The most irritating thing about the so-called National Tea Party is its completely unwitting self-contradiction. This has nothing to do with whether you are liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing; even though the Tea Party is permeated with apparently disgruntled (former?) Republicans, many of their espoused demands are echoes of the Democratic agenda - you know, the one they make an hourly target of on Fox News? And besides that, they are simply too hypocritical to ignore.
First and foremost is last week’s National Convention, the first for Tea Partiers, held in Nashville, Tenn. Supporters from all over the country paid $549 to attend the three-day event, which consisted of panel discussions, banquets and keynote speeches from Angela McGlowan and Sarah Palin, to name a few. Not surprisingly, many of those in attendance contested the admission fee, reasonably asserting that the cost inevitably excluded many Americans who would have otherwise attended. Certainly, one may presume that dishing out $549 plus travel costs is not in the monthly budget of the majority of Palin’s “real America.” Yet Palin  herself received a $100,000 speaking fee. The weird part is, “when asked whether they begrudged Sarah Palin for [her speaking fee],” many of those who complained about the high ticket price, “which presumably helped to pay for her keynote speech,” replied with the refrain, “Of course not. We love Sarah Palin” (Time Magazine). Apparently, excluding supporters from your event is acceptable if Sarah Palin comes.
Next is the asserted ideals of the Tea Party. There is a popular slogan seen on bumper stickers and T-shirts that says, “Keep the change. I’ll keep my freedom, my guns and my money,” which is, of course, an allusion to the 2008 Obama campaign slogan. Yet in her closing ceremonies speech at the Tea Party National Convention, Palin said, “America is ready for another revolution!” and comparisons were frequently made between the aims of the Tea Party and the American Revolution. Maybe it is hypocrisy, or maybe it is just poor history, but in any case these statements are completely contradictory. If the Tea Party objects to change, then that is a respectable position. Or, if they are feeling jaded and revolutionary, that too is permissible. But to denounce change in one breath and then regard themselves as revolutionary, which according to Merriam Webster means “bringing about a major or fundamental change,” is, frankly, delusional.
Furthermore, at last week’s Convention, Tea Party supporters agreed that their unifying demands included “small government, lower taxes, greater individual liberties, more power to the states and government strictly by the Constitution and Bill of Rights” (Time Magazine). Most of these are straightforward enough, and simply reaffirm the tenets of the right wing. But there is this one phrase, “greater individual liberties,” that makes no sense within the Tea Party’s mindset. Everyone knows, and the Tea Partiers themselves will not disagree, that they are the pro-American values segment of society. Within this paradigm there exists specifically strong emotions toward the protection of marriage (i.e. the exclusion of gay rights) and unborn children (i.e. a violation against women’s rights). So why would the Tea Party claim that they desire greater individual liberties? What can this term even mean to a group who would deny loving couples the liberty of getting married or adopting children? What can Tea Partiers intend while on the one hand demanding greater individual liberties and on the other vying for laws that restrict a woman’s liberty to do what she will with her own body? There is no satisfactory justification for these contradictions.
If the Tea Party really wants to be effective as a movement, it needs to self-evaluate. The activities of its supporters would not be nearly as subject to criticism if they were at all consistent in what they say.