Importance Of The Tea Party Movement - Essay Example

Importance Of The Tea Party Movement On paper, the Tea Part movement has a legitimate reason for existing. The advocacy to reduce national debt and the federal budget deficit through the reduction of government spending is a valid and even a mainstream concern. On this account, it would have been acceptable to say that this political movement does represent the sentiment of a significant portion of the American public. However, the dynamics and the nature of the Tea Party in the American polity runs deeper and far more disruptive than they appear in a simplistic definition. The fact is that Tea Party disrupts the political process and it does not help America move forward. Instead of contributing to the national government, it thoroughly muddles policymaking to the point of paralysis. It’s reason for existence is redundant, echoing that of the Republican, although in a noisier and more populist manner not unlike the voice of the rabble. A core component of the argument that Tea Party is not a helpful addition to the American politics is the fact that it does not have a single uniform agenda. The leaders and organizers try to rationalize this by saying that such fragmentation and decentralization prevents the party from being co-opted and corrupted from within (Rauch 2010). But, unfortunately, this is not the case. The lack of leadership and unifying principles paved the way for divergent goals and priorities among the various groups that constitute the party. The result is raucous agenda that even confounded the very Tea Party members or those affiliated with the group. Consider, for example, the rally that some of Tea Party members staged amidst the debt limit deadline while the Senate is deadlocked and nowhere near the resolution of the crisis. The group converged on the World War II memorial on the National Mall and did some damage to some facilities before proceeding to stage their antics near the White House. As speaker after speaker spoke in unorganized fashion either on a platform or before television cameras, the different messages were vying for the public’s attention. At one point, someone was talking about the government closing down national park. Then, an attendee interviewed by the members of the media covering the event was calling for civil disobedience, demanding that Obama be removed from office (Cooper 2013). A host of other concerns made their appearances - those that are so disconnected from the very reason why the protest was held in the first place, which was the resolution of the debt limit issue being debated in the Senate. It did not help that personages like Sarah Palin, Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee also joined the fray. One is left to wonder what was the point of the entire exercise. There was a controversial issue and it is perfectly alright for people to make take a stand. But in the case of the Tea Party rally, there was no specific or unified position that could have legitimized the affair in its attempt to influence policymaking. The offshoot was a tremendous waste of everyone’s time. Several other incidents show a degree of toxicity and even irresponsibility. In 2010, the movement through its Conservative Political Action Conference endorsed Ron Paul. When it was announced, however, he was met with jeers and boos as if the members did not choose him themselves during the straw poll. In April, Tea Partiers stormed Fox because they felt that the television station needed to report more about the Benghazi attacks, President Barack Obama’s birth certificate and immigration proposals. It is as if the whole organization is utterly off the rails. Even some quarters in the Republican Party, which is the de facto party of Tea Partiers, tend to distance themselves and express dismay about how the group conducts its affairs. For instance, David Frum, a member of the Bush administration scoffed at Tea Party activities, describing them as a couple of hundred thousand malcontents (Younge 2010). One could call Tea Party or its organizers as opportunists. It is not unlike rabble rousing, using the sentiments and desperations in people in order to advance certain causes. There is legitimacy to the claim that a significant portion of the American public experiences fear and concerns regarding the policies that are being adopted and implemented by the government. The Tea Party movement took advantage of this sentiment. Noting this development, John Kerry, the current Secretary of State took the Tea Party to task when he said: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts of the truth of what’s happening” (DeMint, 2011, 187). There are authors who point out that far from being immune to corruption from external forces, the Tea Party seemed to be serving the purposes of some interest groups, personalities and even big money organizations. Through sheer machinations, for instance, Americans for Prosperity (the group identified with the billionaire Koch Brothers lobbying for conservative policies and an end to the current health care policies) is able to direct the Tea Party initiatives and messages according to its interests. Indeed, several reports point to the role of groups tied with the tobacco companies in creating Tea party (DeMelle 2013). As days pass, it becomes clear that the only theme that unites the fragmented goals of Tea Partiers are their disdain for traditional social conservatism, which is aligned with the known preferences and positions of the Koch brothers. It is important to remember that policymaking in America is heavily influenced by pressure groups. Every stage of the policymaking process provides opportunities for individuals and groups to influence the outcome. This is actually the ideal envisioned by democratic pluralists such as Truman. But such ideal involve pressure groups employing non disruptive tactics such as providing hearing testimony, direct contact to government officials, presentation of studies and communication and information dissemination. The Tea Party movement could have followed this route and it would have been fine. In that case, it would have effectively given a sector of the American public political voice. But its activities and initiatives are bordering on the crazy side. Instead of contributing something meaningful to policymaking, it is effectively helping to delay the process by being needlessly raucous and incoherent. Works Cited Cooper, Ryan. (2013). Why that crazy tea party rally matters. A lot. The Washington Post. Available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/14/why-that-crazy-tea-party-rally-matters-a-lot/ DeMelle, Brendan. Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers. Huffington Post, 2013. Read More