The tea party will never be a Party
Patrick Allitt, historian and sometime CWL writer and FCRC panelist, has written widely about conservatives and conservative Americans. He has a witty and informative essay in the National Interest telling us why the tea party will not ascend to the heights of U.S. politics, namely partydom. His succinct account of our history is illustrative and in an odd way reassuring.
His opening: “IN 1773, Sam Adams led the Boston Sons of Liberty, thinly disguised as Mohawk Indians, onto three British freighters, seized their cargo of imported Indian tea and threw it into the harbor. They were afraid that the tea, unexpectedly cheap because it had been exempted from the usual British reexport tariff, would tempt Massachusetts consumers to abandon their principled resistance to taxation without representation. A later historian jokingly referred to the event as the “Boston Tea Party.” Today, anti-big-government agitators are channeling their ancestors’ ire as they build a Tea Party movement of their own. Some pundits speculate that the group could end up forming a new political party for the first time in well over a century, to rank with the Democrats and Republicans. They too must be kidding. Everything we know about political parties tells us that the Tea Party is not one and is not going to become one.”
The whole thing here: http://nationalinterest.org/article/how-to-succeed-in-politics-3547
That’s a terrible article, praising what’s wrong with American party politics.
The author claims that politicians of both major US parties are alike. True. But then adds:
“All …favor full employment, … all believe in universal education, all favor due process of law, … and so on.”
False. Tremendously false.
There is a distinct lack of politics in America, i.e. there’s no way for citizens to democratically set a course for their country that doesn’t serve the interests of profiteering. Sure, there’s a lot of chatter about what’s going on in Washington. That’s the only ‘politics’ we citizens are allowed to enjoy.
The winner-take-all model of American elections kills political discourse by removing any redoubt for dissent. Both major parties have adopted, for example, the lawless policy of torturing and imprisoning people without charges or trial for the rest of their lives – and this from a President who is a constitutional lawyer from Harvard Law. Where is the political space for changing this?
The parties are much more sophisticated than they were in 1896, when the Democrats usurped the major issue of the nascent Populist Party by nominating William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was the real thing while Obama is totally phony. “We will close Guantanamo Bay within one year.” (1/22/2009) Not only is it still open but closing it only means opening the same operation inside the United States (the new prison is being built in Illinois, total coincidence, of course).
No party would make the mistake of nominating a person who honestly stood for some principle today. Is this a virtue, as the author claims?
Not sure he’s praising it (or perhaps with faint praise); he’s reminding tea party hopefuls not to put too much stock in their future as a party, based on past history. A little study of French political history (or even Italian) might soften your dismay at ours.
Good points, Margaret. Yes, I know that there’s no perfect, incorruptible parliament somewhere to look on as a model. I reserve the right to attack regardless!
However, I still submit that the US is exceptional. In the 2008 presidential race, an incredible $2.4 BILLION was spent, all candidates combined. It adds up to campaign artistry creating an extremely expensive trompe l’oeil of real politics. The best in the world, of course.
I hate to be rude, really!, But how old are you. And give some account of your study of history.
Brian, here’s another angle on US politics. In the 2008 presidential race, which lasted over a year, candidates combined to spend about $8 per person ($2.4 billion divided by 300 million). If we divide by number of votes cast in November 2008 we get combined expenditures of about $22 per person. (Of course, that leaves out all the primary and caucus votes cast.)
In any case, it is an unusual (exceptional, to use your word) way to elect a president, at least by comparison with most modern industrial democracies.
My reading of history is that the solution to bad politics is (alas) good politics. The same work of building relationships, identifying and developing leaders, negotiating agreed goals, and amassing enough power (people and money) to enact those goals (whether it’s closing Guantanamo, cutting taxes for the rich, universal health care coverage, changing a neighborhood zoning code or something else).
The alternative to politics is war.
Lawrence Goodwyn’s “Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America” (published in 1976) is still a terrific case study of one of the largest and most successful (though ultimately failed) challenges to the two parties we have today. His theory of the successive stages required to build a mass movement that leads to change in a large, diverse nation is well worth considering.
“I hate to be rude, really!, But how old are you. And give some account of your study of history.”
This is a rude question, and you should just state what you’re trying to imply.
Well thank you Emily Post!
