The of tea-party enthusiasm on the American right has provoked a fairly typical reaction from the organized American left. It's a fake. It involves tea bags and (a) Dick Armey. It's got the consistency of astroturf, not natural grass. The right, meanwhile, has responded ferociously to the charges that the parties were organized au naturelle by closing ranks, claiming themselves the inheritors of a intellectual tradition beginning with Rosseau through Thomas Pain through Hayek. The right looks more ridiculous than the left at this point, if only because conservatives don't have much muscle memory when it comes to protesting en masse. But the tea parties really are something. Their origins -- organic, programmatic, accidental or otherwise -- don't matter much anymore. If -- and we'll have to see the numbers at the end of the day -- 100,000 Americans show up to protest their taxes, the onus to dismiss them as a nascent political force shifts to the Democrats. There's no evidence that official Republican strategists connected with the Republican National Committee, John Boehner's office or the NRSC had the insight to conceive of these events, much less to try and bigfoot the organizers.
There's plenty of evidence that a bunch of hanger-on Republican interest groups, always looking to prove their relevance and hip factor to donors and activists, decided to lend their names and resources to the parties, multiplying their "organic" effect. FreedomWorks is a classic astroturfing shop. But I also think that we're too obsessed with the distinction between the top and the bottom of a blade of grass. At some point, critical mass is reached and astroturf campaigns can work -- they can catalyze genuine anger and channel it into meaningful political participation. In the age of hyperconnectivity, just what would an organic grassroots movement look like, anyway? Are people who've organized on behalf of causes before forbidden from joining? Can the movement not accept help and money from outside players?
No but there's plenty of evidence they are being organized and bankrolled by various below the line consertive front groups. And promoted by Fox News of course. The attendees will be all sorts of antis. Anti gays, anti democrats, anti taxers, anti abortion you name it. The anti tax argument is perhaps the most laughable since as Bruce Bartlett points out in this week's edition of Forbes, the 2009 tax take is, at around 15.5% of GDP, the lowest since 1950!
Their origins -- organic, programmatic, accidental or otherwise -- don't matter much anymore. If -- and we'll have to see the numbers at the end of the day -- 100,000 Americans show up to protest their taxes, the onus to dismiss them as a nascent political force shifts to the Democrats.
Except that there's no coherent ideology behind this so-called "political force". Some are against higher taxes. (Even though many of these people are seeing their tax burden reduced under Obama.) Some are against the bailout. (So should we have just let major financial institutions collapse, instead?) Some are against the stimulus. (So we shouldn't provide aid to those hit hard by the recession?) Some are against spending in general. (So what, specifically, would they have the government cut?)
It's all complaining, no solutions. It is, as your colleague Andrew Sullivan said, a tantrum.
(And the origins do matter, insofar as we can use them to determine whether this is based on actual principle or petty partisanship. I'm seeing a lot of the latter thus far, and not very much of the former.)
I think you mean Thomas Paine, not "Pain". But it could be that it's a different person these right wingers are talking about - it certainly wouldn't be Paine.
Marc: I just did a quick surf of a couple liberal blogs and based on turnouts in places like Washington and Boston, I'd say you're going to be lucky to get to 30,000 across the country. Contrast that with turnouts for the anti war demos or the immigration reform rallies. These were a dumb idea without any focus, they chose an utterly ridiculous symbol in the teabag, and they were rapidly infiltrated by Republican outrider groups and Fox. As some lib poster said of the teabag crowd in Boston....there are more Yankees fans in Boston.
If 100,000 people turn out for all the "parties", that would represent about 0.08% of all those who voted for McCain or BHO. That's already a very, very small number, but it gets worse:
1. There's no upside because they aren't opposing BHO in a fashion that millions would support. If they could get millions, the Libertarian Party would be kingmakers by now.
2. Some of that 100,000 will be in deep blue districts, such as Napa. Seriously: Napa? Why not Berkeley? There's no reason why a Dem from a deep blue district needs to care about what a very small percentage of his possible opposition thinks.
The good thing about this is that it's going to be a Darwin moment when the useful idiots attending the "parties" realize that their leaders have absolutely no clue. Hopefully then they'll start to look for effective, intelligent ways to oppose BHO, such as this:
http://24ahead.com/s/question-authority
Obama got 100,000 people for a late-night rally IN THE RAIN in Manassas, Virginia on November 3rd. That's 100,000 people in one spot at one time.
But we're supposed to be impressed if this "spontaneous uprising" brings in 100,000 in 300 cities across the country all day after being promoted day and night on Faux News? Ummmm. Not so much!
You are all missing something. The grassroots level politics has always been the domain of the left. This is a new venture for the right and success today has the potential of snowballing to more in the future. Don't bury your heads and say it is nothing. It may be small now but these things have a tendency to grow.
As to what they are trying to say...I think the overwhelming message is that there is concern about government spending. As a result of that issue there is a spillover protest against taxes...but form what I have seen so far, and heard...the message is one against irresponsible spending (i.e. I voted for the bill but I never read it).
if that's the case, where were these protests during the 8 yrs when bush was running up a trillion dollar deficit? that's why these "protests" have no credibility. they're just nakedly partisan outbursts of amorphous anger. like a lot of things these days if you do it and you're a republican the right is ok with it, but if you do it and you're a democrat well, by god! that's fascism!!
First, you are confusing conservative and Republican. Bush was not a conservative. Conservative also had problems with McCain, but when given the choice for between Obama and McCain, McCain became their candidate.
There were voices speaking out. But the Bush deficits pale compared to what we have seen in the last 6 months. True, the first of these spending bills were under Bush, BUT the size of the Obama bail out, coupled with the proposed budget have reached a tipping point. Now I am not naive enough to say that the fact there is a Dem in the White House doesn't make this easier...but having a Dem in the White House has also given rise to spending in many programs that are diametically opposed to conservatives.
in other words, its ok for bush to run trillion dollar deficits on programs and wars that republicans support, but when a duly elected democrat runs on and wins on a platform of investment and infrastructure spending that should have taken place under bush but were pushed aside to pay for wars and tax cuts, that's somehow untenable?
I agree. deficits are a problem longterm. but that shouldn't stop us from doing the things we've been neglecting for decades. things that need to be done. things that, while they've gone undone, have led us to fall behind in the world.
guess i don't get it. if bush hadn't wasted trillions on wars and tax cuts and had instead been serious about the longterm challenges this country is facing, we would be much better off.
and the only voice i heard speaking out was ron paul (who was booed at every single republican debate, btw).
which, again, is why these protests have no credibility whatsoever. if they had been organizing these things when bush was exploding the deficit, i could maybe take todays events seriously. but they didn't.
like i said, its ok if you're a republican. but god help you if you're a democrat pushing the priorities that won you a huge mandate. then you'll unleash the anger of HUNDREDS of teabaggers.
"Bush was not a conservative." Right! We can expect the wingnuts to be chanting this bit of BS over and over for the next several years...
The TEA Parties are not protests against taxes per se. The term refers to The Boston Tea Party which was actually a protest against big government and big business killing the little guy, the taxation without representation thing is sensationalistic nonesense, it was a revolution during a time of high unemployment, low wages, reduced business opportunities for small business, sound familiar? Specifically, Britain enacted the Tea Act which was a HUGE Corporate tax break for The East India Company, (eliminated a 25% tax, you see the share holders of the company were the folks in charge of lawmaking), and allowed them to control all the tea in the colonies by undercutting the private sector. The government got in bed with business. The term was used now for the same reasons ... government bailouts are resulting in bed partners with banking, auto, energy ... this has been happening for a while which is why Ron Paul's supporters started this thing back in 07. He has been arguing these points for 20 years, and these "kooks" never went away, just more people are hearing about it because the exposure of big government in bed with corporate america is growing. Some idiot acronymed the title to be Taxed Enough Already in an effort to marginalize and kook up the movement just like in the primaries with Paul, Kucinich, etc. You having never heard of the protests does not mean they didn't happen ... I was there. You won't really hear much truth about these protests either. The powers that be will do everything to marginalize them, they have already started. The Revolution has begun, this is but the next step ... it will take time. Keep your eyes, ears, and mind open, you seem an intelligent human, we could use more like you.
Current and projected future spending is much higher than it was during the 8 years under Bush, so are deficits.
