On the Future of the Tea Party Movement
Those of you who know me know that I consider myself a part of the Tea Party Movement, but that I am concerned about its direction. When asked how the Tea Party could maintain relevancy, growth and viability, this was my response:
The Tea Party movement has gotten a lot of bad press since its inception. I strongly believe that most of the participants have been average people genuinely concerned about the direction the country is headed, especially with regards to deficit spending. However, the perception most people have comes from certain minority elements of the movement, which work to radicalize the whole. Not coincidentally, this is the same problem both major parties have.
To differentiate itself, and recover its good name with the populace at large, the Tea Party movement needs to avoid radicalization. By this I mean that we need to focus on confirmable facts, reasonable discussion, and attainable goals, and vocally reject anti-democratic activities like lies, manipulation, irrationality, or threats of violence. Examples of this include:
No more "Obama = Hitler" signs. Obama is nothing like Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or any other mass murderer. Saying so cheapens real atrocities wherein millions were brutally killed, and, frankly, makes us all look stupid and insensitive. All for, what, the sake of making people afraid, so you can use that fear? Seeing signs like that has almost made me stop coming to the rallies. In a related note...
Stop exaggerating. The present health care bill will not lead to people dying in the streets, any more than they already are. Socialized health care isn't perfect, but neither is it the death trap many make it out to be. Nor will cap and trade destroy the economy; it will probably do more harm than good, but destroy the economy? If statements like that were true, Europe would have been depopulated decades ago. And people know this. Anyone informed on the matter who hears such statements will reject this movement out of hand. Making things sound worse than they are may gain the support of the uninformed, but is that really how you want to win? By manipulating those who don't know? Better to win by informing people who don't know!
No more "Obama conspiracy". Propose laws that all requirements for office be checked, that's only reasonable and should have been done long ago. But Barack Obama is, by all evidence, a Hawaii-born Christian. Making theories lacking any hard evidence a significant part of your platform makes the entire movement look irrational, and encourages irrational thinking in others. Without rational decision-making, democracy fails.
Vocally state that violence is not acceptable. The minute the threat of violence enters the picture, democracy ceases to function. We need to avoid any talk which sounds like secessionism. Further, many fully expect there to eventually be a serious assassination attempt against Barack Obama, by someone who believes the "Obama conspiracy". That's obviously not a goal of this organization, but you're sure not working against it with talk like I've heard. If you want to participate in democracy, you must avoid any encouragement of such individuals.
Propose real, detailed solutions. "Cut taxes and balance the budget" is not a detailed solution. If this movement wants to be taken seriously, we need to provide a real alternative. I wouldn't vote for someone whose platform was "cut taxes and balance the budget", without knowing exactly where they were going to cut the extra trillion dollars or so necessary to make that work. What, are we going to sell the US Navy? Also, "Let the market handle it" is not a solution to health care.
If this movement wants to be and remain relevant, this movement needs to act like people that we would actually want to see running a country. That means deciding based on evidence, planning based on facts and goals, and truthfully informing the populace.
Some took objection to my comments, leading to the following clarification:
I'm not saying the Tea Party is a radical movement. I'm saying it's perceived as a radical movement, and that it has the potential to become one if we don't consciously avoid that possibility. Both are concerns we need to address. I'm not saying these are things the Tea Party is necessarily engaged in, I'm saying these are things we need to be careful of if we want to make it a long-term viable movement. That was, after all, the original question.
The Tea Party does not engage in or encourage violence. I never said or implied that it did. If that was the case, I wouldn't be anywhere near it, nor I hope would the rest of you. But there are people who believe in violence as a long-term solution to political problems, and those people do tend to have beliefs similar to those espoused by the Tea Party: that Barack Obama is (purposefully) trying to destroy the United States. We need to actively distance ourselves from those people, or we'll be associated with what they do, whether we want to be or not.
