It was important to be there. Still, I have to confess I wasn't especially looking forward to it. I dislike crowds, speeches, the public transportation I would need to get there. I wasn't even entirely sure of the sponsors or their bona fides.
My concerns about the journey on the Washington area Metro were fully justified. Metro management didn't have sense enough to run more trains because of the expected large jump in ridership or to suspend maintenance work for the day, which caused hundreds of people packed into each train to become rather too intimate with one another during long stationary periods. But hey, the Metro functionaries were government workers. They were in charge, we were at their mercy. Not a bad illustration of what government-run health care would be like.
Once out of the underground purgatory and joining the other pilgrims at the beginning of the walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol grounds, my spirits lifted. There was no doubt that this was a big deal. Because of the delay, the march had already started, but new participants were materializing at the starting point. Many wore patriotic-styled costumes, and/or were carrying flags ("Don't Tread on Me" was popular), banners and signs. I felt a little embarrassed dressed in ordinary clothes, as if I were letting the side down.
I guess it was about a mile to the Capitol, along the wide avenue empty of traffic except for police and emergency vehicles, and there were no gaps in the stream of participants heading toward that majestic dome visible at the far end. This part of Pennsylvania Avenue is lined mostly with dignified, or at least large and imposing, buildings: the old Romanesque revival Post Office, the Federal Trade Commission, the brutalist modern FBI building, the Greek temple Archives, the National Gallery.
As we neared the Canadian embassy, a piece of clumsy modernism that looks like it was designed by a committee (perfect symbol of a country with no widely shared identity), I saw observers on its roof. What, I wondered, would these Canadians think as they watched the thousands walk by to protest, among other things, the proposed national health scheme -- much like the one they profess to hold dear? But when I got closer I could see they were security guards, ubiquitous in Washington.
There was a palpable camaraderie among the marchers. Despite the signs many carried expressing anger, their mood was upbeat. Lots of meeting-and-greeting as people spotted others from their home state. I stopped periodically to write down some of the messages on signs, mostly handmade, people were carrying:
Beware of governments bearing gifts.
Government health care = a sick idea.
Go green: recycle Congress.
Obamacare is a grave mistake.
Shovel-ready project: Obamacare R.I.P.
Don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.
I was tired of yelling at my TV, so here I am.
No money left to make a sign.
Government health care = a sick idea.
Go green: recycle Congress.
Obamacare is a grave mistake.
Shovel-ready project: Obamacare R.I.P.
Don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion.
I was tired of yelling at my TV, so here I am.
No money left to make a sign.
Arriving at the area near the west front of the Capitol, I looked around at the numbers who had already settled in. I'm not sure I have ever seen so many people in one vista. The mainstream media will almost surely mis-underestimate the size of the crowd -- they'll probably settle on a number like 10,000 which they'll copy from one another -- but I'm here to tell you it was a far greater figure. It's almost impossible to say what the accurate measure was, but the huge Capitol lawn was filled, the parking lot behind that was filled, there were people all around the huge pool.
The crowd was so dense that it was hard to get close enough to the speakers to hear what they were saying, even with amplification. I gradually made my way forward and listened to a half dozen or so speeches. One or two, by members of the organizers, were rousing in part; others were standard talking points. Dick Armey was suffocatingly dull.
Mostly, though, I just wandered around the gathering to see what kind of people had shown up (from every state in the union, a speaker said). At this moment, I expect an Obama coat-holder columnist is sitting in front of a monitor (just as I am) and writing that the tea partyers weren't representative, didn't "look like America," were old and -- wait for it -- white. Few blacks and Hispanics were to be seen, they say.
I can't dispute that as a generality. There were people of all ages, but the demographics certainly skewed to 40-plus. They learned American history in school when it was something to be proud of. Most were probably reasonably prosperous; it costs a bomb to fly to Washington, especially if you spend a night or two in a hotel. I saw only a handful of blacks or identifiable Hispanics, which is regrettable.
(But there was a young woman carrying a sign that said: "Latinas can be conservatives too." I made a point of catching her eye and giving her a big smile, which was returned. And I think I will always carry in memory a mental snapshot of a pretty teenage girl wearing a T-shirt decorated with words from the U.S. Constitution in the original 18th-century script.)
Though I go out of my way normally to avoid huge gatherings, this one was as comfortable as any such thing can be. I mentioned some of the waggish slogans earlier, but others were thoughtfully worded and serious. Thomas Jefferson was quoted a lot, as was the Constitution.
How much will this tea party of tea parties influence the political debate? In the short run, I'd guess not much. Few if any Senators and Congressmen were in attendance, and besides, everyone in Washington is used to marches and demonstrations. It gets to be just background noise. But being there surely gave a huge psychological and emotional boost to the participants. They looked around and saw legions of others who were there for the same reason, a connection with what they felt as the essence of America.
For nowhere else on earth could such a gathering happen. Sure, not a day goes by when people aren't waving signs and shouting somewhere in the world, agitating for more benefits, more laws, more guarantees, for their own tribe ruling instead of someone else's tribe. The Tea Party marchers were aiming for a uniquely American goal: less government, more individual liberty. To take responsibility for themselves, their families, and their country. Such a large rally for those purposes would be inconceivable in Britain, France, Canada, you name it.
One woman bore a sign that said, "Don't make me come back here next year." I don't want to either, but if we have to, we will. You can set your clock by it.
33 comments:
In 1984, prehistoric times, when the socialist government (Mitterrand) said they were to nationalize schooling by getting rid of private schools, TWO MILLION people invaded Paris streets, and marched, and shouted, claiming that their children's education was first of all their concern
In those days, the French still had backbones ; I wonder what they will do now ; there are rumors about a "melting" of private schools into a "larger" educational system....socialists wll be socialists, won't they?
As for me, I am getting a bit old for this sort of outing!
One woman bore a sign that said, "Don't make me come back here next year."
I like that one.
"Dick Armey was suffocatingly dull."
Dick Armey? Yet another one from Open Borders Uber Alles Texas politicians formerly economics professors of Crayon and Rose Glasses school of economics thought.
How clearly post-American creeps like Armey and Phil Gramm still manage to insinuate themselves into a patriotic crowd?
And what is it about Texas that keeps producing dumbbell presidents (Johnson, Jorge W) and Open Borderistas former academics (Gramm and wife with Enron and USB connections and Armey)?
Thanks for going, Rick.
"How much will this tea party of tea parties influence the political debate? In the short run, I'd guess not much. Few if any Senators and Congressmen were in attendance, and besides, everyone in Washington is used to marches and demonstrations. It gets to be just background noise."
I can think of one salient difference between this march and those that have gone on in the past. All the large demonstrations during my life were left-inspired: the civil rights march, the anti-war marches, the million-man march. I'm not aware of hundreds of thousands - perhaps a million - rallying for a conservative cause. This might make a few congressman sit up and take notice.
"Mick said...
How clearly post-American creeps like Armey and Phil Gramm still manage to insinuate themselves into a patriotic crowd?"
I quite agree. Conservatives need to renounce the Gingrich and Bush era Republican leadership, and many of the back-benchers too. They were mostly worse than useless, and often actively harmful.
Some of the organizers of these protests seem to realize this too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32809316/ns/politics-washington_post/
As an added bonus, this article quotes Mark McKinnon saying that the tea-partiers are nutjobs. McKinnon, you may recall, was the McCain campaign advisor who quit because he refused to run a campaign against Obama.
Thanks for the first-hand report on this event, Mr. Darby.
Rick,
Glad you were there and filed this report. And I second Dennis's thank you.
I agree with Martin B. and Mike. Bush's fiscal policies were barely better than Obama's, and his open borders obsession bordered on treason. Real conservatives do not believe you can cut taxes and increase spending and barrowing, and still come out with a balanced budget, and real conservatives understand that mass immigration destroys valuable social capital that has been carefully built up over centuries. I hope most of the attendees were real conservatives, not those of the Bush variety.
Thanks for going Rick.
Thank you all for your comments. I could have written a fuller account but didn't want to try readers' patience. Maybe I'll do an additional posting.
As this movement grows, which it will, it is very important that it not be co-opted by the Republican Party. "Grassroots" is a much overworked (and usually questionable) term in the political lexicon, but it applies here. My impression was that people at the Tea Party felt that both major parties had only contempt for them. The Republicans need a shakeout almost as much as the Democrats.