Your more likely to get protests after continuing to push a bad idea, not when it first happens. Bush increased spending a lot, now its going much further, at some point people move from being concerned, to being angry.
Hi,
If you are interested, here is the audio for the Tea Party Robocalls that have been blanketing the country.
http://thinkdodone.typepad.com/ccd/2009/04/tea-party-robocall-audio-found.html
Regards,
Shaun Dakin
CEO
StopPoliticalCalls.org
Marc, the Republicans do actually have a bit of experience with "grass roots" protest vis a vis the anti-abortion movement. Its not that the causes the incredulity, its the hyping on FOX news. It was clearly being pushed by all the usual top of the food chain GOP propagandists. Regardless of where it come from in the first place it was them that made the whole thing smell bad.
And as of right now after all their hype the turnout has to be embarrassing. About 30,000 nation wide after all that fuss is downright pathetic.
It is a mistake to couple anti-abortion with anti-spending. I dare say that the anti-abortion movement, while conservative in its roots, is a separte movement on to itself. I would guess there is much more interest in this movement by many than there is in the anti-abortion movement.
As to the numbers, if many who support the movement are anything like me they are at work earning a paycheck so they can pay their taxes and for the programs they don't support.
Yet, 10,000,000 protestors on a single day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest) is fringe radicals.
The tea parties are a muddled mess that will be largely forgotten, to the extent they are noticed at all, in 48 hours. If this is the right wing citizen army I think Obama, Geithner, Summers and Bernanke can sleep easy.
It may come as a surprise to you, but the media is not going to tell you the truth about the numbers of the turnout. They will downplay it as much as possible because they no longer report news, they create news to further their own agendas. Case in point: Here in the capital of Iowa there was a pro-choice rally being held. There were a few more than a hundred people that showed up for the rally. In opposition to the rally, 90 busloads of people arrived to hold their own rally. The news media gave one reporter to cover the opposition and there was an entire bank of media given to the pro-choice rally. The official reporting on the event was that the pro-choice rally greatly outnumbered the opposition. 4000 opposing vs. 100, but it was swept under the rug.
Fox is not an instigator or promoter - they are merely reporting the news, which is what all the media should be doing.
then why are they artificially inflating the numbers????? and why have they been promoting this nonstop? i don't recall them promoting anti-war protests and allowing the use of interactive tools on their website to encourage anti-war protesters to meetup...oh but they cover all protests the same way...uh huh...
i think this video speaks for itself.
PRODUCER: No, we're trying to get...
CAVUTO: There's gotta' be 5,000.
PRODUCER: Oh, at least. You know, I mean the cops aren't going to tell us, and we've been trying to get ahold of the PR person to give us their number, but I think 5,000. You can say it's starting at 5,000 [unintelligble, but sounds like "and maybe it's more."].
Ten Mintutes Later:
but thats the great thing about propaganda. reality doesn't matter and you can just make sh*t up as you go...
100,000, Marc? Really? That's all it will take for the onus to be shifted onto the Dems? 100,000 people attending events across the country? Individual events that number somewhere between 300 and 2,000, if the organizers are to be believed? 100,000?
Talk about a low bar. I'm not saying these events shouldn't be covered, but let's not turn them into something they are not. The folks attending these events represent a VERY, VERY small minority of the voters in this country. And if the signs I'm seeing at these events are indicative of the feelings of the folks attending, they are mostly there because they are pissed that Obama won the election.
"Fox is not an instigator or promoter - they are merely reporting the news, which is what all the media should be doing."
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!
Mr. Ambinder: This post of yours is so moronic it brings seriously into question your legitimacy in discussing any topic, much less politics. The piece reads like a parody, e.g., "the distinction between the top and the bottom of a blade of grass". It used to be that journalists could write well and were knowledgeable about issues (AJ Liebling comes to mind). Today, most are neither.
Ah, the soft bigotry of law expectations.
People who attend Palin events as political force.
How embarrassing for you.
I won't dismiss these events because of how they came to be or how they were promoted, but I think it's reasonable to judge the significance of them based on comparisons to other similar events and in light of how hard they've been pushed by Fox News and online conservative media.
So, if there are 100,000 at tea parties in cities all around the country, how does that compare?
