Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd, who announced his retirement in 2009 after a sudden and disastrous bank failure caused by a sudden and disastrous drop in the housing market, has compared the Tea Party movement to a nativist movement of the mid-nineteenth century known as the "Know Nothing" movement.
While there is little doubt that the Tea Party is indeed a populist movement (meaning it is a bottom up, grassroots political movement that puts the desires of the ordinary people against the political elites), but its nativist ideologies are highly debatable. Nativism is the ideology typically characterized by a fear of or opposition to immigration. The major problem Tea Party members have with immigration reform is the lack of willingness Democratic (and to a lesser extent Republican) leaders have demonstrated to curb illegal immigration into the U.S, particularly the flood of Mexican illegals crossing the border into Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.
No one can say for sure whether the Tea Party movement is sustainable for the long-term, but there are several glaring indications that it is different from other populist movements like the Know Nothings and the Ross Perot movement of the 1990s and has a better chance of remaining viable for years to come.
For example, even though the Tea Party originated with entrenched politicos like former Congressman Dick Armey and political consultant Sal Russo, the movement has attracted everyday Americans disgusted with the ever-expanding reach of government and its appalling spending problem. While the politicos were the ones to get people organized, it wasn't "their" movement. They simply recognized a need for something without a label that needed to unite fiscal conservatives. In most cases, the politicos have ceded the reins to the everyday Americans that now make up the majority of the organizations. Nevertheless, these ties to shrewd political operatives separate the Tea Party from populist movements of the past and ensure its leaders will remain plugged in to the political process for at least the next several years.
Likewise, Tea Party members are typically strongly supportive of big business, an aspect that has opened it up for strong criticism from the Left. Most Tea Partyers, fiscally conservative as they are, are aligned with big and small American businesses, believing that only corporate America can get unemployed Americans back to work. In some cases, Tea Party leaders actually consult with representatives from major American companies to help determine policy and endorsements. While the Left is outspoken about the corruptible influence corporations may have on the Tea Party's policy decisions, their leaders are guilty of the same kind of thing; the only difference is that their leaders align themselves with Big Labor instead.
While there can be no guarantees about the future of the Tea Party, being plugged in to the political process and having the financial backing of America's biggest (and smallest) corporations will undoubtedly serve to provide a foundation for the movement that that previous populist movements never enjoyed.
Despite the rhetoric from the Left that the Tea Party's affiliation with political players and big business ultimately make it just a tool of the political elites, the movement has managed to retain its autonomy largely because of its very public endorsements and its members' commitment to policing themselves. This much can be attributed to the fact that at its heart, the Tea Party is a true populist movement. The organizations that combine to make up the Tea Party are laid bare when they combine to support a particular candidate. The candidate's background, political positions and overall viability serve as a sort of reflection of the Tea Party movement. If a candidate is a true fiscal conservative, Tea Party members will continue to stay loyal to the cause. If the candidate is in any way unworthy of the endorsement, however, there is little question that Tea Party members will speak up and hold their leaders accountable.
Since it has no official role in government (beyond a Tea Party Caucus established by Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann), the Tea Party is free to chart its own course.
Is the Tea Party sustainable? Only time will tell; but it has a better chance than most populist movements.
More Tea Party Myths:
- The Tea Party is a direct response to President Barack Obama's Election
- The Tea Party is a racist movement
- Tea Party members aren't really committed to spending cuts
- The Tea Party is unsustainable and will go away in a couple years