Actually, you can -- within reason, of course -- cut taxes and increase spending and still balance the budget.
The reason this can work -- as Ronald Reagan well knew -- is that taxes always act as a drag on the total economy. Therefore, reducing taxes generally increases economic activity ... which generally leads to increased tax receipts, even though the tax-rate is lower than it was before.
Democrats and other "liberals" know this, but they're not interested in a balanced budget -- they're interested in having as much control over the lives of the erstwhile citizens of the United States as they can get.
True, the GOP also needs a good thrashing (though they still remain the much lesser of the two evils), and clearly 2008 didn't teach them what they need to learn.
On the other hand, dare we allow the Dems to continue to rule past 2010 just because the GOP is full of politicians, rather than statesmen?
Yes, everyone and his cousin is going to try to ride this pony.
For instance, I attended the first half of the local July 4 Tea Party ... and then left in partial disgust. The reason for my disgust is that a representative of the local veterans group was there on the platform trying to propagandize that we normal citizen owe veterans (and veteran groups) even more hand-outs and goodies than they already get.
And you can be sure that the unions, once they realize that there is indeed a pony there, are going to try to harness all that unfocused patriotism into nationalistic protectionism -- unions have generally been about supporting themselves on the backs of everyone else.
lion:
The reason this can work -- as Ronald Reagan well knew -- is that taxes always act as a drag on the total economy. Therefore, reducing taxes generally increases economic activity ... which generally leads to increased tax receipts, even though the tax-rate is lower than it was before.
-----------------------------------
Lion, the Republicans have been doing this for nearly 30 years and the budget hasn't been balanced yet. The tax receipts may grow under this plan, but the debt and the debt servicing grows much faster. Spend and borrow doesn't work. It's like arguing that you can increase your credit card spending 30 percent while decreasing your income 30 percent, and expecting financial security to spring from that.
"... It's like arguing that you can increase your credit card spending 30 percent while decreasing your income 30 percent, and expecting financial security to spring from that."
Only if someone isn't reading what is actually written.
llion, I read what you wrote. Perhaps you are too young to remember that Reaganomics didn't translate to a balanced budget even if tax revenues went up due to increased economic activity. The debt still ballooned, and we just borrowed the difference from the Japanese and the Germans, just as today, we borrow the difference from the Chinese.
I'm all for tax cuts, but only after expenses have been cut and debt has been paid down to a sensible level so that we no longer incur wasteful debt servicing expenses.
MaryJ: "llion [sic], I read what you wrote."
You haven't even got my name right, yet, much less paid attention to what I actually wrote:
"Actually, you can -- within reason, of course -- cut taxes and increase spending and still balance the budget." (and with an explanation of how this works)
And you attempted to turn that into "Spend and borrow ... like arguing that you can increase your credit card spending 30 percent while decreasing your income 30 percent, and expecting financial security to spring from that."
"Ilíon said...
MaryJ: "llion [sic], I read what you wrote."
You haven't even got my name right, yet, much less paid attention to what I actually wrote:"
Oh, come on! That's a cheap shot. The screen font made it impossible for MaryJ to tell whether your screen name is Ilion or llion (and note that despite the fact I typed it two different ways here, it looks the same).
As to your enthusiasm for Reaganomics, well, you're case is unproved isn't it? We did indeed cut taxes in the 80's and deficits did indeed increase. Sure, if spending is held 'within reason' it may work. What would lead you to beleave that spending would ever be held within reason?
Mind you I'm all for cutting taxes, no matter if it increases or decreases government revenue - it is not the governments' job to maximize it's revenue.
But when the lions share of government spending is in the form of "entitlements" - outlays that grow exponentially, and completely on auto-pilot, then no amount of supply-side stimulus will compensate for the increased spending.
"Ilíon said...
And you can be sure that the unions, once they realize that there is indeed a pony there, are going to try to harness all that unfocused patriotism into nationalistic protectionism -- unions have generally been about supporting themselves on the backs of everyone else."
As well they should! This country could use a few tarriffs. I'd gladly exchange tarriffs for income tax. And it would be refreshing if a union would actually look out for its membership.
However I agree with you regarding the unquestioned adulation of "our troops". Our military does not defend our freedom. It exists to defend our nation (in which task it is now certainly not being employed). It is up to each and all of us to defend our freedom. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how some poor guy shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan is defending my freedom. He is not. He is only defending the right of some State Department or Pentagon nabob to play the live-action version of "Risk".
Thanks for going. I have noticed many of the same things you did about the two TEA Parties I have attended here in WI.
There wasn't a lot of diversity at the Sheboygan one, but there was at the Madison one. I suspect that there weren't many melanin blessed people at the Sheboygan one (although there were a few) because that happens to be the demographics of this area.
I was a bit disturbed by the 40+ age of the crowd. There were a few children, but not nearly as many teens as I would have liked to see.
Considering what my son was told in what passes for a civics class nowadays, before I pulled him out of that high school, I shouldn't be so surprised.
We're losing our youth to a generation of socialist teachers who tell them that there is nothing wrong with communism. But what would I expect in a school where the only person(including the teacher) willing to stand,day after day, hand over heart, and recite the pledge of allegiance with the opening broadcast of the school's tv channel, in homeroom, despite the laughter of some of the other students, was my son.
We've lost a whole generation and maybe these TEA Parties are one way to start getting them back, if it's not too late already.
Call Me Mom: "... We've lost a whole generation and maybe these TEA Parties are one way to start getting them back, if it's not too late already."
I mentioned that I left the local (Mansfield, Ohio) July 4 Tea Party in partial disgust ... but far from total disgust.
It was amazing, and gratifying, to see so many people, strangers to one another mostly, united in a simple display of patriotism. And at ours, I saw young people, some teens and also young couples.
Not all of the speakers at ours were people I agreed with entirely myself. I think that's good. The attitudes of the crowds at the two I attended were really excellent. There was that sense of cameraderie that Mr. Darby refers to in his post.
"Call Me Mom said...
But what would I expect in a school where the only person(including the teacher) willing to stand,day after day, hand over heart, and recite the pledge of allegiance with the opening broadcast of the school's tv channel, in homeroom, despite the laughter of some of the other students, was my son."
You might be interested to learn, as I was, that the pledge of allegiance IS socialist, and has a rather creepy history:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3296
I'm not ever going to recite it again.
Yes, it's quite true that the pledge was invented by a socialist, for socialistic purposes.
But it didn't quite work out as intended, did it?
Of course FREE travel and lodging would bring many people. But it wasn’t enough so the right wing zealots add another LIE on their campaign to stop Americans from getting better health care.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/14/blog-posting/blogger-claim-photo-shows-millions-tea-party-prote/
Martin B,
Thanks for the info. I contend that whatever his purpose, Mr. Bellamy was either not a Christian or not a socialist. The two, if followed to their logical conclusions, are not compatible.
I think the inclusion of "under God" defines the pledge as being a pledge of loyalty to this country, over any others, with the limitation that one's duty and loyalty to God supercedes that national loyalty, as it should.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think and have aleways thought.
That's undoubtably annoying to atheists, but they are not required to say say it. At the time of the founding fathers, atheists weren't even allowed to testify in a court of law, on the theory that, owning to no higher power with ultimate judgement and authority over them, they had no compelling interest in telling the truth should it prove to their detriment to do so.
While I will grant the other children the right to not say the pledge if they please, they should at least be quiet respectful while it is said by those so inclined. Not snickering, or giving the Nazi salute and sig heil'ing while it is done.
You will note that our founding documents also cite "Almighty God" and "Our Creator". Other founding era documents make it clear that the People are the ultimate authority in this form of government. So, pledging allegiance would not be a slavish act, but rather one that confirms one's own resolve to be an informed and active citizen who will staunchly defend our Constitution from the encroachments of those who would exploit it to their own ends to gain power and control over the country.
Like socialists. (As I said earlier, one may either be a Christian, [believing that you have rights from God that must be defended and respecting those same rights in others and answerable to God for your actions], or a socialist, [believing that the government holds the cure to all that ails mankind, and that rights are given by the government-not God], not both unless your logic process is seriously impaired.)
Once again, just how I've always seen it.
Dan,
It has been widely acknowledged that one or more persons posted that photo as a photo of the event incorrectly, and it spread from that point. (Although if I were as paranoid as you, I would suggest that one of the lefties did it on purpose to cause trouble). It has also been confirmed there there were far more than the 10's of thousands the MSM reported.
