05-18-2010, 10:15 PM
This seems like cogent commentary, so I posted it for all to enjoy. Enlighten yourselves.
The Roots of the Tea Parties
Posted by David Boaz
The sight of middle-class Americans rallying to protest overtaxing, overspending, Wall Street bailouts, and government-directed health care scares the bejeezus out of a lot of people. The elite media are full of stories declaring the Tea Partiers to be racists, John Birchers, Glenn Beck zombies, and God knows what. So itâs a relief to read a sensible discussion (subscription required) by John Judis, the decidedly leftist but serious journalist-historian at the New Republic. Once the managing editor of the journal Socialist Revolution, Judis went on to write a biography of William F. Buckley Jr. and other books, so he knows something about ideological movements in the United States. Judis isnât happy about the Tea Party movement, but he warns liberals not to dismiss it as fringe, AstroTurf, or a front group for the GOP:
But the Tea Party movement is not inauthentic, andâcontrary to the impression its rallies give offâit isnât a fringe faction either. It is a genuine popular movement, one that has managed to unite a number of ideological strains from U.S. historyâsome recent, some older. These strains can be described as many things, but they cannot be dismissed as passing phenomena. Much as liberals would like to believe otherwise, there is good reason to think the Tea Party movement could exercise considerable influence over our politics in the coming years.
Judis identifies three strains of American thinking that help to define the Tea Party movement:
The first is an obsession with decline. This idea, which traces back to the outlook of New England Puritans during the seventeenth century, consists of a belief that a golden age occurred some time ago; that we are now in a period of severe social, economic, or moral decay; that evil forces and individuals are the cause of this situation; that the goal of politics is to restore the earlier period; and that the key to doing so is heeding a special text that can serve as a guidebook for the journey backward.
Iâve offered a dissent from the common libertarian perception that we have declined from a golden age of liberty, but declinism is certainly a strong theme in conservative thought. (Not to mention in Club of Rome environmentalist thought.) Judis suggests that declinism often takes conspiratorial form and wonders âhow could a movement that cultivates such crazy, conspiratorial views be regarded favorably by as much as 40 percent of the electorate?â
That is where the Tea Party movementâs second link to early U.S. history comes in. The Tea Partiers may share the Puritansâ fear of decline, but it is what they share with Thomas Jefferson that has far broader appeal: a staunch anti-statism.
And the final historical strain that Judis identifies:
They are part of a tradition of producerism that dates to Andrew Jackson. Jacksonian Democrats believed that workers should enjoy the fruits of what they produce and not have to share them with the merchants and bankers who didnât actually create anythingâ¦.
During the 1970s, conservatives began invoking producerism to justify their attacks on the welfare state, and it was at the core of the conservative tax revoltâ¦.
Like the attack against âbig government,â this conservative producerism has most deeply resonated during economic downturns. And the Tea Parties have clearly built their movement around it.Producerism was at the heart of Santelliâs rant against government forcing the responsible middle class to subsidize those who bought homes they couldnât affordâ¦. Speaking to cheers at the April 15 rally in Washington, Armey denounced the progressive income tax in the same terms. âI canât steal your money and give it to this guy,â he declared. âTherefore, I shouldnât use the power of the state to steal your money and give it to this guy.â
Judis could have cited Ayn Randâs analysis of âproducersâ and âlootersâ in influencing this strain of Tea Party thought. Not to mention a much older classical liberal version of class analysis, one that predated Marxâs theory, which focused on âconflict between producers, no matter their station, and the parasitic political classes, both inside and outside the formal state,â or âbetween the tax-payers and tax-eaters.â
Judis concludes on a note of despair:
their core appeal on government and spending will continue to resonate as long as the economy sputters. None of this is what liberals want to hear, but we might as well face reality: The Tea Party movementâfirmly grounded in a number of durable U.S. political traditions and well-positioned for a time of economic uncertaintyâcould be around for a while.
Thereâs plenty for libertarians to argue with in Judisâs essay. But itâs an encouraging report for those who think itâs a good thing that millions of Americans are rallying to the cause of smaller government and lower spending. And certainly itâs the smartest, most historically grounded analysis of the Tea Party movement Iâve seen in the mainstream liberal media.
