Terry Mancour: The tea party protests failed to fire up Republicans | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
This is typical of the snarky media coverage of the Tea Party protests. They keep up the pretense that there was no message, these people are confused and stupid, they make the same dirty joke over and over, etc. From the Obama administration we hear that Obama didn't know it happened, which is obviously a lie. Then David Axelrod said the protests were potentially dangerous. From the far left we hear that it was all racially motivated.
The people who say these things have been telling us for eight years that protest was the highest form of patriotism. But that was when the left was protesting Bush. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly protest is dangerous.
So I have to conclude that the Tea Parties were a tremendous success, from the standpoint of the organizers and participants. The left is terrified that this is the start of a grass-roots movement. Obama and the Democrats understand the power of mass movements, and now they are scared to death that they are seeing a mass movement on the right. All their public disdain of the Tea Parties is just fueling more activism, I think.
As for the message of the protests, I think it is simple. These folks don't buy the Obama administration's claim that all the dramatic policy shifts are designed to save the nation in an emergency. They think that is a pretense, and the real agenda is to move the nation irretrievably toward a European-style social democratic economy with massive spending, high taxation and massive top-down federal control of all arenas of life.
They don't believe Obama's campaign claims that he wants to cut spending and keep taxation low. These folks were triggered into action by the stimulus bill, the Obama proposed budget with massive deficits, and the economic actions (re GM, banks, etc.) that they think are authoritarian. In short, they are protesting what they see as a revolutionary transformation of their nation's political economic system.
Maybe they are wrong--I don't know at this point, so early in the game--but the message seems pretty clear to me. And it certainly has the Democrats scared, because there is an election coming up next year. If the Tea Party activists repeat this protest on July 4, it would suggest that they may be able to sustain their momentum. That could lead to a nationalized election in 2010, and we know what happened when that occurred in 1994.
7 comments:
Where were these people over the past eight-years? Now that a democrat is in office they are suddenly concerned about government spending? I suppose as long as the money is going to build prisons and military bases, they are happy, but once someone tries to change the focus of government investment, all of sudden these folks have discovered "Rules for Radicals."
These are the same people who supported Bush's disastrous tax cut for the rich, and probably a fair number of them thought that "taking out" Saddam was a pretty good idea, no matter the estimated $2.7 TRILLION price tag.
They were wrong then, but they are supposed to right now, just because they parade their kids around with sandwich boards?
Give me a break.
Those are the standard Democratic Party talking points I have been reading all weekend, right down to calling spending "investment." I think this approach misses the point.
Personally, I think the Bush presidency was a disaster. But remember, so do many of the Republicans and conservatives who went to those Tea Parties. Many conservatives were furious with Bush over his refusal to veto budgets with excessive spending, and they said so. As you say, they may have liked his spending priorities better, especially if they supported spending on the military over social welfare spending.
But the biggest difference between Bush and Obama that could generate protest is the magnitude of the deficits. There is a big difference between deficits of $100 billion to $400 billion (Bush) and $2 trillion (Obama). I think many people are truly shocked by the size of these budget deficits and see no end in sight to runaway big government.
My main point is that I think Democrats and liberals are way too eager to adopt a snarling, dismissive tone toward these demonstrators. In 1994, the media and the Democrats sneered at crazy Newt Gingrich and his ridiculous Contract With America. We all know who had the last laugh that election year.
I'm not predicting anything this far out, but populism is powerful and volatile stuff. Populist anger can be directed against big government as easily as big business, so in my view it would be wiser for Democrats to stop dissing these folks, which only makes them more determined.
As an aside: Another possibility is that the Tea Party people will split the Republican Party. Maybe we will have three parties down the road: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party.
"Maybe we will have three parties down the road: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party."
You forgot the nonpartisans. They are the fasting growing voter affiliation in the bellwether state of Caleeforneeya.
The condescending treatment of the media in this country along with the dismissive attitude of the Washington elites has only stoked further the growing anger felt by many, including me.
I, like many Americans, am angry with the Republicans for their overspending, but it is clear that the Democrats' overspending and radical behavior makes the Republicans pikers.
We have a president who goes overseas to kiss the butts of foreign dictators and wants to spend more money than all the presidents before him combined! He even has the unmitigated gall to brag about his $100 million savings on office supplies while he flushes trillions, that right, TRILLIONS, down the toilet.
Then there is the modern day Marie Antoinette, Nancy Pelosi, dictator of the Pelosi Politburo, formerly known as the U.S. House of Representatives. This creature is more interested in her non stop military flight back to San Francisco than she is about doing what is best for this country. She is a parasite in the truest sense of the word.
Then there are Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, authors of the current economic depression with their insistence that Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac and the banks lend to those who were unable to pay those loans back.
With those, and many more grievances, I predict that not only will the tea parties grow in size, they will mushroom as the politicians continue to engage in even greater malfeasance.
I am one of many millions. I participated in the April 15 tea party, and will also be participating in future tea parties, like the upcoming ones on July 4.
The Tea Parties are a good example of citizen participation and it’s too bad the public waits till things get to the crisis stage to speak out. Unfortunately I believe they will be of little value in getting Washington’s attention since they typically haven’t responded in the past to the publics concerns.
Instead we need petition parties to start firing our elected officials and it would take only one or two to send a shock wave through out Washington. Because voters have sent the wrong message for to long that once elected they can do no wrong. As evidenced by how many times Washington politicians are re-elected even after being convicted of crimes or how many bad decisions they make.
I agree that smug derision isn't the best response to these tea parties, and I was dismayed to see it.
But if some of the tea-partiers I saw on tv do get their ideas enacted, I will be dismayed then, too.
Beth--good point. The Ron Paul and Ross Perot voters have some valid points about budget deficits and overspending by government, but I don't want them making public policy.
Post a Comment