Respectful Populism

A large march organized by various conservative groups such as FreedomWorks was held in Washington, D.C. yesterday. Various estimates place the number of attendance somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 activists -- most of whom were previously affiliated with the TEA Party protests earlier this summer. While one may not agree with the politics and conclusions advanced by these groups, all must certainly recognize their right to exercise their freedom of speech in a legal manner. While it may sometimes be considered inflammatory (even offensive), the free expression of ideas and beliefs -- especially political dissent -- has always occupied an important place in American society. Though some of the images and slogans used by these protesters were probably in bad taste, the march itself was organized and had obtained the proper permits. It should therefore be welcomed as a sign of the healthy operation of our political system, and a welcome change from the ridiculous behavior seen in town halls across the country. By exercising our rights in responsible yet compelling ways, we work together as a society to keep the country vibrant and strong.

That said, the message communicated by these groups deserves some analysis. Many news sources (and some protest organizers themselves) have compared the protest to the grassroots populism and netroots activism that swept the Obama campaign to victory in the last presidential election. There are a few very important differences between these two campaigns.

For instance, as noted by one GOP strategist the current conservative movement is fragmented, ranging from measured concerns such as deficit spending to outlandish claims that President Barack Obama was not born in America. Conversely, the Obama movement was well organized and had a singular focus. This solidarity could fairly be attributed in large part to the much bemoaned Republican mishandling of governmental affairs in the years preceding the election, and the Obama campaign did a remarkable job of distilling and capturing these concerns. The conservative movement, however, has resulted in a more eclectic response that is difficult to encapsulate.

One could read this response as more of an emotional reaction to social change than real concern for the practical results of policies. The support for this conclusion comes from the spectrum of complaints that have have been leveled at the Democratically-led government. Accusations of imaginary birth certificate cover-ups and allegations of plans to "kill off granny" demonstrate either a distinct lack of the ability to evaluate proffered policies or a strong disinterest in truly investigating them. Both of these approaches imply a desire to avoid engaging on a policy level -- an odd strategy when protesters argue that these policies are the source of their frustration.

On the other hand, if the conservative countercurrents are more of a visceral reaction to changes in the status quo, this response makes more sense. Unbridled anger which fails to focus on a particular aspect of governance or failure by a party in favor of broad, vague arguments about ideology perfectly fits this pattern. Such an emotional response (combined, of course, with some purely politically motivated encouragement by Republicans) was clearly seen in the town hall debacles this summer. Of course, a visceral reaction to change is understandable -- even normal. But a country cannot be governed only in response to irrational and emotional urges.

Finally, this post would be remiss without some mention of the antics of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). His actions are emblematic of the severe disrespect inherent in the conservative furor -- disrespect that would, of course, be hotly criticized by Republicans were they bearing the brunt of it. Wilson's exclamation was foolish (lacking any true value to add to the debate), frustrating (common sense and decency clearly show that it was not his turn to speak), pointless (he is perfectly capable of speaking on the floor of the House at almost any point), and selfish (he desperately needed the focus to be on him). This type of behavior seriously hampers the efforts of the government to meet the needs of its citizens. Perhaps he has something to learn from the more respectful protesters of yesterday.