The Tea Party movement was a remarkable happening. It was started in February 2009 with a rant by a Chicago bond trader. But what remains of this movement today largely backs the OPPOSITE of the reforms that drove the 2009 Tea Party phenomenon.
Today’s Tea Party (what’s left of it) has little interest in the Constitution, or the safeguards incorporated in this fine document. Today the Tea Party movement is deader than a door nail.
The idea of a new Tea Party was started by Congressman Ron Paul in the end 2007, during his remarkable, Quixotic run for President. It was less a movement than a vehicle for Dr. Paul’s campaign, with the expected limited government themes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bNiDx7qTjA
But as a MOVEMENT, it didn’t catch on until 2009. Here’s a pretty good Wikipedia summary of the Tea Party:
***
The Tea Party movement is an American political movement known for its conservative positions and its role in the Republican Party. Members of the movement have called for a reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing government spending, and for lower taxes.[1][2] The movement opposes government-sponsored universal healthcare[3] and has been described as a mixture of libertarian,[4] populist,[5] and conservative activists.[6] It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009.[7][8][9] Various polls have found that slightly over 10% of Americans identify as members.[10]
The movement began following Barack Obama’s first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to give financial aid to bankrupt homeowners. Following calls by Rick Santelli for a “tea party” by Chicago bond-dealers,[11][12] conservative groups coalesced around the idea of protesting against Obama’s agenda and a series of protests took place, including the 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington. Supporters of the movement subsequently had a major impact on the internal politics of the Republican Party.
***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
This political movement had a strong limited government component, a deep distrust of central planning emanating out of DC. High taxes and deficit spending were core concerns. Today these are non-issues.
Donald Trump has demonstrated that, while the frustration with politics runs deep, the limited government option has become increasingly unattractive to Americans. Strong government run by strong people (ideally a strong man or woman that the electorate trusts) has greater appeal. This is the most unsettling aspect of Trumpism.
The parallels with other civilized countries who came under the spell of such tyrannical strong men is disconcerting, to say the least. Germany and Austria embracing Hitler in the 1930’s. Italy under Mussolini. Juan Peron in Argentina. The committed socialist dictators of Venezuela. All rose to power via the ballot box.
This American trend is even more disturbing when one realizes that if it it wasn’t Trump, a very large segment of the population would be equally pleased to back any other strong persona who promised to “Make America Great Again” — an unnerving parallel with what Hitler promised the Germans as he rose to power.
Of course, the left has similar tendencies to want even more central control of everyone’s lives. Witness the amazing support for self-proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders over watered-down socialist Hilary Clinton.
Today the Tea Party is a social conservative movement, with a strong anti-foreigner priority. There is zero interest in limiting the power of government — only in USING that power for the “right” purposes. Economic issues are of little interest on the Tea Party website and Facebook pages.
Think not? I post from time on the “Facebook Tea Party” group. It claims over 35,000 members. I put up economic posts that SHOULD be of interest to the original Tea Party supporters. But my posts draw little in the way of comments, and — more important — are the ONLY economic posts supporting free markets, limited government, lower taxes, reducing the welfare state and balancing the budget. While there’s a fire hose gush of OTHER posts (mostly attacking or touting different candidates, or trashing foreigners and Obama), my economic posts seem misplaced on this board. While there are still pockets of limited government support seen in today’s Tea Party meetings, they stand out as odd exceptions.
I’m not optimistic. Perhaps in order for things to get better, they first have to get worse. But of course, when things get worse, it’s equally likely that the voters will double-down on the failed policies that aren’t working and are CAUSING the problems. Economic literacy is in short supply in America.
Comments 6
Fine piece, Richard. Thank you.
Unfortunately, the widespread illiteracy you refer to isn’t limited to economics.
For a democracy like ours that can only mean the end.
Trump is proof.
Richard, Excellent autopsy. Although I think that the rise of the Tea Party had a lot to do with a black Democrat in the white house, I was encouraged that many of its early members were outspoken about costly, stupid wars and the absurd amount of capital spent on the military and foreign bases. These were opinions from the Libertarian faction who got slapped in the face when they witnessed the screwing the Republicans gave Ron Paul. Then there was a plethora of Tea Party grifter groups who were big on raising money and spending it on themselves (Sara P.).
It is unfortunate that both establishment parties exist only to placate the donor class. The time is ripe to unify people into this understanding. I’m convinced that a socially moderate/economically conservative third party could do this but it would take a coalition of fed up people from both sides of the fence.
Uncle Richard,
“Economic literacy is in short supply in America.”
This is true and hoping the following isn’t … “But of course, when things get worse, it’s equally likely that the voters will double-down on the failed policies that aren’t working and are CAUSING the problems.”
I don’t disagree with this analysis…The Tea Party is a blurry shadow of itself. It had such great potential. I believe the ignoring of the most conservative elements of the TP by the GOP may have led to the rise of Trump’s appeal, coupled with independents alienated by both parties.
On a separate note- The “Hitlerian” comparisons from the likes of Glenn Beck, et al, are historically naive and hyperbolic; While the US is in perhaps uncharted territory politically, it isn’t remotely close to the social, economic, or political morass of Weimar Germany of the 20’s and 30s…our prosperity and potential is still the greatest in the world.
Hitler manipulated and played on racial and social fears primarily aimed at Jews and Communists that were German citizens and who’s families had been in the German Principalities for centuries. He marinated it with distorting Teutonic myth, history and primacy, He had his SA Brownshirts beat political adversaries and opposition, in some cases, to death in public and in the shadows. The SA used physical intimidation, sabotage, arson, and coerced and maligned the political process at all levels. The Brownshirts were criminals, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, degenerates across the spectrum. Subtle, they were not.
Sadly, we as a nation have been bombarded with liberal leftist thought that Is often used by Progressive Internationale that equates national pride with nationalism…strong and bold-speaking characters and brash politicos are now binned with the feared and vaunted “strongman”.
National pride and wanting and achieving great things for one’s country is not “nationalism” nor equates to “national socialism.” I disagree with Trump’s approach and rhetoric on several levels, but I understand the anger and disbelief in the established political party constructs.
The infatuation with Sanders and his love affair with Socialism (yes, that “socialism” worshipped by Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Tito, and some of histories most notorious figures) is exponentially more concerning than the mere barb thrown at an American presidential candidate about “Hitler” comparisons. Having the completely discredited David Duke allegedly “endorsing” you is very different than having hundreds of thousands of progressive and socialist-leaning Bolsheviks from the current US academic indoctrination centers (formerly known as “college”) and avowed communists on major news cable networks (the name rhymes with “Van Jones) mobilizing in droves to do what many socialist regimes have done through the election process. Nearly all European nations have fallen prey to the progressive, socialist agenda.
The idea that our democratic process within our Constitutional Republic is anything like the social, cultural, or political landscape of pre-WWII Hitlerian Germany is just historically inaccurate. It sounds more invective than intellectually insightful.
Ah, apropos of the Beck, et al comparisons…you gotta love Ann!
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-03-09.html
and then there’s Rush…
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4789129591001/rush-limbaugh-on-rift-that-threatens-the-republican-party/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips