The outrage of the TEA Party isn't about anger.
As a gentleman was quoted saying on NPR tonight, anger is often a good reason to do things in the political arena.
Fear rarely is.
And these members of the republic are afraid.
Not because they are particularly cowardly, most of them; many are courageous, traveling great distances and putting their faces on television and the front pages, expressing their political views. Anyone who does that, in the face of a majority-elected government whose policies they vociferously advocate against, has courage.
But no one who is not afraid has a use for courage.
This begs the question: What are they afraid of, and why?
First, they are afraid that mixing an already-mixed economy in a more socially-beneficial manner, in order to exploit potential market efficiencies in public-sector competition (sounds suspiciously like government intervening to make a more liberal trade order to me...) may result in a slave kingdom run by a cult of leadership which will replace the more traditional God, guns, and grit they prefer. Understandable; electing a President in a two-party republic often has resulted in radical, sweeping social changes taking place, whole landscapes set aside from normal economies, and people being ground down to the level of their social inferiors under the thumbs of cruel, unelected leaders. But some of us happen to think that raising people up to be equal with everyone else, in no way lowers those whose rights, opinions, jobs, names, and way of life didn't change at all when someone else was givenacknowledged to be entitled to the same rights, who had different opinions, a different way of life, a different name, and probably a different job.
Those of us, that is, who are not afraid of losing what we've got because someone else may get it, too.
Those who think in zero-sum economic terms often see the world in terms of needing to keep someone else from getting what you have, because they can only get it by taking yours. For example, if an immigrant from the Cote d'Ivoire buys a car tomorrow with money he earned working at a French-language publishing company, that represents an obvious threat to all English-speaking people from places which are not the Cote d'Ivoire who want jobs, and who own cars. He could be taking mine, or yours.
But of course, he isn't, because that isn't how economies (or economics) work; it is, however, how zero-sum thinking gets blown out of proportion by people whose strength is not in logic, but in fear and outrage. It only takes one Chicken Little (and there are more than one) to keep people already afraid, politically united under fearful leadership, boldly determined to make America "safe" from all the threats they (mainly) imagine.
Why would I object to such silly, immature behavior by such puerile, irrelevant minds?
Because, put simply, they are politically united. And that makes them genuinely mighty. Such fear-driven unity wins elections, sways public policy, even drives foreign policy to march to the beat of its one-measure drum.
And of course, there is the father-knows-best Paternalism which promises to protect us from all that which we fear, especially changes in traditional ways of life that are just too sudden and destabilizing to our armed forces, whose protection must come first and foremost against the World Out There.
I want to comfort these folks. I want to say, man, it ain't that bad. Sure, times are sometimes tough. But even for an NPC (and I know we've all had moments when even in the narrative of our own lives, we feel like nameless NPCs) life really does go on. I don't have to get ready for the sun to come up in the morning; I know it's going to occur. I don't have to get ready for Iran to build (or buy) a nuclear weapon; again, I know it's going to occur. I don't have to get ready for the gay dudes two apartments down to get married; I know someday, it's likely going to occur. That, or they'll break up in a huge hissy spat over who last walked the cute boxer they treat as their adopted "daughter" and it'll be all over the 'plex by Monday.
But I digress...
My point, and the problem, is as long as there are Chicken Littles (and unscrupulous scalawags willing to push that big red button marked PUSH HERE FOR FEAR) there will never be any comfort for those who are motivated by fear. Even if the fearmongers are given total control over the reins of society they will not be unafraid; the Other will always be Out There Somewhere, waiting to take away what they have. Their job. Their home. Their family. Their life. All of these are things which may be lost, and the Other wants them, too, therefore the Other must want theirs just as much as they do.
No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that is because I don't live my life in fear of the Other. I believe that the Other, by and large, is motivated by similar things to me (as, ironically, do the Terrorheads, which says some pretty horrifying things about what they would anxiously do, given free political rein) and wants to be happy, to have enough--maybe a little more than enough--to eat, to have a good place to live, and to be free of disease, free from political subjugation, free from economic degradation or retribution, and free to join, raise, and leave a family in the manner of his choosing. The Other, in my imagination, is just like me, except for the circumstances of where and how he was raised. I might even enjoy meeting him someday. (he might be an asshole, but I wouldn't mind knowing that, having once had the pleasure of bumping into him and therefore meeting someone new)
The Terrorheads imagine the Other is exactly like them, too, only he has no moral limits (or the wrong moral limits) which means he is capable of anything and will probably do it, given the opportunity. What they need, then, is someone brave enough to put a stop to the Other's doing those evil, evil things he is capable of. To stop the Other from taking away from them what is theirs.
There is no solution to a problem that is imaginary. There is no comfort for people unwilling to believe that comfort is going to last. There is only limiting their influence, and keeping them away from political power so their fear only influences public policy, instead of creating it. Fear is distorting enough, corrupting enough, as it is.
