So what have we learned from all this tax day tea party business? Surely there's something that can be gleaned from the concept and its execution. I've read a lot on the subject, and there are a few important points to take away.
Times are difficult for everyone, especially the working class right now, especially the blue-collar workers who are losing jobs simply because of lack of work to do. Less factories are being built by corporations, less construction is going on. Economic difficulties breed uncertainty, and uncertainty leads inexorably to fear. Change can also cause the same reaction, and can amplify the fears of those losing their jobs. A shift away from eight years of neoconservatism, complete with several politicians who sprouted from the "good old years" of Reagan to what people fear is a far more liberal administration is a big change.
When the aforementioned change is poorly understood by those who fear it, said change becomes a menace. There are fundamental misunderstandings in this country about how taxes work - myths have become reality, and reality has sometimes become myth. This stems from the fact that there appear to be two main forces that make up the Republican Party - the wealthy who oppose tax hikes on the rich because of self interest, and the lower- to middle-middle class workers with conservative values in both economic and social settings. Obviously, as with any political grouping, there are a myriad of reasons why they fall here on the spectrum.
A fair chunk of both of these groups are single-issue voters, choosing one or two social issues to focus on like a laser (see: gay rights and/or abortion). The wealthy group are obvious proponents of the conservative philosophy simply because they have more to gain the more regressive a tax is. The tea parties were not made up of corporate executives or rich bankers, nor were the protesters largely protesting social issues. So who were they?
I hypothesize that the protests consisted mainly of middle-aged, white, lower-middle class workers. They appear to be working against their own interests, but this is where the fundamental flaw in understanding begins. Liberalism, over the past three decades, has become the ideology of meddling. Liberals take your money, they want to control your health care, they want to tell you how to raise your children, they want to take away your guns. Conservatism has become an ideology that promotes freedom, with free markets and the "freedom" to be as successful as your hard work denotes.
The problem here is that this freedom allows the people who have money to regulate themselves and everyone who doesn't have money. It's completely factual that in 1970, the average CEO made approximately thirty times what the average worker made. In 2005, this figure passed one hundred and ten times. The philosophy of the free market deems this okay, that it will self-correct - the flaw in this thinking is that income inequality is self-perpetuating in our current political system. Access to education, health care, and job opportunities tend to follow indicators such as household income, which in turn lead to a higher income later in life.
The reason why these beliefs are held in common among the tea party protesters is one outlined earlier - fear. The fear of not having a job tomorrow, the fear of loss of one's self-sufficiency, and the fear of things they don't comprehend. I honestly don't believe that many of those lauded as leaders in the Republican Party believe in what they tell those who follow them. It's fairly manipulative, but it's working. Socialism is something that will bring said leaders closer to their working class foot soldiers, so they proclaim that it's been tried, doesn't and can't work. They use the fear of losing control to twist issues like health care and child-rearing to their advantage; if somebody who is not you decides you can't see the doctor today, what control do you have left? If you can't have high powered weaponry in your home, you lose control over who you allow into your comfort zone and who you do not.
Blame is a powerful thing. Confused people use their own prejudices to determine who to point the finger at, their own usual suspects. The complexity of the current economic crisis illustrates this point well. I've had discussions with coworkers about who exactly is to blame; in reality, at least in my perception, the blame should be spread among several actors. The Congress of the late nineties failed to act (actually, they did act, but unanimously in the wrong direction), loan-seekers failed to do enough research on their own buying power, and mortgage lenders most certainly took part in predatory lending. My coworkers, however, cite a piece of legislation I couldn't quite find that disallowed the ability to refuse a loan if the recipient was a minority. This seems to be a complete misunderstanding of how the wall fell down in the first place, considering mortgage lenders were desperate to obtain any loan, whether it would default or not, in order to pass the buck along to the banks and get their commission.
The best description of the groupings this past Wednesday that I've heard today was that they are simply a cargo cult. The perceive effectiveness in left-wing protests and emulate them superficially without the underlying effort to back it up. What could possibly be the end result? Workers movements live and die by the concerted efforts and solidarity of the middle class against the wealthy to gather and unionize, to fight for their rights and against income disparity. With half of the nation's workers turned against the other half, the point is drowned and smothered before it even gets its feet off the ground.
