WSJ: Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement (And Why It Doesn't Matter) :: Political News and commentaries

« Must Be Witchcraft | Main | DOD's 'Willful Blindness' »

October 16, 2010

WSJ: Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement (And Why It Doesn't Matter)

Given that our universities haven't taught much political history for decades, little wonder so many progressives know so little about and have so much disdain for the principles that animated the Federalist debates and upon which our nation was built..

Peter Berkowitz writes at the Wall Street Journal:

[...] Highly educated people say the darndest things, these days particularly about the tea party movement. Vast numbers of other highly educated people read and hear these dubious pronouncements, smile knowingly, and nod their heads in agreement. University educations and advanced degrees notwithstanding, they lack a basic understanding of the contours of American constitutional government.

[...] To be sure, the tea party sports its share of clowns, kooks and creeps. And some of its favored candidates and loudest voices have made embarrassing statements and embraced reckless policies. This, however, does not distinguish the tea party movement from the competition.

Born in response to President Obama's self-declared desire to fundamentally change America, the tea party movement has made its central goals abundantly clear. Activists and the sizeable swath of voters who sympathize with them want to reduce the massively ballooning national debt, cut runaway federal spending, keep taxes in check, reinvigorate the economy, and block the expansion of the state into citizens' lives.

In other words, the tea party movement is inspired above all by a commitment to limited government. And that does distinguish it from the competition.

But far from reflecting a recurring pathology in our politics or the losing side in the debate over the Constitution, the devotion to limited government lies at the heart of the American experiment in liberal democracy. The Federalists who won ratification of the Constitution -- most notably Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay -- shared with their Anti-Federalist opponents the view that centralized power presented a formidable and abiding threat to the individual liberty that it was government's primary task to secure. They differed over how to deal with the threat.

The Anti-Federalists -- including Patrick Henry, Samuel Bryan and Robert Yates -- adopted the traditional view that liberty depended on state power exercised in close proximity to the people. The Federalists replied in Federalist 9 that the "science of politics," which had "received great improvement," showed that in an extended and properly structured republic liberty could be achieved and with greater security and stability.

This improved science of politics was based not on abstract theory or complex calculations but on what is referred to in Federalist 51 as "inventions of prudence" grounded in the reading of classic and modern authors, broad experience of self-government in the colonies, and acute observations about the imperfections and finer points of human nature. It taught that constitutionally enumerated powers; a separation, balance, and blending of these powers among branches of the federal government; and a distribution of powers between the federal and state governments would operate to leave substantial authority to the states while both preventing abuses by the federal government and providing it with the energy needed to defend liberty.

Whether members have read much or little of The Federalist, the tea party movement's focus on keeping government within bounds and answerable to the people reflects the devotion to limited government embodied in the Constitution. One reason this is poorly understood among our best educated citizens is that American politics is poorly taught at the universities that credentialed them. Indeed, even as the tea party calls for the return to constitutional basics, our universities neglect The Federalist and its classic exposition of constitutional principles.

As Berkowitz goes on to point out, those who doubt that the failings of higher education in America have political consequences need only reflect on the quality (rather the lack thereof) of progressive commentary on the tea party movement. Our universities have produced two generations of highly educated people who who are ignorant of our nation's history and principles, and seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental American principles, even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses.

And as for what it is the liberal-progressives just don't get about the Tea Party, Rich Swier aptly suggests we are witnessing a paradigm shift in politics and its toward one basic principle: Power is suppose to lie in the hands of the people and not the government.

TEA Party members of all stripes believe in one basic premise - power lies in the hands of the people and not government. Politicians of both major political parties have drifted toward the ideas that central planning, more government control of markets and a need for expanding the power of government is somehow a better solution than any alternative. Who controls the reigns of power is at the center of the debate.

When you attend TEA Party events you see copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are poured over, often quoted and always revered. American history is taught in these TEA Party forums. These are not political meetings they are sessions on understanding what America is and who founded it. It is like a reawakening of the original revolutionary spirit that broke the ties that bound us to a tyrannical King George II and British Parliament in 1776. It is a rare but growing understanding of our roots as a nation and a people. It is a tsunami of grass roots activism not seen in America for decades. I say tsunami because 2010 is the first wave of the movement. A second and perhaps bigger wave, like in a tsunami, may occur in 2012.

This is all about power to the people. An often used but seldom adhered to phrase thrown out by politicians of both parties. Yes this is a shift, a sea change if you will. But it is not to the right it is toward the original republican form of government that made America exceptional. It is why our forefathers left Europe and created this "new world" - the United States of America.

So on the one hand we have ignorance of the Constitution, our nation's history, and the basic pillars of our nation's greatness - combined with an ideology centered on the nanny state controlling every aspect of the lives of the people, and on the other hand, a massive awakening by the governed to the principles upon which our nation was founded - combined with a firm rejection of the nanny state and a determination that people have the power to decide how they live their lives. One side remains ignorant of why the other rejects tyranny, the other has become ever-more aware of the freedom-robbing ideology of liberal-progressives with each passing day. And only one side - the center-right, is growing in number (55 percent of likely voters support the Tea Party).

The differences are profound, and the two sides are seemingly irreconcilable. If the liberal-progressives' nanny state wins out - freedom, individuality, and the rights of the people to control their own destiny disappears along with the free market and capitalism that made us the greatest economic power on the planet. The future of our nation will be determined by what happens in 2010 and 2012 - with the breaking point happening on November 2nd.

Posted by Richard at October 16, 2010 8:36 AM

Articles Related to Political News and commentaries: