What the left misses about the new right

One of the more vexing things about watching the current political situation in this country is that I think the organization and momentum behind the anti-Obama Tea Parties and similar political statements on the right is, in some real ways, a genuine shift from what one would expect from that side of the spectrum based on recent history. As an self-identified man of the left, it frustrates me a tad that I've seen very little serious consideration of the shifting nature of the opposition from "my" side of the aisle. Here are three major themes that I see popping up in left-centered analysis of the New Right (as I'll call it for the purposes of this post), and why I believe they're misconceptions.

#1: They're gullible pawns of Republican politicians/Glenn Beck: This is the big one. The idea that voters or activists on the right are brainwashed by charismatic but evil figureheads is probably one of the foundational assumptions of liberal political analysis since at least the 1990s. It's false. The reason why is simply that it's very difficult to convince one person, much less a large group of people, of something that they don't already at least somewhat implicitly believe. Leaders of movements typically don't invent a whole new way of thinking and convince others to follow them; they cannily summarize an already occurring shift in the zeitgeist in a way that resonates with people. The idea that Republican leadership is orchestrating the Tea Party protests is fairly ridiculous. Republicans are attempting to capitalize on them, certainly, with mixed success. But don't believe for a minute that anybody, anywhere would take to the streets on orders from the likes of Michael Steele and John Boehner. Another clue to this is the meteoric rise to prominence of Glenn Beck and the role his radio and television shows have played in the recent right-wing rallies. If the vast right-wing conspiracy wanted to anoint an avatar of right-wing populism, why would they pick the manic and ridiculous Beck rather than Rush Limbaugh, who commands a larger audience and was even specifically targeted by the Obama White House earlier in the year? Which leads me straight into another misconception...

#2: This is just Republican business as usual: It's very, very tempting, given the ridiculousness of tactics such as the constant cries of 'socialism' to say that this is the same ad-hominem song and dance that we've gotten from the American right for the past decade-plus. Look a little closer, though, and you'll notice one big difference: the rallies and street-level rhetoric are all about government spending and taxation. What you're not seeing is a great deal of heated accusations about abortion, gay marriage, and the other religious-right hot buttons. It's hard to underestimate what a sea change this is; since the Clinton years, the most vocal and loyal right-wing Americans were motivated primarily by a desire to promote Christian fundamentalist social views. I'm sure that most of them were also opposed to budget deficits and government regulation of the healthcare market, but economic issues weren't what got them out of bed and to the phone banks on Election Day morning. What happened in the past three months to change their minds?

I'm not entirely sure anything did, by which I mean that I don't think that there's an immense amount of overlap between the vanguards of George W. Bush and those of the Tea Party movement. Rather, I think that what we're seeing now are the fruits of the 07-08 Ron Paul primary campaign. As you may or may not recall, Paul ran for the Republican nomination preaching a sort of crypto-libertarian line against government interventionism, with his signature issue being his opposition to the Iraq War. Being as the Republican primary in its early stages was essentially a three-way argument between McCain, Giuliani, and Romney about who had the most enthusiasm for bombing, torturing, or indefinitely detaining people of Middle Eastern descent, this was, to say the least, an atypical view. However, Paul built a surprisingly vocal grassroots campaign, setting what were at that time (and may still be, although I'm not sure) single-day fundraising records. I think that what we're seeing right now is a devoted core of libertarian-leaning Ron Paul types attracting the 'anybody but Obama crowd' on the more conventional hardcore right behind the artifice of opposing government spending. I doubt this coalition will ever do much besides protest Obama (there are large philosophical differences between libertarianism and modern Republicanism, which are nearly always minimized or ignored by liberal commentators), but the enthusiasm they're showing at present is undeniable.

#3: Attacking their motivations is the best way to discredit them: A large part of the debate over the past week or so has been about whether or not Joe Wilson, the grassroots opposition to Obama, or some combination thereof are motivated by racial animosity. I generally agree with John McWhorter's excellent article on the topic (short summary: probably somewhat, but it's not the key political issue that it's rapidly becoming). Underlying motivations are always complex and ambiguous, and invoking them tends to function better as a litmus test for existing political beliefs than as an argument to the unconvinced. There are very good reasons for the implemented and proposed increases in spending as of late; the stimulus and bailouts were designed to stop the skid of the economy and keep Americans out of soup lines (the jury is still out on how well it's worked, and likely will be for some time now) and healthcare reform is a past-due necessity to curtail the cost of medical care, which has been rising out of all proportion to other expenses for some time now.

Perhaps the best argument of all is simply to state that Obama won the election and is now attempting to do some of those things that he promised to do while he was running. Of course, this is going to engage the ideological opposition and cause some of them to wonder "what happened to my country?" That sentiment was practically running in my head on a tape loop from 2002-2008, and I was hardly alone. If he's successful, his popularity and the popularity of his party will rise or fall based on how well people like the results. And that, rather than the size or fury of protests or accusations of racism, will be the real test.