Well, the annual March for Life claimed that it got 300,000 people to come to Washington this year. (I am skeptical of this, as I live in the Washington area and I know what a march that big does to traffic.) The 2006 pro-immigration rallies had more than a million participants. The 2004 March for Women's Lives was estimated at between 800,000 and 1.5 million (these things necessarily being imprecise), again all people who came to Washington for the event. The Million Mom March in 2000 claimed attendance of 750,000 in Washington and another 150,000 to 200,000 at events around the country. The 1982 Nuclear Freeze March in New York had an estimated crowd of about 750,000.
Oh, and the 2009 Tournament of Roses Parade had an estimated attendance of 700,000.
So, if there really are 100,000 people at events in however many cities (although you'd think that Washington would have drawn more than a few hundred if there was any chance of getting 100K+ nationally), then I'd say that the movement has a way to go before it ought to rise to the notice of Democrats or Republicans. And, mind you, this is with a lot of promotion from Fox, which presumably hit the target demographic pretty well. That fact will not go unnoticed in the halls of power.
frankly, i was laboring under the (apparently mistaken!) impression that the overall response to the tea parties was:
1) who? what?
2) lewd humor
maybe i'm wrong...
If 100,000 all across the US is all it takes, then our utterly impromptu totally unorganized Twitter counter-protest should definitely count for something: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=+I+pay+taxes+because .
Don't people understand that if our arguments are based on one party versus another, we all lose. The only ones that gain from this are politicians and those brain-washed enough to blindly follow them.
I went to the tea party in downtown Chicago during lunch. I admit, it was weird...just as weird as any other protest. I didn't stay, I just wanted to see. I wanted to know what happened instead of hearing about it through some commentary on tv (which you'll have to admit was decided before the sun rose this morning).
There were some Ron Paul weirdos there (sorry for name-calling) and some haters calling everyone racists, but for the most part, the people were very polite, they were educated, informed and they were not part of some vast-conspiracy by rich people to lower their taxes.
I understand much of their view-point that even though we're told 95% of us will see lower withholdings (which too many mistake as a tax cut), we all pay higher taxes. They know that we as a nation are hurting economically and so have become more responsible. The government is doing the opposite. The government has less money (I don't care whose fault it is) and should therefore be more responsible.
This view-point I get. The view that these people understand less than anyone else or are full of hatred, I don't get.
" claiming themselves the inheritors of a intellectual tradition beginning with Rosseau through Thomas Pain through Hayek. "
Earth to Marc - these Republicans are the direct descendants of the Tories, not the Enlightenment.
I agree with Ambinder. Attacking the genesis of the protests is kind of pointless. We should be attacking the content and goals of the protests instead.
Their origins -- organic, programmatic, accidental or otherwise -- don't matter much anymore.
Still shillin' after all these years, huh Marc? Yes, it does matter that this "teabagging" event emanated from the corporate far right wing. At least be willing to stand up for your friends, Armbinder
100,000 (if that is the number) did not show up to protest their taxes. Some did, but others were protesting the bailouts, the stimulus package, immigration, gay marriage, and abortion.
Others were out because they think Obama is a facist, a socialist, or a communist. A good portion of all of these people are truly freaking out because a black man is in the White House.
As Andrew Sullivan pointed out, if all of these people were truly protesting to simplify our complicated tax code, that would be one thing. Heck, I'd be out there with them. What we saw today was just the right wing's butt.
Millions in 2003 marched against the war; that was an organic beginning of defiance and George Bush still managed to win in 2004. The facts are very simple: we have a political reality defined by elections. Grassroots organization in ELECTIONS matter and have a political force; getting your voters to the polls has a political force. Marching for AGAINST popular political programs; not so much.
In your defense of these tea parties you ignore three major things: (1) what is this about beyond a collective anger over a loss of power, (2) are these issues substantive to build a political coalition on, (3) how big is this.
These tea parties have no purpose. There is no organized opposition to the policies of the president because a broad and sustaining group of citzens supports the president's policies. And it is irresponsible to not note that the tea parties were advertised for weeks on Fox news; and the president still had more people at his rallies during his campaign in single places than these folks did throughout the country.
