Jonathan Rauch has written two very insightful articles for the National Journal about the Tea Party; one focusing on its leaderless anti-organization, and one examining its effects on national politics and particularly the Republican Party.
In looking for precedents to the leaderless group, Jon misses what I think is one of the most relevant, and obvious examples: ACT-UP. Formed formlessly well before the internet, ACT-UP wasn’t an organization, it was an impulse, a reaction against a deadly status quo that wasn’t being reacted to by anyone else. Like the Tea Parties, its fury came from what everyone else was just taking for granted. Its variant affiliates across the country all had the same animating spirit, but acted up in their own unique ways. No one led ACT-UP.
Also like the Tea Parties, ACT-UP had more than its share of members addicted to a theatrical style that crossed over into parody and sometimes developed into actions that were fully offensive. The 1989 invasion of St. Patrick’s Cathedral during mass still stands as one of its signature delinquencies.
But in the end, ACT-UP was successful beyond anyone’s imagination in actually changing federal bureaucracies for the better, and that will remain its legacy – one the Tea Party should take very seriously. Major protests at both the FDA and the NIH, along with sustained follow-up work, led to changes in focus on HIV, and long-term advances in compassionate use of experimental drugs, as well as other institutional innovations that made the bureaucracies more humane and actually helpful. Government changed because of ACT-UP.
The Tea Parties have a more developed infrastructure, but they also have a bigger and more diffuse target – fiscal sanity in a political environment that can’t envision ever spending less. That’s an ambitious undertaking
But the Tea Parties have one other big difference from ACT-UP: a hungry pack of national politicians eager to speak for them. That would be an advantage for any traditional organization, but as Jon notes, the internal contradictions of the Republican party, first synthesized by the sheer magic of Ronald Reagan, and held together ever since by duct tape and Krazy Glue are splitting back into their component and inconsistent parts: the religious right and the small government faction.
You can see the problem as the American Family Association’s increasingly deranged Bryan Fischer tries to co-opt the Tea Party Express’s Amy Kremer. She is as candid as one can imagine when she tells him that she has to disappoint him. If the Tea Party were to include the religious right’s social issues, “this movement is going to fall apart.”
That’s sticking to your guns, but it’s no small fact that she was, at the time, attending the Values Voters Summit. Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial was a religious revival under a Tea Party tent. Despite Kremer’s protestations, she, no less than any current Republican leader, will have to deal with what Karl Rove hath wrought.
I wish the Tea Party well, if they’re really serious about smaller government. I hope they can do better in dealing with the problems of politicized religion than the GOP has. But it’s a heavy lift.
Keep your eyes on the prize, Tea Partiers. Silence = Debt.
9 Comments for “A Spot of Tea”
posted by BobN on
Imagine if ACT UP had had the financial backing the TPers have….
posted by Bobby on
“Imagine if ACT UP had had the financial backing the TPers have….”
—It would have made no difference, money alone can’t buy goodwill. George Soros agenda is not being embraced in spite of him giving millions of dollars to moveon.org, the Center for American Progress, and countless of other progressive organizations.
Take it from me, I’ve worked in advertising, I’ve seen clients spend millions of dollars trying to convince people to buy their products. One of my clients, a real estate developer, went from spending $140 million in advertising to $20 million. They were offering everything to get you to buy a home such as free plasmas, free cars, $3.99 APR the first year, free upgrades but when the economy got crappy and the Chinese drywall scandal broke, everything turned to crap.
The tea parties have something better than money, they have the will of the people. Americans aren’t marxists (except maybe 25% of them), they aren’t socialists, they don’t want free healthcare, they don’t hate the rich. Do a poll, ask your friends how many of them would be willing to pay $10 a gallon to help the environment? Ask your liberals in minivans and SUV’s if they would rather take public transportation? Socialism demands collective sacrifices, how do you sell that in a country where every person feels entitled to do his own thing? Think about it, we don’t even jail homeless people for being homeless, our vagrancy laws are no longer enforced!
The American spirit isn’t “let the government take care of me.” Unlike the Danes, we want more than just to get married and have kids.This is a country of dreamers, of people who want a bigger house, an RV, a powerboat, take the family on a cruise, buy a house in the Hamptons or near Yellowstone Park.
