I admire Barack Obama. I'm not a fan, but I admire him. What I like about him is he has to put up with so much shit, but he still rolls with the punches. The whole religion controversy (Is he Muslim or Christian) and citizenship issue (Is he really an American?) were so contrived that you would expect no one to even entertain their validity. Alas, many Americans were gung-ho about Obama's purported origins and their conviction that he didn't "belong." I don't understand their reasoning but apparently many hyper-partisan conservatives who prefer to add "Hooooo-sane" to his full name do. No wonder Stephen Colbert can write so many jokes by just paraphrasing certain conservative rhetoric.
Despite the appeal of Obama (which I definitely see where it comes from), I don't think it's anything groundbreaking or extraordinary. Obama is an ideas-oriented guy. The Obama speaking-doll would mainly say two phrases: "Change" and "Yes, We Can." His narrative of transforming this nation is where the "Change" slogan comes from. The "Yes, We Can" suggests that anyone (young people, the lower class) can participate. But ask a good portion of Obama voters in 2008 why they voted for him and you will probably hear generic campaign vernacular. This is not surprising. Obama capitalizes on capturing the imagination of his voters through flowery, prophetic talk. You know who else could pull that off? The Old Gipper, Ronald Reagan.
So that leads to the main theme for this post. Did Obama's election victory in 2008 have elements of Tea Party support? Well, to start off, let's just say no one from the Tea Party was going to the polls for Obama in 2008. With that idea out of the question, what the heck am I referring to?
The Tea Party is celebrated and despised for having a lack of political experience and grassroots culture. Therefore, the appeal of their candidates comes from their image as Washington-outsiders yet their flaws lie in the fact that they don't know how to govern. What's interesting about the Tea Party is their lower to middle class background and their previous inexperience with politics. Not to stereotype the group, but the latter characteristic explains why many in the movement don't understand how the government works currently. All in all, the movement's supporters are passionate, hard-working Americans who just started to get involved with politics as soon as the going got tough.
Now take a look at where Obama's support was coming from in 2008. What kind of adjectives would describe them? Lack of political experience (for most young people and those caught in the hysteria of 'Yes, We Can')? How about grassroots culture?
The question is, is it fair for liberals to attack the Tea Party for being a bit misinformed on politics (of course they would be if they weren't in the game until recently) and grassroots in nature? Admittedly, I know the argument against the Tea Party doesn't focus on their grassroots aspect, however, it uses that theme to create the perception that they are a bunch of bumbling Americans without any legitimate voice (they would be legitimate if there were some "intellectuals" in their leadership and therefore their opinions would "actually" matter). But the liberal attitude is don't pay attention to these less-than-average informed voters if they don't agree with liberal policies. After all, they weren't excluding supporters in 08' who could say little more than "We need change" and "Yes, We Can."
No comments:
Post a Comment