I have seen photos of the Capitol mall after the rally and it was clear, from comparing it to the photo of the same area after Mr. Obama's inauguration, which crowd has true respect for public property.
And free travel and lodging? None of the folks I know that attended this event got free travel and lodging. How about you Rick? Was your travel and lodging paid for by anyone else?
Exactly, Call Me Mom.
As I said, it didn't work out quite as the socialist author had intended: the People adopted it and made it their own ... and now the socialists hate it.
And you attempted to turn that into "Spend and borrow ... like arguing that you can increase your credit card spending 30 percent while decreasing your income 30 percent, and expecting financial security to spring from that."
----------------------
As Martin B. noted, the budget was never balanced. In the early 80s, Reaganomics doubled the national debt, from around 2 trillion to 4 trillion dollars. A big part of the budget increase was borrowing costs.
Of course that 4 trillion sounds like chicken feed compared to the numbers that Obama is running up today, but still, it didn't work out as promised. PS -- I'm sorry I could't read your weird screen name very well. But don't hold it against me -- I'm old enough to have witnessed firsthand that Reaganomics didn't work.
" Call Me Mom said...
While I will grant the other children the right to not say the pledge if they please, they should at least be quiet respectful while it is said by those so inclined. Not snickering, or giving the Nazi salute and sig heil'ing while it is done."
I understand what you're saying, and I sympathise. I'm not trying to be a jerk in pointing this out, but the kids giving the nazi salute during the pledge are righter than you think. Check out how the pledge was originally recited (as recommended by it's national socialist author, Francis Bellamy):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L82lVcmIMSk&feature=channel_page
At that time, there was no "under God" either. That's because it's intent was not to glorify God. It's intent was to glorify, and demonstrate fealty to, the State.
I was in grade school at the time that YouTube video purports to have been made, and we said the Pledge every day, but we never said it like that. It was said with right had over the heart, nothing like a Nazi salute.
Whatever the intent of the original author may have been (and by the way, the man was a Baptist minister at one time, he is described as a Christian Socialist), the Pledge has been adopted as a statement of allegiance to the nation, appropriately modified to recognize that the nation exists under the providence of God the Father. Authorial intent is insignificant at this point.
"Dr.D said...
I was in grade school at the time that YouTube video purports to have been made, and we said the Pledge every day, but we never said it like that. It was said with right had over the heart, nothing like a Nazi salute."
That movie is from 1939; I presume that the stiff-arm salute began to be phased out after the nazis assumed power in 1933. If you google images of "Francis Bellamy" and "Pledge of Allegiance" you will see pictures of American school children saluting the flag in that fashion. And it is a matter of record that Bellamy intended that particular gesture as the salute (He described it in writing).
"Whatever the intent of the original author may have been (and by the way, the man was a Baptist minister at one time, he is described as a Christian Socialist),...."
Yes, he was a baptist minister....who chose to omit any mention of God from the pledge. And while he may have been a "christian" socialist, my obersvation is that christian socialists tend to emphasize the socialist part, not the christian part.
"....the Pledge has been adopted as a statement of allegiance to the nation, appropriately modified to recognize that the nation exists under the providence of God the Father. Authorial intent is insignificant at this point."
Authorial intent is insignificant?
Do you believe in a "Living" Constitution too?
You are all free to do as you wish, obviously. However I consider the Pledge to be rotten, root and branch, and I will refuse to say it. And anyway, though one may call it a pledge of allegiance to a country, it will always be interpereted as a pledge of allegiance to the government - by those in government at the least. And I am not inclined to professions of great loyalty to a government which increasingly has no great loyalty to me.
No, I decidedly do not believe in a "living Constitution." When I said authorial intent was no longer significant, my intention was to say that it was no longer significant with respect to the Pledge, nothing else.
If you cannot express allegiance to the flag or some symbol of the nation, then it must be very difficult to express allegiance to the nation. The flag is the symbol, the representation, of the nation, the people. It does not represent the government, but rather it represents the American people.
You cannot possibly be any more suspicious of the US government than I am. But that does not prevent me from saying the Pledge.
Post a Comment