Socialism doesn’t allow dreams. Socialism says: “sure, you won’t starve, you’ll have free healthcare, your college education will be free (if you’re lucky to get accepted), and when you start making money we’re going to take 50% or more of what you make.”
The Tea Party represents a return to those American values that made us great in the first place: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and pride in our heritage. That’s why the movement is so appealing, because there are both republicans and democrats who are sick of the usual hijinks in Washington.
posted by Jorge on
Americans aren’t marxists (except maybe 25% of them)
That’s a pretty heft minority, especially if the other 75% are diffuse.
Fortunately, the percentage of Americans who are Marxists is far smaller. Maybe 25% have Marxist ideals and sympathies.
The Tea Party definitely strikes me as a succesful version of what progressives dream of in striving for a national revolution of social change. Although even the Tea Partiers are not a rainbow coalition.
posted by Jorge on
I stand corrected. Rauch’s second article cites a figure stating 20% of Americans identify themselves as liberal.
And I’ll have you know not all liberals are Marxist sympathizers.
I think Bobby’s panicked cries that the redshirts are coming are much exaggerated.
posted by Bobby on
” I stand corrected. Rauch’s second article cites a figure stating 20% of Americans identify themselves as liberal. And I’ll have you know not all liberals are Marxist sympathizers. I think Bobby’s panicked cries that the redshirts are coming are much exaggerated.”
—-Well, I watch Glenn Beck, and do my own research. That Coons candidate is a self-declared Marxist, so is Van Jones, so is Obama’s father. Of course, not all liberals are Marxists, some don’t even know what Marxist is so they’re easily duped or be “useful idiots” as Stalin used to call them. Either way, I agree with your 20% figure, I’ve seen it before.
By the way, where do you think terms like “fair trade” came from? What kind of political philosophy could inspire Starbucks to pay coffee farmers a higher or “fair” wage than what the market demands? Sounds like Marxism to me, of course, Starbucks isn’t going to declare themselves a Marxist company, because that’s just scary. Instead they’ll simply talk about fair trade and global citizenship.
I also want to say that when Obama says “at some point you have made enough money” he’s talking Marxist philosophy. Let’s just agree on this, when Marxism comes back is not going to be called Marxism. It’s the same reason “global warming” is becoming “climate change,” when one term doesn’t sell, another term replaces it. In advertising we call that “rebranding,” in real life it’s called “hope and change” or whatever slogan the Marxist in chief likes.
posted by Debrah on
That Coons candidate is a self-declared Marxist, so is Van Jones, so is Obama’s father. Of course, not all liberals are Marxists, some don’t even know what Marxist is so they’re easily duped or be “useful idiots” as Stalin used to call them. Either way, I agree with your 20% figure, I’ve seen it before.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL!!!
Bobby, are you sure you’re not Beck’s little brother?
You really need your own radio show. :>)
posted by Amicus on
You are right Debrah, maybe. I mean, in this country, we pass mandatory _for-profit_, _private_ health insurance, yet it is called “Marxist”. That definitely deserves a “show” of some kind, no?
posted by Debrah on
This might explain why the Left is so fascinated with the Tea Party.
Every forum on the internet seems to be talking about them.
The Right’s New Left
Amicus–
Every time Bobby debates the issues, he’s armed with a whole litany of information to buttress his arguments.
You must admit that. :>)
Are you satisfied with the new health-care “reform”?
My insurance premiums went way up, not down.
And I was supposed to have had a “special rate” because of no past health concerns AT ALL.
I’d hate to see the premiums of people who do have a history of illness.
Even many Democrats are peeved off.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, are you sure you’re not Beck’s little brother?
You really need your own radio show. :>)”
—You’re very kind, thanks 😉
“I mean, in this country, we pass mandatory _for-profit_, _private_ health insurance, yet it is called “Marxist”. That definitely deserves a “show” of some kind, no?”
—The average profit of an HMO is barely 3% to 5%. If that wasn’t bad enough, now they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions and children up until age 25. Obamacare care hasn’t even been implemented in its entirety and costs are already going up because the HMO’s have to prepare themselves to face the higher costs imposed upon them. If Obamacare isn’t repealed then you will see private HMO’s going out of business and the government taking them over like they took over GM.
Now I’m not saying that HMO’s are saints, but between dealing with several private companies and one big government I’d rather take my chances with private companies.