300,000 – and the numbers are conservative
posted at 7:55 pm on April 16, 2009 by CK MacLeod
printer-friendly
For personal reasons (including the need to finish my own tax returns!), I couldn’t attend my local Tea Party protest, though apparently some 2,000 of my fellow Inland Imperials did show up in Rancho Cucamonga, California, a nearby community that I doubt anyone would normally consider a hotbed of political activism. Since I couldn’t contribute by personal physical participation, I thought I might make some small contribution with my thoughts – from greater even than binocular distance.
1. Estimates range from 200 to over 300 thousand participants in some 300 to 800 nationwide Tea Parties yesterday – not bad at for a movement in its infancy, and those numbers may be conservative (in more ways than one). The result qualifies as the first major public demonstration of small-government, constitutionalist, libertarian, populist resistance in the Age of Obama.
2. Exposing the powers that be and their lackeys as clueless, witless, dishonest, and malevolent is one of the great goals of a protest movement, and on this score the Tea Parties won some early victories that can be exploited further: The White House pretends to be unaware. The Speaker of the House insults and defames everyday citizens. The performance of newspeople and tele-pundits at CNN and MSNBC was shamefully and obviously crass – over-the-top. Eventually, the statists may get their acts together, but, for now, their behavior reinforces the Tea Partiers’ message of intellectual and moral bankruptcy among the elites, and probably also reinforces the Tea Partiers’ determination to really show ‘em next time…
3. A communications strategy that simply ignores, rejects, or decries the “MSM,” however, rather than seizing its vulnerable outposts on the way to direct confrontation, is unnecessarily self-limiting. Take CNN: Routed in the ratings, its star newscaster reduced to crude teabagging jokes, and its roving correspondent exposed as a shrill shill – the “most trusted name in news” could simply be dismissed as unsalvageable. It shouldn’t be. It is still the news outlet thought by the public at least to want to play things down the middle, and its experimentation with light, me-too Obamamania hasn’t served it well. By an appeal to its interests as well as to its conscience, CNN could be vulnerable to being flipped – if not to the right, then back to a middle that itself needs to be shifted. The same is true regarding other venues, from local newspapers to the major broadcast networks.
4. Problem: The “Tea Party” moniker makes it easy for observers to mischaracterize or misunderstand the protests – unless you really believe that people turned out to protest taxes and taxes alone. On the bright side, the name does encourage people to look back to the years of the country’s founding, invokes a spirit of “not gonna take it anymore” resistance, and connotes fun – it’s a party! Unfortunately, the first words that come to mind after “Tea Party” for anyone with some minimal level of historical education are “no taxation without representation,” possibly the first political slogan that American schoolchildren are ever exposed to. Hostile critics, uncomprehending reporters, dismissive politicians, and hostile uncomprehending dismissive critic-reporters and talking heads (like CNN’s Susan Roesgen, THE NATION’s David Corn, FNC guest contributor Tanya Acker, among many others) , find it easy to claim that the Obama presidency isn’t imperial Britain, that these taxpayers do have representation, and that the protestors are merely acting out of selfishness or ignorance, as unwitting tools of “the rich.”
5. The main though entirely understandable problem or deficit, however, isn’t in the words “Tea Party,” but lies in the fact that the movement, if it is really a movement, currently lacks organization and a visible leadership: Even if it did have a coherent message, it has no way to drive and control its messaging. Some seem to believe that a decentralized movement with a decentralist program doesn’t need a central thrust – either practically or conceptually – but that’s very probably wishful thinking, unless you have a very long time scale in mind for making political progress. Even Glenn Reynolds, Mr. Army of Davids himself and a strong proponent of the Tea Parties, believes that the movement “probably” needs greater coherence. In the meantime, Fox News and talkradio personalities and a few familiar pols will fill in the spokesperson gap, and can’t really be blamed for doing the job that no one else seems ready to do.
