My Country ’Tis of Tea

Tea just got a little more serious: Feb. 6 marked the first National Tea Party Convention and, with it, a degree of legitimacy for the movement. Granted, the hundreds of delegates that descended on Nashville had to shell out as much as $500 per ticket, and their conception of the purpose and message of the party is anything but unified. But in the span of less than a year, grassroots activism from across the country has united in a remarkable way.

Despite the progress the group has made, it remains mostly a punch line and the source of Rachel Maddow’s ire or Glenn Beck’s giddiness. Sure, in recent weeks, politicians have been warned by political observers to ignore the Tea Party at their own risk. But save for a handful of conservative congressmen and a certain former governor who received $100,000 to headline their convention, most still do. And even with the signs that a new political party may be brewing, too many do not understand why their condescension is unwarranted.

It is easy to dismiss the movement. The Obama-as-Hitler metaphors don’t elicit respect. Signs heralding “Beck-Palin ’12” are enough to make one forswear even drinking tea. Nevertheless, it is not just these tactics that those in the mainstream decry. It is the supposed ignorance of the Tea Partiers. They don’t understand the legislation, some say. They don’t realize what’s good for them, others argue. They are misinformed, they are the product of Fox News, they have a terrible misreading of history. President Obama even intimated as much in his State of the Union, claiming that it was not his agenda but rather his failure to explain it to a misinformed populace that caused the congressional logjam.

That’s the problem. Though many certainly did not and do not understand all the provisions of the Democrats’ healthcare prescription, it was not merely misinformation or the perceived specter of socialism-in-sheep’s-clothing that made the Tea Party boil. That’s too simple. “But what is it then?” the reformers will ask. Surely even those who did not vote for the President can appreciate the merits of the program, and surely the uninsured among Tea Partiers can see what we are doing for them. For them. There it is.

Get out of Boston. Get out of the metropolises. Look beyond the densely populated zones of our country where collectivism is expected and mostly accepted. Get out of Cambridge where 85 percent still voted for Martha Coakley. I hate to perpetuate the Massachusetts-as-foil-for-Texas stereotype, but I’ll take the risk. So drive down through the winding roads of non-urban Texas, where people of modest means have yards the size of parks, where you’ll break a sweat walking to the next door neighbor’s, and where stray cattle wander through neighborhoods.

It is there, like in the town I spent my youth, that people have, out of necessity and out of tradition, practiced a type of self-reliance that makes them bristle at the notion that they need politicians to do something “for them.” There, the rates of uninsured are among the highest in the nation, but opposition to nationalized healthcare (or anything that resembles it) is equally high, even among those who would be eligible for government assistance.

So much of this country is disconnected and quite distant—geographically and culturally—from Washington and from the bastions of liberalism. And there the let-me-make-my-choices mentality is the rule, not the exception. It does not matter what the government is trying to do. It’s that the government is trying to do more at all. Sure there are nominal benefits; fierce individualists can certainly see what’s in it for them. But for so many, it’s not worth it. They don’t truly fear descending into a Soviet America. They have a disdain for mandates, for condescension, for anything “for them.”

In such places, conservatism is as much about individualism as anything else. It’s why the right to self-defense is sacred, it’s why as a schoolchild I was required to say not only the Pledge of Allegiance but also the Texas Pledge, it’s why the word “Pelosi” is a pejorative, it’s why individuals can see beyond the promises of the most well-intentioned legislation and ask more than, “What’s in it for me?” It’s why anything that robs the individual of being, well, an individual receives a questioning look.

This is not a defense of the Tea Party or of its tactics, but it is a word of caution to those who would ignore it or judge it quickly and harshly. The selected soundbites and posters may be outrageous, but the emotion and spirit and principle behind them are not. For at its core, it’s about a streak of proud conservatism—or perhaps a certain variation of populism—that still runs deep in this country. (Don’t forget that a December Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed that more Americans identified with the Tea Party than with either Republicans or Democrats).

Maybe this is over-romanticizing it all a bit much. But even in exaggeration one can find a nugget of truth. This movement—for better or worse—sprung up for a reason. And it carries a much deeper message than we might like to admit. Ponder that over your next cup of tea.

Mark A. Isaacson ’11 is a government concentrator in Kirkland House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.