Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Tea Party Movement Hits Puberty.

I'm sure the entire country is familiar with the various recent controversies surrounding the Tea Party and the accusations of racism against it, particularly by the NAACP; and the ensuing coverage of the firing of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod and the Tea Party Federation's explusion of Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express. There are many opinions to be had on the various events and what has really precipitated them vs what is being said in the press, but the purpose of this post is to argue that these events are evidence that the Tea Party has matured into a steady political coalition that other political players are forced to take seriously rather than attempt to marginalize and pretend it is a "fringe" or "radical" movement that won't last or will be swallowed up by existing entities.


Accusations

As stated in my first post regarding the Tea Party, accusations are usually the first sign a political movement is succeeding and the elements it threatens find it credibly dangerous. Remember the last time you saw a negative campaign ad against a 3rd party candidate in the US? Me neither. Furthermore, the more ridiculous and marginalizing the accusations against a new movement, the more credible their threat typically is. The status quo has expended immense resources trying to define the Tea Party before it was able to define itself, mostly sticking to accusations of terrorism and racism. But this "he's the greater evil!" strategy borrowed from the dichotomous political campaigns both major parties have gotten so used to has backfired colossally, succeeding only in driving traffic to Tea Party websites and ensuring it coverage and attention in the media, which has alllowed it not to only define itself but enough exposure that the government and other organizations have no choice but to take the effects of the Tea Party's statements on their PR seriously.

I'm not entirely sure what to attribute this backfiring to, but two factors stand out to me. The first is the ease of information dissemination on the internet - marginalizing someone on TV or in a national newspaper just does not lend the same results it did 20 years ago because people can type the name into Google and access various viewpoints and some factual information. The internet is not perfect and has 9 fabrications for every 1 fact, but TV and newspapers share this quality and accessing 10 different viewpoints online costs a fraction of the time and effort required for the latter mediums. The Tea Party also tends to appeal to a younger crowd that is familiar with the internet, increasing this effect. The second factor is the rampant across-the-board dissatisfaction with both political parties; the abysmal incumbency approval ratings and the landslide success of CA's Prop 14 in June that ended closed-party primaries despite massive anti-campaigns from BOTH party establishments being evidence for anyone who isn't convinced. Americans have been sick of the childish tug-of-war between the two major parties in the current system for at least the last decade, and a new coalition that adamantly refuses to align itself with either of them is bound to thrive in such a climate. It is notable that early attempts to marginalize the Tea Party, particularly by left-leaning, pro-Obama elements, focused hard on painting it as a fringe movement of the Republican Party (in my opinion to prevent it being viewed as a real alternative), but the abysmal popularity of neo-con Republicans and the success of candidates like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle in Republican primaries rendered that strategy obsolete very quickly.


Political Reaction

The firing of Shirley Sherrod by the USDA was in many ways the first sign that the Tea Party was a force to be reckoned with. On a personal level, I feel sorry for Mrs. Sherrod - the story she told in the distributed video was an illustration of her personal growth from intolerance to tolerance and, flawed as the government is at administering equality, becoming an honest advocate of using for this purpose. On the other hand, the irony of a federal bureaucrat crying on national TV that the federal government was unfair to her in responding to the rumors threatening to damage its PR was hysterically amusing. Welcome to the real world, Shirley - this is how everyone NOT employed by the Federal government feels every time we have to deal with it, sorry to break your fairy-tale concept of it being fair and protecting people's rights. More importantly, however, the incident showed that the Tea Party had grown powerful enough politically to use the same tactics its opponents use and be successful. The NAACP and other angry left organizations have used accusations of racism and intolerance for decades to destroy politicians and bureaucrats, in some cases legitimately intolerant ones and in others just ones that happened to use the wrong wording at the wrong time; this works because the PR damage from the accusation alone is so brutal that distancing is always cheaper for the party or bureaucracy than standing by the accused, and the simple premise that such organizations are self-interested dictates they will choose distancing in an overwhelming majority of cases. The fact that the Tea Party was able to use this same dirty tactic successfully illustrates that it has access to public opinion, and access to public opinion means the government has to take you seriously.


Internal Culling

Of course, having the power to sway public opinion is a double-edged sword, meaning that for the first time in its existance the Tea Party is becoming answerable to it. The final illustration to me that the Tea Party has matured into a long-term political force was today's announcement of the separation of political clown Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express, and David Webb's refusal to succumb to the pressure from the left to agree that Mark Williams represented a racist element that the Tea Party now sets out to purge.