6. A unified conservative response to Obamaism could logically take one of two main forms – either a compromise with the liberal state and its allurements, looking toward long-term ethnodemographical trench warfare, or: uncompromising opposition. The second alternative is the one that the Tea Parties tend toward – one main driver being a sense of the sheer economic impossibility of what the state, as in the Obama Budget, claims to be planning – expressed most vividly in the by now familiar graphic, a political hieroglyphic that for me never ceases to astound (so here’s one version again):
Fiscal Psychosis
7. Where the metrocons or so-called “reformers” fear the “Party of No” label, the populist and libertarian response to Obamaism begins at “no” and all of its variations (including “I hope he fails”). In contrast to working politicians and wonks, regular people aren’t very impressed with being called “negative” in this context, because they’ve rarely assumed anything positive about national politics anyway, especially recently. For us, the positive content of conservatism is never a government program: It’s real life as we really live it, with as little pressure or involvement from “above” as we can get away with. We have much less difficulty, and no shame at all, when it comes to looking at the whole series of major initiatives since the financial crisis exploded, and wondering aloud whether we wouldn’t have been better off doing nothing – at least under the presumption that a thoroughgoing alternative was never going to be on offer.
8. In addition to being a natural reaction to Obamaism, a conservatism that’s libertarian, constitutionalist, populist, and radically reformist equally qualifies as a natural response to the collapse of Bush/Frist/Hastert Republicanism – a coalition dominated by social conservatives and statist Republicans that a few short years ago was in the same position that the Obamanauts are in now, with all the levers of power in their hands, facing a seemingly made-to-order crisis, dreaming of epochal political re-alignment. Ideas and impulses, if not necessarily particular individuals, that have been driven into the fringe parties – Libertarian, Constitution, Reform, et al – are being brought closer to the center of conservative politics again.
9. So, on that note, what about them Republicans?
Jennifer Rubin at PJTV got back from the rainswept DC Tea Party protest and, as is her wont, immediately started asking the bigger questions in a practical political context.
Republicans should not be rejoicing quite yet. Many protesters went out of their way to say they are upset with both parties and hold George W. Bush equally responsible for launching the now never-ending stream of bailouts. And the crowd, if anything, was libertarian in bent rather than conservative. These people are advocating less government, restraints on federal power, and a return to “constitutional government.”
Rubin goes on to ask whether a conflict between social conservatives and libertarians is unavoidable. (I think some conflict is already build in, but that it doesn’t have to turn into conservative civil war – subject for another day?) The larger themes she points to were already developing during the presidential campaign last year – most vividly during that brief moment that McCain-Palin led in the polls, the dual embodiment of a dynamic, popular reform conservatism. The vision fell from view during the financial crisis and up to the Inauguration, but always stayed in the background – the image of the road not traveled, but which might have to be re-traced soon if the “Age of Obama” turned out to be a mere episode.
Bringing that image back into focus again, turning the Republican Party into the “kicking leg” of a movement standing on a populist, libertarian, constitutionalist, radically reformist if not revolutionary grounds may or may not be practical, but, presuming the failure of Obamaism – a presumption without which this discussion is largely pointless – it may be what the times require.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
informative & thought provoking.
its a race to see who can lead this divergent group. its obvious that the dems in Congress just cannot. can you imagine Barney Frank heading the “new Constitution” party? maybe the Republicans can figure out a way to fold these people into their “big” tent. but Michael Steele is proving to be a disappointment; he can’t jump on opportunities.
i’d like to see more young people, all of our veterans & more middle class people involved.
and I hope & pray that our tea-partying bunch doesn’t start any violence. bambi & rahm & axelrod are just waiting for that.
kelley in virginia on April 16, 2009 at 8:23 PM
I don’t think you have to ben an alarmist to acknowledge the the possibility of violence – more likely from Obama-supporters or agents provocateurs, or in the context of larger social disorder. You’re the first one – other than in the musings of some uhninged Garofalo type – whom I’ve heard bring it up in this way. On the other hand, Susan Roesgen seemed almost to be begging for it.
CK MacLeod on April 16, 2009 at 9:20 PM
She was. Agent Provocatuers aren’t just Acorns thugs. Journalists do it all the time. In fact, “spin” came as a response to the Dan Rather ambush style of political reporting.
The Apologist on April 16, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Well, The MaCleod, a thoughtful intelligent post with considerable intellectual heft.
I have a few minor criticisms.
1. Please drop the bipartisan calumny. I know it is the official line, but it is simply false, and it makes you look like desparate liars.
2. 300k is a good start. However, it is in no way a mandate. Like Nate says–
3. This what the left learned from anti-Bush protests–
I will be honored to engage you when you get past the sillie stage. However, Beck and your deliverance contingent and your persistant deafness to culture renders you emminently mockable. However, I do not discount you.
