As a political science major and a connoisseur of current events, I am somewhat intrigued by the American Tea Party movement (jokes about tea bagging aside).
Here is a disorganized umbrella movement that has no particular agenda but has still managed to shake up the American political scene. Normally not having a clear agenda is bad. But here it allows them to become a big tent where all members can bring their grievances and feel included since there is no set agenda. At the same time, their disorganization and lack of a clear agenda will eventually hinder their growth and political influence (unless they organize more tightly).
I mean if you say you don't like big government that feels good; not many Americans will say the oppostite. But what does that really mean to not like big government? Do you like big government (military) defense spending or do you taken away? Do you like Medicare or do you want that to be taken away? Do you like public roads or do you want that to be take away? Do you not like public healthcare and want that to be taken away? What I mean is that saying you don't like big government is fine, until you have to make a decision about what constitutes "big government" and should be cut.
The question of why has this movement blossomed has been bedeviling columnists. I suggest looking at the columns by Leonard Pitts Jr. he has some good stuff on the topic. Although the reactionary aspect and the vitrol the protesters have shown is extremely worrisome to me I don't mind people organizing politically. After all, that is the basis of America. So I'll let others deal with the why, I'm more interested in the implications.
A lot of people think this is good for Republicans and bad for Democrats. That maybe so--but don't bet on it. Republicans have just as much, if not more, to be frightened of than do Democrats. You see the Tea Party is generally right wing, far to the right of moderate Republicans. Now is the primary season and to capture the votes of those on the far right (who are the key to winning over in primaries in order to be elected) you must appeal to them. So what we have seen is normally centrist Republicans (John McCain and Charlie Crist) running to the right to gain votes.
That is normal. The problem comes in the general election when Republicans are split. Their candidates will have taken far right positions in the primaries that they cannot easily renounce. So they will be stuck on the far right. The unfortunate part for them is that most of the electorate is in the middle (Median Voter Theory). So while they may make it out of the primary intact they will be shooting themselves in the foot for the general elections. Furthermore, their is no guarantee that the Tea Party candidates will pull out of the general elections. This hurts them by splitting the base Republican vote even further while repelling moderates, who are central to winning any election in American politics. At the same time the Democrats don't face a similar third party challenge, so they should have the advantage, right?
No. Or at least not necessarily. The Tea Party seems to be tapping into a strong anti-incumbency current in the US. That feeling could be bad for Democrats. But unless the Republicans/Tea Party can put up viable candidates in big races, things could still swing the Democrat's way (assuming the left votes as a block and turns out). The biggest question will be turnout. If the right gets a lot of people out to vote then the Democrats will be in trouble. Still the Democrats are running scared and after the election likely still will be scared (keep in mind it is normal for the minority party to gain seats in the mid-term elections).
I do wonder, though, if the elections go poorly for the right what the reaction will be. My fear would be that all this talk of impending doom on their side would fuel many crazies. If they did poorly in an election then they would lose hope of affecting change at the ballot box and instead resort to other means. Hopefully that doesn't come to pass. The problem, though, is that they have adopted very extreme rhetoric towards the government in general and Obama in particular. This is a problem because, despite what Jesse Helms said, politics is the art of compromise--so when you call your opponents devils and say there are soon to destroy all that is good then you leave yourself no room to compromise. Ironically, people angry at the government not moving fast enough adopt extreme rhetoric which then incentivizes politicians not to compromise thereby introducing further gridlock.
The final interesting thing is that most politicians are elected saying what they will do to bring your more services or pieces of pie. Instead, the Tea Party wants nothing of the sort. I wonder how long it will last in an electoral system geared to generate two parties and weighed with its own contradictions.
Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment