One of the more widespread anti-Tea Party arguments goes like this: Republicans didn’t protest much when Bush ran up deficits and expanded government, so when Obama does the same thing, Republican complaints can’t be sincere.
This lazy sophistry opens the door to liberals’ preferred argument: racism. “No student of American history,” writes Paul Butler in the New York Times, “would be surprised to learn that when the United States elects its first non-white president, a strong anti-government movement rises up.”
Butler, a law professor, speaks for many in the media when he insinuates that nearly unprecedented stimulus spending combined with government takeovers of the health care, banking and automotive industries are dwarfed in importance by Obama’s skin color.
I speak for many who have actually spoken to Tea Partiers when I say that’s hogwash.
But how, then, to explain the relative right-wing quiescence on Bush’s watch and fiscal Puritanism on Obama’s?
No doubt partisanship plays a role. But partisanship only explains so much given that the Tea Partiers are clearly sincere about limited government and often quite fond of Republican-bashing. So here’s an alternative explanation: Conservatives don’t want to be fooled again.
Recall that Bush came into office promising to be a “different kind of conservative,” and one of his first legislative victories was Teddy Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind Act.
Throughout his presidency, Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” surrendered to welfare state liberalism.
Many conservatives disliked this whole mind-set and the policies behind it, but muted their objections, in part because they actually liked the man or because they approved of his stances on tax cuts, judges, abortion and, most important, the war on terror.
The 2008 GOP primaries compounded conservative frustration. Because there was no stand-in for Bush in the contest, there was no obvious outlet for anger at Bush’s years of pre-surge Iraq bungling or his decision to outsource domestic spending to Republican congressional ward-heelers.
Then, as a lame duck, Bush laid down the predicates for much of Obama’s first 100 days, supporting both a stimulus and Wall Street bailouts.
Going by what I saw in Cincinnati, second to a profound desire to rein in government, the chief attitude driving the 39 percent of Tea Partiers who describe themselves as “very conservative” isn’t partisanship or racism. It’s “we won’t be fooled again.”
In the near term, that spells trouble for Democrats. In the long term, that lays down a gauntlet for Republicans.
Jonah Goldberg is a syndicated columnist. E-mail address: JonahsColumn@aol.com.