WSJ Opinion article on the Tea Party

xmacro

Interesting article by Peggy Noonan. For those who don't follow the WSJ, she's something of a moderate who leans conservative; I dunno how much of it I agree with, but the yardstick metaphor seems pretty accurate to me; what are your thoughts?

This fact marks our political age: The pendulum is swinging faster and in shorter arcs than it ever has in our lifetimes. Few foresaw the earthquake of 2008 in 2006. No board-certified political professional predicted, on Election Day 2008, what happened in 2009-10 (New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts) and has been happening, and will happen, since then. It all moves so quickly now, it all turns on a dime.

But at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one? While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And nobody organized it.

Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the tea party's innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a large scale."

Here are pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen in the Washington Examiner: "The Tea Party has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in American political history." "It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties." "Over half of the electorate now say they favor the Tea Party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement."

So far, the tea party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed tea party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is "the reason we even have the Tea Party movement," shot back columnist and tea party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that "ran up deficits" and gave us "open borders" and "Medicare Part D and busted budgets."

Everyone has an explanation for the tea party that is actually not an explanation but a description. They're "angry." They're "antiestablishment," "populist," "anti-elite." All to varying degrees true. But as a network television executive said this week, "They should be fed up. Our institutions have failed."

I see two central reasons for the tea party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They'd like eight. Instead it's 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."

What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea party candidates will do that.

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a tea party-backed candidate.

That is the context. Local tea parties seem—so far—not to be falling in love with the particular talents or background of their candidates. It's more detached than that. They don't say their candidates will be reflective, skilled in negotiations, a great senator, a Paul Douglas or Pat Moynihan or a sturdy Scoop Jackson. These qualities are not what they think are urgently needed. What they want is someone who will walk in, put her foot on the conservative end of the yardstick, and make everything slip down in that direction.

Nobody knows how all this will play out, but we are seeing something big—something homegrown, broad-based and independent. In part it is a rising up of those who truly believe America is imperiled and truly mean to save her. The dangers, both present and potential, are obvious.

A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and vulgarity with true conviction. Parts could become swept by a desire just to tear down, to destroy.

But establishments exist for a reason. It is true that the party establishment is compromised, and by many things, but one of them is experience. They've lived through a lot, seen a lot, know the national terrain. They know how things work. They know the history. I wonder if tea party members know how fragile are the institutions that help keep the country together.

One difference so far between the tea party and the great wave of conservatives that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 is the latter was a true coalition—not only North and South, East and West but right-wingers, intellectuals who were former leftists, and former Democrats. When they won presidential landslides in 1980, '84 and '88, they brought the center with them. That in the end is how you win. Will the center join arms and work with the tea party? That's a great question of 2012.

Vulchor

Dont really know what to say other than it was well written with a good way of putting her ideas into terms that non-politicos would read and understand. I could get into my feelings on the topic, but I wont at this time as I do not think it will do any good. I do enjoy the pretty straighforward and honest approach however and think the comparison to the 80's conversatism is the one I think of with this movement...although as she does, I question this movments long term ability.

kuzi16

Vulchor:

I question this movments long term ability.

as do I.

what do you define as "long term"
?

Luko

kuzi16:

Vulchor:

I question this movments long term ability.

as do I.

what do you define as "long term"
?

Curious why you question it's long-term survivability? We didn't start out with the same two-party system we have now and certainly it won't always be this way, right? I not sure the tea party is the one to cause the teutonic shift, but curious what your reasoning is as I believe you're a Libretarian?

kuzi16

the pendulum swings back and forth in this country.
recently it has been swinging at a fever pitch.

stars that burn brightly burn out fast.

early in the movement there were some darn good ideas going around. I feel that there has been a good deal of "fluff" that has been added on to it.
had the fluff not been there i would have given the survival rate a big boost.

Luko

kuzi16:

the pendulum swings back and forth in this country.
recently it has been swinging at a fever pitch.

stars that burn brightly burn out fast.

early in the movement there were some darn good ideas going around. I feel that there has been a good deal of "fluff" that has been added on to it.
had the fluff not been there i would have given the survival rate a big boost.

But a pendulum only swings in two directions, and I think there's much more at play here. Like Bob Dylan said, the times they are a'changin. Things are going to look much different in this country in a decade.

