Parties and Protests

The Tea Party movement fancies itself the heir of those Founding Fathers who resisted additional British taxation in 1773. Tea partiers consider themselves at the vanguard of a grassroots, nationwide movement. Yet these “true” Americans could use a reality check by following the efforts of the Maoist movement in Nepal.

It is unlikely that the tea partiers will ever look for inspiration from a party seeking to introduce a Marxist administration in its home government. The Maoists, however, know how to convey their intentions to the utmost effect. The nation’s capital, Kathmandu, is currently under a general strike shutting down the city’s operations. While tens of thousands of protesters remain in the streets, only emergency vehicles may pass.

More impressive than the high participation in the strikes is their peaceful nature. The police have complained of confiscating makeshift weapons from supporters but have been able to remove these weapons without violence. The Maoists also represent a legitimate faction of the government they protest: In parliamentary Nepal, the Maoists hold the highest number of parliament seats but contend with a hostile prime minister. Far from the more alarmist analyses of a few years ago, such as a BBC feature from 2005, the Maoists hope to work within the system and lead a coalition government—a legitimate expectation for the majority party.

When the Maoists protest, shops and institutions close; the nation shuts down. It is perhaps counterintuitive, even ironic to compare this Nepalese movement with one that throws out the term “socialist” about any person or thing it distrusts. Yet the comparison is less flattering for the tea partiers.

The Maoists put aside weapons and military ambitions to work within the political system. Unlike rebels in India, for example, who recently bombed a girls’ school, the party in Nepal used peaceful protest to make its voice heard. But, most importantly, the Maoists had the broad support of the population.

Tea partiers in America can claim to represent the every-man in the same breath as they ask for bibs to protect their suits at the $350 tea party conventions like the one in February. Perhaps as Maoists, the movement leadership in Nepal is prohibited from accepting appearance fees. But it is hard to imagine many “revolutionary” leaders demanding $100,000 as Sarah Palin collects.

Another common claim of the tea partier is that those involved represent a cross-section of America: Democrats, Republicans, and independents—all of different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. A New York Times/CBS News poll in April, however, demonstrated that most tea partiers are white, Republican, affluent, and approaching the status of senior citizens. That study, along with other analysis, has indicated that tea partiers hope to rewind the clock to a time when such wealthy white men dictated the direction of the nation. The implication that tea partiers are white-centric might seem obvious after simply scanning the faces of the “Voices of the Tea Party” interactive feature on the New York Times website. Yet tea partiers cannot claim such a narrow focus and maintain their rhetoric about a rising national consensus.

This deficit between self-aggrandizement and the tea partiers’ actual demographic can produce awkward explanations. Danita Kilcullen, the founder of “Tea Party Fort Lauderdale,” recently told Newsweek that the absence of black membership in the movement is “because all the black people voted for Obama.” At first glance, this fact bears some truth—95 percent of African Americans did vote for Obama—but then consider the implication of this argument. Barack Obama won the popular vote in 2008 by seven percentage points. If the tea party movement holds no hope of swaying any of those nearly 67 million voters, it is essentially fighting for a share of a minority from the start.

The truth tea partiers must hope to obscure is that they will never represent a sweeping, forward-thinking movement. When many Republicans are their targets, it seems impossible that the movement will ever gain the support of a united conservative front. And as white people in America continue down the path toward becoming a minority race, the tea partiers’ white majority does not bode well for long-term growth opportunity.

The Maoists in Nepal demonstrated that a peaceful process within the system, if carrying the weight of the people, could change a nation. Supporters of the Obama campaign might argue that they themselves achieved a similar, if less-mandated, position. But the Tea Party movement will never reach such a position. Instead, as a for-profit movement, it has essentially become a lobbying group. When Marco Rubio, the Republican hopeful for the U.S. senate from Florida, recently spoke to CNN, he stressed his “mainstream” identity before he mentioned his support for tea partiers later in the interview. Expect more conservative politicians to follow Rubio in tersely acknowledging the tea partiers while refusing to be defined by their politics.

It remains to be seen whether the resolution of the strike in Kathmandu will yield all the results the Maoists demand. Yet it is already clear that such a truly popular movement has the chance for success the Tea Party will never have—unless success is measured in vitriol and dollars.

Alexander R. Konrad ’11, a former Crimson associate editorial editor, is a history concentrator in Quincy House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.