Let's not let it rule us, too.
Fear rarely is.
And these members of the republic are afraid.
Not because they are particularly cowardly, most of them; many are courageous, traveling great distances and putting their faces on television and the front pages, expressing their political views. Anyone who does that, in the face of a majority-elected government whose policies they vociferously advocate against, has courage.
But no one who is not afraid has a use for courage.
This begs the question: What are they afraid of, and why?
First, they are afraid that mixing an already-mixed economy in a more socially-beneficial manner, in order to exploit potential market efficiencies in public-sector competition (sounds suspiciously like government intervening to make a more liberal trade order to me...) may result in a slave kingdom run by a cult of leadership which will replace the more traditional God, guns, and grit they prefer. Understandable; electing a President in a two-party republic often has resulted in radical, sweeping social changes taking place, whole landscapes set aside from normal economies, and people being ground down to the level of their social inferiors under the thumbs of cruel, unelected leaders. But some of us happen to think that raising people up to be equal with everyone else, in no way lowers those whose rights, opinions, jobs, names, and way of life didn't change at all when someone else was givenacknowledged to be entitled to the same rights, who had different opinions, a different way of life, a different name, and probably a different job.
Those of us, that is, who are not afraid of losing what we've got because someone else may get it, too.
Those who think in zero-sum economic terms often see the world in terms of needing to keep someone else from getting what you have, because they can only get it by taking yours. For example, if an immigrant from the Cote d'Ivoire buys a car tomorrow with money he earned working at a French-language publishing company, that represents an obvious threat to all English-speaking people from places which are not the Cote d'Ivoire who want jobs, and who own cars. He could be taking mine, or yours.
But of course, he isn't, because that isn't how economies (or economics) work; it is, however, how zero-sum thinking gets blown out of proportion by people whose strength is not in logic, but in fear and outrage. It only takes one Chicken Little (and there are more than one) to keep people already afraid, politically united under fearful leadership, boldly determined to make America "safe" from all the threats they (mainly) imagine.
Why would I object to such silly, immature behavior by such puerile, irrelevant minds?
Because, put simply, they are politically united. And that makes them genuinely mighty. Such fear-driven unity wins elections, sways public policy, even drives foreign policy to march to the beat of its one-measure drum.
And of course, there is the father-knows-best Paternalism which promises to protect us from all that which we fear, especially changes in traditional ways of life that are just too sudden and destabilizing to our armed forces, whose protection must come first and foremost against the World Out There.
I want to comfort these folks. I want to say, man, it ain't that bad. Sure, times are sometimes tough. But even for an NPC (and I know we've all had moments when even in the narrative of our own lives, we feel like nameless NPCs) life really does go on. I don't have to get ready for the sun to come up in the morning; I know it's going to occur. I don't have to get ready for Iran to build (or buy) a nuclear weapon; again, I know it's going to occur. I don't have to get ready for the gay dudes two apartments down to get married; I know someday, it's likely going to occur. That, or they'll break up in a huge hissy spat over who last walked the cute boxer they treat as their adopted "daughter" and it'll be all over the 'plex by Monday.
But I digress...
My point, and the problem, is as long as there are Chicken Littles (and unscrupulous scalawags willing to push that big red button marked PUSH HERE FOR FEAR) there will never be any comfort for those who are motivated by fear. Even if the fearmongers are given total control over the reins of society they will not be unafraid; the Other will always be Out There Somewhere, waiting to take away what they have. Their job. Their home. Their family. Their life. All of these are things which may be lost, and the Other wants them, too, therefore the Other must want theirs just as much as they do.
No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that is because I don't live my life in fear of the Other. I believe that the Other, by and large, is motivated by similar things to me (as, ironically, do the Terrorheads, which says some pretty horrifying things about what they would anxiously do, given free political rein) and wants to be happy, to have enough--maybe a little more than enough--to eat, to have a good place to live, and to be free of disease, free from political subjugation, free from economic degradation or retribution, and free to join, raise, and leave a family in the manner of his choosing. The Other, in my imagination, is just like me, except for the circumstances of where and how he was raised. I might even enjoy meeting him someday. (he might be an asshole, but I wouldn't mind knowing that, having once had the pleasure of bumping into him and therefore meeting someone new)
The Terrorheads imagine the Other is exactly like them, too, only he has no moral limits (or the wrong moral limits) which means he is capable of anything and will probably do it, given the opportunity. What they need, then, is someone brave enough to put a stop to the Other's doing those evil, evil things he is capable of. To stop the Other from taking away from them what is theirs.
There is no solution to a problem that is imaginary. There is no comfort for people unwilling to believe that comfort is going to last. There is only limiting their influence, and keeping them away from political power so their fear only influences public policy, instead of creating it. Fear is distorting enough, corrupting enough, as it is.
Let's not let it rule us, too.