I'm usually reluctant to defend the tea party. Most of the people I know who are involved can defend themselves, but two recent columns in the ADN should be addressed.
In what can only be described as a maze of conspiratorial wanderings, Alan Boraas (ADN, Nov. 1) conflates small Alaska militias, paramilitary organizations, Joe Miller, and the tea party movement into one weird, fringe, dangerous amorphous mass.
Michael Carey (ADN, Nov. 1) in an ode to Alexander Hamilton states that he "became interested in Hamilton" after he made the tea party's "enemies list." Carey opines this occurred because tea partiers don't like the Federal Reserve and think it wasn't authorized by the Constitution.
So just who are these tea partiers who Boraas thinks lurk in the woods and Carey thinks are formulating enemies lists of long-dead patriots? What do they represent?
Consider a headline from Gallup in April 2010: Tea Parties Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics. The report states that "while Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings ... in several other respects -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large."
Of course the tea party is not really a formal political party. It is not a national organization either, but rather a loose-knit grassroots movement, formed at the local level. Adherents didn't sign up, they showed up.
They showed up to town hall meetings and demanded lawmakers listen to them before the government irreparably altered the American health care system. They complained about bailouts and the ever-expanding role government was voting for itself. They argued that government doesn't always know best and can't always do things better.
There was a movement before there was a name. In early 2009 CNBC reporter Rick Santelli went on a rant about bailing out subprime borrowers and suggested a tea party in Chicago that summer. Suddenly the nascent populist movement had a name and a life of its own.
Of course, in any widespread movement, there is a broad range of views, and not everyone who has sympathy toward it would call himself a member. Smaller government, liberty and personal responsibility are core elements. I suppose the Conservative Patriots Group in Wasilla is Alaska's version of the tea party, but it incorporates social issues, which most tea parties tend to avoid.
I really don't know if tea partiers scorn Alexander Hamilton, but it wouldn't surprise me. So did Thomas Jefferson, who thought Hamilton favored a monarchy and was too cozy with business. Jefferson, who hated banks, helped kill the nation's first central bank (a Hamiltonian creation) after 20 years of existence. Later it was reauthorized, only to face an Andrew Jackson veto.
Between 1836 and 1913 we had no Federal Reserve. I wouldn't recommend it, but the economy grew in fits and starts over that period and we overtook Great Britain as the world's largest economy, even though Britain had the Bank of England.
My sense is the average tea partier knows her American history better than her average critic does. She may not think much of Hamilton or believe that the Constitution breathes, but does know that, unlike the new health care legislation, it is written in fairly plain language and short enough to read. She's fine with altering it, just insists it be done via the prescribed amendment process, not by judicial fiat or Congressional force.
There is no question that the tea party energized the Republican Party and can claim much credit for its success in the midterms, even though results for tea-party-backed candidates were a mixed bag.
Whatever you think or wish, it is a force to be reckoned with. A USA Today/Gallup poll of Americans finds that "28 percent say President Obama should have the most influence on government policy next year, while 27 percent say the tea party standard-bearers should. GOP congressional leaders are chosen by 23 percent, Democratic congressional leaders by 16 percent."
Unlike Mr. Boraas, Mr. Carey and the 26 percent of the public (Gallup, again) who oppose this movement, I'm not worried. I think an alert electorate and skeptical public is a good thing.
Jeff Pantages is an investment advisor. He lives in Anchorage.
By JEFF PANTAGES