Possible Effects of the U.S. Midterm Elections

Could The Tea Party Cause Hangovers?

Luis Fernando Arce
Staff Writer, Co-online Editor

THE ELECTIONS

Flickr: Fibonacci Blue

As most of you have probably already heard, the U.S. midterm elections took place a few weeks ago, on November 2, 2010. The mid-terms happen after the first two years of the new administration’s inception, and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 37 of the 100 seats in the Senate are up for grabs; 36 States also elect their governors.

As its name indicates, the elections are somewhat of a mid-way assessment of the current administration’s performance by measuring the American people’s satisfaction through their voting (either they like the current administration, and vote most of that party’s members back in, or vote the opposition’s members in).

The House of Representatives in the U.S. is now run by Republicans as they won back 64 seats from the Democrats, giving them a majority of 239 seats. However, the Democrats held on to 19 of the 37 seats in the Senate, showing that although the Democrats still technically hold a small majority, the Republicans made huge gains that could put them over the top in the 2012 Presidential Elections.

The immediate and simple explanation of the effects of these results is that American politics can expect to see a lot of stagnation, at the very least for the next two years until the next presidential election. Scotty Greenwood, Executive Director of the Canadian-American Business Council sees this as the perfect formula which “coupled with the president’s veto, points toward political gridlock in which neither agenda is likely to prevail.”

However, the significance of these elections and what they mean for the future does not so much rest on the results themselves, but rather on what the emergence of the Tea Party means for conservative politics in America.

THE TEA PARTY

The Funding

Flickr: Fibonacci Blue

It began sometime in 2009 as a “grassroots” movement protesting what their members considered as too much government spending and too much government, period. Specifically, the protests arose in response to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008), the America Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), the Healthcare Reforms, and the Tax-Reforms (which would charge higher taxes to persons making more than $250,000 a year). On the surface, whether one agreed with their views or not, the movement seemed to be just that – a grassroots movement whose main engine was the dissatisfaction of regular middle class families.

But this may not have been so. A CBC-sponsored documentary titled Crashing the Tea Party has suggested that the ‘movement’ never even initiated as a grassroots movement. It claims that its funding came from many corporate donors all “looking for a friend in congress.”

This is called “astroturfing”: the concealment of a movement being funded by a small minority of society with partisan interests as a grassroots movement borne from a majority of people with homogeneous interests.

There are three main groups and a coalition of the conservative media networks, with Glen Beck as one of their most outspoken supporters, who support and fund the movement.

Among the three groups are: FreedomWorks, a conservative group run by Richard Armey, a former Texan Representative and one of the forgers of the “Republican Revolution” of the 1990s; he is seen by some as a “de facto” leader – although the movement holds that they have no set leader – and is in charge of recruiting and training ‘protestors’. Another group is called Don’t Go, a free-market political non-for-profit group which had its unofficial beginnings during a 2008 offshore drilling debate which they won. And finally Americans for Freedom, an advocacy group started and funded by the billionaire Koch brothers and owners of Koch Industries; this group alone has sponsored and organized over 1000 rallies.

Taking this into consideration, coupled with the fact that many of its “unofficial” leaders and sponsors are former politicians and current industry owners, it is apparent that the movement has a specific political agenda. Indeed, Sarah Palin who is considered by Reuters the “queen of the Tea Party,” has announced that she is a hopeful candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election.

The Ideology

Given that the American economy has experienced a very slow recovery and is in the midst of a heavy deficit, the people are weary to see government spending on social programs instead of helping them recover jobs. Legitimate worries such as these have been pinned to the overall Tea Party Ideology which demands a less intrusive government, a rigorous adherence to the Constitution, and a reduction on government caps that may limit the flow of business.

What takes precedence in the rallies is the importance of conservative politics and the need to reduce the role of government to National Defense. The slow pace of the recovery has many fearing that a recovery may not even be feasible if pollution caps and social programs continue to receive heavy funding. What the rallies demand is that the government let the invisible hand of the free market reign so as to help business flow freely and allow the creation of jobs.

However, amidst provocative anti-establishment and pro-freedom rhetoric by Republican supporters, the central tenets of the ideology seem to dissolve into an inflamed distrust of government.

