My goal: Understanding the Tea Party

My main goals for this blog have been to question and clarify my own thoughts on politics, to research, to share the insights from that research, and to get opinions from other readers.

One question that has a big impact on politics of the last few years is the meaning of the Tea Party movement. I've been trying for a long time to understand it from the inside, but also as an outside impartial observer. I also want to examine connections, if any, between the tea party movement and increasing partisanship, which is a critically important topic in its own right.

I want to examine the origins of the Tea Party, the meanings of their slogan "Take back the country," and perhaps other topics as time goes on. Here are my posts so far:

• Advice for Tea Partiers who fear growing minority influence
• The organizational origins of the Tea Party
• How bipartisanship fell apart in 2009
• How to be a well-behaved political minority
• The seeds of the Tea Party in 2008

History for Amnesiacs: The Origins of the Tea Party

I started with the question of how Obama's bipartisanship died, but that led very quickly to questions of how the Tea Party started. Were these people who grew tired of Obama's partisanship and organized marches and shout-downs at town halls?

I was surprised at what I found out. The main Tea Party organizers were already in communication with each other in February 2009. Separately, FreedomWorks was organizing grassroots groups against "the Obama agenda" during January 2009 in Virginia and Florida. A woman who attended the FreedomWorks seminar in Tampa organized a protest against Obama's stimulus proposal on February 10 and received national coverage on (wait for it)... Fox News. In Seattle, a local conservative blogger planned an anti-stimulus rally on February 16, and got national attention from Michelle Malkin.

When Rick Santelli yelled on CNBC about subsidizing your neighbor's mortgage when he has a extra bathroom that you don't have, and said he would hold a Chicago tea party in July, the conservatives were ready the next day (Feb. 20) to follow up on his words. Through a large, organized conference call (about 50 activists), they picked a date for multi-city demonstrations one week later on February 27, 2009. They already had their local networks, and turned out an estimated 10,000 protesters that day. Though the protests didn't garner much media attention, the conservative groups remained active and planned even larger protests for April 15, 2009. They also attracted more established conservatives, such as Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Fox News. That is part of the story of how the Tea Party was born.

So, for my original question: Did the original Tea Party organizers start because they grew tired of Obama's partisanship? No. They were primed to protest even before Obama took office. They didn't even give him a month before they planned actions.

But another question is whether Obama and Congress ever tried to reach out to the GOP and act in a bipartisan way. Did they have a chance but blew it? Or were the compromises never going to be enough? That's a big question. (Answered, more or less, here.)

Nashville TN Tea Party, February 27, 2009

"I wish they would have something like this within driving distance for me here in PA. Generally the Harrisburg (capital) radio station's talk radio guys do a good job of rallying up the troops. Keep shining the spotlight of the truth on these guys. Good job." -- Dave

Extras:  Tea Party timeline, pre-Tea Party conservative response to Obama.

Getting Acquainted with Your New Minority Status

The white, christian majority in this country, being the long-time majority, doesn't have the experience to handle minority status graciously. I, on the other hand, grew up in a family that was proud of its recent immigrant history, in an area that had seen waves of immigration. So I have great appreciation for the ethnic mixer in this country. But I don't have a clue what it feels like to be in the majority.

Maybe I can help the white majority make a graceful transition into minority status. First some reassurance about being a minority:

• You don't automatically lose your culture when you become a minority. You just share it with fewer people, but it's still very vibrant. You can see this is true if you visit any cultural fair near you. You'll get to see and sample the ethnic food, the favorite music, maybe even see the fancy dress, but most of all the pride in a unique cultural identity. 
• Being a minority is not being embattled. You don't have to fight to survive when you become a minority, or there would be fewer minorities and whites wouldn't be facing this question. The days of genocide in the US are over, so you won't be targeted for death or beatings.
• You don't have to worry about your culture, your lives, your limbs, so what's left? You may worry about losing your white, christian advantages, which weren't fair anyway, so they don't count. The only thing left to worry about is your comfort in a not-so-white world. That's actually good news. It's easy to survive a little loss of comfort.

