The New York Times had a long piece a week or two ago about the rise of the Tea Party phenomenon. A good read, which generated a lot of response from the Internet (apparently, the reporter spent six months criss-crossing America for the story).
Two interesting highlights: first, the piece makes clear how the massive economic downturn has contributed to the party's rolls. I find that noteworthy because, despite the never-ending recession trend stories and economic reports in the press, I still don't get the sense we appreciate the severity of this recession and the enormously difficult time so many Americans are enduring right now. We look at 10% unemployment, sure, but don't include the millions more who have given up looking for work or are under-employed. The Times also recently reported that as many as 1 in 8 Americans might be on food stamps. So, we have a bad economy, and I'd like to see what effect that has in our politics beyond asinine debates about tax credits and $15 billion jobs bills.
And second: the Times story notes that much of the Tea Party movement feeds on history and research seminars, including long discussions on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. I'm puzzled the latter might prove inspiring for Tea Party types (unless used to interpret the founding document), since I'd take them to be more the anti-Federalist type. (Thoughts?)
But I'm also dismayed many people think the Constitution will solve any of our interpretive debates. It really won't; I'm always annoyed when people think, say, the Second Amendment is crystal clear (apologies to, um, everyone in this little forum who think that's the case). It's not clear to me, and even now, after the DC v. Heller case, lawyers and scholars puzzle as to whether the Supreme Court will incorporate it to apply to the states (which would just about blow my mind, since many Tea Partyers want to resurrect the states' rights mantra).
Don't get me wrong: it's good people are reading the Constitution; former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has made a big deal lately about how civics education is badly needed in the country. Just don't think that the Text alone will definitively resolve any debates.
The bullish case for Brazil
10 hours ago
I don’t understand what dismays you about the Tea Party phenomenon. If you’re arguing that by rediscovering founding documents, Tea Partyers are embarking on a lost cause, then I’m confused. Why does it bother you that they read the Constitution or any important historical document?
ReplyDeleteSurely you recognize the special kind of animus driving those in their camp – people ordinarily nonplussed about politics. If the tenor of the times awakens their political fervor, would you rather they come to it through absolute ignorance? Would you feel better about them if instead of reading the “Federalist Papers” they read the “Twilight” series? How do you suppose we resolve debates that way?
But if you’re saying the despair caused by the current recession is somehow validating the crazy notions of those outside the mainstream, then you have my support. Although it’s clear that nothing awakens us more from our stupor than a sudden jolt of economic hardship, some of the Tea Partyers’ ideas concern me. (I chafe at their strong anti-immigration hostility. Who do they think built our railroads, packed our meat, and picked our fruit, to say the least?) Nevertheless, we should be paying attention.
And we should also be thanking Tea Partyers. That they’re finding a voice in our political discourse is a cause for celebration. They make our representatives think really hard about what it is that they’re trying to do. They force us to question why it sometimes goes so wrong.
Yet I still don’t understand what it is about Tea Partyers you find so objectionable. Is it their conservative inclination? Is it their small-government impetus? Is it their constant barrage of President Obama? What is it? I sense there’s much more to your argument than you’re letting on.
Or it may be something even simpler. You just don’t like them, do you?
VM --
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you misread my humble blog post for arguing something much grander than it does. I'm not trying to say anything about the Tea Party movement's substantive politics. I only wanted to dispute a fairly narrow point that many of its ilk keep making: that simply reading the Constitution will show us the way.
As I said before, I have no problem with people reading the Federalist Papers or the Constitution (that's why I wrote "it's good that people are reading the constitution"). But there's nothing in those texts that necessarily resolve the debate conclusively, as many Tea Partyers suggest. It is merely the start of the debate. (For instance: should 'originalism' be used as the method of interpretation? Or should we also pay attention to consequences? What about which type of originalism we adopt? And so on.)
This is a pretty neat rhetorical device, when people say the 'Constitution does not allow this, or that.' You have to watch very carefully, because while certain things are obviously unconstitutional, a whole range of things are also under legal dispute. (See my point about D.C. v. Heller.) The text needs interpretation, and that's where the fun stuff begins.
As for my recession point: again, it's a very narrow observation, and it wasn't even an argument. I'm merely interested in seeing more accounts of how the economic recession has impacted political perspectives in the country. That's it. When so many people are, say, on food stamps, or borrowing money from friends and family, how does that change their relationship with each other and, by extension, with their government?
So, yes, I agree it's great people are finding their political voices and organizing. I disagree with almost everything the Tea Party espouse, but at least on that very basic and limited point -- more political participation is good -- we agree.
Finally, let me point out that you begged the question in your last paragraph. You asked why I found the Tea Partyers so objectionable, and then you replied, 'You just don't like them, do you?'
That's begging the question: you object to the Tea Partyers because you don't like them. Just FYI.
Best,
B
I find it curious that you think the Federalist Papers would somehow be contrary to a limited government view. Anti-Federalism isn't synonymous with anti-governmentalism, even if it is about the scope of government.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the way of thinking about it is: Where would John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison fall in a modern political spectrum? For me, I don't find it likely that they would jump for joy at the Leviathon that is the modern state.
But wherever you fall on that question, Conservatives (and presumably tea-partiers) routinely put forth arguments based on the writings in the Federalist papers. Fed 10, 51, etc. are some of the most essential documents to American democracy, afterall.