And I plan to make sure you do not win.
4. Douthat gets it.
5. You dismiss the environment, which is in flux. Some of Obama’s economic spaghetti will stick to the wall. The housing market is already improving. And cultural and demographic evolution are inexorable. You must find a way to broaden the teaparties appeal to youth and minorities.
At this point you are worthy only of mockery and scorn. Your memes are crude and scattered and your SNR is high….nearly everything you try to say is drowned in anti-Obama noise. I cannot tell if it is logical at all.
I am more than willing to go to war against a worthy and homrable opponent.
You are not there yet.
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Just so you know, CK…you have the power to delete comments in your posts.
MadisonConservative on April 16, 2009 at 9:58 PM
ooops i meant your SNR is low……your NSR is high.
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Yup, madison deleted my comment pointing out that the teaparties are homogeously white conservatives.
Feel free.
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 10:00 PM
If you don’t give in to identity politics as your frame then you’re never gonna get elected.
Who came up with that stupid idea? Demographics is destiny in a very few instances. You’ll never understand strangelet. As a lefty you view politics as barter. It’s why you’re a lefty. The tea parties are the beginning of the movement. Protest doesn’t change anything. But if the protest is big enough and loud enough then at some point members become leaders. They see the risk of leadership, in time and effort, as having a greater likelihood of paying off (changing things). Then persuasion begins through an organized campaign of propaganda, debate and electioneering. Protest is for getting attention, building a network, and attracting competent men and women to implement policies developed as positive articulations of objections. This isn’t a campaign…yet. But in a years time? Yes, on a small scale and using already established players it will be a campaign. Small victories lead to bigger ones so long as leadership remembers the founding principles. The reasons for the first protests.
I’m not debating you. I’m educating you. But by all means, insist that what matters here is skin color and bribery. How could you not? It’s all you have.
The Apologist on April 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I am actually still registered republican. I left it like that so I could be an obamacon.
I plan to change before the next election, though.
I shall register as an independent, like AllahP.
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 10:38 PM
MadCon – I promise to strike with my terrible swift deleting sword as soon as someone dares to troll my domain. I don’t think of strangelet as a troll, however. Sometimes on other threads I’ve seen him/her/it skate over the line where I would draw it, but as long as it keeps flattering me, I’ll give it latitude (as long as it rubs the lotion on its skin and puts the lotion in the basket).
As for the post in question:
1. I don’t think “calumny” is the word you intended, strangelet. If you are trying to deny that the Tea Parties are other than purely partisan affairs – and there are more alternatives to partisan than “bipartisan” – I know you’re wrong. If you have a more nuanced, less immediately disprovable claim, you’re welcome to try to support it.
2. As if anyone was trying to claim a “mandate” – except in the sense that in a free society each of us is his or her own mandate.
3. Whatever.
4. Douthat may get a lot of things, but he doesn’t get my clicks unless someone gives me a good reason. I generally find him tedious.
5. Your side is the one that lives by ethnodemographic vivisection, the liberal plantation, spoils, and the saddest stories ever told. It’s what you had to patch together when dialectical materialism ran aground. It was a nice try and looked great on paper. I’d wish you better luck next time, but I probably wouldn’t mean it.
CK MacLeod on April 16, 2009 at 11:16 PM
The Apologist on April 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Well said!
CK MacLeod on April 16, 2009 at 11:22 PM
I imagine you with a claymore.
I was on the fencing team in undergrad, epee is my weapon of choice.
Engarde!
I also find Douthat tedious…..since he is basically Kristol with a bigger vocabulary and a little more hair.
Who does speak for the Right?
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 11:33 PM
And my side?
Ima obamacon evolving into an independent.
The part I agreed with Douth on tho….is that while the teaparties look just as whack as the anti-war protests right now……in retrospect, just as the antiwar protestations of the left been validated….the teaparties may be validated…by history.
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM
and ima grrl.
so sexist to assume that because i use multisyllabics and im demonstrably intellectually aggro that i am xy.
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM
And those would be?
strangelet on April 16, 2009 at 11:42 PM
I didn’t assume anything about your chromosomes, grrl. I actually had thought you were female, but I left the language open – even went out of my way to do so.
When you voted for Obama, you voted for the plantation, and you continue to agitate on its behalf, against us runaways. It’s still “your side” until you perform a valid act of contrition.
Anyway, a few posts ago you were threatening war. You seem confused.
CK MacLeod on April 16, 2009 at 11:59 PM
(sorry, Ross – that was unfair to be so summarily dismissive – guess I’m still angry about some things)
CK MacLeod on April 17, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Lol, we are at war already.
The forever war of the IQ tribes.
You want me to respect you for freely choosing your plantations and embracing your chains.
Given that we are not going to change each others minds, and given that I abandoned “acts of contrition” when i escaped the cruel intellectual scold’s bridle of the Catholic Church…..is war worth it?
strangelet on April 17, 2009 at 8:02 AM
strangelet, hey, we are pissed off that Congress doesn’t listen. actually, i’m mad about the runaway spending; but i am also angry about some of the appointments.
timmy geithner? and how ’bout janet napolitano.
Congress doesn’t care about anyone except themselves.
kelley in virginia on April 17, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Yep, it really is Nishi. The Falconer quote proves it.
The Monster on April 17, 2009 at 8:52 AM
I have to respectfully disagree on this point. I keep hearing this criticism, but, you know what, I DO NOT have representation in Washington. First, in Washington, we have one president and a few hundred Congress critters representing 250million people, yet the Federal gov’t annually seizes 10-35% of my income. Would our founding fathers and the colonists in 1773 have thought that adequate representation?
Second, there are 1.8 million civilian employees in the federal gov’t – not including the post office – making the federal gov’t the largest employer in the country. They collect your taxes and spend your money. Did you vote for any of them?
Third, in this last election, we had a choice between statism, and statism-lite. I wanted to vote for smaller gov’t, fiscal responsibility, reduced entitlements, reduced taxes and respect for civil rights like free speech and gun ownership. Who was I supposed to vote for? There are 3rd party and write-in candidates, but seriously, now.
Yeah, I know, Obama won 52% of the vote, but he has to govern 100% of the nation and obey the rule of law. Just because he won 52% of the vote, he does not have the authority to steal from the other 48% to redistribute their hard earned income and buy votes for the next go ‘round. Rights come from God to the individual. No, Obama is not God. Yes, I have a right to my income, guns, and free speech.
The solution is to restore the constitution, restore power to the states to defend the rights of their citizens, and restore the right of the people to keep the fruits of their labor. Not have it redistributed to them by the federal government! Then I will be adequately represented. Therefore, “No taxation without representation” is a perfectly legitimate assessment of the situation right now.
It is the critics who are ignorant, and there is nothing wrong with selfishness. I think Ayn Rand wrote a little book on that… Atlas… something. The Tea Party moniker is perfect. Politicians and the MSM can mock it and dismiss it at their own peril.
bitsy on April 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Check this.
Malkin blows 300,000 up into a million.
Damn…its like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes.
Rush and Beck pimp Alex Jones.
How can I respect you?
You are liars and crazy people.
strangelet on April 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Um, why should we seek the respect of people who are always looking for an excuse to call us insane liars?
Using a conservative estimate – taking news accounts on face value as per the methodology of Obamanaut Numbers Oracle Nate Silver – Geraghty gets up to 340+ thousand.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjcwN2Y0M2MzMjc4MzViMTNjOWQzZTZjNDU5NjE4ZTY=
Pajamas Media achieves a reasonable estimate of 550,000.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=tea-party
The Malkin piece you link openly and directly makes a joke out of the 1 Million figure – calling it “liberal math.” Mischaracterizing pieces like that moves my domain security alert level to orange on you, grrrl. Keep on doing it, and I’ll conclude, sadly, that discussion with you is a waste of time.
As for Alex Jones or Jones-connected people buying ads on Rush or Beck, I haven’t seen The Obama Deception, I don’t trust Charles Johnson, and I’m not greatly interested in the topic, but my default position is freedom of speech. Otherwise, the world doesn’t revolve around your feelings about the right wing or your vision of some perfect yet toadly kewl conservatism. This matter is rather off-topic, but I’ll propose a deal: When Obama asks the LA Times to release the Khalidi tape, we can begin to think he doesn’t have a lot to hide after all.
