Tea Party Atonement

by publius

Ah, Tea Party Day.  Loves it.  There’s already been much ink spilled on the manufactured nature of these things.  But that’s not the most interesting part.  What’s more interesting is the motivation of the people actually going to these things (and cheerleading them).  To me, the tea parties are serving a psychological function – they’re allowing conservatives to subjectively reaffirm their ideology and to relieve the cognitive dissonance of the Bush years.

It’s hard to know what being a conservative means these days.  There are so many internal contradictions that I’m not sure it lends itself to any easy definition.  But one thing that all conservatives tell themselves is that they’re somehow opposed or skeptical of “big government.”  There are of course different and diverse camps (some more thoughtful than others) – but in general, the ideological glue that holds the concept together in one’s mind relates in some sense to “small government.”

For obvious reasons, this ideological self-image came under a fairly withering assault by the Bush administration.  Whether you look at Bush in terms of spending, deficits, imperialism, executive power, or surveillance, it’s hard to squeeze the past 8 years into any sort of “small government” ideological box.  Procrustes wields a capable knife and all, but he’s not that good.

To be fair, a lot of conservatives were genuinely uneasy with these developments – but many chose to ignore or repress their anxiety because they really hated Democrats, or because they wanted a piece of the action, or whatever.  But most stood silently by, except for the much-maligned Ron Paul contingent.  (By the way, Glenn has a must-read showing the somewhat-hilarious hypocrisy of conservative bloggers complaining about the DHS report on rightwing extremist movements).

The tea parties, however, don’t have much to do with logic.  I’m sure our modern-day Samuel Adamses aren’t supporting big military spending cuts.  I doubt they care that taxes are unchanged or lowered on 95% of families.  I suspect they had almost nothing to say about the spending and executive overreach of the Bush years.  Logical consistency, remember, isn’t the point.

The point is that tea parties give them an opportunity to reaffirm their own ideological self-image.  In their own heads, they want to be “small government” people.  In this sense, the tea parties are simply atonement – trying to “out out” the damned spot. 

Perhaps all this seems unfair, but I think it’s actually the most charitable interpretation.  Because if they’re actually protesting Obama’s policies on the merits, it shows a fairly large disconnect from reality.  Under this less charitable interpretation, these people are protesting because 5% of the richest Americans are getting an extremely modest (by historical standards) tax increase. 

Tyranny doesn’t get much clearer than that.

Comments

[John Thullen]

Just wanna say I reserve my direct mockery and derision for public figures and others who get their faces in the paper (for the most part).

Lacking those targets, I mock DaveC., but he understands me.

I appreciate and admire OCSteve's contributions here and elsewhere and his civil manner. Not to mention his courage in wading in here when the going is tough.

Same goes for Brett Bellmore, but then I'm pathetic lately, but occasionally witty even when he disagrees with me, which occurs to me is all of the time, which would seem to multiply my witticisms, but who's counting?

These guys could be hanging at Redstate where mockery goes to die as a sham of mockery of half a mockery of a Moe of a travesty of three shams of a moekery.

Yet they stay here where mockery is rarely mocked.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm just wondering which country Brett is planning to dewomb to. I would be interested to know of a state that would offer the warm amiotic fluid of gun rights and concerns that white men are the victims of egregious racism without having to deal with a minority president.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

CaseyL: "They're also . . . what's the word I'm looking for here . . . oh, yeah: tools."

Tools for Fox News, which, in its need to seem relevant, looked desperate hyping the Tea Parties, only looking more irrelevant and more desperate.

It's one thing if the Teabaggers were protesting taxes. But it was such a mixed bag, protesting everything and, thus, nothing, they all seemed like crackpots, the sort only Glenn Beck's mother could love.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin should thank Texas Gov. Rick Perry for making her look a little less whacked.

P.S. Texas can't secede: There's no better football team to hate than the Dallas Cowboys.

[russell]

P.S. Texas can't secede: There's no better football team to hate than the Dallas Cowboys.

We'll relocate the Cowboys to Oklahoma.

Just for spite.

[gwangung]

No, if Texas secedes, then dem dere Cowboys become FURRINERS, which makes them doubly safe to hate...

[Brett Bellmore]

"Well, we already have the cult-like gun-nuts needed for the set-up. Or was David Koresh an innocent bystander?"

You somehow have to be categorically innocent of all wrongdoing to be wronged if the government launches an armed assault on your home over a dubious allegation of a tax violation shortly after you've invited them over to look around peacefully at their convenience? Nor was I aware that Koresh was the only person killed at Waco.

Look, if you're even marginally comfortable with what the government did at Waco, you've got no standing to claim you care about civil liberties, or to raise a stink about torture.

[John Thullen]

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly says the President's slot has already been filled in the breakaway province of Texas:

Chuck Norris will run.

Frankly, I wish Bill Clinton and Janet Reno has left Waco for Rick Perry to deal with.

We probably could have avoided all of that bloodshed and Perry could be visiting the Waco compound to exercise his natural rights of religious expression and fingering little girls and tax evasion.

Waco could be the new capital of Texas.