I, personally, have always agreed that the Tea Party has its racist elements, and have always adamantly said that this is a necessary evil. The Tea Party is a political coalition and in a pluralistic democracy, political victories can only be achieved by uniting elements that are radically different between themselves but oppose the incumbency. The NAACP and other groups on the left have an abysmal track record for taking any kind of responsibility for the racist elements within their own ranks for the same reason - they may not advance a cause of black or latin militance, but these elements vote with them and there is no need to alienate their guaranteed support. No majority in this country will or has ever agreed on anything close to resembling a party panel, every political party in our history has been a coalition of various interests, and re-alignments happen when new coalitions are formed by elements that endorse neither party. Considering the Tea Party's open opposition to race-tested handouts - such as Affirmative Action - and social welfare in general, it makes sense that many racist groups stuck in a pre-1960s mindset of segregationism and white supremacy who see these policies as an agenda for a takeover by an inferior minority find the Tea Party's opposition to them attractive. But you don't HAVE TO be a segregationist or white supremacist to think that these policies are abysmally destructive to the economy and furthermore, that their economic damage hurts minorities disproportionately highly. Politics is about impact rather than ideological intention, and white supremacist votes in opposition to these policies count the same regardless of their reasoning. The negligible amount of white supremacy present in the Tea Party is nowhere close to enough to change its goal from constitutionalism and fiscal conservatism to one of racism and segregation, so as with the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, it is hardly a cause for concern.

So why didn't David Webb say all that? Precisely because The Tea Party is now an established political organization vulnerable to public opinion and cannot afford to admit having racists among their supporters just like the NAACP can't fess up to theirs. Mark Williams was expelled for the same reason Shirley Sherrod was fired - he was becoming more of a liability than an asset to the self-interested movement; and this is good news for the Tea Party and its supporters.

The Tea Party becoming pre-occupied with public opinion signifying its maturity as a political movement is only part of the picture. The Tea Party has also entered a stage in its existance where it can afford to choose who belongs in it and who doesn't - a luxury few grassroots organizations can afford because they need any and all exposure. This is a crucial step in the development of a non-partisan coalition that eventually creates a re-alignment in the political system. For all the angry left's attempts to marginalize the Tea Party as a faction of Republicans, the establishment of the GOP had no qualms in trying to spin these allegations in their favor and paint the Tea Party as their impending return to power. My opinion has always been that "neo-conservative Republicans" are none of the above and that the Sean Hannities, Glen Becks and Sarah Palins of America should be ostracized by the Tea Party rather than welcome in it. I have not forgotten their blatant and unapologetic support for George W. Bush's shirking of the Constitution, runaway spending on a fairy-tale foreign policy with no clear objective, and accusations of treason and support of terrorism against anyone that thought their civil liberties were more important than the previous administration's insipid concept of national security. Whether you label them conservative or liberal, these are policies becoming of a tyrannical and unaccountable government that the Tea Party, in principle, does not endorse. For the last few months, I was becoming concerned that at least a partial co-optation of the Tea Party by old neo-con elements was a possibility, but the expulsion of social conservative looney Mark Williams is hopefully the first step to it divorcing itself from these elements now that it has gotten big enough not to need them for publicity. I contend that David Webb was correct that nothing Mark Williams said in his satirizing of the NAACP as an organization that favors slavery as a means of black dependence on the government was expressly racist. But his other antics like marginalizing all Muslims as Islamists although Muslims in general are the most vehement opponents of Islamic Fundamentalism (you would be too if these idiots were blowing themselves up in your city, even if they claim to share your religion), claiming that open borders are a tool for human trafficking (like anyone would need to be trafficked if they could just cross the border) and so forth are exactly the idiotic nationalist rhetoric the Tea Party does not need in its ranks. Nationalism is collectivism - it is giving the government the authority to rig the economy in favor of one class over another; the nature of that class being decided by citizenship or religion rather than ethnicity or social class does not make it less tyrannical or less contrary to the scientific principles of a successful free market. The Tea Party has begun to sprout chest hair and define itself as 'this and not that', a refreshing notion both for those hopeful that it will lead to a desperately needed political re-alignment and those who believe nationalist elements belong on the big government side of the emerging system, holding hands with the socialists and globalists they have spent the last decade mudslinging against and drowning out the real alternative of limited government.

Once again, Tea Partiers, I salute you.