Tea parties: A new kind of coalition

By Anthony Maalouf

Over the last few months, the tea-party movement has garnered much criticism for instances of racism and extremism at its events.

Granted, the large rallies of the tea parties often draw out all elements, including extremes. However, to pigeonhole this grassroots movement as a fringe element is to deny the political phenomenon of the last few months. In actuality, the tea-party movement should be considered a new "catchall" coalition that brings people from all walks of life together.

Past catchall coalitions have included the Roosevelt New Deal Coalition or the Reagan Democrats, both of which transcended traditional partisan boundaries to agree on a core set of ideas they considered best for the country. While the electoral effect of the tea-party movement remains to be seen, its status as an organization is more properly viewed in this context, not that of an extremist fringe group.

First, like most coalitions, tea-party members are committed to a broad set of beliefs, not bogged down in wonky policies like the Republican and Democratic Parties. Tea partyers are committed to a general sense of fiscal responsibility: lower taxes, a balanced government budget, earmark reductions, and limited government spending.

Tea-party members may disagree about how to achieve these objectives, but agree on the end result. It's a general doctrine with which the tea- party movement has attracted Americans from all partisan corners. The majority might identify with the Republican Party, which "on paper" is fiscally conservative, but the full picture of the tea parties is painted when their Democratic and Independent members are included.

Second, the makeup of the movement is quite representative of the American population, which is why so many can relate to it. An April 2010 Gallup Poll stated that while membership skews conservative, tea-party participants are black, white, Asian, and Latino. They are united by ideas, not racial lines. In particular, the movement has fostered an increased leadership role in grassroots activism for women, as public figures and candidates for office.

Indeed, women have played a powerful role in the movement, from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's keynoting its convention to U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R., Minn.) starting a tea-party caucus in Congress. Candidates like Sharon Angle, running for Senate in Nevada, or Nikki Haley, running for South Carolina governor, have tapped into the grassroots energy of the movement.

A final factor to consider is the populist element of the movement, another element often found in catchall coalitions.

The movement's strength is not garnered from institutions like political parties. Instead, it is a grassroots movement that began with instances of political participation locally and snowballed into a national phenomenon. Participants often felt excluded from the process, and the movement has brought such individuals off of the couch.

If anything, the movement is a tool of empowerment for average Americans who felt marginalized by the status-quo. Now they can be heard. Empowering a vast group of people is not the mark of an extremist group, which tends to empower a narrower group.

As Americans debate the basic principles of the movement, it's important to keep in mind exactly who they are and where they are coming from. It's time to stop dismissing this movement as a simple fringe element and consider looking at it with a new, broader context. Then, we will all have a better understanding of this political phenomenon.