For real:
Photo by Jared Elosta
That is the amount of federal taxes paid so far this year. Oddly, DC residents have yet to call for a tea party or secession.
I know, I know, the tea parties are an old story now. The 24 hour news cycle certainly moves fast, doesn’t it? As a responsible blogger, I should have written at least one post by now about the torture memos and Obama’s decision not to prosecute. After all, Andrew Sullivan has written around 50 posts in two days on this subject. But I’m still stuck on the tea parties. Bad, bad, bad.
Jeff Pasley and Ben Carp of Public Occurances 2.0 have written some terrific posts this week on the tea parties, starting from a historical perspective but also going into the contemporary politics. Jeff Pasley points out the archaic nature of many proposed libertarian solutions to modern day problems, and how usually they just don’t fit the times. He also reminds us, with Jon Stewart, that we shouldn’t take the tea parties too seriously. Ben posted a useful collection of links on the tea parties, one being this hilarious segment of the Daily Show’s John Oliver covering the protests. Even though I stand by my attempt to take the tea party protests seriously, there is a lot to laugh about here. But then again, protests from the left or the right are usually ridiculous.
By the way, Ben has written a very interesting piece in Sunday’s Washington Post opinion page about the historical parallels (or lack thereof) between the anti-Obama tea parties and the real Boston Tea Party of 1773. He also does some great reporting of his experience attending the tea party in New York City. Be sure to check it out.
(A link for my photo gallery from the protest will be here soon–check back again later.)
The protesters at the Tax Day Tea Party in Boston on Wednesday had a clever theme, provocative signs, and revolutionary-era costumes. They mocked Obama and his supporters, they screamed cries of injustice at the oppressive federal government, and they promised that this was just the beginning. Gadsden flags? Check. NOBAMA chum? Check. John Galt references? Check. They had thought of everything, including a man running around in a naked-Obama suit, carrying an inflated Muppet with the words “The Emperor Has No Clothes” written on it. All that was missing was a bonfire of 1040 forms. But I expect that may be coming next year. Yes, next year, and the year after that.
Democrats have mocked the protest Wednesday as astroturf instead of a grassroots effort. Nancy Pelosi recently said, “[I]t’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.” But just because a protest is funded/promoted by wealthy, powerful people doesn’t mean there can’t be a swell of grassroots support behind it. My impression of the protest I attended yesterday was that this is indeed the beginning of something. A movement? No. At least, not yet. But along with the wind, some powerful political impulses were swirling around Boston Common Wednesday.
As I wrote yesterday, the people I spoke with were friendly and seemed to want to debate a liberal in their midst. I didn’t go to debate, though. I went to listen. I wanted to come to my own conclusion about what these protesters wanted. After seeing the protest and talking with the people at this event, I think I have a fairly good idea now, and it confirms what I already suspected.
The organizing savvy of the Boston protest was not all that impressive considering the time they had to organize (over a month) and the media support in spreading the word. Nate Silver cites a NYT report estimating that at least 500 people turned out, which is okay, but not great. Also, the main speakers didn’t have a microphone, so they spoke from a megaphone and it was very hard to hear them clearly, despite the fact that they were screaming. There wasn’t a stage, so those of us in the back of the crowd couldn’t even see the speakers. Furthermore, there were no people with clipboards going around collecting the contact information of the attendees. That’s a lost opportunity, since they could have put everyone who came on an email list. Finally, since the protest was held in front of the Massachusetts State House in Boston Common, gathered beneath the statue of Robert Gould Shaw, it didn’t feel like the “tea party” the organizers had billed it as. Apart from the colonial costumes, the tea party analogy was mostly lost.
But apart from the mediocre organizing at the Boston event, I was struck by the anger of the people who attended this protest, and the focus of this anger not merely on the government, but squarely on President Obama. We are not even three months into the Obama administration, and yet the level of contempt that many of these protesters feel for him was startling to witness. There may have been protests against President Bush three months into his first term, but I don’t remember any, and they certainly weren’t this widespread. I’m not sure what conclusion to draw from the anti-Obama sentiment. It may be that we’re in a vicious cycle in which politics just gets more polarized with each president. It could also be that Obama has already had to make some very difficult choices on the economy and he is not backing away from the ambitious changes that he promised during the election. It is probably a combination of the two.
Here’s just one example of the contempt for Obama I observed. A photographer I spoke with who gave his name as Henry K. Henry told me that Obama’s birth certificate wasn’t valid–I just needed to look it up at WorldNetDaily to see the proof. In his words, “Obama is a fraud. He’s fashionable, that’s all.” He went on to argue that Obama isn’t even a good speaker: “Have you ever seen him speak without a teleprompter? It’s horrible.”
I don’t want to trivialize the strong convictions of the people I talked with, however. This wasn’t merely an anti-Obama protest, though Obama was the primary target. It was a protest against what is perceived as a growing liberalism that the protesters fear could expand into socialism (if we aren’t there already, as many seemed to believe). It was also a protest against a rapidly rising deficit that may burden our children and grandchildren with higher taxes. It was a protest against the “liberal media”, illegal immigration, and the perceived unfairness of a tax system that allegedly does not reward work. Finally, it was a protest of what is viewed as an unresponsive government that is not listening enough to the people. I’m probably missing some things, but these were the major themes that I observed.
