right that this new push has been co-opted by the right.
In response to another comment. See in context »