My question is pretty clear: is Brian very young? Still a high school student? College? Perhaps only been through one election cycle?
I did not think much of the article. There is no need to worry or be frightened by the Tea Party, or as Patrick Alitt refers”indignant citizens”. (SAT definition: having such anger and scorn as is aroused by meanness or wickedness). I suppose the definition refers to the wickedness and meanness within the indignant person. God forbid that there be wickedness or meanness in either the Democrat or Republican party
The Tea Party does not need to form a national party so Democrats and Republicans can rest easy. It is already doing its job by having people express their immature emotions as Alitt does: “Sarah Palin, the pinup girl”.
And do any one of you want to pay more taxes? Feel free to do so. Do not drag some of us along with you! The number of federal government employees can be cut in half in this country. That’s the first place to start.
JIM S: “The Tea Party does not need to form a national party so Democrats and Republicans can rest easy.” I think that’s Allitt’s point…to varying degrees one or both political parties absorb (or co-opt, if you prefer) the issues that have brought about the protests of “indignant” citizens.
On more taxes: I’m not against taxes that are well spent…but reading the other day that Alaska, the indignant state when it comes to the federal government, gets more per capita federal dollars than any other state gave me pause. What are they doing with all of that money? Hiring federal employees?
“The number of federal government employees can be cut in half in this country.” As we wind down wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if we are able to avoid further such adventures, we probably could cut the number in half….and then there are the overpaid contractors who could go too. Can I assume that’s what you have in mind?
About the pin-up crack, I too was a bit surprised by that; Allitt is a scholar and a gentleman. So what inspired, or provoked, him? All I could think is that like the Vargas pin-ups of WWII fame, Sarah Palin poses in an apparently innocent way while making an appeal (subliminal perhaps) on behalf of her physical attractiveness. BUT that was the best I could come up with, by way of explanation.
Margaret – I was re-emphasizing his premise, but he is writing for a reason, to assure the frightened that it is not going to happen – my message was to the fearful.
No State acquired more money or jobs than West Virginia over the last 30 years – I know Sarah did not get Alaska the money.
Having worked for the feds for over 20 years, only half the people do all the work. Supervising federal employees is a nightmare and the agencies’ work in Strategic Planning and Human Resource management is atrocious. That’s where the money goes.
And I won’t speak of the attractiveness of Sarah since my beautiful wife is nearby – thinking about getting a pair of new eyeglasses though.
Progressive lenses are very handy!
“Having worked for the feds for over 20 years, only half the people do all the work.” This reminds me of a joke that John XXIII is reported to have told when asked, “How many people work in the Vatican”? Answer: “About half.”
Mrs. Steinfels – Emily Post was great, but Miss Manners is more funny.
Example: Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.
http://nickelkid.net/quotes/manners.html
Recent stuff about TPiers:
Latest NYT take.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18zernike.html
Like progressives, many conservatives don’t like to see TPiers become an influential party.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244000/progressive-lessons-and-tea-party-takeover-matt-kibbe
I found this among the best analyses.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5387
Yes the Hoover Institute piece is well worth a read. Many smart observations, but given his thesis–TP members don’t care what the intellectual elite think (if they even know what they think)–it’s unlikely that TPs will read it or care, if they do. I am dubious of his claim that this is “a revolt of common sense.”
“About half” (Pope John XXIII response) – I was right then and he was infallible – any connection (hmm)- I will check into those “progressive lenses” – didn’t know progressives were so funny – I thought progressives used a monocle.
Progressive lenses help you to see far, near, and in the middle.
Jim S. says “The number of federal government employees can be cut in half in this country. That’s the first place to start.” Yes that idea is part of the Tea Party agenda. Except the Tea Party really doesn’t want to cut in half the military, DOD, FBI.CIA, Federal marshalls. Fed Prisons . Border Patrol. Justice dept .DEA, Coast Guard,Federal Protective service, the part of the Dept of Energy that makes,protects nuclear weapons. etc. etc etc. . …notice all of these Federal employees have one thing in common…they can carry guns.. and that is no coincidence at all. Also no squawk about ‘civilian contractor gunman’ hired in Iraq and Afghanistan. and who knows where else..
Ed – I worked for the Justice Dept – if the Tea Party knew what I know, they would want to cut some of them too – the Central and Regional Office positions need to be cut – fat cats making lots of money are situated there in do-nothing jobs
Abe R., – thank you.
What an awful forum dotCommonweal is. I chose not to reply to challenges after M. O’Brien Steinfels read my first and second posts and then decided to challenge my maturity.
Steinfels: “My question is pretty clear: is Brian very young? Still a high school student?”
Ugly and pathetic.
Well then, my apologies.
The reason the Politburo (Republican/Democrat duopoly) is irreformable, and that there is no hope for US politics, was clearly and definitively explained by the late, great U.S. Senator from Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy in his 1980 classic, “The Ultimate Tyranny,” which explains why a third party can never wage a successful election campaign. The courts, the legislatures and the bureaucracies will never allow the two parties to be challenged.
Brian,
I think you make too much of Margaret’s legitimate question. These exchanges are more like blind conversations. We make judgments when we talk face to face. The only way to make such legitimate judgment is by asking.
There is nothing “ugly or pathetic” about it. The dotCommonweal blog is one of the most respectful places of well informed comments on the web. Whether secular or religious the dominant form of comment is angry and ill-informed.
Given your sense of outrage I can only assume you are highly sensitive regarding your age where ever on the scale of 1 to 100 it may be. Perhaps there is a need to rethink your reaction before you take your implied leave.
Those of you still with the conversation may want to look at the Times poll cited above by Historyman; it does make you wonder what Tea Party members are so riled up about. A brief quote:
“…the Tea Party supporters now taking to the streets aren’t the ones feeling the pain.
In the results of the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, they are better educated and wealthier than the general public. They are just as likely to be employed, and more likely to describe their economic situation as very or fairly good.
Yet they are disproportionately pessimistic about the economy and the nation. A breathtaking 92 percent said the country is on the wrong track.
What accounts for this gap between how they are faring and how they feel the country is faring? …”
The link again: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/18zernike.html
As a non-American, the so called Tea Party ethos/politics is not confined to America. Canada, the UK, and Australia all now have minority governments. The very same forces are at work in each of those countries. The fundamental factor grows out of the insecurity brought about by too rapid a sense of change and a sense that everything is out of control.
Here a boatload of refugee Tamils are causing a furor similar to Pier51 with founding principles flying out the window from similarly irresponsible leadership.
What is unique to the USA is that a third party has not been able to grow out of such anger and frustration during the past Century.
Margaret – I laugh because you never give up searching for what is the matter with people who belong to the Tea Party – God forbid that a Tea Party member look ahead and see disaster coming – what difference does it make that they are doing OK and have a job – they want it to be the same for their children and grandchildren and for others -and God forbid a Tea Party person would do something for somebody else.
I laugh at myself too… Though it’s not so much what is the “matter with people who belong to the TP” as why? what’s the problem? In the case of the Times survey, they seem in general to be well off, employed or well retired, probably live in nice houses, and yet the protest signs and statements give a sense of people who are personally angry. So….I just would like to know as my mother used to say, “What are you complaining about now.”
From time to time, I also wonder why people belong to any political party…but that’s a discussion for another post.
Thus far, the Tea Party’s importance seems to be more intra-GOP than for the electorate as a whole.
Although, we’ve seen that, in a closely divided electorate, the side whose followers have the most passion usually wins a general election.
I have to agree with Margaret. Why indeed all the anger and frustration? For example America has “have” and “have not” States; Canada has ‘have” and “have not” provinces and the EU has “have” and “have not” Nation-States. The ‘haves’ add more to their “nation’s” economy than than they put out and some of that is redistributed to the “have-nots” through various federal redistribution systems.
What I am seeing now is a break down in this long held form of the “common good” of a nation. Why? Why now?
This is doubly compounded by the so called “cultural wars” lead primarily by “fundamentalist and evangelical” religious groups which in turn are exploited every Party’s political gain. Of course this is always most apparent in America with its less restrained discourse which as always verges on the vulgar.
That is not meant as an insult, just an outsiders observation. Of course we have our own share of vulgar commentators who desire to mimic the American model. As Anne says….sigh!
“In the case of the Times survey, they seem in general to be well off, employed or well retired, probably live in nice houses, and yet the protest signs and statements give a sense of people who are personally angry. So….I just would like to know as my mother used to say, “What are you complaining about now.””
