It’s been a decade and a half since the Tea party was frequently noticed in the daily news. Yet, their enduring rhetoric and ideals continue to resonate, a testament to the resilience of conservative thought. While MAGA has garnered attention with its amplified causes, the Tea Party’s legacy lives on as a beacon for many conservatives.
The Tea Party was, by design, less organized than MAGA is today. Individual groups formed as educational non-profits studying civic affairs and our founding documents; others were more of a political action group. The IRS showed how powerless its enforcement duties were when public outcry forced them to backtrack on questioning tax returns. Members of some groups were writing off contributions to an educational endeavor when that group’s activities consisted of demonstrations and protests.
The 2008 market crash, a stark reminder of the injustices in our economic system, soured a significant number of Americans’ dreams of a secure future based on the equity in their real property and their 401(K) and other investments. They saw few of those responsible held accountable, and government bailouts secured the wealth of those who should have suffered. Instead, many of those who had gained sub-prime mortgages, who had bought real estate in an overheated market, or had Wall Street investments lost everything.
People are also reading…
The T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party blamed a straw man — burdensome federal taxes. Since taxes fund federal regulators, government regulation has become another target of distrust. One of the main originators of the movement, Steve Bannon, declared himself a Leninist and began to influence the Republican party to be the vanguard of a populist revolution. Bannon was the architect of Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign. After leaving the White House, he has maintained his influence without public scrutiny.
The impulse to change the economic landscape is reminiscent of the progressive movements of the last two centuries and even the American Revolution. They were correct in assigning blame to the power that increasingly fewer, exceptionally wealthy people exert on all of us. However, another popular idea, cemented in the Reagan presidency, obscured some of the solutions available.
An economic counterargument to Marx and Lenin that gained influence before WWII was resurrected after post-WWII Keynesian economics was blamed for stagflation. (a lack of economic growth). Keynes justified taxing a population and creating jobs through public projects and business subsidies. Reagan’s economists said that economic growth came from large private investors creating jobs for everyone else. It justified allowing the concentration of wealth in the hands of people who knew how to create and run businesses. They followed a theory proposed by Friedrich Hayek, known as the Austrian school.
People were ready for change when the status quo was added to the often-noted examples of government mismanagement and corruption. However, like many theories taken to an extreme, the United States and Western Democracies look too much like oligarchies under Reagan’s economics.
Much of the complexity lies in the morality of the participants. In the realm of global politics, it may be settled into a clash of worldviews. How should populations be governed? Is the goal to give everyone a safe, secure, rewarding life, or is it to control the masses to the advantage of those who lead? Every individual decides for themselves the extent to which they should consider the desires of others while living their life. Unfortunately, Tea Party members failed to add that discussion to their civic education.
The current economic fact is that most families in the United States do not have enough extra income. They have limited means to acquire a functional education, preventive and acute healthcare, food security, and retirement savings. On the other hand, the wealthy have more money than they can invest wisely. Risky investments will not impoverish the wealthy, but they often cause great harm to people whose income depends on the jobs created and then lost. The wealthy too often take risky gambles with their investment dollars.
Steve Bannon galvanized Tea Party followers to rally against one narrow issue as they protested for a larger share of America’s economic pie. Their cause was just. Their solution was incomplete.
A collection of Linda Bruggger columns.
Linda Brugger of Twin Falls is a social scientist with an inquiring mind. She has written an opinion column for over seven years. Reach her at IdahoAuthor@outlook.com.