What the Tea Party means?

I've been thinking about this for a while, and was nudged to write by Rand Paul's primary win this morning.

The mainstream political debate in the United States for, oh, the last 30 years has been between Republican supply-siders or Democratic, more-liberal neo-classical or neo-Keynesians. With the "right" pushing tax cuts and de-regulation as a way to spur economic growth, create wealth and jobs. The "left" position tended to focus more on demand-side, and wealth redistribution policies as a way to spur growth, create wealth and jobs.

While both are inadequate and antiquated (as our Innovation Economics friends point out here), you got the idea that both sides were trying to get to the same place: low (or full) employment, high wages, a competitive economy, etc. Even the Republican Revolution of 1994, with their smaller government obsession, was claiming that THEIR WAY was the best way to help the poor, etc.

Not so with the Tea Party. Their focus is on small government, lower taxes and a free market--not because of what it will produce (aside from more "freedom") but just because! Dick Army has cynically (and skillfully) taken advantage of decades-long frustration and fear among many Americans over, essentially, globalization to support the political agenda of the most reactionary part of the US elite.

Short term, I think this will be good for the Democrats in November. The DNC is developing a grassroots, neighborhood-based presence with OFA to bring out record numbers of Democrats to the polls in November (where we enjoy a statistical advantage). That and the Republican civil war (Tea Party Vs. Establishment) could (should?) translate into Democratic wins.

But long-term, the Tea Party movement is classic Fascism-on-the-rise: world-historical events, dramatically transforming politics and our economy (globalization, today, World Wars and the end of colonialism in the past); no effective response from mainstream parties; working people, united by a movement that channels only their fear, allied with the reactionary elites. The Tea Party movement fits all of this, and sometimes has the feel of a para-political group. Their language and imagery often have violent tones. Their "take back our government" language often skirts the line between democratic opposition and protest and advocating, essentially, a coup.

Combine this with the quasi-seditious language of right wing pundits, and the emergence of the "Oath Keepers" movement made up of current or former military preparing to disobey the president, and we've got all the pieces of a homegrown Fascism.

What happens in the future is entirely up to us. Much of it will depend on the strength of our democratic institutions. But most importantly, it will depend on the ability of a counter-movement to the Tea Party to arise on the left and the ability of this movement to articulate a positive, progressive vision that responds to the crisis in the global economy and the legitimate fears of many. This response needs to avoid fear-mongering, and short-term political pandering, and opt, instead for the articulation of a long-term, positive and inclusive alternative.