Now, as to this "Marxist" thing, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the Tea Party needs to focus on fact. The Tea Party is considered an outright joke in many circles for misusing terminology like "Marxist", "fascist", "nazi", "communist", and "czar". I'm not talking about "the left". I'm talking about independents that would definitely agree with the principles of reducing waste and holding representatives accountable, but can't do anything but laugh because, from all they can see, we have no idea what we're talking about! Some of the signs people bring to the rallies are the worst press this movement can get!
If someone called us a bunch of... oh, "capitalist socialist democratic totalitarian human-rights-loving genocidal maniacs", just to pick a random string of terms, would you take them seriously? Of course not, because what they said makes no sense at all. If this movement wants to be taken seriously enough to have a long term future (which, again, is the question we were asked to answer), phrasing our complaints in a coherent fashion is of vital importance. One can not both be fascist and communist. One can not both be a nazi and a socialist, even though "nazi" was originally a contraction of "national socialism". The Russian communists KILLED THE CZARS, so the phrase "communist czar" is hysterical even to me. As long as stuff like that goes on, this movement is self-defeating. You can't run a successful political movement while simultaneously alienating everyone that knows how absurd these things are.
And then there are the signs comparing Obama to the nazis. Maybe you've forgotten that this is freaking ADOLPH HITLER we're talking about, arguably the single man who had the greatest influence on the course of the 20th century. He's remembered for invading most of Europe, killing about ten million people, trying to exterminate the Jews, and a number of other atrocities. I defy you to find me one person who sees a swastika and immediately jumps to thinking of his economic policies. The purpose of those signs is not to draw a valid comparison; it is to make people afraid. As long as the Tea Party does that, it's going to be marginalized. I don't care if "the left" is calling us inappropriate names. We need to be better than that if we expect to displace them.
Yes, all these may be talking points from "the left". That's exactly why we need to address them! I'm not at all saying that what they're saying is in all cases true, though I maintain that nothing damages this movement more than pictures of bad signs. I'm saying that because these points are where we're being hit, we need to eliminate them as weaknesses. We should take their talking points away, and force them to engage us on the issues.
The Tea Party movement has gotten a lot of bad press since its inception. I strongly believe that most of the participants have been average people genuinely concerned about the direction the country is headed, especially with regards to deficit spending. However, the perception most people have comes from certain minority elements of the movement, which work to radicalize the whole. Not coincidentally, this is the same problem both major parties have.
To differentiate itself, and recover its good name with the populace at large, the Tea Party movement needs to avoid radicalization. By this I mean that we need to focus on confirmable facts, reasonable discussion, and attainable goals, and vocally reject anti-democratic activities like lies, manipulation, irrationality, or threats of violence. Examples of this include:
No more "Obama = Hitler" signs. Obama is nothing like Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or any other mass murderer. Saying so cheapens real atrocities wherein millions were brutally killed, and, frankly, makes us all look stupid and insensitive. All for, what, the sake of making people afraid, so you can use that fear? Seeing signs like that has almost made me stop coming to the rallies. In a related note...
Stop exaggerating. The present health care bill will not lead to people dying in the streets, any more than they already are. Socialized health care isn't perfect, but neither is it the death trap many make it out to be. Nor will cap and trade destroy the economy; it will probably do more harm than good, but destroy the economy? If statements like that were true, Europe would have been depopulated decades ago. And people know this. Anyone informed on the matter who hears such statements will reject this movement out of hand. Making things sound worse than they are may gain the support of the uninformed, but is that really how you want to win? By manipulating those who don't know? Better to win by informing people who don't know!
No more "Obama conspiracy". Propose laws that all requirements for office be checked, that's only reasonable and should have been done long ago. But Barack Obama is, by all evidence, a Hawaii-born Christian. Making theories lacking any hard evidence a significant part of your platform makes the entire movement look irrational, and encourages irrational thinking in others. Without rational decision-making, democracy fails.
