![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tea Party Thoughts
Dec. 15th, 2009 09:14 amUp on POD People, I reviewed Tea Party Revival
. The book, written by Dr. B. Leland Baker, is a manifesto of the Tea Party movement. The book confirms at least one of my claims, namely that the Tea Party movement is not a Republican thing. I mean, when Dr. Baker claims that Republican and Democratic politicians have been following Socialism for 80 years, (really? Ike and Hoover socialists?!?!) including specifically "Mr. Bush," you can hardly argue otherwise. Don't get me wrong - Republican activists are attempting to get control of the movement, but it's much in the manner of somebody running to the front of a mob to appear in control of the mob.
Since POD People is not a political blog, I focused my review there on the factual and historical errors of Tea Party Revival. Here I'd like to address a more political point. When reading and talking to Tea Party-ists, they frequently refer to "The Founding Fathers" and typically advocate returning to the limited government of their era.
According to the 1790 census, the population of the United States was 3.9 million people. In 1790, the fastest land transport system was to saddle up a horse. Today, Cook County, Il. (Chicago and the near suburbs) have 5.2 million people living in them, and most Americans own a vehicle with the power of dozens if not hundreds of horses. Why in the world would anybody think that a governmental system that worked in 1790 would work in 2009?
Now, if you press a Party-ist on this issue, they will say "state government." Color me unimpressed, but somehow I don't think they'd be happy with 50 state EPAs or 50 state social security programs. Nor would they be happy with the taxes to pay for any of this.
The Tea Party movement is nothing new. It's simply old-fashioned populism. In the 19th Century, the Tea Party-ists would be Know-Nothings (pre-Civil War) or Grangers (post-Civil War). The astute student of history will note that the Know-Nothings were generally "conservative" and the Grangers "liberal" so this flavor of populism can go either way. Right now, it's "conservative." Either way, it tends to be uninformed.
. The book, written by Dr. B. Leland Baker, is a manifesto of the Tea Party movement. The book confirms at least one of my claims, namely that the Tea Party movement is not a Republican thing. I mean, when Dr. Baker claims that Republican and Democratic politicians have been following Socialism for 80 years, (really? Ike and Hoover socialists?!?!) including specifically "Mr. Bush," you can hardly argue otherwise. Don't get me wrong - Republican activists are attempting to get control of the movement, but it's much in the manner of somebody running to the front of a mob to appear in control of the mob.Since POD People is not a political blog, I focused my review there on the factual and historical errors of Tea Party Revival. Here I'd like to address a more political point. When reading and talking to Tea Party-ists, they frequently refer to "The Founding Fathers" and typically advocate returning to the limited government of their era.
According to the 1790 census, the population of the United States was 3.9 million people. In 1790, the fastest land transport system was to saddle up a horse. Today, Cook County, Il. (Chicago and the near suburbs) have 5.2 million people living in them, and most Americans own a vehicle with the power of dozens if not hundreds of horses. Why in the world would anybody think that a governmental system that worked in 1790 would work in 2009?
Now, if you press a Party-ist on this issue, they will say "state government." Color me unimpressed, but somehow I don't think they'd be happy with 50 state EPAs or 50 state social security programs. Nor would they be happy with the taxes to pay for any of this.
The Tea Party movement is nothing new. It's simply old-fashioned populism. In the 19th Century, the Tea Party-ists would be Know-Nothings (pre-Civil War) or Grangers (post-Civil War). The astute student of history will note that the Know-Nothings were generally "conservative" and the Grangers "liberal" so this flavor of populism can go either way. Right now, it's "conservative." Either way, it tends to be uninformed.