Whither the Tea Party? What Does It Stand for?

            Has anyone figured out exactly what the Tea Party stands for?  How did it even get to the point of requiring those upper case letters, as if it’s some kind of official political party?  Unless I’m missing something in the “breaking news” reports that the various cable news networks constantly deliver, the Tea Party has yet to field a single slate of candidates in any contested election anywhere in the country. 

            In fact, the Tea Party hasn’t even had a formal party designation in any election anywhere in the country.  In other words, no candidate has run as a Tea Party candidate on any ballot.  But the designation has caught on with the media, which must mean we are now dealing with a legitimate third party in American politics, right?

            Well, maybe not.  Maybe the title is capitalized because it’s just a big deal right now, kind of like the Civil Rights Movement was back in the sixties or the New Deal became in the thirties or the Cold War was for most of the latter half of the last century.  Maybe we’re just dealing with a movement that has achieved legitimate mainstream acceptance, thereby moving beyond the level of a cult or a splinter group or a sect.

            But whether it’s a formal political party or a less formal, but still legitimate, political movement, the question still remains: what is it that these folks want?

            The simple answer, and indeed, maybe the most correct answer, would be less government.  That goal, however, would not really distinguish it from libertarians, either of the informal (represented by the traditional libertarian philosophy) or the formal (identified with particular politicians) variety. 

            But the Tea Party movement may be more focused on economic issues.  Tea Party rallies seem to focus on the economy generally and the current budget deficit specifically.  Tea Party enthusiasts (“members” is probably not the right word, since we haven’t yet identified a formal organization to be a member of) rail against excessive government spending.  They hate the health care reform bill and strongly disapprove of the stimulus package.  In both instances, they seem to regard with disdain the intrusion of the federal government into what they believe should be purely private enterprises.  Many Tea Party members appear to believe that Citibank and General Motors should have been allowed to fail, instead of being “saved” by the federal government.

            Tea Party members also appear to disapprove of the pending legislation to regulate the lending industry, which again suggests a strong libertarian bias.  Indeed, former Tea Party hero Scott Brown (the new Massachusetts Senator) has recently been declared a traitor for supporting that legislation.

            Of course, Tea Party members also like their guns, as evidenced by their display of them at their rallies (and at your local Starbucks).

            Rand Paul, the recent victor in the Republican primary for the Senate race in Kentucky, has been embraced by the Tea Party (note I did not say endorsed, since the “Party” is not recognized to have the ability to formally endorse candidates).  Dr. Paul (he’s an ophthalmologist) is a staunch libertarian, or, as he describes himself, a “constitutional conservative.”

            Paul, whose father, Ron Paul, was also embraced by the Tea Party during his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in ’08, sounded very happy with his Tea Party support in his victory speech last week.  “I have a message, a message from the Tea Party,” he said.  “We’ve come to take our government back.”  

            If Dr. Paul is a true Tea Party candidate, it certainly suggests a close link with libertarian principles.  But political movements are fickle: one day a hero, the next a villain (as witness Scott Brown).  Dr. Paul may find his support from the movement will be short-lived.  He is certainly giving those who thought he was their ideal candidate reason to think twice.

            On the evening following his large victory in the Kentucky primary, Dr. Paul appeared as a guest on Rachel Maddow’s program on MSNBC.  There he indicated that he opposed the principal thrust of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (requiring privately-owned retail businesses to desegregate). 

            Dr. Paul one-upped himself the following day when he declared that it was “un-American” of President Obama to attack BP (the company responsible for the massive oil spill that is severely damaging the marsh lands in Louisiana).  It was just an “accident,” he said, and “sometimes accidents happen.”

            Are these positions the Tea Party will support?  Do they represent the philosophy the movement is seeking to implement?  Are they part of what Dr. Paul meant when he said, “We’ve come to take our government back”?

            Think about that line for a moment.  Just what does it mean?  Presumably it means that the reins of government – the means by which government policy is effectuated – will be secured by people (elected representatives and other public servants) who have a different agenda from those currently in control. 

            Well and good.  That’s what elections are about in this country.  We elect the folks we think can do the work we want them to do, and when they show us that either they can’t or won’t, we throw them out in favor of a different group of folks whom we think can and will.  But when we elect those folks, we generally know what they stand for.

            In the case of the Tea Party, what it wants its government to be is far from clear.  Dr. Paul says the movement wants to “take our government back.”  Take it back where? 

            Does the Tea Party really want the country to return to Jim Crow-style segregation?  Does it really want a government that ignores “accidents” like the one that is currently threatening a large section of the Gulf?

            These questions, and many more that will undoubtedly arise during the coming campaign season, will be pressed on candidates who associate themselves with the Tea Party, and they should be. 

            Because it isn’t enough to say you are going to “take our government back.”  You have to tell the people whose votes you want exactly where you want to take it.