I also question your premise: it is in no way the Democrats job to dismiss this as a political force. That was a stunningly superficial comment. It's on the Republicans to prove their political chops by, you know, winning an election. And if this is the birth of a third party, something TR or Perot couldn't pull off, it's the job of that party to make it's mark. The Democrats pretty much have to keep on keeping on and fight to fix this damn economy IMO. And even then, they'll have a lot of lee way given the mess inherited.
JMHO: But you seem to want to promote a conflict or issue for the Democratic Party that in no way exists from what I can see and that's fairly pitiful. The big danger for the Democrats right now, is getting on the wrong side of the populist rage against the banks. The best remedy for this; convict some CEOs and break up these banking oligarchs.
That would, IMO, with universal health care, gurantee 2010 and 2012 no matter the state of the economy. Because they can always say George Bush gave us this recession; just as Hoover is the one tied to the Depression.
Here is the reality, whether freaktown, OGLiberal and others want to hear it or not....
There are people in this country that are fed up with government spending whether it was by the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration. They were just as opposed to the Bush bailouts as they are to the Obama bailouts. I know liberals as well as conservatives who are frustrated. This is not across party lines. Just because FoxNews covered it ad nauseum doesn't mean that it should be an us vs them issue.
If you are satisfied that the elected representatives are:
1) Passing trillion dollar spending packages without knowing what is in them (didn't they learn their lesson under Bush and War on Terror bills);
2) Thinking they can buy themselves out of a budget shortfall (try that in your own household);
3) Think that despite no money coming in they can add billions of dollars in new federal programs.
Then you should be happy and not be protesting. But I and millions others in this country are not satisfied.
You can ignore the Tea Parties, you can ignore the people who are dissatisfied, you can ignore the minority party....but do it at your own peril. It seems to me that has happened in the past and a little thing called the Contract with America changed all of that.
What is really different today is that there are more communication tools available to get the word out. Whether is is FoxNews (or the liberal side, MSNBC), the Internet, talk radio, etc.
Go ahead, ignore us, but history has a way of repeating itself, especially when one does not pay attention to it and learn from it.
We just had a national election in which the party supported by a LARGE majority of the participants in the tea party events was soundly defeated. Obama is pretty much sticking to his campaign promises. Are we to believe that millions of Americans have, in that short period of time, changed their minds and if the election were held today, John McCain would pull off a resounding victory. Heck, Obama's approval ratings are higher than the percentage of votes he received last fall. Some people - a lot of people - like the job he's doing and his programs and policies. I'm not saying that the concerns of all Americans shouldn't be taken in to consideration, but Obama and the Dems also have an obligation to the folks who put them into office. That's the way elections work. Obama and the Democrats aren't ignoring American voters - they are following up on the promises that landed them in office. The tea baggers talk about a revolution but I would argue that we're already in the middle of the one that started with the 2006 midterm elections and continues today. And it's not the tea partiers leading that revolution.
In economic times like these, the government has to spend because nobody else is - consumers are (wisely) being thrifty and banks aren't lending. Injection of government funds into the economy will help it get moving back in the right direction. And health care reform, increased and smart regulation of the financial sector, energy innovation, and education funding are long term initiatives that will help us to avoid getting into this same situation in the future. This isn't socialism - it's Keynesian economics. You may not agree but it's a valid and accepted (not by all, of course) economic theory and it certainly isn't socialism or fascism or communism or any other evil -ism.
I don't like throwing billions and billions of dollars at Wall Street in failed rescue attempts. I don't like where the charlatans on Wall Street have led our economy. On this point, I have issues with what Obama has done so far on this front. I think a better solution would be the one advocated by economists like Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini, a solution that even folks like Alan Greenspan and Lindsey Graham appear open to - government receivership of failed financial institutions. My guess, though, is that you and a large number of the tea partiers would take a move like that as a sure sign that Obama is the second coming of Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Mussolini.
