Tea Party in New York

Many think of the Tea Party as a fringe party that is much more active in the backwoods of American life. But as the New York Daily News reports today, one in four New Yorkers and 21% of those in the City claim to the support the party (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/06/14/2010-06-14_you_betcha_theres_a_bunch_of_em_here_news_finds_wide_streak_of_conservatives_in_.html). While these findings in themselves are interesting, I though it might be interesting to deconstruct a paper that could never be confused with the "liberal" media bias we hear so much about from the right:

Let's start with the lede paragraph:

"Much of America sees New York City as the epicenter of bleeding heart liberaldom, a tolerant, immigrant-friendly, tax-and-spend kind of place." Now does most of America think liberalism is dominated by "bleeding hearts" anymore? When did "tolerant" take on a negative connotation? I guess we will never get rid of the "tax and spend" label, even as that is the obvious thing one does with collected taxes, and taxes in the U.S. continue to be among the lowest in the world.

In the next paragraph we get a description of the Tea Party, "the right-leaning, close-the-borders, anti-government movement of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck." While New York City is the epicentre of liberalism in America, even as Giuliani and Bloomberg (two moderate Republicans) have ruled the city for over a decade, apparently the far right Tea Party now merely "leans" right? Give me a break! What is more fascinating is that any party led by characters like Palin and Beck could be taken seriously by anyone but the most fring of groups in the U.S.

The third paragraph continues "Here in this city of labor rights, gay pride and lefty havens, Tea Partyers lead double lives as foot soldiers in a quiet war to reverse the direction of America." One must again question what is so bad about labor rights and gay pride, but obviously to conservatives these two issues alone can send them into spasmodic diatribes on free markets and religion (the media never seems to concern themselves with the fact that the party arguing for liberty and freedom, seems to believe corporations are the only ones that really deserve it (and top teir tax payers) while gays, women or immigrants . . . not so much).

We then have a quote from perrenial losing candidate Rick Lazio, next slated for a GOP governor run: "Citizens and patriots! We have a government that overtaxes, overspends, overreaches and overregulates - and we want them out of our lives!" It is fascinating to me to hear this when it is undertaxation that helps create the deficits they decry, underreaching that has arguably caused many of the problems in America today and underregution that was clearly at the foundation of the financial crisis. The argument of the right centers on not only historical ignorance, but an inabilty to even look back a few months to the reality of where America stands today. It is a fascinatingly effective strategy that shows how effective empty rhetoric has become today -- though one shouldn't be too surprised given two elections for George W. Bush.

The article then does mention a slight hypocrisy in supporting anti-immigrant reforms in Arizona while hanging out at Mexican restaurant Tio Pepe's. It closes with this brilliant observation from Tea Party member Frank Santarpia, "We are the silent majority." Of course, 21 percent is not a majority and no one is going to confuse the Tea Party with the silent majority Nixon talked about 40 years ago -- those who had grown weary of the Civil Rights Movement, anti-war Protesters, counculturalists, feminists, etc. but were not out in the streets challenging them. Nixon turned out to be right, exemplified by the conservative revolution to come. Will the Tea Party lead us even further to the right, a mere two years after Obama's election? God, I hope not.