TatuajeVI

The article is a pretty solid one - one thing people tend to think is that the Tea Party is trying to take down the Left, when in reality, they are almost as angry at the GOP. I've never been to a Tea Party rally, and I don't volunteer for their cause, but they are the only group I can identify with at the moment. The "yardstick" analogy in the article is right on. heh, why spend $1 Trillion - why not zero! Couldn't have put it better myself. The GOP is, and has been, far too moderate for many years, and spent like crazy during the Bush years. Of course, Obama's administration made that spending look like child's play, but it was still horrendous.

Vulchor

Long term I would say in this instance is beyond 2012. Similar to the "Perot Movement" a decade plus ago. I question its survivability because of what history teaches us, and history is often the best guide toward the future. I think the ideas from this movement may live on in some way in both the Repbs and Dems...as both sides are more conservative than ever and realize people are wanting their constitution followed (at least when it benefits them). However, long term life of these movements has not lasted, as a strictly political movement, since the modern day Repubs and Dems came into being. Many 3rd party type movements have changed poltiics, but few remained a driving force. I also think this movement will either be assilimated into the republican party (as it is little more than an off shoot of it anyway)...or go too far right and be ignored by the Repubs. because they will cost more votes than bring in

Also, I am a registered Republican...although obviously out of line with the party platform at this time. I have gotten more liberal with age, but as Pat Buchanan (my favorite politician) has said "I didnt turn away from the Republicans, they turned away from me". I voted for McCain in an election, and voted against him for Obama in another. I like to think I look at all sides and can vote for either party, and I have and will in the future.

Vulchor

BTW, Im going to see Bob Dylan in concert next month.

Amos_Umwhat

kuzi16:

the pendulum swings back and forth in this country.
recently it has been swinging at a fever pitch.

stars that burn brightly burn out fast.

early in the movement there were some darn good ideas going around. I feel that there has been a good deal of "fluff" that has been added on to it.
had the fluff not been there i would have given the survival rate a big boost.

Good point. During Clinton's second run, I was a Ross Perot supporter. Ross kept trying to tell people that his run wasn't about himself, it was about creating a kinetic energy that would carry on. He wanted to see the movement continue, creating a viable third party that might show some interest in preservation of the original American ideals. Perhaps the Tea Party will coalesce into this, I think it's too early to tell. Any new movement attracts the fringe element wackadoo's, as well as the would-be power mongers. Time will tell.

fla-gypsy

One of the differences in the Tea Party movement (which is not a party at all) and Ross Perot's run is that the Tea Party is not based around a single leader or cult of personality. Here in my area it is a coalition of many different people and ideas with a focused purpose. The movement is for real but no one can predict where it will go and it has no loyalty to individual party candidates. To the contrary, the focus has been on eliminating entrenched establishment types for new comers in a lot of instances. I would love to see them organize better around a set of prinipals and convictions which they have tried to do but the Lame steam media will not give them the time of day unless they can twist it into some negative. If they can champion a few key major initiatives they could become a long term force. Time will tell. The LSM has been trying to poo poo them all along and paint them as some angry white mob instead of angry middle class America. I would love to see a true conservative party evolve in this country based solely on constitutional principles but I am only dreaming at this point.

Amos_Umwhat

fla-gypsy:

One of the differences in the Tea Party movement (which is not a party at all) and Ross Perot's run is that the Tea Party is not based around a single leader or cult of personality. Here in my area it is a coalition of many different people and ideas with a focused purpose. The movement is for real but no one can predict where it will go and it has no loyalty to individual party candidates. To the contrary, the focus has been on eliminating entrenched establishment types for new comers in a lot of instances. I would love to see them organize better around a set of prinipals and convictions which they have tried to do but the Lame steam media will not give them the time of day unless they can twist it into some negative. If they can champion a few key major initiatives they could become a long term force. Time will tell. The LSM has been trying to poo poo them all along and paint them as some angry white mob instead of angry middle class America. I would love to see a true conservative party evolve in this country based solely on constitutional principles but I am only dreaming at this point.

I've noticed this too. They're trying to kill it, so it must have some serious money scared. "A coalition of many different people and ideas..." sounds American, doesn't it?