Are the Tea Parties A Delayed Reaction?
I haven’t yet chimed in on the tea parties, but they have been on my mind for some time. I have questions. Like, why now? A couple ideas have swirled about in my head.
Reaction to Obama
At first glance, the parties appear to be merely a reaction to the economic policies of President Barack Obama. After all, they’ve come about amidst several new policies on both Capitol Hill and at the White House. And it makes sense. Why shouldn’t it? There is a great deal of fiscal irresponsibility going on in both those places, encouraged by some bad economic policy.
Yet, the left has pointed out the fiscal irresponsibility in the Bush administration, saying that holding these parties after eight years of huge spending by a Republican-controlled Congress and White House is hypocrisy. To be sure, even many conservatives have agreed the last government didn’t always live up to its principles. John McCain hounded his party for it last year. He was joined by plenty of conservatives who were ready and willing to break with the Republicans and go after the offenders. Libertarians, among others, had some of the loudest voices, but among the conservative mainstream, there were a bunch. Where there were talking heads (or writing hands in the blogosphere), they could be heard or read. I know that Michelle Malkin in particular was fairly harsh on the previous administration.
On the other hand, the pundocracy is always willing to talk (or write) to those who will offer their attention. We crave the audience. So how about the majority? Are conservatives really forgetting their history and playing politics or is there another reason behind the timing of the parties?
The Delayed Reaction
Could it be that conservatives are simply exhibiting a delayed reaction to fiscal policies they would have otherwise strongly opposed? There could be some reasons for this. After all, we were and still are at war in two countries. Much of the political debate was focused on this – whether we should be there, what to do now that we were there, and how to turn around the mishandling of the war that arose after we settled in, then whether or not those new policies would work. Then there was the security component at home, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the shuffling of agencies around the government. Certainly, much of the focus of the last seven years was on national security. Perhaps the attention of conservatives was simply to be found elsewhere?
That’s doubtful. The attention given to Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean domestic issues relating to fiscal issues didn’t see much action. On the contrary. Medicare Part D (one of the more prominent examples of hypocrisy used by tea party detractors, given its Republican sponsorship) was passed, and social security reform failed to pass. What didn’t see much action in the last few Congresses was the limitation of pork-barrel spending, despite the Republican majority for most of it.
So what then could be the reason? I wonder if it could actually be related to the wars in the Middle East. During the past six or seven years, one thing I’ve noted out of most conservatives is that they were fairly deferential to President Bush. They did not wish to speak out too much out of fear of causing harm to the country. It’s a standard war-time practice that used to be better enforced than it is these days. Liberals tend not stand by this self-censoring, and more than a few were called unpatriotic for it. This isn’t to say that conservatives never spoke out against the President. After all, most conservatives were against the immigration reform package the President pushed in 2006.
My point is that it is unlikely that there would have been protesting on this scale during the last administration. Perhaps this is because protesting is seen these days as a mark of anti-war groups. You’re more likely to hear about a liberal group protesting than you are a conservative group. Also, protesting in the United States has traditionally been seen as one of those things you just don’t do. Unlike some European countries, where protests are more common, Americans look down on them. Active political participation (by seeking office), debate, voting, or donations are seen as more acceptable forms of contributing to the democratic forum. Add on an air of suspicion and dirty looks to those people who might be seen as speaking out against the government in a time of war, and protesting seems even more taboo.
Now, in 2009, we’re drawing down toward the end of our presence in Iraq. There is still Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban to deal with, but the tone of the country is starting to drift away from war. Indeed, it does not currently seem that we will be invading another country any time soon. Basically, you’re no longer liable to be called a traitor if you go out and do a little protesting. Now any grievances stemming from the policies of the last administration can be aired in full without fear of ostracism.
So now the tea parties begin.
Follow Us!
Keep up with all of our articles by subscribing to our RSS feed. Also be sure to follow us on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
-->14 Responses to “Are the Tea Parties A Delayed Reaction?”
Comment from Henrik R Clausen
Time April 14, 2009 at 10:23 am PDT
I think the ‘bailout’ packages opened the subject. It didn’t matter much if it was under the Bush or the Obama administrations, as they have pretty much the same gang of Wall Street fat cats as advisors. While the actual policies behind the packages had been running for a while, making the packages an object of direct policy was too much – it became too obvious that the politicians, be it Republicans or Democrats, are squandering taxpayer money, fast and future, with little regard to those who have to do the actual paying.
Rewarding failure is not the American way.
Comment from CStanley
Time April 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm PDT
I think there’s been a simmering anger over fiscal irresponsibility, which may have been stifled as you suggest, MM, by a desire to support Bush during wartime.
I think then the nomination of McCain further angered people who are strong fiscal conservatives who wanted a more ideologically pure candidate for the GOP (I don’t happen to agree with that, because the sorts of fiscons who hold a negative view of McCain are the ones who believe that fiscal conservatism is all about tax cuts, all the time- McCain has been reasonably hawkish about spending which is the kind of fiscal responsibility that I believe we should be promoting.) Nonetheless, although I disagree with that opinion, I think it is accurate to say that this angered conservatives.
I think the Ron Paul movement focused on putting an end to big spending and growth of the federal government’s reach (among other things) which is being tapped into.
I think the series of policies set into motion last year, bailing out banks and other companies, and then authorizing a large ’stimulus’ bill (which lumped short term spending projects and relief with long term wish list fulfillment for the Democratic party) was a flashpoint.
