Friday, April 10, 2009

Our Tea Party Moment

We are approaching April 15th.

As folks will recall, that's
Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party Day, when conservatives around the country will rally to the banner of limited government. I'm attending my local Tea Party in Santa Ana, the government seat of Orange County. I was just now looking around online to see what kind of attendence numbers are expected for the event. I found a meetup website, "Orange County National Tax Day Tea Party." I've been networking with folks at the page. About 1000 people have confirmed their attendance with this particular group. Andrew Breitbart will give the keynote speech. Here's the flyer:

Photobucket

In any case, as readers may have noticed by the nature of my posting this week, I'm a little taken aback by what's been happening in politics of late. Iowa's gay marriage ruling is frankly unreal to me, especially the actual holding of the court, which showed complete disdain for common sense and tradition. But I've also been concerned with the broader, obvious leftist collapse of respect for and value in America's classic traditions of individualism, constitutionalism, and limited government.

Over at
Michelle Malkin's, Doug Powers is guest blogging, and he shares similar thoughts on the era's social breakdown, and he suggests why the Tea Parties are important:

For me, these tea parties are about putting an end to waste. Not the waste of money (though obviously that’s a major concern), but rather the tragic waste of American ingenuity, innovation, creativity and philanthropy.
Isn't that the stuff that makes this country great and exceptional? And so many of the secular progressives are losing it. They've got no sense of right and goodness in America's history and political culture. Take Senator Charles Schumer, for example. Jillian Bandes, at Townhall, posted on Schumer's recent interview with Rachel Maddow, where he attacks conservatives as deviant obstructionists:

They have nothing positive to say. The world has changed. The old Reagan philosophy which served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right which still believes when the federal government moves, chop off its hands, still believes that, you know, traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over. So they have nothing other than to say no.
There's nothing ambiguous about Schumer's comments (watch the video for his telling gesticulations), but check out Thers at Whiskey Fire, who tries to spin reactions to Schumer's postmodernism as "wingnuttery":

Good Lord! Chuck Schumer hates strong foreign policy and traditional values! Holy shit!

The real fun begins, though,
when another Townhall inmate decides to follow up, and posts a video of the Schumer interview... which clearly shows that when Schumer makes the "traditional values" remark, he does the air quotes gesture, and that when he mentions "strong foreign policy," he smiles and makes a silly kind of fist. Both of these gestures clearly indicate to the non-moron community that his remarks are meant to be taken ironically. (The gob, it is smacked.) Indeed, Schumer is making a pretty banal point, that "conservatives" are reduced to the hysterical peddling of ludicrous cliches, a contention Townhall only manages to confirm. Good one, kids.
Notice the jabs at conservatives as "inmates" and "morons"; but note especially how traditionalism and strength in foreign policy are scourged as "ludicrous cliches."

Or, how about
the Rasmussen poll out this week that found just 53 percent of Americans agreeing that capitalism was preferable to socialism. I noted earlier that I don't read too much into the numbers. We are in an economic recession, so naturally faith in markets will be weaker during a downturn. But support for socialism was particularly high among the young (which I found interesting, for the same cohort is big on support for same-sex marriage). Here's how Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast explains the current youth support for socialism:

Some of the preference for socialism among the young may be simply attributable to age. As my generation knows full well, it's easy to be a socialist when your parents are paying at least some of the bills. But I think there's more to it than just a facile question of generations.

Over nearly three decades, as Reagan Republicanism has largely ruled this country (yes, even during the eight Clinton years), Americans have seen what unfettered, so-called free market capitalism looks like. Until the October 1987 crash, even the post-baby-boomers were supportive of the Doctrine of I Want More. But the financial collapse of 2008 represents the natural outgrowth of deregulated capitalism -- and Americans don't like what they see. The question is whether this translates into support for if not an outright socialist economy, certainly a more egalitarian one with a better safety net than we have now. Young Americans aren't carrying the baggage of the Cold War with them. These are people who grew up in post-Berlin Wall, for whom the boogeyman of Communism evokes no Pavlovian fear response. And if you are just getting started in your life and careers, and you see the wreckage that deregulated capitalism has left in its wake, and you're interacting with people all over the world via Facebook and online games, and seeing how people in Europe have health care even if they can't find a job, you're damn right you're going to think socialism is better.
Well, I personally never considered a realistic understanding of the threat of communist expansionism worldwide as "Cold War baggage"; and this notion of "deregulated capitalism" as the source of the nation's ills is completely bereft of facts (one look at Barney Frank will tell you that). But the comments from Charles Schumer, as well as both the posts at Whiskey Fire and Brilliant at Breakfast, serve as perfect indicators of the kind of ideological thinking prevalent on today's left.

