The Orbis

Issue date: 2/17/10 Section: Opinion

Wink, wink: Palin's image as an average American mom reveals more political savvy than many give her credit for.

Media Credit: Sam Abney Tea party protesters have no big ideas brewing.

As the keynote speaker at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville on Feb. 6, Sarah Palin had what was perhaps the best opportunity yet to set out exactly what the tea party "movement" is all about.

Unfortunately, Palin's speech was more focused on scoring cheap political points than defining the group's ideals.
With such extensive media coverage over the last several months, one would think the tea party message would by now be clear. Still, while they have loudly and repeatedly declared their fervent love for the constitution and limited government, tea party demonstrators have been reluctant to fill in the details.

It's reasonable to ask what exactly led tea party demonstrators to call, as Palin did, for a "new revolution" to take back America, and to ask whether they have any specific proposals or goals of their own. Interestingly, many of the movement's adherents do not seem to know the answers to these questions.

The websites of the National Tea Party Convention and Tea Party Nation, its sponsoring organization, say almost nothing about the movement's mission, other than a few remarks about the glory of America and the founding fathers and an invitation for visitors to "quench [their] thirst for freedom!"

Anyone who expected to hear a more detailed account of the big, new ideas of the tea party in Palin's convention speech surely left disappointed. Aside from restating a few points taken straight from her old campaign platform, the former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate used the vast majority of her time to tell the audience about the many faults and failures of the current administration.

Palin talked extensively about the evils of the radical "Obama-Pelosi-Reed agenda," informing the audience that "that's what got [Democrats] into this mess" (as apparently holding the presidency and both houses of Congress, with the largest Senate majority in decades, is now considered a sign of decline). Palin repeatedly accused Democrats of refusing to listen to conservatives' new ideas, yet examples of such ideas were conspicuously lacking in her remarks.

In fact, Palin's speech practically celebrated the lack of any proposals or positions on the part of tea party groups, contrasting this "ground-up call to action" with other "top-down operation[s]" focused on a single "charismatic guy with a teleprompter," underscoring a theme of radical liberal elitists versus everyday American patriots that dominates her discourse and defines her persona.

Though Palin repeatedly charged Democrats with being "out of touch and ... out of date," it seems that this critique could be more accurately applied to tea party organizers.

In sharp contrast to Palin's portrayal of the movement, tea party protests are not about engaging the citizenry to get involved and offer new ideas. They are instead a platform for rehashing the same old, tired gripes of a minority of Americans who are deathly afraid of new ideas, now injected with a new dose of prejudice in light of the election of a president whose name and ethnic background are unlike what the tea party faithful have been used to in the past.

In reality, tea party demonstrators are in no way representative of the revolution that Palin called for. There is nothing new about this kind of post-election backlash from an angry minority, and there is nothing new in their rhetoric. It is only one more example of a growing anti-intellectualism that has dominated Republican politics in recent years, reminiscent of strategies used by George W. Bush and his supporters against John Kerry in 2004.

In her speech to the convention, Palin criticized the president for his supposed intellectual elitism, seemingly nostalgic for the days of "the decider." "We need a commander in chief," she declared to cheers and applause, "not a professor of law standing at the lectern."

Palin has, like Bush before her, capitalized on her frequent gaffes and apparent lack of knowledge about the issues to build her image as an average American, in touch with the masses. This brilliant strategy capitalizes on both the fears and aspirations of many citizens who are legitimately concerned about whether their views are represented in government.

People seem to like the idea of a leader they can relate to. What the tea party message overlooks or denies is that the presidency is a complex and demanding job that requires someone who can make educated decisions, who knows how to make the best use of the advice he or she is given, and who can see the issues in shades of gray, rather than the simplistic black-and-white picture Palin paints in her speeches (one obvious example being her statement of the "Palin plan" for foreign policy: "We win! They lose!").

Perhaps the greatest irony in Palin's depiction of everyday Americans rising up to retake their government is that she herself is not a typical citizen at all. On the contrary, while Palin denounces "the personalities who control the political machines," she has taken on that exact role within the right wing of the Republican Party. It's curious to hear Palin say, "you don't need a proclaimed leader, as if we're all just a bunch of sheep, and we're looking for a leader to progress this movement," followed moments later by her audience chanting, "Run, Sarah, run!"

Near the beginning of her speech, Palin congratulated newly-elected U.S. Senator Scott Brown, saying that he "represents what this beautiful movement is all about." Brown, according to Palin, was "just a guy with a truck and a passion to serve our country" who answered the call to clean up Washington and "put our government back on the side of the people."

What Palin fails to mention is that before his election bid, Brown was already a state senator and the head defense attorney for the Army National Guard over all of New England. His is hardly the story of an average concerned citizen rising up to undermine the oppression of elite beltway czars. Scott Brown may own a truck, but he is no blue-collar Joe Six-pack.

It is unclear how Palin can reconcile her own political superstardom with her harsh critiques of President Obama's status as a celebrity figurehead, supposedly using his eloquent oratory to mask the tyrannical imposition of his radical policies.

Palin made it very clear she is "tired of hearing the talk, talk, talk," but she has made a career out of public speaking in forums like the tea party convention, where her remarks are consistently all style and no substance.

Perhaps she views her use of talking points written on her hand in marker ink (the subsequent widespread ridicule of which will likely serve only to reinforce her image as an all-American underdog) as a folksier alternative to using a teleprompter, but she did not seem to be opposed to using one when she was running for the vice-presidency. Apparently such things only count as signs of elitism when they are used by Palin's political opponents.

At another point in her speech, Palin criticized what she views as wasteful spending on the part of the administration, assuring her audience that she and her husband Todd know first-hand about the difficulties of living on a budget. Perhaps she was hoping they had forgotten about the embarrassing publicity she received during the election for her outrageous clothing expenses. Perhaps she was hoping they would ignore the fact that their organization would be paying her a reported sum of $100,000 for appearing there to give that single speech (Though Palin claimed, during the question period, that she would be glad to "turn [the fee] right back around and give it to the cause," she has reportedly accepted similar speaking fees on a regular basis).

Palin never said much to elaborate on her view of an average American living on a budget, but it is clear that she does not qualify under any reasonable standard.

The tea party movement is simply not about empowering average Americans. More than anything else, it is an outpouring of misguided fears on the part of under-informed citizens that has been latched onto by certain conservative celebrities to promote their own careers. In the end, tea party members themselves cannot agree about what their message should be. Their so-called national convention, seemingly designed to bring in everyone under one tent, actually drew protests from rival tea party protesters who were not able to get in.

The opening line of her speech-"Do you love your freedom?"-sums up the content of the tea party's nonexistent platform and helps to illuminate exactly what is wrong with speeches like the one she delivered. The kinds of false dichotomies Palin so frequently draws between "us" and "them," "real" and phony Americans, patriots and terrorist sympathizers, are regressive and counterproductive, and they in no way help the cause of political liberty. Despite their professed love for everything American, tea party protesters ultimately represent nothing but fear and denial of the core principles of diversity and inclusivity that define the purpose of the American experiment.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools