What the Tea Party Protesters Want
Posted on April 16th, 2009 in Organizing, Right-wing populism, Tax Day Tea Parties, Taxes |
(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.
7 Responses
Great reporting and a fascinating post.
Thanks for the honest and fair-minded coverage of the protests coming from a liberal. You ought to report on it for CNN, but they probably wouldn’t like your integrity.
Mitchell, thanks for that encouraging comment. I agree that the media distorted the protests somewhat by focusing on the most outrageous people there. But that’s what often happens with protests–left or right. The loudest, most colorful people stand out. I’m glad I went, because there were reasonable people at the protest who had some legitimate complaints, even if I disagreed. One concern that I did have sympathy with though is the exploding deficits. We should all be wary of that, regardless of our politics.
I’m glad you found it useful Jon, and thanks. It was definitely an interesting experience to be at a conservative rally. I guess there’s a first time for everything!
Sadly, your blog missed the point.
This has almost nothing to do with ‘Obama’. It has to do with liberty.
When a person works hard he or she deserves the fruit of that effort. Government, and the difference betweem democrat and republican is not very great these days, seems unwilling to apply basic tenants of economics and ethics to its spending. Newspapers pring one side of a story. The people are uninformed and largely ignorant of what is going on.
This is about values and freedom.
Americans value independance. They value self determination, not waiting for the government to tell them what to do and how to do it.
The Tea Party was not about Obama and I would have been sad if it was. It was about the US Constitution and the values that created America and how those two things are being slowly destroyed in the name of the ‘collective’ and central planning.
If you went to the Tea Party to listen you failed. It sounds more like you heard what you wanted to hear, not what was beng said.
For instance, did you hear all the people calling friends and family? There were many who did not attend because they were working. Many went to Tea Parties in Worcester since they were going on later.
True Americans are too busy working and reaching for their dreams to waste time hoping and collecting contact information.
Tim–what about all the anti-Obama signs? (By the way, my picture gallery showing these signs is coming soon). The speaker who said, “Obama: we will protect America, not the UN”? But most tellingly, there were no policy proposals whatsoever (except for ridiculous proposals like “ending the Fed”). Nearly all I heard was how bad Obama’s policies were. When pressed, people admitted that Bush spent a lot of money too. But were there tea parties during Bush’s spending spree? Or Reagan’s, back in the eighties? No. Both presidents presided over dramatic deficit increases–the biggest of any president before them. But only now are conservatives holding protests about deficits. I understand that they are also against the expansion of government and fear that this may erode liberty. I take your point. But let’s not pretend that these protests were not an attempt to try to turn public opinion against the President.
[...] say “we” tentatively because I’ve dabbled in citizen journalism (see my take on the tea party protest and this hearing with Eric Holder). I haven’t yet had the chance to interview powerful [...]