|
Tea Party Analysis [20-Nov-2010 : My understanding of this issue has now evolved, and I believe this article about Multiculturalism and the European Far Right is more important] This article begins by analyzing the Tea Party movement and ends by discussing the long term future of US politics. Tea Party Policy One FT article has: How seriously Ms Palin will be taken if she does run depends in part on whether the Tea Party looks, after the November election, more like the salvation or the ruination of the Republican party. These fevered activists present conservatives with a wildly energetic base. They also provide the kind of clear philosophy lacking in recent years – uncompromising fundamentalism about capitalism and minimal government. But more analysis later in a later FT article showed: With the Tea Party movement playing an influential role in next month’s congressional elections, the Public Religion Research Institute conducted a wide-ranging survey of the attitudes of its members. People who declared themselves part of the movement were overwhelmingly white (80 per cent) and Christian (81 per cent), the institute found. While many of the findings were to be expected – for example, the strong support for Sarah Palin and heavy viewership of Fox News – others challenged conventional wisdom about the Tea Party. The poll found activists were mostly social conservatives, rather than the general belief that they are libertarians. Almost two-thirds said that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while only 18 per cent said they supported gay marriage. The study also showed the movement was overwhelmingly aligned with the Republican party, contrary to assertions from organisers that it is not partisan. Eighty-three per cent of Tea Party members who are registered voters next month are aligned with the Republican party. Some commentators try to decide whether the Tea Party is primarily libertarian or primarily socially conservative - but this misses the emotional essence. The US Political landscape has been moving for years, and the Tea Party reflects that changing zeitgeist. The most noticeable feature of this change is virulent anti-elitism. Essentially Americans are radicalizing as they reject the traditional moral values of both the Grand Old Republic Party and the Democratic Party. The Tea Party feels like a move from humanitarian Catholicism toward tougher Puritanism. Puritans are both fiscally and socially prudent. Americans are anti-elitist because they are changing course, the elite are more attached to their moral principles, hence social change slowly works it way upwards through society. Ambitious government (infrastructure, social & military spending) is a Catholic thing, simple austere freedom is the puritanical preference. Nevertheless, whilst American opinion is moving, it is still very far from united. The essence of the Tea Party is a wide coalition of voters with potentially divergent political viewpoints who have united behind the slogan: "Small Government, Low Taxes, American Values". Tea Party supporters do not have a concrete sense of policy, instead supporters share a certain outlook on life. Some are libertarian, some are social conservatives. Some are anti-abortion, others champion personal freedom. The Tea party message also cuts across ethnic division, voters in the American heartland have not experienced the failures of multiculturalism in the way Germany voters have, so the Tea Party is not interested in this issue. In essence the Tea party message is very broad and fluid. It's not a rational viewpoint, it's an emotional viewpoint - the Tea Party is a brand, not a science. The power of a brand relies on it's simple universally appealing message. Irrationality Another FT article runs: In the build-up to the UK election in May, David Cameron’s Conservative party made little bones about the fact that Britain was heading into an “age of austerity”. Although Mr Cameron’s Conservatives fudged the extent of spending cuts as the election approached, they stuck firmly to the line that there could be no tax cuts if Britain were to restore its budget to balance. Although they ring-fenced health and pensions during the campaign, precisely the areas which have accounted for the bulk of UK government spending increases since 1997, Consevative plans to cut spending remain, whilst not optimal, at least concevable. By contrast, nowhere in the Republican 'Pledge To America' was there acknowledgement of the painful decisions that all Americans must confront to avert disaster. John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, promised to maintain all the tax cuts that George W. Bush instituted, never raise any taxes again in any shape or form, and simultaneously restore America’s budget to balance. All of which might have been plausible were it to have spelt out the draconian spending cuts that would therefore be necessary to bring the budget back to surplus. But it declined to do so. Instead it ring-fenced more than three-quarters of the US federal budget – social security, Medicare and defence spending – and promised to impose caps on the remaining, “discretionary” portion of it. In numerical terms, the $320bn the party has specified in spending cuts over the next decade is dwarfed by the $4,000bn in tax cuts that it promises – all on top of the current double digit budget deficit. Simon Rosenberg of the NDN, formerly known as the New Democratic Network, says the idea that this would result in a budget surplus comes from the “Harry Potter school of economics”. If implemented, the pledge would bring about a crisis in US sovereign creditworthiness and jeopardise the dollar. Which leads us to one of two conclusions: Either the Republican Party believes what it is saying, in which case it has no further useful intellectual contribution to make. Or else it thinks the US electorate is intellectually challenged and will mistake this fantasy for a plan. Of course the latter is the case, the Tea Party rise represents a new political nadir in which brand value has completely subsumed rationality, contradictory details no longer even matter. The fantastic message the tea party must promote is: as government 'waste' is cut, growth will pick up and taxes will be cut - with voters gaining from this increase in growth and reduction in taxes, government social programs can be cut without hurting voters - this reduction in government spending will further boost growth and lower taxes - eventually America will be saved. Do Republican leaders secretly plan to abandon these impossible proposals once in power? No, they too are only focused on brand value, irrational detail is as irrelevant to them as to the electorate, because power is their only goal. Today irrationality has spread like a plague through the American system. For example, according to Rasmussen Reports, only 29% of Americans say the stimulus plan helped the US economy, and 43% say it hurt - yet this is completely absurd. In fact distain for rational policy analysis has long been a feature of modern democracy, the surprise is only the extent to which politicians can now push even blatantly irrational messages with disastrous implications. Obama was certainly not elected on detailed policy choice, he simply pushed a message of "Hope, Change, Consensus". Likewise George Bush appealed to Christian Fundamentalism, he never set out a detailed policy agenda. In modern Western democracy politicians avoid spelling out detailed policy choices in the run up to an election, instead they focus on broad emotional messages which entice voters. The Tea Party have simply taken this process further. However, although the Tea Party is currently doing well, winning the 2012 Presidential election will probably depend on its ability to develop greater discipline, curtailing talk about policy, allowing voters to focus only on the emotive message. Angry Anti-Incumbency Another key aspect of the Tea Party is anti-incumbency. Voters across the Western World are increasingly disillusioned with politics and looking for change. Obama tapped into this same sentiment when he was elected, now that he is in power, the baton has passed to the Tea Party. Another FT article has:
The one constant in American politics over the past decade has been
change – as in the public’s restless and angry desire to change what is
going on in Washington. This steaming unhappiness led in 2006 to voters
throttling the Bush Republicans, costing them the majorities in the
House of Representatives and Senate. The anger only intensified in 2008,
enabling Barack Obama to vault to a landslide victory. Democratic Party Failure Can Obama resist the Tea Party? His "Hope, Change, Consensus" message is completely dead. Bill Clinton has recently wooed some voters with the slogan "People who are mad as hell make bad decisions." But this sensible negative argument has no traction on the young or ethnic minorities who came out in their droves to support Obama. Democrats are left simply hoping that the irrationality of the Tea Party movement will eventually revolt mainstream voters, they have no positive alternative message to sell, they are in a dreadful position tactically. Bill Clinton once said "It's about the economy stupid". This slogan implies rationality, pragmatism, policy designed to grow the economy, not designed to adhere to moral principles. George Bush, by contrast, concentrated on moral policy, for example projecting American values abroad. Democrats like to think of themselves as sophisticated realists, not moral ideologues. Obama promised to rid Washington of lobbyists and build a "post-partisan" working relationship with his fellow politicians. From this he argued great policy would flow. Yet American politics is deeply polarized, and no ideas were forthcoming. Obama also had no ideas of his own, nor did he have the courage to choose between competing visions. Some believe Obama should be congratulated for saving the American economy by bank bailouts, quantitative easing and zero rates. Yet these policies didn't take either brains or courage, and were followed by government all around the world. Obama has done nothing to rebuild the American economy, to ensure long term growth. American healthcare is notoriously unaffordable, and America faces a fiscal crisis, yet his health care plans have added, not subtracted, to government costs. Clearly the government needs a bigger role in health care, implementing that was far more important than extending care. In fact, Obama failed to implement any of the long term economic policy America needs. Imagine if Roosevelt had blown his Presidency, and instead of reform the Great Depression had ushered in anarchy. That's what is taking place, and it is a direct consequence both of Obama's lack of intelligence and courage. A historic window for change has closed, and it may be a long time before it opens again. In that context, history may remember Obama as the worst of Presidents, the one who hammered the nail into the coffin. It is said that elections