Are the Tea Parties Getting a Bum Rap?
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Conservatism, Fiscal Responsibility, Media
Mona Charen of National Review Online notes that major media outside of Fox News either ignored the tax day tea parties or took an adversarial tone in reporting on them. Charen rightly notes that part of the problem is that Fox News promoted and actively participated in the events, giving other news outlets the excuse that the tea parties were illegitimate. But does that make the frustrations of the attendees illegitimate as well?
Charen points out that maybe tea party participants deserve more credit for their concerns. Writing about a specific attendee who was confronted by a CNN reporter, Charen says:
Perhaps [the stimulus and tax credit don’t] buy his support because he is skeptical that his taxes can remain low when the federal government is embarked on a record-shattering spending spree. He may be offended by the bailout culture, and worried that the obligations of taxpayers cannot remain low when it seems that every irresponsible borrower, failed car company, and free spending state is being rescued by the federal government. Additionally, he may be dubious that the government will spend the money wisely. It has been rumored that government spending has produced waste, fraud, inefficiency, and corruption. But he also may simply believe that engorging the government and enfeebling the private sector — no matter who is writing the checks — is not good for the economic or spiritual health of the country.
Or maybe he believes President Obama is leading us towards a socialist, totalitarian state where capitalism will be discouraged and guns will be forbidden. And that’s the problem with these tea parties. From my observations, it’s hard to separate the reasonable complaints from the outlandish accusations. Too many people associated with these groups have reached for ridiculous rhetoric rather than formulating smart, convincing critiques.
That said, the reasonable pro tea party argument laid out by Charen is a difficult one to disseminate without losing people’s attention. Fiscal responsibility is not something on which great slogans or firebrand speeches are built (although Ross Perot did a pretty good job with the issue back in the day). Unfortunately, overstating the risks of fiscal irresponsibility ruins the credibility of the critic. As of yet, the tea party organization has not found the right balance between firing up the populace and presenting a consistently reasonable argument free from rightwing chicanery.
The good news for the tea parties is that they have time to perfect their message and move away from the controlling influence of Fox News and other powerbrokers who make the organization seem more like a coordinated campaign than a grassroots movement. It would be nice to see the group become an alternative to the sedentary, bitter, social-conservative dominated Republican Party. But the group could also just become a MoveOn.org of the right — more partisan tool than positive force.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 17th, 2009 and is filed under Conservatism, Fiscal Responsibility, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Honestly, I probably would have taken these groups more seriously (me, speaking as a liberal) had they not been affiliated so much by Fox News- who seemed to be steering the point of the tea parties from “taxation without informed representation” to a bunch of party-line rhetoric that didn’t entirely make sense.
I love seeing people stand up for what they believe in. I’ll listen to anyone explain why they believe what they believe… so long as they understand it. Far too much of the coverage showed that there were people there who have little understanding about the government- other than that they want more military spending, but somehow want to pay less in taxes to get that accomplished.
Hopefully they can break away from Fox and some of the more mainstream conservatives- so that they can actually start speaking THEIR message and not the message that Fox News wants to be heard.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I have said this before, and I will say it again, until I am blue for lack of oxygen:
Political figures, talk radio, and Fox were reactive to tea parties. Did they help gin up extra people? Sure. But they did not drive this bus. They got on to one that was already building up a head of steam.
More tangentially, and less interestingly as media bias is a boring conversation, I like how the wingnuttier elements of public protests now speak for the entire group for many media organizations This is precisely the opposite of how it was for anti-war demonstrations.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I found one eyewitness account from a chap named dennis over at SF interesting:
The thread is here
I think that while funding by organized conservatives and plumping by Fox news is definitely worth noting, these facts do not comprise the long and the short of the story. They are relevant facts, _AND_ they are insufficient rrason to dismiss the movement.
They will have staying power to whatever extent they have a legitimate beef and reasonable adherents with some resolve.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
But karlub, without Freedom Works this would not have been the event it was.
Come back to me when you have a citizen funded, Ron Paul style movement and I’ll cover it with the seriousness that it deserves.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Kranky
If the majority of people spoken with (20+) didn’t really know why they were there – then where is the relevancy claimed so as to not dismiss the movement? That statement argues one point while corroborating another. If the big money and big media hadn’t been involved then most of these people wouldn’t have been involved either. So what was the event really about? Mostly just some angry people with no where to go and big money and big media taking advantage of the situation in order to create some news.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
You know, I was thinking similar after talking to a die-hard anti-taxation advocate I know. She has long LONG been upset by taxes & government regulation of anything. Her philosophy is very much “you do what you want, I’ll do what I want, and neither of us will get in each others’ way”
She once called me “Hillary Clinton” as a pejorative because I don’t expect businesses to pay a living wage out of the goodness of their hearts.
She considered going to tea parties because she’s adamantly opposed to government intervention, not because she’s racist, homophobic, or dangerously religious. Ultimately, she couldn’t take the time off work.
She’s just an anecdotal fer-instance, but I wonder how many other legitimately concerned voices got covered by the hype.
Which then leads to the question; Did the hype actually hurt there cause?
April 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
If this was true she might have a point. But that wasn’t what I saw and since I was home from work ill I saw several different news reports on the local events.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Terence, I would never ever ever ever ever conflate “don’t have a pat answer” with “don’t know why they were there.” The world is full of all sorts of ideas and feeling that people are sure about but which they cannot express succinctly.
Your inversion is the sort of rhetoric used by people who are very used to having blog discussions where their first objective is to win an argument. Or who have already made up their minds about something and placed everyone in the appropriate baskets.
I think your re-frame actively subverts the spirit of the description that Dennis provided. And that’s a shame.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
You mean you’re accusing me of doing exactly what you just did – I see – what a shame. Don’t ever lecture anybody.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Sure, Terence. Exactly right. You win.
I lose. For thinking you would understand why there is a world of difference between “don’t have a pat answer†and “don’t know why they were there.â€
But then you can’t speak to that, can you? Because I caught you red handed and you had no cogent response. So you turned it on me, like I’m the bad guy. Really skilled on your part.