Part 4: Politics
“The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” –Joseph Schumpeter
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that any treatment of the Tea Party must include a discussion of their politics. Which are the great modern example of poorly-thought-through economic populism, combined with a bit of nativism and confused religious thinking. Many people at the rally sported ‘Faith Hope Charity’ T-shirts, since this was the official Rally Theme (is it just me, or did they borrow that middle one from some other recent political campaign?). However, there were a number of other shirts that were more overtly political, sporting messages such as ‘What part of illegal do you not understand?’, ‘SOS: Sick Of Spending’ and others claiming that they are the ‘Taxed Enough Already’ party. I was unable and unwilling to engage anyone at the rally directly in political debate, but I would like to comment briefly on each of these issues. Since there is no official Tea Party platform or spokesperson, it is hard to define a specific Tea Party platform on many issues, and the Tea Party is probably unfairly attacked many times whenever a commentator or politician attacks the views of a fringe member of the movement. Although, to be fair, the Tea Party has a lot of fringe members.
Firstly, the economic populism. The Tea Party’s views on economic issues are generally poorly informed, contradictory and self-serving. For instance, to take the budget deficit, they claim to be opposed to an $814 billion (ish) stimulus bill on the grounds that it will create a budget deficit that will be a burden to future generations, but they oppose letting the Bush tax cuts expire, despite the fact that this tax cut has taken $1.35 trillion out of public coffers. During the health care debate, they were strongly opposed to any sort of public option, yet clung obstinately to Medicare benefits, despite the fact that Medicare is going to be a much bigger drain on the budget than a public option could possibly be (and where were these folks when Bush signed a $550 billion Medicare extension bill?). There are two unfortunate economic truths that the Tea Party seems to be completely ignorant of. One, that taking into account the reduction in state and local government budgets, total government spending has roughly held steady during the recession, and the increase in the federal deficit is due almost completely to lower revenues caused by the recession. Two, that many economists believe that the federal budget deficit is going to destroy the nation within our lifetimes without significant policy changes, but that this is due to massive increases in spending for Social Security and Medicare, and other existing entitlement programs that are generally very popular with the public. Cutting these would do much to fix our fiscal problems, but would also be politically difficult. That, I would guess, is why the Tea Party chooses to focus its anti-tax rhetoric on frivolous issues.
As a Christian, it appalls me that the immigration debate often seems to assume that the only human beings that enter into our welfare formula are those who reside in and are citizens of the United States. The argument goes, immigrants come to our country illegally and take our jobs and benefit from (and pay into) our social system, and they must be stopped. The counter-argument is, more often than not, that we can’t stop them, so we might as well accept it. The idea that we might have some sort of a duty to help people in need, regardless of their nationality or skin color, does not seem to enter the debate. And none of these so-called libertarians seem to be bothered by the enormous restriction of individual freedom that tightly policed borders would bring about. That said, I have an enormous amount of sympathy for folks whose lives are disrupted and endangered by the immigrant and drug traffic that goes over the border and who are frustrated with the federal government’s inability to enforce its own laws. I can’t help but feel, though, that much of the Tea Party’s anti-immigration sentiment comes from a racist, nativist ideology, the unspoken idea that we have a right to be here and they don’t, which in fifty years will seem as prejudiced and delusional and anti-Irish sentiment during the middle of the nineteenth century seems to us now.
And then, there’s Beck’s Christian rhetoric. The irony in all this, to which he seems blissfully unaware, is that Beck’s ideal of an independent, self-confident, resourceful individual runs directly counter to the Christian ideal of a humble man dependent on God’s grace (and respectful of the civil magistrate, whom he believes was ultimately appointed by God). I also feel obliged to point out that his story about the Abraham and his wandering in the desert, which was brought to an end whenever he remembered that he was dependent upon God’s grace, is a tale which I am unable to locate in my Bible. Perhaps even more mystifying is Palin’s devotion to the Constitution. She claims that all of her politicking is done with the aim of protecting that sacred document, but she is ready enough to endorse repeal of the fourteenth amendment, and seems unwilling to engage in a discussion of the exact meaning of the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ found in the second amendment. Obama used vague and confusing language during his campaign too, but when you came down to it, when he said people wanted Hope and Change, he meant that people wanted George Bush to not be president anymore, and he was right on that point. When Beck and Palin talk about God and the Bible and the Constitution, they seem to be, in effect, saying that they and their supporters like these things, and their opponents do not. One thing that I know for sure is that if a politician says that he is a believer and talks a lot about the role that his beliefs play or would play in public life, but does not mention that a fellow Christian might interpret things differently, that man is not to be trusted.
Beck does make a number of political points that I agree with. He is in favor of Hayekian legal theory, aka a simple and impartial law code. And he seems to be opposed to the collectivist ethic that says that moral issues move into the province of the state. It’s not our job to help the poor, the government will do it. But he’s such an melodramatic, attention-seeking sot that it’s nearly impossible for me to take any of more serious political arguments seriously.
A final point is that these protesters, like most protesters I have seen, seem to be completely delusional about the effect that their protest will have. I saw a group of people near the Lincoln Memorial holding signs denigrating Beck and his movement, who were shouting at tea partiers, and a number of tea partiers who were shouting back. So what happens here? What does this accomplish? Do they convince each other after a few hours, and switch signs and slogans? I didn’t grow up in the era of the Civil Rights movement or the Vietnam protests, and I do not live in Iran, so maybe this colors my perception, but I can’t help but think that all this political protesting is a way to make yourself feel like you did a good deed, when in reality, you have not. The idea that protesters at this rally were ‘restoring honor to the republic’, which was the official title—and many other, more extravagant, self-congratulatory things were said to the crowd by various speakers—is just plain ludicrous. I can see literally no way that a normal human being who saw the things that I saw could get this impression. I think this attitude is in no way unique to this protest though: protesters generally have a bizarrely inflated view of the importance of their activites.
No comments:
Post a Comment