I think Obama’s ideologic comfort level with redistribution is a big concern for conservatives (manifested, unfortunately in the very non-intellectual arguments of Joe the Plumber, and elevation of his status way beyond what he deserves.) I think that many of us feel that he’s ushering in future tax hikes, in the form of some hidden taxes like cap and trade as well as future increases starting with top earners and gradually working its way down when that no longer generates enough revenue. Meanwhile, he seems determined to expand the numbers of people (voters) who don’t pay any income tax at all- and that number is now dangerously close to 50% of voters (who will no longer be stakeholders in fiscal responsibility as they can vote for spending they desire, paid for by revenue derived from others.)
And yes, I think some of the sentiment reflects partisanship and a liberating effect on conservatives who feel much more comfortable protesting against a Democratic administration than a GOP one.
Comment from Michael van der Galien
Time April 14, 2009 at 12:47 pm PDT
Christine, we had this debate at Dagelijkse Standaard recently. One of the commenters quoted someone (don’t remember who right now) who said that democracy’s weakness is that sooner or later the majority understands it can steal from the richer minority with impunity. At that moment, the person who promises the majority the most candy wins elections.
That’s what you describe as well.
Comment from CStanley
Time April 14, 2009 at 2:17 pm PDT
Yes, there’s a famous quote about that, I’m not sure if it’s correctly attributed, but I think it’s said to come from a guy named Tytler- it’s something along the lines of “A democracy will continue to exist until such time that the majority learns it can vote itself generous gifts from the public treasury.”
Seems logical that that would be a tipping point, because what motivation would people have to vote against spending that they want for their own districts or personal gain, if they don’t have to pay for it? Fiscal responsibility is always a harder sell than high spending is anyway- and that’s even when people do have tax dollars on the line. If it’s someone else’s money, who cares?
Comment from Patch W Adams
Time April 14, 2009 at 3:16 pm PDT
Michael Galien…The Problem with that Debate is that We are a Republic…Not a Democracy.
Big Difference..
Comment from CStanley
Time April 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm PDT
True, Patch- but I think it’s significant to note that some of the same people who have an interest in creating a dependent class of voters are sometimes proponents of abandoning some of the characteristics of ‘Republic’ in favor of a more pure democracy (eg, wanting to abolish the Electoral College, promoting federal government interventions over federalist experimentation by the states, etc.)
Comment from Patch W Adams
Time April 14, 2009 at 3:24 pm PDT
As a Tea Partier I can only Speak for Myself.
The Move to UnConstitutionl Government has been in evidence especially since the New Deal. Every Administration since has done nothing to Correct it, but have instead moved this country a little bit closer to outright Socialism/Communism. The Reason the Tea Parties are happening now is that This Administration has not moved us closer in little steps like past Administrations but Giant Leaps. This sudden Lurch towards the Complete Destruction of the Constitution has awakened Many to the Threat that has always been there…but has not always been obvious.
The Tea Parties are a Call for a Return to Constitutional Government…Taxes and Irresponsible Budget Practices are just symptoms of the larger Problem.
The Parties are Broken…It is Time for New Consitutional Parties to Emerge and Salvage the Greatest Nation on Earth.
Comment from Patch W Adams
Time April 14, 2009 at 3:42 pm PDT
Cstanley Those that do as you describe are not interested in the Constitution or in it’s Preservation. They are interested in Power and the Means to obtain and hold it.
That is the Danger of ” Political Parties”…That they may be more interested in Their Preservation more than the Preservation of the Country or the Constitution.
Which is why having just two Parties is not a Choice but a Danger. The System would be better off with many more Parties that were considered Mainstream instead of the Dreaded Title of “Third Parties” like they were Lepers.
WE are all Americans and we are not all going to agree on everything. But we should always preserve the right to Disagree on anything..no matter who is in Power. But that will only be possible with the Return of Contistutionl Government and the Preservation of the Constitution.
Comment from Garland
Time April 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm PDT
The money spent on Iraq was horribly misspent and a result of pure ideology. The stimulus and bail-outs, while partially flawed in the same respects, do not approach the same severity, and it should be noted that some are using the relative stability in Iraq to partially vindicate Bush’s immense investment of life and money in the invasion – why can’t Obama’s spending get the same perspective? I’m still undecided on whether the protests are spontaneous or the work of some partisan right-wing group, but I mainly feel that in any case both the right and the left aren’t being very credible on government spending or the current protests against it.
Comment from Michael Merritt
Time April 15, 2009 at 4:51 am PDT
CS: I should have added the bailouts to the post. Unlike the left’s traditional narrative, I haven’t found too many conservatives that have supported this corporate welfare. Or, at least, all of it. Ironically, both the left and right seem to stand united in their criticism of it.
Comment from marc
Time April 15, 2009 at 6:31 am PDT
Mr. Obama’s massive spending plans are certainly one cause of the tea parties. The left complains that President Bush spent too much, which is true; however, they consistently fail to mention that Obama plans to leave W. in his dust when it comes to government spending.
Pingback from Cars can get quite the reaction out of people | American Cars
Time April 15, 2009 at 6:31 pm PDT
[...] PoliGazette » Are the Tea Parties A Delayed Reaction? [...]
Comment from Interested
Time April 14, 2009 at 10:05 am PDT
IMO – doesn’t really matter. The left’s crying hypocrisy depends on the believer following two flawed thought processes.
1) that the Left had fiscal restraint during Bush’s term. (They obstructed on everything else but spending)
2) that somehow saying that it happened for 8 years before means no reason to control spending now. This budget is signed, sealed and delivered by the Libs.