By Jim Geraghty
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Today brought news that Sarah Palin is endorsing Donald
Trump.
Trump’s an odd figure to win the heart of a public figure
once so synonymous with the tea-party movement. He boasts of the influence his
money has bought him with politicians, including Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter,
and Harry Reid, some of the movement’s biggest enemies. He supported the TARP
and auto bailouts and praised socialized medicine. He’s currently touting
ethanol subsidies to the rafters in Iowa, and his tax plan would increase the deficit
by $10 trillion, according to the Tax Foundation. The day the Tea Party
debuted, he praised Obama as “a champion.”
And yet, here we are. The woman who became the Tea
Party’s biggest star is officially behind Trump. How did the movement come to
this? Why is it so marginal compared to the heights of its power in 2009 and
2010? Is it even a coherent political force anymore?
Theory One: Too many of the Tea Party’s
leaders left office and moved on.
Quite a few of the political figures most associated with
the movement are no longer in public office. Representative Michele Bachmann
retired after the 2014 cycle. Former Senator Jim DeMint resigned from the
Senate to take over the Heritage Foundation. Former Virginia attorney general
Ken Cuccinelli lost his bid for governor in 2013 and now runs the Senate
Conservatives Fund. The governor he sought to replace, Bob McDonnell, is
currently appealing his conviction on federal corruption charges. Former Massachusetts
senator Scott Brown was once hailed for winning “the Tea Party’s first
electoral victory.” He lost his reelection bid to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in
2012, and a subsequent race for the Senate in New Hampshire last cycle.
Then there’s Palin. She announced her resignation as
governor barely five months after Obama’s inauguration. Through much of 2010,
she was one of the movement’s driving forces, providing much-needed
endorsements to lesser-known GOP primary challengers. Throughout 2011 and 2012,
her fans eagerly awaited a campaign for the presidency that never materialized.
She’s since written best-selling books and sustained a lucrative career as a TV
star, without ever again giving serious thought to running for office.
Theory Two: Too many embarrassing candidates
tainted the movement’s reputation.
Christine O’Donnell sticks out as one of the Tea Party’s
worst candidates. She lost her 2010 Senate race by 16 points, is perhaps best
remembered for her “I’m not a witch, I’m you” ad, and is currently fighting the
Federal Election Commission over allegations that she and her former campaign
manager diverted $20,000 in political contributions for personal use. Several
other tea-party candidates flopped against Democratic opponents perceived to be
beatable: Sharron Angle and Ken Buck lost winnable Senate races in 2010, as did
Richard Mourdock in 2012.
All political movements have their disappointments, but
there’s no doubt that by spotlighting passionate amateurs and untested
candidates, the Tea Party helped shove some candidates who were simply
unelectable into the spotlight. These candidates helped a hostile media paint
the movement as extreme and unhinged.
After the 2014 midterms, the Republican party enjoyed a
roaring comeback; all told, they’ve now picked up 11 governorships, 13 Senate
seats, 69 House seats, 913 state legislative seats, and 30 state legislative
chambers in the Obama era. But the Tea Party’s reputation never recovered. In
2011, 30 percent of Americans told Gallup they considered themselves “tea-party
supporters.” By October 2015, only 17 percent said the same.
Theory Three: The Tea Party actually won,
and now represents the true GOP “establishment.”
As Mark Antonio Wright points out, it’s jarring to hear
Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Trey Gowdy now described as
“Establishment” figures. The Tea Party Express, Tea Party Patriots, and Palin
all cheered when Mitt Romney picked Ryan as his running mate. How quickly the
outsiders become insiders.
The 2016 Republican presidential field burst at the seams
with Republican officials once considered tea-party favorites: Scott Walker of
Wisconsin, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of
Texas. A 2010 Newsweek piece on the
Tea Party included Carly Fiorina’s Senate bid in California, and even John
Kasich ran that year by saying, “I was in the Tea Party before there was a Tea
Party.” Ted Cruz, of course, gave the movement one of its biggest victories
when he upset Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the 2012 Texas senatorial
primary.
Yet, none of these candidates have galvanized and united
the movement that roared in 2010. Perhaps Cruz comes closest, but as Palin’s
endorsement of Trump demonstrates, he’s not everyone’s first choice.
Theory Four: Most members of the Tea Party
actually never cared much about ideology or governing philosophy, just
attitude.
At the height of the movement’s cultural power,
disdainful liberals enjoyed citing the nonsensical “keep your government hands
off my Medicare” as a Tea Party rallying cry and arguing that most Tea Party
members were in fact comfortable with big government, even if they were too
stupid to realize it. Another favorite left-wing line of thinking was that the
movement didn’t object to big-government spending in general so much as
big-government spending on other people.
The movement has indisputably undergone some
uncomfortable ideological contortions over time, as most movements do. Folks
who roared with fury about Obama’s big-spending early years showed little
appetite for entitlement reform. Those who once fumed about runaway government
invading the citizenry’s privacy appear comfortable enough with Big Brother as
long as he’s leaving them alone.
In September, Glenn Beck, one of the few big-name tea
partiers who have been resolutely opposed to Trump since the beginning,
suggested that he doubted any real members of the movement supported Trump —
and that any that did were, in fact, driven by the racism that critics carped
about.
“I don’t think these are Tea Party people who are
following [Trump],” Beck said. “Some of them may be, but I think these — I
mean, you can’t — if you were a Tea Party person, then you were lying. You were
lying. It was about Barack Obama being black. It was about him being a
Democrat, because this guy is offering you many of the same things, as shallow
as the same way.”
Maybe the Tea Party isn’t splintered and weak. Maybe it’s
dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment