Tea Time

"Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."
--Benjamin Martin (The Patriot)

The Tea Party movement is a groundswell activist response to big government, fiscal irresponsibility, and diminishing freedom. It is a constellation of local organizations with little structure (example here). There are no dues, signup sheets, or key party positions. Interested individuals pretty much just show up when they care to.

In the eyes of some, lack of structure reduces the Tea Party's legitimacy. It attracts 'fringe' folks with weird agendas that dilute the party's message--so goes one line of criticism. Others argue that without a formal hierarchy, the party can gain no political traction.

There is also belief, it seems, that the Tea Party movement is somehow underwritten by Republicans or conservatives. What exactly there is to underwrite is, of course, a good question. More to the point, however, is that any on-the-ground time spent with folks in local Tea Parties reveals a non-partisan distaste for big government of all makes and models--Welfare and Warfare States alike.

This worries only a few on the Right currently; it would concern many more if big-government conservatives were not so busy exploiting a Democrat-bashing ride on Tea Partier's coat tails. In strategy land, this activity is known as engaging in 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' tactics. From the Left's perspective, the opposition appears as one. But in reality, the opposition is two groups who don't really care for each other.

What critics fail to realize, or refuse to acknowledge, is that the Tea Party movement emphasizes social power over political power. Social power is mankind's conquest of nature--i.e., harnessing power to produce in relative abundance from nature's condition of relative scarcity. The abundance, or wealth, is obtained via economic means. The other way to acquire wealth is via political means. Political power is wielding the coercive power of the State to acquire wealth. It is dominance of one group over another thru the use of violence.

Many critics like to paint Tea Partiers as a violent lot. Ironically, these same critics systematically enlist government as their agent for conducting violent intervention on a breathtaking scale.

There is little doubt that Tea Partiers are 'angry.' Anger is a strong feeling of displeasure or hostility. Tea Partier anger is in response to the increasingly oppressive force exerted by the State. Oppression is the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power. Axiomatically, oppressive power grows with government size and scope.

Central to the small government, freedom-based mindset that grounds the Tea Party movement is belief in the power of peaceful, cooperative exchange (a.k.a. markets) to advance mankind. Government's role in this situation is limited to assisting individuals in protecting their lives, wherewithall to produce, and property.

Under this arrangement, people seek civil means to settle their differences. However, if civility brings no recourse to signficant and repeated violations of liberty, then peace-loving individuals either submit or push back (see Jefferson).

The entire setup seems remarkably similar to that period over 200 yrs ago. My reading of US history suggests that the last time we had grassroots activism of the Tea Party type was indeed colonial America. In the early/mid 1700s, in churches, taverns, town halls, and elsewhere, the idea of liberty and the casting off of despotism started as small conversation. Over time, more and more people began to 'see' it, which sparked action that the world had not seen before.

My sense is that it may be coming to life again in similar grassroots fashion.