Faces of the Tea Party
Published in Listin Diario
(Dominican Republic) on 31 October 2010
by Mario Vargas Llosa (link to
original)
As the tea party will have topped all sorts of groups and extremist organizations — from anti-abortion and anti-gay fanatics to religious fundamentalists who want to banish Darwin’s theory of evolution from school curricula and replace it with biblical creationism, through picturesque sects whose enemies are masturbation and racial mixtures, and patriots with three-cornered hats, underwear and drums — the idea is widespread, especially outside the United States, that American democracy could collapse in the congressional and governors’ elections in November and fall into the hands of the right-wing and the angry crazies.
Pure paranoia and repressed desires blossom from United States enemies. The appearance of the tea party, for one, in these midterm elections, will further complicate the life of the Republican Party, more so than the Democratic Party. First, due to the drop in popularity of the Obama administration because of the economic crisis — which shows no warning signs of dying down — and with 10 percent of the workforce unemployed, it seems destined to sweep the ballot box.
Now, due to the disorder created by the activism and local successes of the tea party to impose their candidates, it is certain that their triumphs will be reduced by dividing the Republican vote and causing abstention or leakage to the disadvantage of many Republicans who cringe at the idea of deeply conservative and radical leaders, such as intellectually flimsy as Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, the media star of Fox, setting the party line. So the tea party may somewhat muffle a little — or perhaps a lot — the vote of punishment to the Democratic government.
Moreover, the tea party is not a political party, although it has taken its toll among Republican Party members, especially in towns and provinces far from major urban centers in the United States. Lacking a national organization and enough time to create one, it also conspires against the divisions and rivalries that multiply in the most sensible, the least sensible, the clowns and the crazies (there are still more subtle subdivisions).
Its birth was spontaneous — just a proliferation of groups, raised as a symbol of the colonists during the independence revolution who threw overboard the cargo of tea in rebellion against the commercial monopoly and taxes imposed by London. They gathered to protest the outrageous growth of the state and warned about measures such as health care reform and the massive tax breaks for banks following the financial crisis.
What seemed little more than an inconsequential event with picturesque American political folklore grew like wildfire and jumped from the margins to become part of the mainstream civic life in the country. My impression is that these elections will produce fewer victories than they fear and, probably — because of its lack of internal cohesion, all the hindrances that have infested it and its puny backbone and leadership — perhaps the tea party will unravel. However, something important will remain and be absorbed by the major parties and political action groups in this society, one of the most permeable and able to recreate itself that I know.
Underneath its ultraconservative, reactionary, populist and demagogic faces, and the nonsense some of their leaders proclaim — like those who say that President Obama is a Muslim ambush who wants socialism for the United States, or the remarks of Mrs. Christine O’Donnell,* a candidate from Delaware and a former practitioner of witchcraft who has accused homosexuals of creating AIDS — there is at the core of this movement something healthy, realistic, deeply democratic and libertarian.
Fear exists: of uncontrolled growth of the state and bureaucracy, whose tentacles are increasingly infiltrating into the private lives of citizens, cutting and choking liberty and initiative; of the appropriation by the public-sector functions or services that civil society could render more effectively and with less waste of resources; and of the creation of new systems of social assistance to be financed with systematic increases in taxes, which will result in declining living conditions for the middle and lower classes.
These fears are not groundless; they are a response to the reality of the times and originate in problems familiar to those in First- and Third-World countries. However, in the United States, they resonate particularly; they touch an always-live nerve in a country where individualism never had bad press as it did in Europe, where collective doctrines are deeply rooted in modern history.
European pilgrims arrived in the United States in search of liberty, to practice their religion, which was not official, to defend the right of the individual and take delight in their independence, to choose their lives without limitations and respect how others live their lives. In the purest American tradition, citizens, not the state, are responsible for their own success or failure.
The state should not interfere in their lives, but should ensure equal opportunities, which meet the fair and just laws from elected representatives in free elections. For a long time, this ideal design was more or less respected; it worked, with the extraordinary development and prosperity of the country as a result. In this model, there was something unreal and often imperfect, without doubt, but nevertheless the bulk of American society had living standards well above the rest of the world for a long time.
Then, because of wars, economic inequality multiplied. Reformist political action was taken to amend and in many ways to improve it, but sometimes made it worse. Among the latter results — no doubt, given the elephant-sized bureaucratic inflation that, as much as in Europe, was a reduction in the area of freedom and autonomy of the individual — were the shrinkage of civil society and, therefore, the responsibility of the citizen toward himself, his family and his social group.
In modern society, where the State is God, the individual is becoming less responsible, because reality can be just him; it pushes day after day to be state-dependent for almost everything: studying, health, getting a job, enjoying security, participating and enjoying cultural life and retirement — all on the State’s dime. The idea that this is the final destination of the evolution that has followed the situation in this country is simply intolerable for a significant part of the United States, [which holds to] the idea that the sovereign individual should not be bound or exploited by the State, [which is] always a latent threat to freedom [and] an essential ingredient in its history.
It is a just sentiment that should be included in the political agenda, since it points out real problems that the democratic culture is going through. If the State decentralizes and thins itself, if it returns to civil society, in particular, the many initiatives and services that have been snatched, you will end the debasement of democracy, its conversion into a mere appearance in which the individual is no longer free and has become a robot manipulated by invisible and all-powerful bureaucrats who in the shadows of their offices make all-important decisions concerning his fate.
It is true that only the state can exercise solidarity with the weak, provide aid for those who cannot help themselves and be responsible for the culture, health and work for its citizens. In many cases, they do better and spend less than bureaucrats.
