Tea Party? Alas!

Oh, those Tea Party members...

Wait a second. What "Tea Party" members?

If you don't know what the Tea Party is, let me clue you in, with just five words: There is no Tea Party. Pretty easy to understand, but many people apparently don't bother to think about it. They see behavior that, on the surface, they agree or disagree with from people who use the Tea Party label, and — with typical mental laziness — associate that behavior with "the Tea Party." You know, the one that doesn't exist. I was recently asked what the platform of the Tea Party is. Why ask such a question if you don't really care what the answer is, have already made up your mind, and/or can't be bothered to think your way through the reality of the situation?

Sure, there are various groups that are trying to lay claim to the title. "Tea Party Patriots: Official Home of the American Tea Party Movement" Claiming something doesn't make it true. Who made them "official" other than themselves? If I was a Tea Party activist, I could claim to be the Official Tea Party Leader but it doesn't make it true.

So what is really going on with all of the "Tea Party" talk? Sarah Palin this. Christine O'Donnell that. Glenn Beck this. Rand Paul that. And, oh, the unwashed masses, those Tea Party members...

If you're not too lazy to think for yourself, then please read on. If thinking for yourself sounds scary to you, then please return to your media outlet(s) of choice. They gave you "your" (their) opinion in the first place, so you'll just want to have "your" opinion reinforced again.

The truth — as I will try to clarify in this blog post — is that the use, misuse, and abuse of the "Tea Party" label has made the label worthless. Continuing to use it hurts everyone. It hurts those who agree with some or all of the positions associated with the label. It hurts those who oppose some or all of those positions. It hurts those who try to ignore the fray but will be affected by the results of the upcoming elections. The "Tea Party" label is a political poison that responsible citizens should abandon for the good of their country. Sound extreme? Hopefully you'll follow along, and hopefully by the end of this blog post you won't disagree.

First, we have to understand what the "Tea Party" label means. (Remember, it's a label, not a party.) Skipping over the genesis of the label in the form of anti-tax protests, what the label now refers to is a decentralized aggregation of poorly-delineated political ideals. (I'll wait while you re-read that. Ready? Let's move on.) It's decentralized because there is nobody with the authority to say exactly what the label means. It's an aggregation because there are multiple, sometimes-unrelated ideals that can fall under the label. Those ideals are poorly-delineated (a.k.a., "not well defined" or "not focused") as a result of the decentralized nature of the aggregation.

That's a mouthful. I'm glad I'm not podcasting this. Rather than "decentralized aggregation of poorly-delineated political ideals," for convenience in this blog post I'll refer to it as the LIST — Labeled Ideal Superset Tally. This just means "a tally of all the ideals that are, at least occasionally, described with the Tea Party label." LIST is much easier to type!

Despite the decentralized, poorly-delineated nature of the LIST, there are some common themes that run through it. These common themes include:

• Dissatisfaction with current or expected taxation levels and/or use of tax revenue
• Disagreement with the size of the government; in particular, supporting reduction in the size of government
• Unhappiness with the role of government; in particular, supporting limitation of the role of government, especially to roles specifically and clearly outlined in the US Constitution
• Disagreement with, and a call to repeal, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

There are more, but I believe those ideals are probably the most widely-supported by political activists who apply the Tea Party label to themselves. The LIST includes other notions such as opposition to "cap and trade" emissions regulation, but (with the exception of the health care law) the strongest support is for non-issue-specific ideals. This makes sense, because people are more inclined to agree with a general idea than a specific position about a specific issue.

So what's the harm? We have a label and it means something, so use it... right? Wrong. Don't let the list I presented above fool you. Those ideals are not what the Tea Party label "means." They're just strongly-supported ideals in the LIST. The label itself does not mean something, and that is why it should not be used.

Let me break it down for you, so you can see how the label hurts you, your friends, your family, etc.

How the Tea Party label hurts those who agree with most or all of the LIST:
Supporters of ideals in the LIST probably stand to lose the most from the use of the Tea Party label. It might work in the short term as a rallying banner, but if that positive effect hasn't faded yet, it's only a matter of time before the negative impacts outweigh the meager positives.

Think, for example, about the decentralized nature of Tea Party activists. Nobody has the authority to say what the Tea Party does or does not represent. Nobody can definitively repudiate anything that is said by somebody claiming the "Tea Party" label. If some lunatic carries around a sign praising "the Tea Party" while shouting that only white males should have the right to vote and all others should be subservient to them, every activist claiming the "Tea Party" label is hurt by that image, because nobody can say — with any effective authority — that such nutty and repellent behavior does not belong under the Tea Party label. It's already apparent that those who disagree with the LIST will latch on to, and broadly publish, such negative images. It helps them demonize the Tea Party movement in general. The average Joe and Jane "Tea Party" activists are "guilty by association" because nobody has the authority to disassociate them from those presenting the Tea Party label in the most mockery-inducing ways.

Of course, over-generalization of political views and "for us or against us" over-simplification of political decision-making is bad for everyone, so read on...

How the Tea Party label hurts those who disagree with most or all of the LIST:
A quick way to be seen and treated as ignorant and/or elitist is to make broad, inaccurate, condescending generalizations about any diverse group of people. Those who already agree with you will continue agreeing, those who already disagree will continue disagreeing. That's pointless, unless you just like mutual back-patting. However, anybody who wants to actually have some political impact — whether in elected office or just among fellow voters in one's circle of personal acquaintances — can't afford to form their opinions and actions around well-published soundbites that overly-generalize and/or demonize a diverse population. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the LIST, "Tea Party" activists are prone to demonization and unable to effectively defend against it. "They're all uneducated!" (No, they're not.) "They're all blue-collar!" (As if blue-collar workers' political voices shouldn't be heard? But anyway, no, they're not.) "They're all racist!" (No, they're not.) "They all hold crazy views!" (Define crazy.) "They're all hypocrites!" (Who isn't at some level?)

Ignoring the complexity of issues in the LIST, regardless of your position on those issues, encourages a winner-take-all result in our laws and government. Such an imbalanced result is not sustainable; in the long run, it will prove to be dysfunctional. Effective law and government involves compromises, not black-or-white position stands. Can you ever expect to find workable, sustainable solutions in complete ignorance of the details of opposing views? Can you ever expect balanced compromises to be found if those involved simply mock each other, rather than showing mutual respect?

How the Tea Party label hurts those who try to ignore the whole Tea Party label fiasco:
Law and government are very complex. You can't expect to make good decisions if you're too lazy to think about that complexity. Using a meaningless label discourages thinking. It promotes classification into a category that doesn't exist. Imagine if we used the word "good" to mean good and evil. People would say "such-and-such is good" and you would have no idea what they meant — so you would then assign your own meaning. Nothing would be communicated, nothing would be analyzed, nothing would be carefully considered. It encourages you to avoid all that inconvenient thinking and just "stick to your guns," keeping your mind closed to other possibilities. Not only are you encouraged to not think, but so are other voters and elected leaders. Avoiding careful, logical analysis of the compromises that must be made for effective government virtually guarantees that bad decisions will be made, from which we will all suffer.

So, there you have it.

Everybody in the US — in fact, everybody on the planet in a country where the US has influence, which is pretty much everybody on the planet — falls into one of the three groups I've identified as being hurt by the Tea Party label.

The "Tea Party" label hurts politicians you support. It hurts your loved ones. It hurts you. Why are you still using it?