Timothy McVeigh could have a reality talk show in which insurrection against the Federal government and violence against innocent federal employees and the innocent public is only talked about for entertainment's sake and to boost FOX's ratings.

He could interview the leading lights of the Republican Party about the founding documents. He and Grover Norquist could have little 5 minute segments on the show in which they show FOX viewers how to assemble a bomb from everyday materials from the garage.

Glenn Beck and Neil Cavuto could bookend Timothy once a week for the FOX Pasty White Guy Weeping Session, in which the tax code is tearfully read out loud while a Karl Marx lookalike sits in a lawnchair wearing only a Speedo and sipping a Mai Tai as O'Reilly gives him a wickedly good tongue-lashing.

The third man at Oklahoma City, Sean Hannity, could wear his baseball ball cap in public and not worry constantly that his swarthiness might be mistaken for a Middle Eastern bloodline.

Personally, I'm retiring to Freedonia.

[John Miller]

Brett seems to come uncomfortable close to saying that McVeigh's actions were somehow justifiable because of Waco. It would be nice if he actually separated the two and said that although he disagreed with the government's actions at Waco and that Koresh was only guilty of tax evasion (obvioulsy ignoring many other factors) McVeigh was fully responsible for his actions and placing blame on Waco for his actions is totally irresponsible.

Otherwise, one could assume that he justifies OBL's actions based upon our presence in the ME and support of Israeli actions against the Palestinians, and all sort of other claims.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Here's a funny thing: ANSWER never organized any of the big protests of the past 8 years..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War>Protests against the Iraq War

"On October 26,{2002} protests took place in various cities across the world. Over 100,000 people took part in a protest in Washington. 50,000 people took part in a demonstration in San Francisco. Both protests were called by the ANSWER Coalition.[17]"

{Jan 2003}"NION and ANSWER jointly organized protests in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. Other protests took place all over the United States, including various smaller places such as Lincoln, Nebraska."

{Apr 2003}"Protests sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R. were held in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles to demonstrate against the Iraq War three days after the fall of Baghdad. In Washington, the march route took the group of 30,000 past offices of several mass media organizations, and companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton.[55][56]"

{Oct 2003}"The Washington DC rally attracted 20,000 (BBC estimate) protesters. The protest ended with a rally at the Washington Monument, within sight of the White House. As well as opposing the invasion of Iraq protesters also called for the repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

The Washington and San Francisco protests were jointly organized by ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) and United for Peace and Justice."

Need I go on?

[Brett Bellmore]

The point being, by the way, not that there's something wrong with ANSWER organizing protests. That's a constitutional right, even if ANSWER is a rather distasteful organization.

But suggesting they weren't behind a lot of the protests of the last 8 years is rather ludicris.

[farmgirl]

Regardless for one's distaste for ANSWER or Fox News as organizations, there certainly is a difference in their relative heft at protest turnout.

What I mean is, look at turnout versus size of platform. Per Brett's quote, on 10/26/02, 150k people turned out in 2 cities. I think Nate Silver's numbers indicate (generously) 250k turned out nationwide on 4/15/09. Now, a lot of this may also point to strength of feeling regarding the particular issue under protest, separate from how one feels about the nominal organizer.

[Hartmut]

And Fox Noise even provably exaggerated attendance numbers (and got caught on tape).
I also find it remarkable that some on the right accuse the left to be the ones that brought/did the really ugly things to/at the tea parties (liberal 'plants'). And the Pauliacs (rightfully I think) accuse the GOPsters of stealing their act now after painting them as loonies before the election.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett seems to come uncomfortable close to saying that McVeigh's actions were somehow justifiable because of Waco."

I'm aware of the tendency to assume, if somebody holds a view you don't like, that they hold a whole range of offensive views. Makes things simpler, doesn't it? So let me be clear:

VcVeigh deserves to rot in the lowest circle of Hell. Ok, maybe he should have Ron Horiuchi for company, but that's where he should be.

Not only did he respond to Waco by doing something purely evil, that evil predictably gave the government a pretext to go after a heck of a lot of people who weren't doing anything wrong.

But this doesn't change the fact that the government did something really, really nasty at Waco, the culmination of a long sequence of nastiness, and was getting pretty good at getting away with it.

And it doesn't change the fact that sequence stopped. I'm haunted by the possibility that, while the means McVeigh chose were evil, he was actually right about what it would take to get the government to back down.

No, not justifiable. They had an understandable motive, and aim, but the end really doesn't justify the means.

[John Miller]

Brett, thank you for the clarification, even if it was a misintrepretation of my meaning. A bit of mind-reading on your part, but I'll skip that for now.

Okay, we agree about McVeigh, although you probably had no problem with him being put to death while I did. I am sure we also disagree about Waco in some respectsw, although we both would consider it a tragedy.

So you do agree, however, that OBL's actions motives are understandable and so is his aim understandale. That is good to know.

Oh, and by the way, how did McVeigh's actions make the government back down? That paragraph does concern me a little.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So you do agree, however, that OBL's actions motives are understandable and so is his aim understandable. That is good to know."

Yup, I don't think he's insane, just evil. Not that he thinks he is; Not a lot of cartoon villains out there who think of themselves as bad guys, you know.

"although we both would consider it a tragedy."

Nope, I would not agree that Waco was a "tragedy". Tragedy carries the implication of inadvertence; It's a tragedy when a bus goes off a mountain road and 20 people die.

But it if goes off because somebody stretched a cable across the road, that's not tragedy, that's an atrocity. Waco was an atrocity.

Waco wasn't a legitimate exercise in law enforcement that inadvertently went bad. It was a publicity stunt where the designated victims didn't cooperate. The BATF got caught on film running a "nigger hunting license" booth at the white supremacist "Good ol boy's roundup", and were desperate for some good publicity going into their budget hearings. They selected the Davidians as suitable unsympathetic fall guys, got a warrant from a rubber stamp judge, and went in with guns blazing, and cameras rolling. And it blew up in their faces.

That's not tragedy, that's atrocity.

Nor was Waco an isolated incident. It was just the biggest example of the genre: Government picks a fall guy, goes in with guns blazing, standoff follows, victims demonized while cut off from the media, 'tragic' end that destroys the evidence. It's like they had a freaking script to work from.

Contrast that with the way they treated the Montana Freedmen. Yes, something DID change after the OK bombing. And I don't think it was because of those pathetic hearings.

[Dan S.]

Brett:

"Contrast that with the way they treated the Montana Freedmen. Yes, something DID change after the OK bombing. And I don't think it was because of those pathetic hearings."

I can't say I'm anywhere near conversant in the comparative details of these two standoffs, but there are other possible explanations than 'terrorism works!'. The Waco situation, after all, involved a fringe religious movement, and from what I've read, the authorities did not understand or deal well with that (well, obviously); the Montana Freemen -despite, granted, the "Christian Patriot" thing -were more comprehensible, less alien. It's also possible that the gov't took notice of the many negative but less . . . explosive . . . reactions to Waco, and Ruby Ridge before it. And so on.

And of course, to the extent that there is a "sequence" here, something may have changed, but it certainly didn't stop. Google around, and you'll find no shortage of stories about cops busting onto people's property, gunning down dogs, relatives, etc. It's just that it hasn't involved white rightwing militias, etc., lately but rather what the LGM folk call "The War On (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs"

[Jesurgislac]

Dan: And of course, to the extent that there is a "sequence" here, something may have changed, but it certainly didn't stop. Google around, and you'll find no shortage of stories about cops busting onto people's property, gunning down dogs, relatives, etc. It's just that it hasn't involved white rightwing militias, etc., lately but rather what the LGM folk call "The War On (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs"

Yes, but acknowledging that it's just as bad when cops gun down black people as it is when they gun down white people would be against Brett's religion.

[Dan S.]

Uh-oh - wait, does that mean I'm disrespecting his religion? Squashing his first amendment rights? But on the other hand, what if these are "matters of moral reasoning springing from religious conviction", and we have to respect them as perfectly reasonable? Oy vey. So difficult.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes, but acknowledging that it's just as bad when cops gun down black people as it is when they gun down white people would be against Brett's religion."

Um, Jes, you were aware that the Davidians were a mixed race community, weren't you?

[Jesurgislac]

Dan S: Uh-oh - wait, does that mean I'm disrespecting his religion? Squashing his first amendment rights? But on the other hand, what if these are "matters of moral reasoning springing from religious conviction", and we have to respect them as perfectly reasonable? Oy vey. So difficult.

Something like that. Also, guns are involved, and I think guns are Brett's second religion.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm an atheist, they'd be my first.

[Vergilius]

Hi all--I just wanted to weigh in as one of the "much-maligned Ron Paul contingent" who was out there raising hell when Bush was in office. I went to a tea party and felt...angsty, I guess. The libertarian-leaning bits of the Republican party started the tea-party-revival parade, and now the neocon establishment has grabbed a baton and scampered out front, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed, guys. And I'm none too happy about it.

Some of these comments have been a bit off, but the criticism that rabid partisan conservatives are having an identity crisis is spot-on. At the same time though, there's cognitive dissonance coming out of the White House. Obama correctly blames a large portion of this problem on Bush's massive deficits, and then comes out with his own budget...which sets a new record.

A final word before I go on the inflation/deflation debate--in the short run, Bernanke's "quantitative easing" is pushing on a string. I don't care how much money you print, if it sits in the financial equivalent of a hole in my backyard, it's not going to affect prices, so in the short run, the current deflationary trend will continue. The worry is that Obama and the Congress will have ruined the US's credit when it comes time for the Fed to reign the money supply back in, and that no one will want to buy bonds held by the Fed. So even if we do manage to spend out way out of the recession, the fact that it was deficit spending will drive us right back down again.

[Catsy]

I started blogging in the last week of December of 2001, after a few months of reading blogs, and after years of writing on Usenet the same material I blogged about. This was considerably before Atrios or Kos, say, came along.

Upstarts.

Holy crap, you mean I actually started blogging a year before Gary did?

This is a sign of the apocalypse.