The Establishment Under Fire: Tea Party Time

The movement sweeping the country resembles a religious revival. Homespun radicals set up meetings that assuredly would be in field tents had they taken place in 1840s America. The intricate rules and proliferating role of overbearing institutions are attacked. Ordinary citizens that never before cared about this part of their lives are suddenly engaged in an eristic passion, ready to go toe-to-toe with any dissenter.

Parallels to the Second Great Awakening that inundated frontier America only go so far. Nonetheless, a "Great Awakening" is happening now in the American political scene, loosely united under the banner of the Tea Party Movement. Anecdotes from rallies around the country are compelling, as protesters passionately call for the end to the income tax, government intervention in the private sector, and removal of disloyal politicians. Names of different reactionary groups evoke the struggle for American liberty in the late 18th century. Tea Parties seem poised to dump tea off the proverbial boat of United States government.

Before joining the chorus, often cacophony, of unhappy voices, many questions should be asked about the movement. How legitimate are its claims about the state of affairs in the United States? Can it successfully maintain political clout without sacrificing its principles? Will it avoid a takeover by extremists? Is the Tea Party nomenclature even historically accurate? I will seek to answer these questions in a comprehensive and analytical assessment.

Crucible of Malcontent: 2008-2009
As with a large number of current world issues, the rise of the Tea Party Movement can be traced back to the beginning of the burst of the housing bubble and the ensuing securities collapse that eventually led to a global recession beginning in 2008. In classic Keynesian fashion, the United States and other world powers responded in a fairly similar way: stimulus via government investment and an easing of the billions in assets rendered unusable by mass mortgage default. Damage control happened elsewhere, as the government spent on jobless benefits and tax credits.

However, in the public eye, the most noticeable byproduct of these many programs was their collective price tag. The Recovery Act alone gobbled up $787 billion, while hundreds of billions more went to the financial industry. Fused with anger over executive salaries bankrolled by government expenditures, the price of countercyclical spending drew increasing ire. President Obama's approval rating dropped precipitously over the course of 2009, and Americans lost faith in the Democratic Party.

Several months into the government-orchestrated economic recovery effort, most opposition came from the top-down, instead of the bottom-up anger that typified the rise of Tea Party groups. Governors in conservative states fought government influence in the form of stimulus money, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry went so far as to make a quip about secession in April 2009. Over the summer and to the fall of 2009, however, the real awakening began.

The Fringe Takes Center Stage
For years, the common perception of the radical right in American politics involves carryovers from the Jim Crow era, Ayn Rand zealots who libertarian CATO fellow Michael Tanner called thug libertarians, gun-toting militiamen opposed by Republican George W. Bush, and the crazed cluster of protesters that gathered every April to call for an end to the federal income tax. The radical right traditionally attacks the established institution of government and hearkens back to some not-so-plausible version of centuries old Jeffersonian values. Even with the brief internet-fueled cult popularity of Ron Paul in 2008, the public seemed fairly quiet on the issue of governing philosophy.

Enter President Barack Obama. Already under fire from the radical right on absurd questions of national origin and religious affiliation, opposition further grew from the radical fringe as the billions of dollars spent on recovery seemed worthless to many Americans. The next logical step was to question the need for government spending of any kind, if not benefits were immediately visible from the most recent legislation. Smelling blood, the anti-establishment crowd gained waves of new adherents. However, the story is about the politcal neophytes, not the longtime advocates of a deconstructed government.

Many participants in Tea Party activities expressed their only recent following of politics, and how discovering the extent of government atrocities was in a sense like being "reborn." Anger was the emotion cited by 60% of Republican respondents and 52% of Independent respondents in an Economist poll in early February when asked about current government. Protests have increased in frequency and intensity, and even turned to activism, as Scott Brown defeated a bumbling Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senatorial race on the wings of Tea Party support. Anti-establishment anger took a form of domestic terrorism in the mold of Timothy McVeigh with the suicide attack of Joe Stack in Austin, Texas.

New sociopolitical trends in the past have spawned resistance movements composed of members new to politics. Public anger is in many ways what happens when awareness of trends is dragged up to meet the reality that has been evolving in the irksome direction all along.

Focusing the Anger: Identity Questions
Tea Partiers face two distinct questions of identity. One is how they perceive themselves, and one is how the political analyst should perceive them. Both are rooted in an understanding of history.