are lost not won, in that case Obama certainly deserves to loose. At the end of day Obama is no more than a left wing Bush - another ideologue. Bush focused on social conservativism, Obama focuses on social humanitarianism. Obama's push on healthcare was motivated by the plight of uninsured black Americans, not economic realism. He tried to reset relations with the Arab world, but he failed to reconcile the impossibility of doing this without getting tough on Israel. Obama is not an elite pragmatic rationalist focused on utilitarian economic analysis, he is a downmarket cowardly human rights activist with a talent for public speaking. Would Hilary Clinton be any better? A little, but the Democrats don't have either the brains or the balls needed to repair America. Failure of Christian Morality Although I talked about the American slide away from Catholic to Puritanical values, the real big picture change in human society, affecting both the Europeans and the Americans, is more important. Western moral values (the human right to equality and freedom), which have been guiding Western policy making, are being totally discredited by economic failure. Populism has exacerbated the decline by destroying all rational decision making and creating completely ideological political systems. Now the proletariat are rejecting the prevailing ideology, public opinion polls show they are convinced America is headed in the wrong direction. Of course they are right, but the elite is stuck in the past, the sheep have no shepherd, and America must grasp at straws. The ultra-libertarian Tea Party ideology is a last gasp reaction against the unconscious realization that laissez-faire ideology is failing. Moral ideologues eventually embrace deeply damaging beliefs, as repeated failure radicalises their behaviour, instilling ever more irrational conclusions. This process of psychological intensification eventually culminates in nervous breakdown. In America we have the Tea Party, in Europe the far right. The Tea Party is sliding toward the American nemesis: insane anti-technological anarchistic survivalism. Yet the psychological process eventually blows itself out, once the Tea Party achieve power the results will be disastrous. At that point America has to choose a more effective path. The Future The likely outcome is increasing radical and suboptimal populist policy making, resulting in total economic disaster, followed by tyranny. Voters abandon democracy and place their faith in a violent, but effective, saviour. Hitler was not a intelligent person, but he delegated economic policy to the elite, meanwhile he personally held the people spell bound with ideology. Because he was a dictator, he was able to restructure the economy and reinstall effective values, such as communal idealism, into society. Because the essence of Western liberal democratic failure is individualism, communal idealism is the vital quality the dictator needs to instil in order to repair society. Which ideological paths embody communal idealism? Nationalism or socialism of course. Why has this not occurred in countries such as Mexico which have rotting under incompetent democracy for generations? Because they have always been poor, the sense of loss is not as great, so the transition is much slower. Hence the major modern examples of democracy turning into tyranny occurred in Europe during the 1930s, as the great depression compounded the ravages of the First World War aftermath. There is, however, an alternative. Now that politics has detached from rationality, it becomes possible for ultra-rational leaders to gain power. Why? Because they no longer need to convince voters of the wisdom of their ways by engaging in a rational debate with an electorate incapable of following, instead they only need to present themselves as wise. Also, fear of economic collapse encourages voters to turn toward elitist saviours. So the future could be an über-rational anti-incumbent party headed by a highly successful business man. Instead of engaging in policy debate, he simply promises to revolutionize government efficiency. He refuses to be drawn on any policy issues, to every question he replies: "Once in power we will have the capability to answer than question. Trust me, no-one else will be able to do a better job." The ideal figure would be Warren Buffet. He would have to sweep both the house and the senate, filling them with loyal puppets. Once in power he could stay out of the limelight, delegating PR to a team of specialists, rolling back populist and self-destructive modern democracy. What about moral policy? Buffet does not need to explain that morality has no utility, instead he simply says "I am not going to re-write the criminal justice code, I am going to sort out the economy. For the next eight years that's all we need." Now voters are watching authoritarian powers such as China raise living standards by employing ultra-rational policy making and ignoring the moral consensus. Warren Buffet would follow that same path, refusing to engage in moral debate and presenting government as a purely scientific pursuit. So, considering the longer time scale, the Tea Party should be welcomed, not feared. It is a necessary stage in man's evolution. The hope must be that this time voters choose a rational saviour rather than a tyrant such as Hitler. This time round they are more likely to do so, because the environmental challenges are so staggering that any effective saviour is likely to need a great deal of intelligence.
|