Schumer's a key example of today's Democratic Party leadership, with his anything-goes moralism and defeatism in foreign policy; and the left bloggers offer nothing but nihilism to the debate, for they don't understand what makes this country tick.

For me, the Tea Parties are not about a "revolution" to overthrow the United States government, like Markos Moulitsas has alleged. The Tea Parties represent a political uprising of the conservative grassroots of this nation. People are getting active. They are returning to the principles of the Founders, principles of limits on governmental power, and a belief in free markets and free peoples. The members of the left denounce the Tea Party movement at their peril. This is the moment. This is the return of the conservative right wing of American politics, and the return of moral clarity and good to the nation's polity. Note as well, that the economy is already
starting to make a comeback, so combined with the growing Tea Party protests movement, it's going to be even harder for the Obama administration to justify the continued socialization of the economy.

Note in conclusion, that I do not believe, as does British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, in his essay today at The Guardian, that capitalism is "bankrupt." When all is said and done - and the economic histories are written of the recession of 2008 - we'll likely understand the current downturn as another deep trough in the nation's history of economic cycles; and as traumatic as its been for many people across the land, the recession - and especially the political responses in Washington - will provide positives opportunities for the natural recuperative power of "creative destruction" in this phenemonal American marketplace of over 300 million people.

I can't wait for April 15th!

See also, No Sheeples Here, "The Second American Revolution—What Will You Do Without Freedom?", Midnight Blue, "A Tea Party in West Chester, Pa," and Legal Insurrection, "Tea Parties Are Sooo Scaaary."

10 comments:

  1. thanks for this, donald! i hope the tea parties get the expected turnout!

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I see it, the Tea Party movement grew out of opposition to the continual and continuing bailouts of multinational corporations, begun by the Bush administration and taken up without a lost moment by the Obama administration. That is an even more perverse socialism in which massive profits are privatized (see the recent Wells Fargo reports), while losses are subsidized by the tax payer (TARP, TARP II etc.). In the opposition to this continuity of policy, from Repubs to Dems, there is a glimmer of hope for a stronger opposition to the two party system itself, which feeds off the taxpayer to the benefit of the parties' big corporate donors (on Wall St!), people have realized that their interests are not represented by the corporatist duopoly of Republicrats and Demoblicans.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post!My hope is that the idea of fiscal responsibility the Tea Parties support will translate into vote for representatives that believe the same.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm confident things are going to grow, Skye! This is the best feeling I've had about politics since Obama was elected.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The young are characterized as inconsistent here because they lean to socialism while favoring same-sex marriage. But conservatives are also inconsistent in favoring a free market but insisting on laws to impose their particular morality on everyone. What is needed is a stronger voice to free both areas -economy and personal/social life - from curtailment of freedom by government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Len ... a few questions:

    1> Just HOW are conservatives imposing their morality upon you?

    2> Conversely, have you ever considered that some of the "pushback" against the conservative worldview is an attempt to impose progressive "morality" upon our society, in a way that squelches future criticism of such "morality"?

    2> Could it be that some of the areas of "moral imposition" you are concerned about, are instead areas where imprudent conduct is being proscribed against ... conduct that objectively works against maintaining the health of a rights-respecting society?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rich Casebolt -

    Thanks for your response. Of course many conservatives often think their positions to be objective standards - creationism, opposition to equal treatment for gays, the catastrophic drug war, etc. But you need only look at the very common statement among conservatives "this is a Christian nation", implying that values as defined and interpreted from the bible should provide the outline of our laws. In general, I find that liberals (and libertarians) more frequently believe that laws can be defined objectively and values are more individual. Laws do not exist to institutionalize values but rather to permit individuals to live and trade together on a level playing field.

    This is, of course, a more complex issue than a comment here or there, as you know.

    ReplyDelete