Using the coronavirus public health restrictions as a way to renew a Tea Party-like conservative anti-government movement

1.  Republicans constantly fighting community organizing of the poor.  A few days ago, the World Channel (which shows documentaries among other programming, and is broadcast on HDTV subchannels of PBS stations, although not in the DC area) rebroadcast an episode of the documentary series Independent Lens about the fall of ACORN, the community organizing group with affiliates in many states focused on a poor people's agenda, including voter registration, fighting foreclosures, etc.

-- "ACORN and the Firestorm," Independent Lens, PBS
-- "Filmmaker Q&A"

Republicans had been aiming at ACORN for years because they didn't like their voter registration efforts.  Going after ACORN was a form of "voter suppression."

The organization dissolved after a somewhat faked set of videos were released by alt right journalist James O'Keefe, alleging the group was willing to help a pimp get a housing loan to set up a brothel.

But at the same time, ACORN had  management issues because of the "distributed" nature of its organization, and was already in internal turmoil because of embezzlement by one of the organization's founders, which had been covered up by another of the organization's founders and they were brothers.

The organization collapsed.  Although many of the affiliates reorganized and incorporated under other names, with the loss of a nationally-focused infrastructure.

Years ago, I got into an argument with John Atlas, author of a book about the organization--he's featured in the film--and father of one of the producers.

I said "ACORN knew they had a target on their back.  So they needed to be squeaky clean.  And the embezzlement, which was covered up by the founder, would have probably sealed their doom anyway."

He scoffed, blaming that on constant Republican/conservative opposition, but I thought that was too facile.

2.  The Tea Party as an organized response of conservatives to the Democratic Party.  Plenty has been written about this, including many books.  A article by Harvard researchers published in the political science journal Perspective on Politics, "The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism," was the kernel of one of those books.

In short, business interests backed up by conservative media interests fomented the Tea Party as an attack on President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Tea-party protesters in Denver, April 15, 2009.
PHOTO: ANDY CROSS/THE DENVER POST VIA GETTY IMAGES.

I always thought it was ironic that Tea Party activists stated they acted because "the government is taking over the economy through the Federal bailout/stimulus" in response to the Great Financial Crisis.  The government being equal to "socialism."

Ironically, from the standpoint of Marxist theory, it wasn't socialism and government takeover at all, but yet another example of the response to a "Capitalist Crisis" where business is bailed out by government ("THE GLOBAL CAPITALIST CRISIS: Whose Crisis, Who Profits?," International Review of Modern Sociology 38:2 Autumn 2012).

What's happening is business takes over government.  Not the other way around.

(During the GFC, many corporations walked away from commercial mortgages, with little real consequence, while individual homeowners were told that to renege on their commitments was a moral failure.)

As a result, the bailout was shaped to favor business interests--most, not all, of the corporations benefiting didn't have that many restrictions on what they did.  Bailing out of the banks did not require a whole lot of help to individual house owners who lost out to foreclosure.

And the Tea Party has been a force for fierce anti-government policy and rhetoric ("The Tea Party Succeeded, but Not at Policy," Wall Street Journal; "5 years later, here's how the tea party changed politics," CNN; "The Tea Party Didn’t Get What It Wanted, but It Did Unleash the Politics of Anger," New York Times).

Of course it didn't change "politics" in terms of policies favoring business, because business interests organized the creation of the Tea Party, to serve business interests.

Editorial cartoon by Dave Granlund featuring Fox News personalities who have advocated against stay at home orders.

3.  Protests against coronavirus restrictions in Maryland, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Ohio, California, etc. as the next iteration of the Tea Party anti-government backlash.  A few days ago, fomented in part by President Trump ("Trump Encourages Protest Against Governors Who Have Imposed Virus Restrictions," NYT), other re-election campaign interests, Fox News ("Protests against stay-at-home orders during coronavirus") and other conservative media organizations, there have been protests in various state capitals over the impact on the economy from business shutdowns ("Michigan's protests are a bellwether of an increasingly dangerous partisan divide," CNN; "Coronavirus Outbreak Eases in New York as U.S. Protesters Push Against Restrictions," WSJ; "What's Driving The Right-Wing Protesters Fighting The Quarantine," NYT).

Protestors in Huntington Beach, Calif. protest state closures on April 17. Photo: Jeff Gritchen/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images

It's not like these protests are big.  Nothing like the Women's Marches after the election of Trump and since, which brought tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people out to protests.

At least judging by this Axios roundup of photos of demonstrators at these protests.

Most of the protesters in Annapolis, Maryland didn't even get out of their cars ("Streets of Annapolis filled with cars in protest against Maryland coronavirus restrictions," Annapolis Capital-Gazette).

A message from a ReOpen Maryland supporter is seen on the back of a truck around Church Circle in Annapolis on Saturday, April 18. ReOpen Maryland is protesting the mandated closure of businesses due the coronavirus pandemic. (Brian Krista/Baltimore Sun Media Group)

Still, as the energy of the Tea Party opposition has faded--look at the success of the election of a Democratic Supreme Court Justice in Wisconsin despite all the roadblocks put in the way of this by the Republican-controlled legislature (itself in power because of extreme gerrymandering).

I can't help but believe these protests are merely the next generation iteration of anti-government pro-conservative party identity building as a way to build momentum for the November election, in the face of the disastrous "management" of the coronavirus response by the Trump Administration.

In short, this isn't an "ad hoc" grassroots response by "concerned citizens."

It's fomented by  media and business interests that in general, don't care too much about the interests of "the people."

Some of the conservative calls for "opening the economy" have been couched in concern for the unemployed and the likelihood of "deaths of despair."

I read a comment on a Washington Post article making the point that it wasn't like these interests cared about such deaths before ("Farmer suicide deaths alarm rural communities in the Midwest," South Bend Tribune).

Conclusion: "The politics of anger" need to be constantly stoked in order to maintain rabid opposition to Democratic policies that in normal circumstances, help the protesters.

By making it out that recipients of help are both "the other" and "undeserving" the politics of anger are heightened.

From the New Yorker article "Arlie Russell Hochschild’s View of Small-Town Decay and Support for Trump":

Hochschild noticed that Tea Party enthusiasts and traditional conservatives gave her accounts of American society that boiled down to a single “deep story.” This story was that America, which was once characterized by hard work, was now characterized by cheating; the image that Hochschild chose was that of people cutting in line. For Hochschild’s subjects, the line-cutters were African-Americans, promoted by affirmative action, she writes, but also “women, immigrants, refugees, public-sector workers—where will it end? Your money is running through a liberal sympathy sieve you don’t control or agree with.” President Obama, in this vision, was the man controlling the line, waving the line-cutters ahead—“their president, not your president.” Hochschild shared this analogy in e-mails to the plumbers and insurance brokers she had met. “I live your analogy,” one wrote back. “It’s my story,” another said. A third wrote, “You’ve read my mind.”

A Trump Unity sign on a trailer is shown parked at the [coronavirus restrictions] protest in front of the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing. Paul Sancya/AP