Vocally state that violence is not acceptable. The minute the threat of violence enters the picture, democracy ceases to function. We need to avoid any talk which sounds like secessionism. Further, many fully expect there to eventually be a serious assassination attempt against Barack Obama, by someone who believes the "Obama conspiracy". That's obviously not a goal of this organization, but you're sure not working against it with talk like I've heard. If you want to participate in democracy, you must avoid any encouragement of such individuals.
Propose real, detailed solutions. "Cut taxes and balance the budget" is not a detailed solution. If this movement wants to be taken seriously, we need to provide a real alternative. I wouldn't vote for someone whose platform was "cut taxes and balance the budget", without knowing exactly where they were going to cut the extra trillion dollars or so necessary to make that work. What, are we going to sell the US Navy? Also, "Let the market handle it" is not a solution to health care.
If this movement wants to be and remain relevant, this movement needs to act like people that we would actually want to see running a country. That means deciding based on evidence, planning based on facts and goals, and truthfully informing the populace.
Some took objection to my comments, leading to the following clarification:
I'm not saying the Tea Party is a radical movement. I'm saying it's perceived as a radical movement, and that it has the potential to become one if we don't consciously avoid that possibility. Both are concerns we need to address. I'm not saying these are things the Tea Party is necessarily engaged in, I'm saying these are things we need to be careful of if we want to make it a long-term viable movement. That was, after all, the original question.
The Tea Party does not engage in or encourage violence. I never said or implied that it did. If that was the case, I wouldn't be anywhere near it, nor I hope would the rest of you. But there are people who believe in violence as a long-term solution to political problems, and those people do tend to have beliefs similar to those espoused by the Tea Party: that Barack Obama is (purposefully) trying to destroy the United States. We need to actively distance ourselves from those people, or we'll be associated with what they do, whether we want to be or not.
Now, as to this "Marxist" thing, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the Tea Party needs to focus on fact. The Tea Party is considered an outright joke in many circles for misusing terminology like "Marxist", "fascist", "nazi", "communist", and "czar". I'm not talking about "the left". I'm talking about independents that would definitely agree with the principles of reducing waste and holding representatives accountable, but can't do anything but laugh because, from all they can see, we have no idea what we're talking about! Some of the signs people bring to the rallies are the worst press this movement can get!
If someone called us a bunch of... oh, "capitalist socialist democratic totalitarian human-rights-loving genocidal maniacs", just to pick a random string of terms, would you take them seriously? Of course not, because what they said makes no sense at all. If this movement wants to be taken seriously enough to have a long term future (which, again, is the question we were asked to answer), phrasing our complaints in a coherent fashion is of vital importance. One can not both be fascist and communist. One can not both be a nazi and a socialist, even though "nazi" was originally a contraction of "national socialism". The Russian communists KILLED THE CZARS, so the phrase "communist czar" is hysterical even to me. As long as stuff like that goes on, this movement is self-defeating. You can't run a successful political movement while simultaneously alienating everyone that knows how absurd these things are.
And then there are the signs comparing Obama to the nazis. Maybe you've forgotten that this is freaking ADOLPH HITLER we're talking about, arguably the single man who had the greatest influence on the course of the 20th century. He's remembered for invading most of Europe, killing about ten million people, trying to exterminate the Jews, and a number of other atrocities. I defy you to find me one person who sees a swastika and immediately jumps to thinking of his economic policies. The purpose of those signs is not to draw a valid comparison; it is to make people afraid. As long as the Tea Party does that, it's going to be marginalized. I don't care if "the left" is calling us inappropriate names. We need to be better than that if we expect to displace them.
Yes, all these may be talking points from "the left". That's exactly why we need to address them! I'm not at all saying that what they're saying is in all cases true, though I maintain that nothing damages this movement more than pictures of bad signs. I'm saying that because these points are where we're being hit, we need to eliminate them as weaknesses. We should take their talking points away, and force them to engage us on the issues.
posted by Stephen Collings at
8:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home