A Question to You and the Tea Party Movement

By Roger F. Gay

We're moving toward the real election season. I can tell. The pressure is on to perceive anything and everything as somehow related to a clear choice between just two political parties; no matter how false and idiotic those choices may be and no matter how independent of politics some of those choices should be. It prepares us to be drawn hopelessly into the black hole of traditional American two-party political hysteria from which no reason can escape.

No doubt we'll fall for it again (collectively even if I don't). Brother against brother, friend against friend, colleague against colleague, we'll fight to bring people we don't really know to power against those other guys, hoping against hope that it will mean what we hope it means. It brings religion to mind. Once you've admitted you're a sinner, you have a chance to do something about it. But politics isn't religion and there seems to be no born-again equivalent that requires first admitting you've been fooled and then understanding that they're doing it again. A church has never been established specifically to promote anti-idiocy in politics and to counter politically manipulated emotions.

Then there's the Tea Party. I was surprised by a recent survey that found the number of people in the United States that consider themselves part of the movement is only slightly higher than the number of people who self-identify as “liberals.” Self-identified “conservatives” are twice as many as either, according to the survey.

My surprise might be in part due to the constantly pushed idea that Tea Party members are conservative. I'm not personally convinced that's true, except somewhat in a particular sense. But perhaps a difficulty in the survey might have to do with confusion in terminology. In the US, common use of the term “liberal” means politically left or a Democratic Party politician or supporter. It has lost its original meaning to the point that we now use the term “libertarian” for that instead, although not necessarily Libertarian. There are several types of “conservatives,” some of whom would not enjoy having dinner together. The term is also used, equally unwisely, to refer to a politician or supporter of the Republican Party.

Given the survey results, consider that the “generic Republican” polls only slightly better than Barack Obama and that none of the actual Republican candidates stand up to him well and it's hard to imagine that people so apparently content with a “two party system” think multiparty systems and the metric system are complicated! OK – the two-party system seems to hold a promise of superficial simplicity. I see that. But if you want clear meaning and choices, it doesn't support the minimally required complexity so it doesn't make things easier or even workable. Two choices. Trying to draw the entire set of facts and logic that describe all reasonable or popular political options down to just two simple choices is guaranteed to drive you crazy right from the start. It takes you to a place that is composed of so much compromise and shallow imagery that meaningless ambiguity becomes heavy enough to create the traditional black hole of American politics by collapsing on itself.

To the extent that the vast number of people who show up at Tea Party events have the feeling that something is fundamentally wrong, I can identify. Even though I did not agree with their collective plan, I am sympathetic. It's rational, so they're not crazy. Tea Parties want to reform the Republican Party. My commentary above explains why I do not think that solves the fundamental problem. But it does express a long held sense of need. Remember Ross Perot? He split the Republican vote enough to put Bill Clinton in office. Tea Partiers don't want to continue supporting a bunch of lying thieves. They don't want to throw elections to the other bunch of lying thieves either. They aren't content with having no choice but a false choice. They're trying to solve the problem within the confines of the two-party system.

That they are too impatient to address the more fundamental problem is understandable as well. A well-developed multiparty system would reduce and overcome the hysterical and destructive tendencies in traditional American politics. To achieve it would require much time and effort to educate the American public and then to institute systemic changes. The required constitutional process is far from trivial. Other parties would then need to develop to provide viable and credible alternatives. (We would stop calling them “third parties” because there would no longer be a de facto limit of two. You would not in any sense be “throwing your vote away” by voting for candidates in whatever party most honestly fits your preferences.)

Would I prefer a multiparty system to a superficial change. Yes. But for all its benefits, it doesn't address the problem fast enough. We are not at a cross-road in American political history. We are deep in crisis. The country is under attack. There is a fight for survival going on in which any perceived fault in the Tea Partiers plan can be explained as self-defense. We have a duty as citizens to respond.

On the other hand, I'm a great believer that more than one thing can be going on at the same time. Asking to choose between reforming the Republican Party and starting a process toward a workable democracy is presenting a false choice. (Those of you who are twitching to say that the United States is not a “democracy,” please settle down. We've always had elections and that's what this article addresses. I am not suggesting “pure democracy.” Nowhere have I suggested eliminating limits to government power, checks and balances, federalism, or the Bill of Rights. The country belongs to you. We have elections. You're supposed to have a choice. That's democracy.)

Given the survey results it's obvious that there are a whole lot of people who currently consider the Tea Party movement their political home. I'm just saying that it would be very hard to believe that it would be difficult to put together one more committee to begin addressing the problem at a more fundamental level. Let's imagine that the American people win. In the short term, Washington corruption is brought under control and the nation survives. Then what? Do we maintain this same struggle forever as power corrupts and there is insufficient competition to keep it in check? Or should we go farther to fix the system?
.