Saturday, April 17, 2010

Defeating the Tea Movement

A lot has been published recently around the Tea Party movement, especially given that they have become so visible during tax season. Much of what I have read attempts to mock, trivialize, or name-call their members. Some characterize them as racists or unfettered followers of a naive libertarian agenda (enabled by Fox News). But a recent poll shows that they are growing in size and are attracting mainstream Americans.

A recent Washington Post article by 2 Democrats has the view that we need to cave in to their views. I disagree.

In my view, the Tea Party is a well-organized political movement that has both top-down leadership and a grass-roots feel. However, I do not support most of its views, and I would like to suggest how those of us who support more progressive ideas can work together to come out on top at critical times, such as votes on important bills and at the next election.

The reason this movement is able to gain strength is that they are, like the Progressives of 2006 and 2008, NOT in power.

There are many problems on our President's plate and he has now been in office long enough to have "taken ownership" of them. This is what the Tea Party capitalizes on.

The former President Bush created many of the problems that exist today, such as the Mideast tensions (if you agree that we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan we'd probably be out of there by now), the rise of Iran (and Hamas and Hezbollah). Needless to say, the state our economy has fallen to was mostly on Bush's watch and due to his tax-cutting-but-high-spending policy.

The Tea party shifts responsibility for our troubles to President Obama and the Democrats. Of course we know that's wrong, but how do we answer it?

It is correct for Obama to point out that we are on the path of improvement. But as we all know, it is slow and may not be complete. It may be too little too late for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

It is my view, therefore, that we point out the Tea Party's errors in judgment by PROJECTING what things would be like if THEY were currently in power, or got into power in 2010. The purpose of this would be to counteract their simple solutions of "lower taxes, less government".

The basic message of the Tea Party is appealing, we all would like freedom, minimal government intrusion, less adventurism abroad, and of course, less taxes.

But what would the world be like if we followed their agenda to the letter?

This is where leadership, a continuation of the 2007-2008 Progressive grass roots movement and creative use of the media come in.

The basic idea is this: come up with commercials, TV, and other media (books, web) "specials" that provide human-based stories of life under a Tea Party regime.

Don't be over-dramatic, make it look "realistic".

An example: let's say we have another Katrina. Let's "show" a major metropolitan area devastated by a natural disaster. But, for the twist, we show that there is no FEMA, and the Tea-party-based state governments have reduced their budgets to only pay for basic fire and police. Those who have the money (thanks to the high-bracket tax cuts) will be able to escape and rebuild (we could show them sipping some "gourmet tea"), but the middle class and lower will be shown suffering. The contrast would need to be clear, accurate, and emotional.

We could probably come up with great examples in health care, but I'll leave it up to you, the reader to think of ideas.

The promotion of these ideas would come top-down and grass roots. The former would gather funding to prepare the media and get it distributed and publicized (what's moveon.org doing these days?). The grass roots organizations would lead rallies to show that the people do not want Tea-Party leadership to happen.

I am convinced that there are many of us who want to see progressive government that isn't "socialist" but is practical in that it recognizes that it must regulate to protect people from being victims of powerlessness. Not just powerlessness against their governments, but powerlessness against the other "big" decision makers in society, such as banks and health insurance companies. Ultimately we want a world of "checks and balances" between government and business to ensure our individual freedom and influence.

It is for this reason that I feel the Tea Party (and especially Sarah Palin's) ideas are incorrect in that they only see "government" as the enemy. It's an easy scapegoat. But think about it - it was government that abolished slavery, that stopped child labor, that gave us Social Security and Medicare. In all cases, other forces (very much like the Tea Party) tried to stop this government regulation by claiming that it infringed on individual freedom, violated states rights and was bad for (free market) business. But I ask, do you want to return to those days?

Let's get moving, let's take on the Tea Party. But let's get this right so that we can get what we need out of our government.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Looking forward to your commnets.

Update: May 7, 2010 - I wrote the above post prior to the Louisiana oil spill. People are complaining that Obama reacted too slowly. But imagine if a Tea Party administration - with no EPA or other cleanup agency - was in power.


Update May 21. 2010 - Now that Rand Paul was nominated, it will be incumbent upon us to keep track what he says and does. Let's not demonize him, but see how consistent he is (or isn't), what he tries to eliminate from government and what he tries to add to it. I'll post more as I get info.
By the way, I just composed a song for the Tea Party movement. I'll put the link to it when I get it posted. 


Update November 5, 2012 - After seeing the effects of Hurricane Sandy on NYC, I went back to this post to remind myself what things would be like if the Tea Party was in power. Also, I looked at a clip from "An Inconvenient Truth" to validate Al Gore's projection of what could happen in NY down the road. 

Update December 12, 2012 - I posted an entry after the Governor of Michigan's decision to limit the power of Labor Unions. 

No comments: