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.