It appears as if the proliferation of free market policies meticulously organized and delivered by sponsors of the Tea Party has cluttered the real reasons as to why they are emerging from a crisis in the first place. As it has been proved, it was precisely the lack of cohesive regulations that allowed bankers to irresponsibly extend credit-loans so toxic that the entire world was at the cusp of a global financial crisis not three years ago.

Both the cutting of taxes for 95% of working-class families and having potentially averted a world-wide financial depression through bank bail-outs are now losing their momentum as leaders of the movement fear that these steps are only the first of many to be taken towards a socialist economy.

Moreover, some leaders in the African American Community have suggested that a case of xenophobia may also be “simmering” inside the American melting pot as a result of the Tea Party. Indeed, the New York Times has aligned the Tea Party more closely with the American Patriot movement than with the Republicans – a movement more closely associated with, among other issues, anti-immigration advocates. As the African American Community Leaders point out, looking at the hordes of protestors one immediately gets the sense that one is in the presence of a homogeneous Conservative, Caucasian and Middle Class crowd.

On its underbelly, this phenomenon may prove that Americans may be “chang[ing] their minds on change,” as Mitch Porter, a Columnist for the Toronto Star suggest.

(A window into the Tea Party’s worldview.)

In a broad political context, the strong influence of the Tea Party seeping into congress means that conservative politics in America can expect to be not only rehashed and re-strengthened, but most likely to reign supreme in the next elections.

The Lie of Climate Change

What this could mean for Canadians and for anyone else concerned with the environment is that they will see a heavily funded attack against not only regulatory bills such as emission caps but against the entire school of thought on climate change.

“It’s a flat-out-lie,” suggests Mr. Norman Dennison, an electrician and Tea Party founder in Corydon, Indiana, who bases his views on the Bible’s claim that God made the Earth for us to utilize.

In the poll taken by the New York Times from where Mr. Dennison’s quote was extracted, the findings were that more than half of the Tea Partiers thought global warming would have no effect whatsoever on the world; and that their overall consensus was that efforts to address climate change are elite efforts to impose a world government and redistribute wealth.

These views are echoes of what the Fossil Fuel Industry – another player with big stakes in this race – has been expressing for years through campaigns, rallies and research seeking to disprove Global Warming. They furthermore hold that caps on emissions are conducive to the loss of jobs and have adverse effects on the economy.

According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund—an advocacy group in Washington—the oil, coal and utility industries have also jumped on this wagon, spending over $500 million dollars to disprove the theory of climate change and to defeat candidates supporting it.

This could be catastrophic for Canada’s environment and Native Groups dependent on it. Koch Industries are not only one of the leading sponsors of the Tea Party (and their ideologies), but are also the owners of Pine Bend Refinery, a Rosemount, Minnesota-based refinery that is “among the top processors of Canadian crude in the United States,” as stated by the company’s website, and is therefore highly dependent on the Albertan crude bitumen from which oil is extracted.

According to The Tyee, a newspaper from British Columbia, the company processes around 325,000 barrels a day, of which 80 per cent comes from Alberta. The process itself of turning all that bitumen into oil has already been labeled a “black eye” on Canada by many documentaries and Native Leaders since it “creates 82% more carbon emissions than that for conventional oil.”

Before the Tea Party, private oil and energy companies already made major advances in 2009 when they were able to lobby the U.S. congress and government – aided by the Albertan Premier and other Canadian ministers – to lower their caps on emissions from 20 to 17 per-cent, and to allow the importation of what environmentalists are calling “dirty oil” into the U.S.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative Sentiments on the Rise – Stagnation in Congress

Most websites and articles explaining the poll results of November 2, 2010 tell us that it is almost normal for the incumbent party to lose seats during the midterms in both the House and the Senate. But they also point out that a proportion of loses such as they incurred this time around has not been seen since the 1938 midterm elections.

The re-emergence of legitimate conservative sentiments in America could be construed as a reactionary force against what some see as the over-bureaucratization of society and others as broken promises. The American electorate can be heard expressing fears of having a bureaucrat educating their child; and others are heard protesting against the government’s control of the economy. Further down the list, complaints claiming that the president has reneged on his promises to ‘fix’ the economy are as common as breathing air.