As the name implies, the movement draws on the patriotic fever instilled in all American-educated students stemming from opposition to British rule and taxation. The tax opposition carries special symbolism, as participants see themselves as fighting the impositions of the establishment, which represents a kind of domestic neocolonialism. (notice the similar in thought but role-reversal with the radical left here) There is a definite historical inaccuracy here in the fundamental identity of the Tea Party. Antitax writer Robin Einhorn says the founders of American government "had no interest in renouncing their own power to tax themselves." Still, pride, even if falsely placed, in the heritage of anti-taxation movements will continue to fuel Tea Partiers.

The common catchphrase to describe the Tea Party's rapid expansion is "populist." This phrase is used in political analyst circles to mean desire for government promotion of both order and equality - the polar opposite of radical libertarianism, in which the Tea Partiers are best classified. Furthermore, the Populist Party of the late 1890s provided the historical connotation for the term with their support of government action against corporate interests. Furthermore, Populists were a largely rural movement based on specific geographical circumstances tied to wheat production, unlike the primarily ideological force behind Tea Partiers. To call the Tea Party Movement populist is a confusion of terms. They must be understood as a byproduct of the rise of bigger government, a rise that many Americans did not fully grasp until the financial crisis of 2008.

Selling Out or Cashing In: Leadership Questions
Using the 1890s Populists for comparison, one can see the leadership dilemma faced by the Tea Party Movement. The Populists soon faced a division between the "fusion" and "mid-roader" groups. The fusion group was content with aligning with political leaders from the mainstream that would give voice to their concerns in the current system. The mid-roader group wished to go it alone and continue building grassroots support.

The Tea Party movement is split in many ways by the same question. Republican leaders such as Sarah Palin, who spoke at the recent Nashville convention of the movement, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann have aligned themselves with some radical viewpoints. Should the movement work with these leaders or put forward their own? Home-grown sheriffs and city council members lead many rallies now, but some credible candidates are emerging. Marco Rubio in Florida is one example, though as the linked article suggests, he is already hobnobbing with the establishment and not his original base.

Not all Tea Party leaders have such shining futures. Some political fortunes were made and spent quickly, as seen with Debra Medina in the governor's race in Texas. Medina surged in popularity recently, but a gaffe about 9/11 conspiracies quickly took air from under her wings. Leadership questions will continue to challenge a movement founded on and by dencentralization. Will the Tea Party Movement sell out or cash in with its leadership choices? The answer remains in the future.

Before the Tea Party faces the choice the Populists had to make in 1896 that led to their casting of lots in with W.J. Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech, their ripple effects in the rest of partisan politics will be felt.

Grand Old Pickle?
Meanwhile, the other side of the equation is also engaged in a struggle over how to approach the new movement. The Republican Party, while sometimes spurned by more radical Tea Partiers, is closer ideologically (at least with Reaganites) than the sitting Democrats who are the target of disgust from the anti-establishment crowd. However, the potential new base of activism that gives needed fiscal conservatism to the GOP platform also could greatly undermine legislative progress and bipartisanship.

The Economist in early February asserted that the Tea Party Movement is one of the key reasons why the GOP should not engage in bipartisanhip on key issues in Congress, like jobs, deficit reduction, health care, and environmental regulation. However, as President Obama pursues popular measures against health insurers in the wake of large rate increases in California, bipartisanship by the GOP would be prudent. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed with other Congressional Republicans to atten a bipartisan summit as well.

Leading up to almost certain gains in the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans seem to wish for a balance between cooperation so as to avoid appearing excessively obstructionist and maintaining Tea Party support. The Economist further asserts that Congress is indeed functioning better than popular perception, indicating a degree of success of this GOP approach.

Onward
Other realms of the American political system have responded to the anti-establishment onslaught, but often by increasing opposing demands. Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, promotes increasing government regulation to avoid a future financial crisis with the reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act, removed under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. Even internationally the trend is towards greater oversight and a more streamlined but effective approach towards government in the economy, as indicated by a recent IMF panel of economists.

What does this suggest about the future of the Tea Party? When the international intellectual trend is countervailing to the movement, the long term outlook is not good. In the short run, the 2010 midterms will in many ways resemble the 1894/1896 decisions Populists had to make. As the public opinion enforces a degree of changes on the governmental system through their choices to Congress, the overall trend will be more in the direction seen with Volcker and the IMF. Yet the ethos of fiscal responsibility will integrate more deeply into American culture and politics as those in power are reminded of the popular will on issues of government involvement. Pressing questions still remain in terms of debt burden and the government entitlement programs, however.

The camp meetings will pack up their tents. The Atlas Shrugged-waving will subside. Rebirth into the "new reality" will end. Popular anger will retreat into the shadows. But, in the end, the Tea Party will have left its mark on the United States.