As for the tea parties, I didn't attend any but what I saw seemed to be a lot of Obama hate. I'm sure there were plenty of libertarians at these rallies who have been consistent in their criticism of the federal government, no matter who is in charge. But I'm sure there were an equal number of people - perhaps more - who were there because they can't stand the fact, for whatever reason, that Obama, a Democrat, is president. Way too many birth certificate and Obama as Hitler signs. I saw a lot of signs that included the names of our president, as well as Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, etc. Didn't see any with the names Boehner or McConnell or Cantor. If everybody in Congress is to blame, why where the tea partiers almost exclusively targeting people with a D after their name? And where were the tea parties in 2005 or even last year. Yeah, yeah...I know - people were mad than but it took this long (which happens to coincide with the victory of a Democrat in the presidential election) for them to get this angry.
In closing, I have to include a link to this story. Have to love protests against taxes and government handouts organized by people who suck on the teat of our government's taxpayer funded social welfare programs:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/antitax_tea_party_could_draw_c.html
"I don't want to see this country turn into a welfare, nanny state." Too funny. This is coming from a woman who lives off Social Security and disability benefits, who asked a bankruptcy court to protect her from creditors, and who paid no taxes last year.
I must say, this is a well thought out and communicative point of view, and you have valid points throughout, however, you still belittled and marginalized those of us who are attempting to save this country from the inevitable outcome of continuing the failed governmental and economic policies and philosophies you accept as rational and proven. They have only ever been proven to fail. Some things to consider:
1) You have no idea how many tea party attendees were soundly defeated in the last presidential election, by stating it was a LARGE majority you marginalize the point to be one of sour grapes and childish ranting. Not fair minded and based on opinion, not fact.
2) No, I still would not vote for McCain, and I don't accept that premise at all. The point is not that president Obama stinks, it is they all stink. Most conservatives, libertarians, liberals, etc, that I know, believe president Obama is a man of integrity and honor. Many of us don't agree with his politics, but we support our fairly, (as fair as can be in this two party system), elected president. We also want him to cut it back now, he is spending way too much of our money he doesn't have. We are the same people that flooded congress to vote against Bush's Bailout package as well. We continue to raise awareness.
3) Calling us "tea-baggers" is quite prejudiced and belittling, I drink coffee. The folks who organized these events didn't coin that moniker, folks marginalizing and insulting them did, and you might want to refrain from using the term. We are leading a different revolution, not the one offered up by the fake democracy of the two party system, (we are not designed to be a democracy anyway, it was written to be a constitutional republic … big difference, you may want to read up on that).
4) Your views on economics are the fundamental difference here. The TEA Party movement was taken up in an effort to mimic the Boston Tea Party, a protest against the Tea Act of 1773, which was a massive tax break and government funding of a large corporation, (The East India Company), that cut the throat of the working class. Read up on Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, oh, and the Boston Tea Party as well. Furthermore, it never stood for “Taxed Enough Already” until the GOP tried to horn in, but we won’t let them.
5) We don't blame president Obama for the bailouts, we blame them all and we disagree with you on the need for it. It's no different than ever in history, when fiat money is thrown around to save big business, the little guy goes broke and the rich get richer. Let them fail. It will hurt, but it will happen in the end, and it will hurt more later, again, read Mises.
6) If you didn't attend a Tea Party, how do you know what you see? I agree. some attended for reasons I would disavow. I have been involved in Tea Parties since 2007, we are finally starting to get people to listen and when they do, they tend to agree with our points. I am more concerned with getting my fellow Americans on board with the truth than why they came to hear me.
Come to the next event and talk to people. We need intelligent, lucid, thoughtful people. If you took the time to understand this, I bet you would change your mind. Keep your eyes, ears, and mind open. The Revolution has started, this is just the next step. Change will take time, but it is inevitable. Whether by choice or economic and political failure, the current system will fall like all great societies that have followed these governmental controls on economics and fiat currency. The only one that hasn't is China. There, the state is in total control. I don’t like that solution.
Murph
This post marks you as someone who is not very serious or very bright.
You seem to be impressed by the fact taht 6 weeks of promotion by the Fox network was able to turn out a few dozen/hundred/thousand people in various cities who were taking a brave and selfless stand against taxes. Ahh, the stones on them for standing up to the "we need more taxes" crowd.
You really are embarrassing yourself with tripe like this.
I haven't seen leftists writhing and gnashing like this since the good old Haliburton days. Yes, the Tea Party was fun but the aftermath has been a delight.