CK MacLeod on April 17, 2009 at 12:37 PM
bitsy, I see your points, and if, as some believe, Obama will be compelled to raise taxes enormously, then it may turn out to be a powerful issue on its own terms, without need for much explanation. I still think that folding all of the resistance to Obamaism by way of hidden taxes, future obligations, etc., into the tax issue, or seeming to do so, is narrow and artificial.
CK MacLeod on April 17, 2009 at 12:44 PM
lol!
okfine, you got meh…..i dont actually read malkin….shes a frother and i have better things to read.
I still dig Charles though. He’s hardcore.
He is purely and implacably honest.
Let me ax you a question, my delightful celtic homeslice.
Who does speak for your side?
Is is Rush and Beck and Alex Jones?
strangelet on April 17, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I’
no clue here. what is the Khalidi tape?
strangelet on April 17, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Khalidi Tape
CK MacLeod on April 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM
As for who speaks for our side, at this point in time we all speak for ourselves. We probably won’t have a true spokesperson for another three years at least, unless someone does something like what Newt did in 1994 – overthrow the Dems’ in the House or Senate, or perform some other stunning feat of practical magic. Hardly seems likely – but if it was merely likely, it wouldn’t be enough.
CK MacLeod on April 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Thanks for that inspiring bit, Strangelet, even if you had no intention to inspire.
As for your mocking regular people and their sincere concerns . . . well, that’s what you do, isn’t it?
You plan to make sure we don’t win?
Well, I think that’s kinda silly. And self-defeating. You plan to make sure truckloads of money get thrown away (or stolen)willy-nilly, for generations to come, with no end in sight.
Not sure why you’d want that, but good luck on your battle to make sure it continues.
Alana on April 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Thanks for that inspiring bit, Strangelet, even if you had no intention to inspire.
Alana on April 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Ah, but i DO want to inspire you. I can defeat insane clowns like Beck with one frontal lobe tied behind my back.
Sir Richard famoiusly said……There is no altruism in nature.
Give me a loyal sane opposition to fact-check Obamas policies, not a bunch of juggalos spewing conspiracy theory.
Give me worthy opponents prepared to do battle in truth and honor.
Give me war.
strangelet on April 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM
CK, I see your point, but about the name thing:
1) It is what it is, and what it is works. By works, I mean it’s successful. It works like any other simple, easy-to-understand and easy-to-remember name of something that becomes popular. Calling it something else now would be to throw away the very handle that attracted so many.
2) No one at the tea parties seems to be beholden to the narrow definition that detractors want to foist upon us – of being only about taxes, and not about spending, and so on.
3) The detractors don’t like that the tea parties have caught on so well, and therefore seize upon technicalities in an attempt to de-legitimize them. They say we can’t use the name because the situation isn’t exactly the same as the original tea party. And because of that – if you follow their logic – the whole movement is invalidated. This is what they hope to do. There’s little point in rising to that bait.
4) It is the *second* tea party, if you will, and therefore different in many respects from the first.
5) What someone said earlier about taxation without representation actually is valid. All you have to do is look at all those legislators who voted for the first bail-out over their constituents’ dead bodies.
6) I don’t know who started the name, but its genesis was never about the tax portion of the equation only.
7) It’s too late to change it now anyway, even if there were much point to doing so.
Alana on April 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Alana, all good arguments. However, to the extent that the name sticks, for however long, it will likely force participants to stress those aspects of the protest that go beyond taxes. Over time, if this movement takes off, “Tea Party” may turn into one term for the protests, or to the kind of protest meeting, called by one wing or one tendency within the larger resistance to Obama. You can take my criticism above as merely an observation of one set of tactics deployed by Obamapologists that the rest of us ought to be prepared for. How well the tactics work and whether the name is such a problem that it needs to be changed are other questions.
If some rightwing Axelrod had designed this movement, maybe he would have come up with something slicker and hipper and more appealing to New Class fashion victims – like the O symbol… I suppose we can be thankful this isn’t yet another high-gloss, consumer-tested substance-free exercise in corporate marketing.
CK MacLeod on April 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Except Janet Napolitano of course.
petunia on April 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM
What type of moron are you? Where I live there were many people not white. It was wonderful to see. I think you are just a racist and are stereotyping your ignorance.
sheebe on April 18, 2009 at 12:08 AM