So if the biggest problem you'll encounter is being uncomfortable, let me help you some more with my guide to how to be a well-behaved demographic minority:

• Being a minority, you aren't part of a group that owns everything or nearly everything. If you are used to thinking "this is mine" as in "my park," "my street," "my school," "my highway," or "my country," stop. It isn't just yours, not like your house where everything is yours to play with or break. 
• You are now clearly sharing with lots of people. It's like being a guest in a big table that includes a lot of new people, and you all have to act respectful to each other and get along. So if you've been a brat about being white and the top of the heap, you're not on top anymore. No one is. You're all at the same table, so be nice with those knives and forks.
• Realize that most places are neutral territory, hopefully by mutual agreement. You are sharing all these public spaces, so share nicely. Don't insult other people, don't expect them to be just like you, and take turns. One weekend the Puerto Rican Cultural Society uses the park, the next weekend is the Columbus Festival. You can visit each other's festival or not. It's a choice, not a requirement. You don't have to like it, but don't try to stop it.
• Some places aren't neutral territory. Instead they are your home-base. In your church or your house, what you do (or what they do) is nobody else's business as long as nobody gets hurt.
• Most of all, don't try to adjust the demographics. Don't pass white-only emigration laws or massacre people. Don't try to tip the demographics by having lots more children. A baby race is the demographic equivalent of an arms race. Believe me, that approach hasn't done good anywhere. Look at Israel as an example.

Please follow my advice and take my word--it is entirely possible to be a happy, healthy minority in this country. It's part of what makes America great.

EXTRAS. Being a minority: 

"Sometimes it can be alienating, at work, at school, at social events when you are the only minority there... It's always something that's on your mind... Mostly it's like being anyone else though."

"... it is like a sentence because we are stamped with the word "minority" as though we aren't apart of the "acceptable" population."

"I have faced hatred, and insults based upon religion."

 Fears:

"This is why it is more important than ever for whites to recognize this and make a conscious effort to preserve and protect our race, culture, and heritage before it is eventually gone."

"...close the border already!! we need a passport to leave our house!!"

"You have this perception out there that whites are no longer in control or the majority."

"Will they suffer a similar fate to that of the whites in South Africa?"

On the Republican Menu: Just the leftovers

The low caliber of the Republican candidates is proving itself again. Today, I watched a compilation of clips from a Rick Perry speech last Friday where he seemed drunk.  Bachmann, Newt, Santorum ... nobody wants these egomaniacs with no realistic sense of themselves to be president. It would be too dangerous.

This should be a great year to run for president as a Republican. Then why is the field so bad? Because of the Tea Party. Romney is the only major candidate not pandering to them. I suspect that other potential candidates couldn't stomach the political atmosphere. They weren't prepared to spew hate the way the Tea Party demands, and they didn't want to be the Tea Party's target either.

Does the Tea Party run the Republicans now, or is it just the only part with a voice that still works? I think it's time for Republicans to push back. Some sane Republican should talk some sense--talk respectfully about Obama's successes and failures, talk about how to compromise on deficit reduction and tax reform. Instead of having 8 flavors of Not-Romney, we should have at least 4 flavors of Not-Tea-Party. That would be a Republican race that I and most of the country would cheer on. As it is, we're laughing, or just shaking our heads. 

P.S. I know these ideas aren't news. However, today it's all I can think about, so I'm exorcising it onto my blog. That's part of what my blog is for.

Extras: Flashback 2008, no more hacks, this devastating bit from Jon Stewart that I've cited elsewhere in the blog and is completely relevant here too.

The Usurpers

The cry "We're going to take back our country" is one I heard frequently from tea partiers. The sense is that some (usually specified) elected officials are illegitimate usurpers of that office. The implied meaning in  'take back the country' is usually electoral, but violence, or a second amendment solution, lurks in the background

The idea that elected officials are not illegitimate holders of their elected office can come from concerns about the fairness of the election or about the officials themselves. It's often mixed up in the believers' heads. Obama was elected by fraud, he's also not a natural-born American, and no one with his political philosophy should ever be elected.