"The stimulus plan concerns me. We don't have the money to spend," said Steve O'Brien w/ friend Crystal Ashoury of New Hampshire
I talked with nearly a dozen protesters, and for the most part, they were interesting conversations. Steve O’Brien and his friend Crystal Ashoury came down to Boston from Keene, New Hampshire, with philosophical anti-tax quotes written on their t-shirts. O’Brien argued that except for the sake of protecting people from harm, our tax dollars are forced from people without their consent. When I pointed out that we had just given our consent to be governed by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress in the fall, he made an interesting point: “The majority can vote to raise taxes on the minority, but that doesn’t make it right. The minority still don’t give their consent to higher taxes, and it’s wrong to force people to pay taxes without their consent.” I disagreed with him, but just this one conversation proved to me that not everyone at the tea party protest was a nutty right-wing zealot.
Other protesters I spoke with were angrier, or at least, more frustrated. Kurt Bergstrom of Holbrook, Massachusetts put it this way: “The harder I work, the less I have to show for it. They’re empowering anyone who doesn’t want to be productive and work hard. Enough is enough is enough!” He also expressed the commonly held view at this protest that the entire media was against them, except for Fox News. “Unless it’s Fox, I don’t watch. NBC is so bent to the left it’s disgusting.” His hopes for the protest? “Hopefully the government will start listening. Or, at least the people will start listening to us. It’s also important that people out there who see what’s happening know that they’re not alone.”
Another protester with Mr. Bergstrom was Roger Puglisi of Plymouth, Mass. Mr. Puglisi said he had previously owned a small building business for 23 years and had employed 22 workers. Now, it’s just him. “I’m upset with everything,” Mr. Puglisi said. “I can’t get a job, can’t get work. I blame the bad economy on the government. How do I compete with a company that hires illegal immigrants?”
Finally, when the main speakers began, they shouted into the megaphone and riled up the crowd. One speaker yelled angrily, “We won our independence because of the bravery of our founding fathers! Today, that cause is renewed! We are Republicans and Democrats who believe in America, not in an intrusive federal government!” Then a woman started up: “They are surrendering our national sovereignty! Mr. Obama, we will defend America, not the United Nations!” At some point during these speeches, a woman standing next to me with a stroller and a young daughter screamed at the top of her lungs, “USA! USA!” and a chant broke out in the crowd.
"This movement is going to explode," said Kurt Bergstrom, attending the Boston Tax Day Tea Party
As others have noted, what was missing from this protest was a solution or an alternative approach to Obama and the Democrats. If the protesters had been advocating for the “fair tax”, for instance, it may have been more productive: Americans could at least have a debate about the consequences of this kind of approach compared to Obama’s proposed tax policy. Similarly, if they had been clearly calling for the banks and GM to fail, or to allow foreclosures to proceed without any government intervention, that is an alternative plan that Americans might consider. But this protest wasn’t about new ideas or changing Obama’s policies for a more enlightened alternative. It was merely about stopping Obama.
In this sense, the Tax Day Tea Party in Boston reminded me of the left-wing anti-war protests held before and after the Iraq war. These protesters were always against President Bush’s Iraq policies, but they never had a clearly formulated prescription for an alternative approach. I know anti-war activists would disagree with that characterization, but the point is that if they had a positive agenda, it was never clearly stated. The same thing can be said for the anti-Obama tea party protesters.
The Democrats rebuilt their party after 2004 around the energy that was created from opposition to the Iraq war. In the same way, Republicans have a chance to regain some of their momentum by opposing President Obama’s economic policies. That seems to be the real significance of the Tax Day Tea Party protests. This is why it’s important to recognize that the tea party protests were authentically grassroots, and not astroturf. There is a very strong current of emotion and conviction underlying the people who attended the protests. Fox News can tell people to go to an event sponsored by powerful conservative groups, but unless people are motivated by a sense of political grievance, they won’t show up.
The fact that people did show up to the tea parties should send a message to those of us who support President Obama’s agenda that there is a very agitated minority that is very committed to obstructing his policies. Opposition creates a great deal of grassroots energy in a way that incumbency sometimes does not. Lots of people voted for Obama and hope he succeeds. Many Americans strongly support the President. But the people who oppose Obama seem a lot more fired up right now.
So, what do the tea party protesters want? It’s not complicated. They want to stop Obama.
I just returned from the anti-Obama Tax Day Tea Party Protest in Boston. I was only able to be there from 11am-1pm because I have to go to work this afternoon. I will write a full report of my experience later and post many more pictures, but for now, just a few thoughts.
I interviewed several friendly protesters at the event, and they were tolerant of having an avowed liberal in their midst. I will report on what they said later. While I will stick to labeling this event an anti-Obama protest (because the “tea party” language is just propaganda), I must say that I support the grassroots enthusiasm that these folks have for their cause, even though I think this cause is misguided. But so long as the protests against Obama remain nonviolent and are focused on organizing, I see no harm.
The size of the crowd was a bit underwhelming considering all the media attention that this protest was getting, especially from Fox News and talk radio. There were probably between 1,000 and 2,000 people out there. While it was a work day–and tax day, no less–it still seemed low for the city known for the original tea party.
While the people I talked with were friendly, there was a lot of stereotyping and denigrating of liberals and supporters of President Obama. That wasn’t exactly a surprise though. It made clear to me that for all the talk of this event being non-partisan (mainly coming from the organizers), it was a completely partisan protest. Some people called themselves “independents”, but they were strongly opposed to the President.
Interestingly, there was no tea thrown into the water, at least not while I was there. The first part of the protest was held at Boston Common, so maybe they will move it to the harbor area later in the day. Also, there were no counter-protests that I saw. Maybe Organizing for America and liberal groups are just trying to ignore this event and hope nobody pays any attention. While that urge is understandable, I think that supporters of Obama would be wise to pay attention to what seems to be a genuine desire to start an anti-Obama movement among conservatives.
Again, I’ll write more about this later, and add more pictures.