Flickr: Chuck “Caveman” Coker

But it is the influence that the Tea Party itself is having on conservative politics that can be seen as alarming. If some of the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America funding movements negating findings on Climate Change are also the sponsors and supporters of Republican candidates, it can be expected that not much progress will be made in the field.

As things stand in congress, American Politics will see a lot of stagnation and indecision for the next two years. Exploiting the tactfulness of the Check and Balances System, each side will stand in contention with the other in regards to most issues, and wherever possible, one will vote to undo the other’s doings.

This is a fact, and though concerning, it is a fact that seems irrational to fight; the fight was fought in the election booths, and the winners were clearly the Conservative/Right bloc (138 of whose members had Tea Party support) which saw itself take possession of one chamber (the House) during the midterms, and will sneak in for the blitz-attack on the other (the Senate) in two years’ time.

Tea Party Influences on the Rise – Xenophobia in and Climate out of Congress

The main worry that the American—and Canadian—public should be concerned about is not the upcoming gridlock in congress or even the pervading concern with the economy and its slow pace of progress. It would be the fact that for the next two years, undisclosed and simmering feelings of xenophobia, propelled in great part by Tea Party propaganda may overtake the U.S. Congress.

Indeed, in 2010 Tea Partiers still shout slogans like “go back to Kenya!” to the president, and yet others insist on seeing his real birth certificate. On the Tea Party Tour Bus, through which Sarah Palin and others travelled America seeking support from regular folk to fuel their “grassroots” movement, there are anonymous writings telling the president to go back to Kenya, to Africa, or to “wherever the hell it is [he] came from.”

But if we are to see Tea Partiers and their Republican supporters come into total control in 2012, we can almost certainly expect to see an even stronger distrust towards the government by Americans, especially in a context of economic worry. America may end up turning inward, momentarily stepping away from social problems at home and abroad in order to allow a freer flow of businesses, particularly small businesses. Indeed, Scotty Greenwood has suggested that “until economic fears die down, the big global issues will probably remain on the back burner.”

This could also mean a proliferation of any and all industries, including the Oil industry as it drains the Alberta Tar Sands of its Black Gold.

And if they continue funding research that negates climate change, it can be expected that processing the black gold will go full steam ahead. If Global Warming does not exist, or if it is “not so serious,” as some of the more moderate Tea Partiers hold, we won’t see much of a concern for the environmental or social footprint this will have on the Earth and on Native Groups that live off of the land and the game – both of which will be overrun with pollutants. The U.S. State Department may already be in the process of approving a TransCanada Pipeline running from Alberta to Texas, a project Hillary Clinton considers a “necessary evil.”

For now, the Tea Party supporters and its major sponsors have been successful in convincing the American electorate that they want less government and less government spending. Some Democrats, including President Obama, argue that what Tea Partiers demand is instant gratification. They hold that Tea Partiers are unable to comprehend that what the American Economy needs is not a quick fix but rather an amendment of the underlying systematic deficiencies that allow things like xenophobia, inequality, social insecurity and environmental abuse to happen.

Merging Views – Cooperation needed within Congress

There are some figureheads like Arthur C. Brooks, president of the conservative think tank called American Enterprise Institute, who argue that Americans (and consequently the rest of the world) are locked into a dispute of Free Enterprise vs. European Style Statism. In this context, he uses words like free-enterprise and entrepreneurship as synonyms for Freedom and Justice, and links income redistribution (through social programs) or emission caps to Statism and Restriction.

But he fails to see the inherit shortcomings of the Free Markets, which many liberal economists and advocates of the Capitalist system such as John M. Keynes and George Cooper have already recognized and proposed addressing through government regulations such as deficit or social spending, for instance. There is a multitude of work that explores these shortcomings and the ways they can be fixed, but if those individuals with the power to influence and educate the electorate fail to acknowledge these works and their propositions, it is certain that any attempt by governments to curtail future crises will again be received with disdain by voters unaware of the alternatives.

The future is uncertain, but what is needed is not a clash of political ideology and a barrage of rhetoric. What Americans need is to reach a consensus on their views; a compromise that will allow all the tools in the entire political spectrum to be employed to fix the economy and the social maladies that plague America and the rest of the world.