Graphic:xark.typepad.com

So Obama is treated like a usurper. But Clinton was also treated like a usurper, and there's no doubt that he was a natural-born American. I think the concerns about fraud and Obama's citizenship are just smokescreens for the real reason people don't want him as president--that they don't want someone with his politics in the White House. Therefore, any Democratic president is going to get this treatment--the constant complaints, the attacks on his legitimacy, the insults like "traitor," and the calls to impeach.

Clinton got it too, and it was surprising in its virulence at the time. Hillary called it a "vast rightwing conspiracy," but it actually became normal operating procedure for Clinton's GOP opponents, and the machinery hasn't ever stopped. Now Obama is the target, along with his senior staff, particularly Eric Holder for some reason.

Bear in mind that here can easily be an unending series of complaints about any official since none of us is perfect or all-powerful or able to accomplish everything within our purview. I think the Obama administration has been relatively clean, which is why Operation Fast and Furious is still such an item of anger. It's the biggest club with which to beat the Obama administration, and it isn't that big (in my subjective opinion), especially since it began under President Bush in 2006.

I wonder about this sense that any Democratic president is a usurper. It can feel that the president doesn't have much support if you live in a deep-red state or receive your political information in a partisan echo chamber. Many people, on the right, left, and middle, thin that they are actually in the majority if only:

• The media wasn't so biased.
• The media would get the truth out there.
• Voting fraud was eliminated.
• Stupid voters weren't allowed to vote.
• Freeloaders weren't allowed to vote.
• Immigration laws were enforced.

The belief that your ideas are superior and would win a electorate majority if only [something] is common enough. I just don't know why it persists in the face of election results. Why is there the sense that you are part of the "silent majority" (Nixon) or the real Americans (Palin), and those others are not?

The echo chamber of media and the politics of the people around you with can certainly reinforce that idea, and Fox News and other right-wing outlets do plenty of conscious reinforcement. But I think there's more. There's a kind of resentment at work. It's resentment of elites, particularly in non-conservative media and in academia, who have used their power to stifle. Many people feel stifled, belittled, and embattled. It's no wonder they want to take their country back. That's how anyone feels when they're shouted down, or just perceive that kind of treatment. So they turn their resentment on these elites and their allies, the Democrats.

I don't have a quick solution to this. But I want to remind people that civil discourse and true listening are lacking, and we see the outcome of this situation and probably thousands of others.

  Not a bull's eye for the topic, but a great graphic for 

"take our country back" from rustbeltradical.wordpress.com/tag/paul-street/

Extras:
Type "most Americans want" into Google to see what phrases come up in auto-complete.

Short: Miles apart on regulation

"The reductions of toxic pollution required by the pending “Mercury and Air Toxics” standard would save as many as 17,000 lives every year by 2015 and prevent up to 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms." -National Resources Defense Council

"If enacted, the regulations would lead to nationwide employment losses totaling 1.44 million job-years by 2020 and increase Americans’ average electricity bills by 11.5 percent. In some parts of the United States, rates would climb by almost 24 percent." - A coal-power industrial group

One article talks only about the health benefits of a set of regulations. One article talks only about the economic drawbacks. Where can we go for a balanced discussion? None of the top 20 Google suggestions help.

Funny deja vu moment courtesy of Rick Perry

I was addicted to Intrade 3 years ago--tracking Obama's strength all the way to his victory on Election Day. Then I stopped being such a political junkie, started watching Lost, or something. But today, I remembered it in a flash of inspiration. Let me set the scene.

I'm reading of the latest blunder from Rick Perry. He's trying to restore his support, so he talks about how much he loves guns and hunting. This is the train of my thought:

1. Of course Perry loves guns.
2. He probably loves hunting up at N*****head camp.
3. He's not too smart getting people thinking about that again.
4. I better check Intrade and see how Romney is doing.

Romney is doing great--his stock is up above $6 a share. Check it out and see where the other candidates are.