Margaret – don’t you agree, though, that people can become angry (in a good way), and motivated to work for change, even when an issue doesn’t affect them very much personally, but because they are empathetic for the struggles of others, and believe that underlying principles are important?
Tea Partiers, in my observation, seem to have led fiscally responsible lives, in their personal lives and in their businesses. They know that it isn’t just prudent to do so – there are important principles of maturity, responsibility and stewardship behind living this way. It is part of what it means for a human to realize the fullness of humanity. And so it just seems *wrong* that the government lives in a way that is immature, irresponsible and selfish.
Tea Partiers are adults, and the government are high school sophomores.
Jim, Interesting. If accurate. There are moment when I fear that the whole country has turned back to being high school sophmores.
JP: “Tea Partiers, in my observation, seem to have led fiscally responsible lives, in their personal lives and in their businesses. They know that it isn’t just prudent to do so – there are important principles of maturity, responsibility and stewardship behind living this way. It is part of what it means for a human to realize the fullness of humanity. And so it just seems *wrong* that the government lives in a way that is immature, irresponsible and selfish.”
When I went back and read you again, I thought “wait a minute,” that describes me and most of the people I know. There’s got to be something more here.
Is it just that I think that government is NOT “immature, irresponsible and selfish,” and TPs do?
“I thought “wait a minute,” that describes me and most of the people I know. There’s got to be something more here. ”
I’m presuming you don’t mean “immature, irresponsible and selfish.” :-). I don’t doubt you’ve led a responsible life, and I also don’t doubt that keeping Commonweal afloat required a lot of mature decision-making.
As for the TPers: it’s frequently noted that they’re somewhat of a hodge-podge of animating ideas and principles, but I believe that the deficit-hawk strain is uppermost (competing with the Libertarian). Rick Santelli’s famous CNBC rant that marked the movement’s inception is, I believe, essential to understanding the movement, it’s good and bad sides.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
As for the government: perhaps my view is jaundiced by having to watch the Illinois legislature in action – they have, over many years, dug themselves into a fiscal hole that they will never, ever be able to dig themselves out of. (We’re basically California on the southwest coast of Lake Michigan).
Government needs to be treated by the electorate the way an addicted teen-ager needs to be treated by her parents – with love, but it needs to be very tough love.
The US has had a history of “third parties”, although they seemed to come in bunches (so some were actually fourth or fifth or sixth parties), such as toward the end of the nineteenth century, and in the 1920′s, and they were both reactionary and progressive, or both at the same time. Always, they argued that the two major parties failed the electorate by being too corrupt and too similar (which were generally true). Failure of all of these additional parties arose from two common characteristics: 1. most Americans don’t vote and, in the end, many of those who did went for the middle, and, in a related aspect, 2. the other parties attracted loads of nuts who came to predominate and drove out good politics, whereupon they shrivelled to nothing. There are two wild cards these days: 1.rampant and broadcast Evangelism with the capacity and determination to herd masses of no-nothings (that was once a party, too!) in busloads to the polls and overwhelm good sense, and 2. the enduring popularity of ‘rugged invidualism’ which, then and now, is manifest mostly in cheap, greedy, malicious–all very Christian–self indulgence: pay no taxes, get everything for free, whine about everything, trash everybody else, and entertain yourself and those of your relatives who can still stand you with endless conspiracy theories just invented. It has to be said of the latter, though that it is not at all new in American politics. That leaves large-scale and middle-class Evangelism as the sole novel characteristic. Nevertheless, the Tea Party (which isn’t) may disintegrate (even as did, say, the party started by Father Coughlin and his widely broadcast “Shrine of the Little Flower”), because its members, incapable of rational thought, couldn’t stand each other, either.
The whole so-called Tea Party movement seems to me more of an attempt at re-branding Republicans following the political disaster(s) of the Bush regime.
Same old, same old…except this time around they are being less concerned about displaying their racist roots in a mainly Southern political culture.
A very interesting aspect of the Tea Parties (there are really several different varieties) is the money stream which originates with the most reactionary right-wing industrialists – we talking John Birch Society types!
Think of the movie, “Wag the Dog.” This whole Tea Party movement is attempt to confuse and distract low-information voters.