Answer: Nobody really knows, least of all the very activists who identify with the “tea-party” movement that has become a fixture in American politics over the past year. A recent article in the New York Times describes how its members have arrived at a sort of torch-and-pitchfork consensus that the best way to stop the establishment is to change it from the “ground up”, by becoming active as party precinct captains, committee members and other local functionaries with leverage over the Republican primary process.
The original Tea Partiers dressed as Indians and fooled nobody; today's "tea partiers" manage to fool themselves without costumes
If the rebels can take the precinct, the thinking goes, then the state and the national GOP (with its highbrow socialist “enablers”) are sure to follow.
Yet these people are still very much rebels without a cause. The Times article describes a movement that ranges from Ted Kaczynski-esque militiamen to desperate housewives looking for an outlet, but none have anything resembling a policy position. The Teapublican knows, more or less, what he’s against (“big government”, liberals, gays, Obama, Wall Street bailouts, taxes, abortion, the Mexicans, the Chinese, science, “world government”) and thanks to the power of the internet, he knows he’s not alone. But as of yet he doesn’t seem to know much else. Populist range and reactionary anger, feelings of economic anxiety and government betrayal are emotions, not ideas. The greatest irony in all this is that the tea partiers’ polar opposites in the Democratic Party are horrified by the unlettered hordes of right-wingers, but fall for much of the same hysteria themselves (picked up a Rolling Stone lately?). Of course, the bottom line is that zealots don’t win elections because they are by definition outside the mainstream. Tea Party poster child Doug Hoffman couldn’t win last November in a rural district with Leave it to Beaver demographics, and I would bet Michael Moore couldn’t command a majority in San Francisco. But it is the Republicans who have been far more explicit in pandering to their fringe set as part of a loyal “base,” and they seem sure to suffer the consequences.
Very insightful and outright hilarious article. I agree that this has been an emotional, not an ideological outpouring (because in principal, almost everyone on the political spectrum is uncomfortable with running a massive deficit and huge bonuses going to AIG executives). Ultimately, Tea Partyers are probably too politically diffuse (and far from the mainstream, as you mentioned) to be truly effective (the Democrats were historically destined to lose seats this year anyway). Still, as I mentioned in the Blue Line blog this week, the fact that Obama has been unable to capitalize on populist anger is important. He’s largely been portrayed as out of touch with middle American interests, and that will drastically hurt him in 2012 swing states that turned over in to the Democratic side in ’08 (Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, etc.)
You seem to say that Republicans pandering to fringe voters is politically dangerous. But is it? I would argue that they have much greater success doing so than Democrats (with Socialists, Naderites, Marijuana Party advocates, and others.)
Ronald Reagan, who was considered pretty far to the right on economic issues during his presidency, is still widely loved throughout the Republican party (and among some “Reagan” Democrats.) Clinton was only able to stay in power by constantly playing the center and making breaks to the staunch opposition Gingrich Republicans. With his supermajority in the balance (as Coakley and Brown run neck and neck for Ted Kennedy’s former seat in Massachusetts) is Obama condemned to the same fate?
Good work! Those dudes at your competition (I think you know who they are) don’t even have a clue! Keep it up! I have a Political Commentary site of my own at White Rabbit Cult… I will place a link back to your blog. Well Wishes!