Tea Party Patriots: the revival of the American right - Books & ideas<

" The revolution is not a gala dinner said Mao. But it may be a tea party, at least according to the most vocal current opponents of President Obama. A decentralized citizen movement unknown before 2009, invoking the name of a founding moment in American history – the Boston Tea Party of 1773 – is on the way to becoming the first political opposition formation, at least if the opposition is measured in decibels. Republican Scott Brown's election as senator from Massachusetts on January 19, which robbed Democrats of their supermajority in the Senate and jeopardized Obama's desired health care reform, is considered the Teas' first victory. Parties. Their populist lightning does not spare the Republicans either, even if they are their objective allies because of their common opposition to Barack Obama: the party of George W. Bush is, in their eyes, guilty of moderation and compromise in the face of to the common enemy. Citizen movement (or claiming to be such), without partisan affiliation (in principle) or centralized organization: the upsurge of the Tea Parties is difficult to define politically. In fact, it is a very American mosaic, composed of political tactics borrowed from the left and the associative movement, of a supposedly non-partisan reference to the " Founding fathers », and a discourse – sincere for some, strategic for others – coming from the libertarian right.

The movement was born a year ago. It has its origins in the opposition to the measures taken by President Obama upon taking office to mitigate the consequences of the financial crisis. February 19, 2009 is most often presented as the birth date of the movement. That day, economics journalist Rick Santelli of the cable channel CNBC succumbed to a tantrum, broadcast live from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, attacking the financial support offered by the new administration to Americans who are about to losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages. Wondering why more protected citizens should “ subsidize the home loans of losers he announces, a bit mischievously, a Tea Party in Chicago in July. He invites " all the capitalists to congregate on the shores of Lake Michigan.

Boston tea party 1773 / wikipedia

It refers to an event told to young Americans from primary school: in Boston in 1773, in the pre-revolutionary period, the American colonials, revolting against the decision of the British Parliament to impose the consumption of tea (of which they ensure the monopoly), dressed in Indian costumes, stormed several British trading vessels at night, and dumped the contents of hundreds of tea chests into Boston harbour. This brief episode of political turmoil has gone down in history as the Boston Tea Party.

Santelli's tirade only gives a name to a current of anti-Obama sentiments that have been widespread since the 2008 campaign. socialist ". The recovery plan (“ stimulus "), proposed by its economic team in January 2009, had drawn the wrath of Rush Limbaugh, the famous conservative talk-radio host, who had denounced the waste of it (in particular because he financed projects helping the electoral campaigns of certain representatives and senators). The idea of ​​a Tea Party 2009 was all the rage in certain conservative and libertarian circles. As a day of action, they choose April 15, the deadline by which Americans must pay their taxes. On this day, some 750 meetings take place across the country, in large and medium-sized cities. There is talk of a popular movement, but these demonstrations obtain significant support from conservative associations. Above all, they obtain a media outlet, thanks to the conservative Fox channel, which devotes a whole day of reporting to them. Once again, the recovery plan is targeted.

(cc) Berteig/flickr

Summer arrives: the reform of the health system takes over from the recovery plan as its main target. As elected Democrats return to their constituencies to explain the reform, the networks formed during the spring demonstrations encourage Tea Party activists to participate in the assemblies organized by their elected officials and to disrupt their smooth running. With success: these meetings are the scene of violent outbursts of anger, which will also be widely disseminated on the Internet and in the media. The New York Times learns that these tactics are explicitly encouraged by the new activist networks. The Tea Party Patriots website urges followers to " fill the room ", to " yell and challenge their [rep] early on ", to " make him deviate from his script and his agenda ". Some activists have even studied the methods of Saul Alinsky – the father of community organizing who inspired Barack Obama when he was campaigning in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. These summer worries culminate with the march on Washington of a few tens of thousands of sympathizers for an anti-Obama demonstration on September 12. The common thread that connects these diffuse protests, emanating from diverse backgrounds and aimed at scattered issues, is the phobia of the state: the fear that the Obama administration is preparing a kind of layoff of society by the government.

An anti-state mobilization

In principle, Tea Parties adopt a strategy of " neither nor “: neither Republican nor Democrat. In practice, their objective is to influence the political orientation of the Republican Party. Above all, they want to force the Republicans to adopt a more conservative lineage, but conservative only in the sense of " anti-state » : they remain relatively silent on moral questions and « values », such as abortion and gay marriage, issues which George W. Bush skilfully took advantage of. One could even say that the Tea Partiers advocate a kind of " entryism like far-left groups in the 1970s: to carry out their program by infiltrating an official political party and establishing a " hegemony ideological on him.

