Sprawling Thoughts on Tea Partiers and Anti-Elitism

Sprawling Thoughts on Tea Partiers and Anti-Elitism

Posted by donelder on October 26, 2010 · 4 Comments (Edit)

So, by now everyone has heard of Christine O’Donnell’s gaffe over the first amendment. You may have even heard that after the debate and to this very day she still believes that she won the point. Without getting into the issue (unless provoked), I can tell you categorically that she lost the point. For any other candidate, the fact that she hasn’t realized it and rolled back on it in the media would be alarming.

Sadly, that last sentence just isn’t true, anymore. In fact, I am dubious of any claim from a real follower of politics, policy or government that expresses anything but concern and sadness over the sheer stupidity of some of the people running for election this year.

I have been hesitant to talk about the tea party candidates this year because, frankly, they’re very soft targets. It occurs to me, however, that even saying this makes me an elitist in many eyes. That point actually warrants some discussion.

First, do you remember the central conceit of the film Armageddon, that it is easier to train oil drillers to be astronauts than to train astronauts to be oil drillers?

So-called Tea Party candidates routinely demonstrate a lack in sophistication in their understanding of government and public policy. It isn’t just O’Donnell not recognizing the Establishment Clause when it is paraphrased to her or Joe MIller failing to think of a Supreme Court case from the past ten years. Those things are only funny out of context. We know that these tea-partiers are not running on policy or even on their own merits, they are running on anti-Democratic and anti-establishment fervor. As a result their rhetoric is that of broad social themes and not of actual policy. This is not unusual. However, when you have the confluence we have now of candidates only going big and broad and the same candidates displaying ignorance of American government, you have to ask yourself if they are qualified to be Federal legislators.

Now, I know the rent-a-quote response: “I’ll let the voters of ____ decide whether or not they are qualified” (Not surprisingly on Meet the Press, Chairman Steele had a vocal opinion on every issue, except those pertaining to controversial Republicans), but let’s think about this critically for a moment.

Americans have, and have always had, this dream about the U.S. Congress. The dream is this: that when we are displeased with the state of the country, we can walk outside our front door, look to the front yard of a neighbor, someone we know, respect and trust, and we can send him to Washington to look after our community’s interests. This may be a difficult thing to accept, but that dream is bullshit.

To put it another way, listening to her rhetoric, Christine O’Donnell would have you believe that every day in the Senate there’s another trillion-dollar bill requiring a full measure of populist conviction to defeat. If that were true, she would be qualified Republican candidate. The reality is that every day in the Senate is going to put before her nuanced bills over the thousand or so areas and sub-categories of policy that we have no reason to believe she has ever considered. And what do Republicans AND Democrats do when they lack a sophisticated understanding of a bill the day it is discussed? Do they surprise us by staying up all night studying the bill, existing law, and pertinent social structures then wow us with impassioned, cogent arguments on the Senate floor, or do they get crib notes from staffers (who is a better world already be Senators) and fall in with the party line?

The latter is what you’re usually voting for when you pick someone with whom the everyman can actually relate to assume office. Sophistication is important because legislators get an opinion on EVERYTHING.
So, yes, I am an elitist. It isn’t perfect, but it seems like a good place to start.