For example, regarding culture in the United States, magnificent museums, operas and concerts, dance, major exhibitions and public libraries are funded mainly by civil society. True, there are tax incentives that encourage this generosity, but the main reason is a cultural tradition that has not entirely disappeared, which induces people to act and to take initiative to invest their money in what they think is right and necessary. Unlike others, this message from the tea party deserves to be taken into account.
*Editor’s Note: Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell is single.
Pure paranoia and repressed desires blossom from United States enemies. The appearance of the tea party, for one, in these midterm elections, will further complicate the life of the Republican Party, more so than the Democratic Party. First, due to the drop in popularity of the Obama administration because of the economic crisis — which shows no warning signs of dying down — and with 10 percent of the workforce unemployed, it seems destined to sweep the ballot box.
Now, due to the disorder created by the activism and local successes of the tea party to impose their candidates, it is certain that their triumphs will be reduced by dividing the Republican vote and causing abstention or leakage to the disadvantage of many Republicans who cringe at the idea of deeply conservative and radical leaders, such as intellectually flimsy as Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, the media star of Fox, setting the party line. So the tea party may somewhat muffle a little — or perhaps a lot — the vote of punishment to the Democratic government.
Moreover, the tea party is not a political party, although it has taken its toll among Republican Party members, especially in towns and provinces far from major urban centers in the United States. Lacking a national organization and enough time to create one, it also conspires against the divisions and rivalries that multiply in the most sensible, the least sensible, the clowns and the crazies (there are still more subtle subdivisions).
Its birth was spontaneous — just a proliferation of groups, raised as a symbol of the colonists during the independence revolution who threw overboard the cargo of tea in rebellion against the commercial monopoly and taxes imposed by London. They gathered to protest the outrageous growth of the state and warned about measures such as health care reform and the massive tax breaks for banks following the financial crisis.
What seemed little more than an inconsequential event with picturesque American political folklore grew like wildfire and jumped from the margins to become part of the mainstream civic life in the country. My impression is that these elections will produce fewer victories than they fear and, probably — because of its lack of internal cohesion, all the hindrances that have infested it and its puny backbone and leadership — perhaps the tea party will unravel. However, something important will remain and be absorbed by the major parties and political action groups in this society, one of the most permeable and able to recreate itself that I know.
Underneath its ultraconservative, reactionary, populist and demagogic faces, and the nonsense some of their leaders proclaim — like those who say that President Obama is a Muslim ambush who wants socialism for the United States, or the remarks of Mrs. Christine O’Donnell,* a candidate from Delaware and a former practitioner of witchcraft who has accused homosexuals of creating AIDS — there is at the core of this movement something healthy, realistic, deeply democratic and libertarian.
Fear exists: of uncontrolled growth of the state and bureaucracy, whose tentacles are increasingly infiltrating into the private lives of citizens, cutting and choking liberty and initiative; of the appropriation by the public-sector functions or services that civil society could render more effectively and with less waste of resources; and of the creation of new systems of social assistance to be financed with systematic increases in taxes, which will result in declining living conditions for the middle and lower classes.
These fears are not groundless; they are a response to the reality of the times and originate in problems familiar to those in First- and Third-World countries. However, in the United States, they resonate particularly; they touch an always-live nerve in a country where individualism never had bad press as it did in Europe, where collective doctrines are deeply rooted in modern history.
European pilgrims arrived in the United States in search of liberty, to practice their religion, which was not official, to defend the right of the individual and take delight in their independence, to choose their lives without limitations and respect how others live their lives. In the purest American tradition, citizens, not the state, are responsible for their own success or failure.
The state should not interfere in their lives, but should ensure equal opportunities, which meet the fair and just laws from elected representatives in free elections. For a long time, this ideal design was more or less respected; it worked, with the extraordinary development and prosperity of the country as a result. In this model, there was something unreal and often imperfect, without doubt, but nevertheless the bulk of American society had living standards well above the rest of the world for a long time.
Then, because of wars, economic inequality multiplied. Reformist political action was taken to amend and in many ways to improve it, but sometimes made it worse. Among the latter results — no doubt, given the elephant-sized bureaucratic inflation that, as much as in Europe, was a reduction in the area of freedom and autonomy of the individual — were the shrinkage of civil society and, therefore, the responsibility of the citizen toward himself, his family and his social group.
In modern society, where the State is God, the individual is becoming less responsible, because reality can be just him; it pushes day after day to be state-dependent for almost everything: studying, health, getting a job, enjoying security, participating and enjoying cultural life and retirement — all on the State’s dime. The idea that this is the final destination of the evolution that has followed the situation in this country is simply intolerable for a significant part of the United States, [which holds to] the idea that the sovereign individual should not be bound or exploited by the State, [which is] always a latent threat to freedom [and] an essential ingredient in its history.
It is a just sentiment that should be included in the political agenda, since it points out real problems that the democratic culture is going through. If the State decentralizes and thins itself, if it returns to civil society, in particular, the many initiatives and services that have been snatched, you will end the debasement of democracy, its conversion into a mere appearance in which the individual is no longer free and has become a robot manipulated by invisible and all-powerful bureaucrats who in the shadows of their offices make all-important decisions concerning his fate.
It is true that only the state can exercise solidarity with the weak, provide aid for those who cannot help themselves and be responsible for the culture, health and work for its citizens. In many cases, they do better and spend less than bureaucrats.
For example, regarding culture in the United States, magnificent museums, operas and concerts, dance, major exhibitions and public libraries are funded mainly by civil society. True, there are tax incentives that encourage this generosity, but the main reason is a cultural tradition that has not entirely disappeared, which induces people to act and to take initiative to invest their money in what they think is right and necessary. Unlike others, this message from the tea party deserves to be taken into account.
*Editor’s Note: Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell is single.