For now, the Tea Party remains as popular as ever. This amorphous “social movement” includes birthers, armed militias, survivalists who sometimes wish to secede from the US, and assorted others. Not all Tea Party sympathizers are extremists, but they are all on the political right. Although they wish to dissociate themselves from both parties, they overlap with Republicans. The Tea Partyers share a hostility to the institution of government in general, a particular hatred for this government, i.e. the Obama administration, and generalized anger.
The Tea Party is (1) overwhelmingly white (although it welcomes token people of color), and (2) protestant (although other Christian religions will do). It is not dominated by males. Its leaders include Stepford-wife-like women as well as other conservative women. It is inspired by some fat, pompous, filthy- rich demagogues, but most followers are not rich. Indeed, such movements are often a reflection of the frustration felt by a downwardly mobile lower middle class. Atheists, agnostics, public employees, academicians, socialists and foreigners should not apply for Tea Party membership.
All of this is well known. Here is the more interesting question: Is this new, and is it dangerous?
Dangerous, yes. Revolutionary, ignorant paranoid extremism is always dangerous. But it is not new, and therefore it may not be as dangerous as it sometimes seems to be. I like to be optimistic, and I believe that we’ll survive this nonsense just as we have survived similar waves in the past.
Why do I say this?
Because even a superficial knowledge of American history shows that movements and demagoguery like this have been a regularly recurring phenomenon in our country’s past. And yet, we have not turned fascist.
Right-wing radicalism in American history has been documented by such scholars as the great historian Richard Hofstadter (see The Paranoid Style in American Politics) and my friend, sociologist Scott McNall, among many others.
Throughout the 19th century, the country underwent periodic nativist, anti-immigrant swings. During the 1850s, anti-Irish sentiment was feverish, captured in such slogans as Rhum, Romanism and Rebellion.
By the 1930s, picking on Catholics had been replaced by anti-Semitism. Now it was Father Coughlin’s turn to blame Jews for everything, and to sympathize with Hitler and Mussolini - something in which he was joined by Charles Lindbergh and millions of devout radio listeners.
There have been many others, from the John Birchers to various militias, from the KKK to many apocalyptic, conspiratorial, populist movements.
Perhaps the clearest predecessor of today’s political mood is the McCarthy era and the Communist witch hunts of the 1950s. That’s when demagogue Joe McCarthy launched a crusade to purge the country of its communists. The toll was particularly heavy in Hollywood, where some of the most talented people were fired and then blackballed . McCarthy went hog-wild, calling even President Eisenhower a communist! At the height of his popularity, 50% of the American people sympathized with him! Today, one third of all Republicans believe that President Obama is not American-born. Same widespread kookiness.
There was never the remotest chance that communists would take over America. There was paranoia. And there is paranoia today. Terrorism, Al Qaeda, illegal immigrants, Islam, Socialists, the Federal Government. take your pick. As the man said, Deja Vu all over again.leave comment here
3 comments:
Tom, I agree that a lot of the right wing radicals fraternize with the rather amorphous Tea Party Movement and your characterization of who constitute the members seems to be correct. However, a Jeffersonian Democrat would be a Tea Party member, in fact many members claim to be Jeffersonian.
The main problem with your analysis is that is doesn't suggest any solutions. It doesn't say why the middle class is becoming lower middle class. It doesn't say who will pay for the government, the schools, or social security if the middle class is gone. So, while academics and government may not identify personally with the economic hardships of many, they will eventually suffer as a result of what is happening to the economy.
Gordon,
you raise many important issues in your brief comment.
1. I, too, have sympathized with "libertarian" ideas over the years. Too much centralization, too much bureaucracy, the decline of the individual, of freedom, self-reliance, etc.
2. No doubt "Jeffersonianism" stands for many good things - local autonomy, for one.
3. The causes of US economic decline are many. Government waste, inefficiency and out-of-control spending are probably just a minor contributing factor. True, the welfare state is getting broke - more so in Europe than here, because pensions and other public benefits have been more generous there. The “pension problem” (Social Security and Medicare) is actually a demographic problem. We live so much longer now. An obvious remedy, already being implemented in France, Britain, the US and elsewhere, is to raise retirement age. I retired at 68, and I would have had no problem working a year or 2 longer.
4. Singling out academics and government workers as groups immune to economic hardship is a bit arbitrary. While the current unemployment crisis is hitting the private sector very hard, public employees have traditionally exchanged greater security for lower pay. An assistant professor gets hired at $50,000 a year, if he has a PhD, i.e. after having gone to school until his thirties. The average monthly pension benefit of PERS retirees (the California Public Employee Retirement System, to which I belong) is just a little over $2,000 per month. Prison Guards, Highway Patrol, etc. receive way more than this, but others much less.
5. To get back to US economic decline: we have been over-consuming for many decades, spending ourselves and our grand-children into poverty. I suppose we all bear some responsibility, but some of us more than others. The growing inequality in the US points out the groups and the individuals who bear the greatest responsibility, and by and large they are not academics, public employees or retirees. Very few such folks drive Mercedes, own yachts, take cruises or live in million-dollar mansions.
6. Being staunchly pro-American, I am saddened by our inability to protect our interests: We continue to bear the burden of policing the world, dying and spending ourselves into bankruptcy in order to protect other countries’ oil consumption. We can’t budge the Chinese to raise their currency and finally start importing some of our goods.
But I rant.
Thanks for your always insightful comments.
The people I know in the Tea Party are middle class and simply sick and tired of an elite political class eating away at individual and states’ rights which should be guaranteed by our Constitution. These elites would limit Americans to one child (by force if necessary), institutionalize the child in government controlled daycares and schools from the earliest age (by force if necessary), and indoctrinate them in the creed that white European males (and their religious traditions) are responsible for everything wrong in the world. From what I have read of your messages and background, you would love all of that. But we will fight, no matter how many names you sling at us. The labels you use (including kook and tea-bagger) only expose your anger, guile, and ignorance.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!