The crucial point in the development of this strategy takes place during the elections last November, when a by-election is organized in a district (for the House of Representatives) of upstate New York, dubbed in electoral jargon “ NY-23 (the representative in place had been appointed to a government post by Obama). To oppose the Democratic candidate, the Republican machine invests a mayor of the region. Very quickly, many conservatives rose up against their party's decision. They denounce this official candidate as a " RINO " - a" Republican in Name Only (Republican in name only). An independent candidate – an accountant named Doug Hoffman – becomes a cause celebre for conservatives, as well as the Tea Party movement. The support he attracts forces the official candidate of the Republican Party to withdraw. The conservative electorate massively transfers its votes to Hoffman, who becomes the de facto Republican candidate. But if the results are tight, this guerrilla does not achieve its objective: it is the Democrat who wins the seat.

(cc) Caveman/flickr

For the Tea Partiers, the lesson to be learned is simple but essential: popular and national mobilization can force the hand of the Republican Party and compel it to align itself with its own values. As the November 2010 mid-term elections approach, this strategy is being vigorously pursued in several important polls. It is a question, at least initially, of supporting candidates in tune with the Tea Partiers against candidates from the Republican establishment, suspected of ideological compromise and impurity. This is the case in the senatorial primary in Florida, scheduled for August. The Republican nominee is Charles Crist, the state governor. Normally, a candidate with such a profile would be almost unbeatable in the primaries, to the point of discouraging any possible rival. But Crist backed Obama's stimulus package, not least because it offered funds to states. He also had the misfortune to be filmed hugging the President during a meeting they had chaired together. The Tea Partiers attacked Crist, while choosing their own champion: Mario Rubio, the charismatic 38-year-old Speaker of the State Legislature. Thanks to the publicity that the Tea Partiers' support brought him, he now leads Crist in the polls. Parallel situation in Kentucky: the republican knighted by his party, Trey Grayson, undergoes the attack of the doctor Rand Paul, pushed (and financed) by the Tea Partiers. This is the son of Ron Paul, the libertarian whose campaign for the Republican nomination for president in 2008 had generated enthusiasm among the same currents that are currently the foot soldiers of the Tea Party movement. Paul rallied activists by criticizing his competitor's support for the bailout (the bailout plan for banks adopted at the time of the 2008 crisis). From now on, the polls for the primary place him in the position of favorite.

Attacking the Republican Party in this way is a way for the Tea Parties to put into practice one of the maxims that are close to their hearts: not to trust any political party, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats. However, the associations and personalities that drive the Tea Party network suggest a more complex reality, where the discourse of " neither nor coexists with the libertarian right. This is notably the case of FreedomWorks, one of the main associative supports of the movement. The association was founded in 1984 by Dick Armey, an economist elected by Texas to the House of Representatives, where he served as Republican leader during the 1990s. In the biography posted by the association, his pragmatism as well as his bipartisan spirit are praised (notably the fact that he collaborated with President Clinton on welfare reform). But, at the same time, his story is that of a man of principle betrayed by the elites. Chief among these flouted principles is the American preference for small government – ​​that is, for the imposition of strict limits on the power and finances of the federal government. Armey was stunned, for example, by the decision of the first President Bush to renege on his election promise not to raise taxes, wondering how a leader could so ignore the preferences of his party and his constituents. It is for this reason that FreedomWorks emphasizes the need for grassroots activism: The government is at the service of those who speak out » (« government goes to those who show up "). Still, the objectives of this militancy resemble a manifesto of economic liberalism that could not be more classic. If FreedomWorks “ recruits, educates, trains and mobilizes thousands of volunteer activists ", it's for " fight for less government, less taxes, and more freedom ". He also wants to abolish the current tax code, replace pensions financed by Social Security pay-as-you-go with a capitalization mechanism, and give households alternatives in public school. At the same time, the association attacks the interest groups that support the Democratic Party: teachers' unions and lawyers. FreedomWorks arguably shouts louder, but its priorities diverge little from an ordinary Republican agenda.

Screenshot of the912project.com website

The same tension is found in another mainstay of the Tea Partier galaxy, the 9.12 Project. Its creator is Glenn Beck, a very popular talk radio host, who also has his own show on the conservative Fox channel. Its brand image: a little clownish humor accompanied by comments on current political events inspired by libertarianism. The very name of the 9.12 Project is intended as a bipartisan profession of faith: it is a reference to the aftermath of September 11 (9.12, or September 12). According to its site, “ the day after the attack on America, we weren't obsessed with the question of red [Republican] states, blue [Democratic] states, and political parties. We were united as Americans, and we stood together to protect the greatest nation ever created. ". It is this logic that inspired the choice of September 12, 2009 as the date for the major demonstration of the movement in Washington.