David Boaz ⢠May 15, 2010 @ 3:38 p
The Roots of the Tea Parties
Posted by David Boaz
The sight of middle-class Americans rallying to protest overtaxing, overspending, Wall Street bailouts, and government-directed health care scares the bejeezus out of a lot of people. The elite media are full of stories declaring the Tea Partiers to be racists, John Birchers, Glenn Beck zombies, and God knows what. So itâs a relief to read a sensible discussion (subscription required) by John Judis, the decidedly leftist but serious journalist-historian at the New Republic. Once the managing editor of the journal Socialist Revolution, Judis went on to write a biography of William F. Buckley Jr. and other books, so he knows something about ideological movements in the United States. Judis isnât happy about the Tea Party movement, but he warns liberals not to dismiss it as fringe, AstroTurf, or a front group for the GOP:
But the Tea Party movement is not inauthentic, andâcontrary to the impression its rallies give offâit isnât a fringe faction either. It is a genuine popular movement, one that has managed to unite a number of ideological strains from U.S. historyâsome recent, some older. These strains can be described as many things, but they cannot be dismissed as passing phenomena. Much as liberals would like to believe otherwise, there is good reason to think the Tea Party movement could exercise considerable influence over our politics in the coming years.
Judis identifies three strains of American thinking that help to define the Tea Party movement:
The first is an obsession with decline. This idea, which traces back to the outlook of New England Puritans during the seventeenth century, consists of a belief that a golden age occurred some time ago; that we are now in a period of severe social, economic, or moral decay; that evil forces and individuals are the cause of this situation; that the goal of politics is to restore the earlier period; and that the key to doing so is heeding a special text that can serve as a guidebook for the journey backward.
Iâve offered a dissent from the common libertarian perception that we have declined from a golden age of liberty, but declinism is certainly a strong theme in conservative thought. (Not to mention in Club of Rome environmentalist thought.) Judis suggests that declinism often takes conspiratorial form and wonders âhow could a movement that cultivates such crazy, conspiratorial views be regarded favorably by as much as 40 percent of the electorate?â
That is where the Tea Party movementâs second link to early U.S. history comes in. The Tea Partiers may share the Puritansâ fear of decline, but it is what they share with Thomas Jefferson that has far broader appeal: a staunch anti-statism.
And the final historical strain that Judis identifies:
They are part of a tradition of producerism that dates to Andrew Jackson. Jacksonian Democrats believed that workers should enjoy the fruits of what they produce and not have to share them with the merchants and bankers who didnât actually create anythingâ¦.
During the 1970s, conservatives began invoking producerism to justify their attacks on the welfare state, and it was at the core of the conservative tax revoltâ¦.
Like the attack against âbig government,â this conservative producerism has most deeply resonated during economic downturns. And the Tea Parties have clearly built their movement around it.Producerism was at the heart of Santelliâs rant against government forcing the responsible middle class to subsidize those who bought homes they couldnât affordâ¦. Speaking to cheers at the April 15 rally in Washington, Armey denounced the progressive income tax in the same terms. âI canât steal your money and give it to this guy,â he declared. âTherefore, I shouldnât use the power of the state to steal your money and give it to this guy.â
Judis could have cited Ayn Randâs analysis of âproducersâ and âlootersâ in influencing this strain of Tea Party thought. Not to mention a much older classical liberal version of class analysis, one that predated Marxâs theory, which focused on âconflict between producers, no matter their station, and the parasitic political classes, both inside and outside the formal state,â or âbetween the tax-payers and tax-eaters.â
Judis concludes on a note of despair:
their core appeal on government and spending will continue to resonate as long as the economy sputters. None of this is what liberals want to hear, but we might as well face reality: The Tea Party movementâfirmly grounded in a number of durable U.S. political traditions and well-positioned for a time of economic uncertaintyâcould be around for a while.
Thereâs plenty for libertarians to argue with in Judisâs essay. But itâs an encouraging report for those who think itâs a good thing that millions of Americans are rallying to the cause of smaller government and lower spending. And certainly itâs the smartest, most historically grounded analysis of the Tea Party movement Iâve seen in the mainstream liberal media.
David Boaz ⢠May 15, 2010 @ 3:38 p