Is Obama the King of England?

The contemporary tea party protests were silly.

Insofar as they protested taxes they were silly because Obama is cutting taxes for approximately 95% of American workers, which is in some ways unprecedented. And he’s only raising taxes on a tiny percentage of people, to levels that are, as noted Asimov fan Paul Krugman points out, “about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration.”

Insofar as they were attempts to capture the spirit of the American Revolution, and the Boston Tea Party, they were perhaps even sillier. While Obama is perhaps raising taxes in a historically normal way, it can’t be said that he is taxing anyone without representation, the major theme of the Boston Tea Party. In fact, the American Revolution fought for, among other things, taxation with representation, which is what we have.

Insofar as they are claimed to be grassroots events they were curious, because the protests were not only promoted by major news outlets ahead of time (notably Glenn Beck’s program), but were attended and addressed by people from not only mainstream media (e.g., Sean Hannity), but “Washington Insiders” as well, such as former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Commentators have observed that this kind of treatment undoubtedly boosted the attendance numbers, which even despite the help didn’t reach the levels of numerous other protests which did not have such prominent help. See this useful piece from Christian Science Monitor, and this critique from Think Progress. For comparison, this would be like if multiple CNN hosts advertised for the protests leading up to the recent Iraq War, or the Million Man March, etc. Surely this would have bloated the numbers (which in the case of the war, were historically unparalled for protests before the event even took place). Glenn Reynold’s piece in denial of this critique is especially obnoxious.

These aren’t the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before. They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn’t seen lately, and an influx of new activists.

First of all, do we even have data on this question – which people have not protested before, or are new activists? But more interestingly to me – it seems like Reynolds undermines his point. People who “have never attended a protest march before” are exactly the kind of people who are susceptible to astroturf events. Plus, if they are just becoming politically active now, we have to ask: Where were they last April 15th, or the one before that? Also, for the sake of consistency (in protesting huge government spending on non-national security related programs), it seems like the same movement ought to advocate for the abolition of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In other words, Reynold’s analysis suggests that the tea party people aren’t politically serious. And if he thinks the “energy” hasn’t been seen “lately,” does he recall the 2008 election?

Finally: Insofar as they were protests of government spending, they at least were actually not incoherent. There actually is increased government spending, whereas there is not a general tax increase, taxation without representation, or grassroots movements. Of course government spending over time on the three programs listed above is much larger; plus, the last couple of times massive deficits were created the same constituencies failed to have tea parties. But at least there are genuine debates surrounding stimulus spending.

Here is an amusing and lighthearted commentary on the matter by NPR.