But these unifying words do not hide a bias in favor of economic liberalism and the libertarian right. Presenting itself as a civic movement aimed at all those who feel " helpless to change the direction in which the country is heading, the 9.12 Project advocates a return to the sacred union that had seemingly reigned in the aftermath of 9/11, through a resourcing of fundamental American principles – which (quite conveniently) are reduced to nine principles and twelve values ". Each of the principles is – in the spirit of unity – purportedly drawn from a writing by one of the founding fathers of the Republic. But the discrepancy between the text of inspiration and the principle drawn from it reveals the true ideological choices of the movement, which misses by far its bipartisan objective: the principles defended almost systematically reflect concern for the general interest and the defense of individual freedoms of the Founding Fathers in a nationalistic and selfish language. For example, the seventh principle is this: I work a lot for what I have and I will share it with whoever I want. The government can't force me to be charitable ". Which Founding Father could inspire such a quip? ? None other than the good George Washington himself. However, the quotation of which this principle is the alleged translation is much more measured: “ Anyone who asks for charity does not deserve it, but all are worthy of consideration, even if the deserving suffer ". And when one examines in its entirety the text from which this quote is taken (a letter from Washington to his nephew written in 1783), it suggests a sensitivity at odds with that imputed to him by Glenn Beck: May your heart experience the pains and misfortunes of everyone, and may your hand give according to the capacity of your purse » . In short, the foundation of the American Republic is placed at the service of a very specific agenda.

The Constitution, a source of legitimacy

How can we characterize more precisely the ideology of the Tea Partiers, once we have associated this movement with the libertarian right, and we recognize that anti-statism is its first political reflex? ? First, it is defined by a reference to certain American constitutional principles, even if its promoters skilfully choose those that best embody their values. The reference document is the Bill of Rights, or the fundamental freedoms defined in the first ten amendments to the American Constitution. The movement places great emphasis on the Second Amendment, which prohibits the bearing of arms. But the Tea Partiers insist less on the concrete usefulness of this stipulation than on the limits it places on state authority. As one congressional candidate writes on the Parkersburg, West Virginia Tea Party website, the Second Amendment reflects American distrust of the British colonial government, and aims to " protect the citizens against another uncontrolled government that would like to take them in hand ".

(cc)pantagrapher/flickr

This reading of the second amendment explains the enthusiasm of activists for another amendment, the tenth. Its more abstract nature – it does not mention any specific rights, such as freedom of the press or freedom of association – makes it one of the least known of the amendments. The Tenth Amendment is a kind of catch-all: it reserves for states and people » all the powers that are not specifically delegated to the federal government (“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people "). According to the Tea Parties, this amendment is trampled under foot by contemporary case law, which unscrupulously acquiesces to the flight of federal government powers even though these are (according to them) unconstitutional. They thus find in the Tenth Amendment an effective weapon to combat all the expansions of federal authority proposed by Obama – in particular his reform of the health care system. In Virginia, some elected members of the state legislature have proposed a bill that would effectively ban the application of certain reform measures (such as the obligation to buy health insurance), arguing that the government federal government exceeded the powers granted to it by this amendment. Similar initiatives, dubbed resolutions of state sovereignty » (« state sovereignty resolutions ”), have been introduced in the legislatures of the majority of states. On the web, the Tenth Amendment Center lends its voice to the same themes as the Tea Partiers.

The movement also seems to be tempted by certain ideas dear to more traditional conservatives. The Tea Parties fiercely oppose efforts to control global warming. Their reasoning ? Global warming is a myth and the science claiming to prove it is incomplete, if not misleading. They also oppose immigration reform – that is, efforts, begun under Bush, to find a way to regularize the millions of illegal immigrants on American soil. In both cases, these positions are at least partly justified by their fundamental anti-statism: global warming is seen as a pretext to expand the powers of the federal government, while immigration reform is cited as an example of contempt for the government for the law (since it intends to reward activities " criminal ").

Ayn Rand, critic of the collectivism »

Tea Parties are not the type to rely on a " master thinker ". However, if there is one writer in whose mind many of these activists find themselves – at least those with a taste for abstract principles – it is the writer Ayn Rand (1905-1982). It is difficult to explain the fascination of Americans for this author, almost unknown in France except for a few followers. Many American teachers have experienced this: if you ask your students at the beginning of the year to quote one of their favorite books, there is always one, often among the most gifted, to quote a novel. by Ayn Rand, either The Fountainhead (La Source vive) or Atlas Shrugged (La Révolte d'Atlas). A Russian immigrant, fleeing the Bolshevik Revolution for Hollywood, and then New York, Ayn Rand offered her adopted country a philosophy based on extreme individualism, which she calls " objectivism ". It's a kind of Nietzsche for business school graduates. However, his ideas, while considered quite laughable by most academics, exert a fascination on right-libertarians, who, in the midst of a revolt against Obama, find them to have a prophetic quality.

The keystone of Ayn Rand's thinking is a rather surprising argument: altruism, she claims, is the most immoral ethical position there is. Altruism conceives the individual as a sacrificial beast, having no value in itself. Altruism is in fact collectivism: a principle of social organization denying freedom and individual independence. Since only the individual and his actions are capable of moral dignity, selfishness is not only a fact, but a virtue – even more, the highest virtue there is. Consequently, the most virtuous principle of social organization there is is capitalism, the only system which does not despise the individual and which does not force him to sacrifice his desires and his reasoning to a collective instance. Rand even goes so far as to say that money is inseparable from individualism: in an argument diametrically opposed to that of Marx, she claims that money is not the alienation of productive labor, but its purest expression. . The justification of capitalism cannot therefore be only pragmatic or realistic: its greatness is above all moral.

Atlas Shrugged

Although she admires the founders of the United States for translating this ethic into concrete political form, Rand saw in post-war American society a tendency toward the denial of selfish ethics and the imposition by the strength of values altruists-collectivists ". His most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, tells of a fictional America driven to decay by a collectivist government, down to the productive forces of society – the capitalists themselves (for short) go on strike. ! In her writings and interventions, Ayn Rand denounced the developments linked to the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, attacking, in turn, inflationary policies, the Federal Reserve, the " socialized care services to the fight against poverty – always in the name of defending individualism against state collectivism.

Rand's thought expresses in theoretical terms the concerns of the Tea Partiers. When Obama is accused of being a socialist (which may surprise some Europeans), he is actually accused of being " collectivist in the sense of Rand: he is accused less of being a follower of the proletarian revolution than one of those functionaries who undertakes to limit individual freedom in the name of falsely well-meaning ideas. Ayn Rand's ideas are currently injected into the public debate by certain associations, in particular the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. As its president explains in an introductory video, the present situation – with the economic crisis serving as “ pretext to state takeover of society – had been anticipated by Rand in La Révolte d'Atlas. He also insists on the fact that the current recession is not a crisis of capitalism but, on the contrary, a consequence of the weakness (or even the absence) of capitalism in today's society. On its site, the center presents a speech, written to be read at a tea party, which reports the news of Ayn Rand. Even when his influence is not direct, it remains relevant: linking collectivism and statism and vilifying them both, his ideas function as a kind of lingua franca of the entire movement.

A lasting success ?

So what will be the consequences of this popular anti-Obama movement on American politics in the months to come? ? In the immediate future, the activists must decide on two related questions: should a genuine national organization be created ? Will they play a role in the November 2010 elections ? The first steps in this direction were taken at the convention that took place between February 5 and 7 in Nashville (in particular with the creation of a political action committee, or PAC, facilitating the collection of funds to support " their » candidates). But the Tea Party will, like many successful movements, face the challenge of routinizing its charisma. The choice between political influence (supporting Republican candidates) or loyalty to principles runs the risk – as is often the case with left-wing movements – of dividing it and causing it to lose momentum. Especially since some Republicans, impressed by the mobilizing power of the movement, will try to recover it – notably the former Republican candidate for vice-president (and possible candidate for the White House in 2012), Sarah Palin, a favorite Tea Parties.

Another pressure that could fracture the movement is the tension between its right-wing libertarianism and the social and religious conservatism that, especially during the Bush era, was an essential part of the Republican coalition. These two currents have long coexisted within the Republican Party (at least since Reagan), but their priorities are not the same. During the 1950s, for example, when the intellectual conservative movement was in its infancy, Ayn Rand was looked down upon by William F. Buckley and his National Review, the leading intellectual organ of conservatives. Within the Tea Partiers, some no doubt see anti-state arguments as a useful tactic to denounce the policies of Barack Obama. ; for others, these arguments are the primary motivation for their engagement. It is not certain that they will always be able to make harmony reign: in Massachusetts, if Scott Brown has certainly benefited from the phobia of the State conveyed by the Tea Partiers, the fact remains that, faithful to progressivism well known to his state, he supports the right to abortion. If he had to decide on such a question in the Senate (which is not planned), he could contribute to a break-up of the movement.

Finally, right-wing populism could encourage parallel populism on the Democratic side. The Tea Party wants to be a revolt of the people against the " big " of the government ; the Democrats could respond by presenting themselves as the party of the people against the “ big of the financial and commercial world. But such a shift to the left would not suit the fundamentally centrist instincts of Obama and his administration, made up of figures from the economic establishment, such as Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner.

The Tea Party movement draws its strength from the fact that it has succeeded in anchoring a radical anti-statist discourse to American values ​​considered " traditional ". But it is also its weakness: extremist speeches (or which can be presented as such) are often unpopular with Americans. Obama will doubtless still lose battles against the Tea Partiers and their relays in the Republican Party. But his real fault is to have allowed himself to be portrayed as " radical ". His best chance of succeeding in office will be to prove that it is he, rather than his detractors, who is best able to embody moderation in politics.