Tea Party Politics as Public Policy?

So I am moving away from state politics today to address the Tea Party...

In a recent discussion concerning the future of the Tea Party movement, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R, SC) stated, “The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.” The Tea Party's response to this was the typical (this time directed) rage. Calls for apologies have been made from a variety of tea Party organizations in SC as well as NY and other states. Their rebuke to Graham is that the Tea Party's vision for the country is fiscal restraint, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. Putting aside the fact that these positions are not visions for the country - rather they amount to broad policy vision statements - I would like to entertain the Tea Bagger's notions that, as Public Policy these broad positions will indeed serve the country well.

In the interest of time I will only address one issue today, Fiscal Restraint. Ironically it is the issue which they appear to be most vehement about because they believe they understand it. Using a simple example I think it is easy to see that their lack of understanding is mind-boggling. On the surface it seems like a sensible argument, do not spend any more than one takes in. Leaving aside the social programs to which these Neo-cons would be opposed regardless of positive or negative impact (simply because it does not suit their world view) I will address the impact of their proposed fiscal policies on the two areas to which the Baggers are not opposed: Constitutional Offices and Military Spending. Whether they realize it or not, defense spending is not simply maintenance of effort - it is also involved in Capital Projects. In budget terms this is allocated under Discretionary Defense Spending. An example of this is the Navy and Air Force new ship/jet building efforts to replace its aging infrastructure. Congress allocated $530 Billion, however CBO estimates are that the plan will cost $570 Billion and increase in subsequent years (CBO Director's Report, 6/11/2010). Now the obvious statement from the Tea Baggers is "well if we didn't spend so much on [insert social welfare program here] then we would be able to afford this." Not so much...

If you were to immediately eliminate every Social Welfare, Unemployment, and Future Cost program associated with the Federal Budget you would cost out roughly 26.5% of the Federal Budget. That still leaves the Dept. of Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Treasury, etc. Now you may say, but those don't deal with national defense... And you would be wrong. The military needs fuel, additionally our energy agreements are tantamount to maintenance of national ties with states which serve to advance our interests, or at least serve as buffers against otherwise hostile states. Homeland Security - that should be obvious. Agriculture - not going with the obvious DCSP Vendor bidding process(by companies who are beholden to farmers); our aid policies in the form of food aid are important factors in our maintenance of relationships with poor states. This is important because in today's "flat" world, they are becoming increasingly viable as breeding grounds for extremist groups. Treasury - let me just make one statement on this which should make any question of the role of Treasury in National Defense a moot point. The price of oil is tagged to (and can only be purchased with) US Dollars.

The greater point of this is that National Defense in reality is not simply having a standing army, but the maintenance of relationships to avoid conflict and facilitate partnerships. While the Tea Baggers are excellent at platitudes and providing wonderful fodder for debates on the role of government, as far as Public Policy goes, they have their heads in the sand. Either that or they really believe that wars are fought campaign style in an open field, without the use of advanced technologies, sophisticated intelligence equipment, or some of the best training on the planet. Is it truly conceivable that the things which make National Defense possible simpely occur ad hoc. There is a reason that the government is as large as it is. I am well aware of the arguments that Organizations beget more Organizations, and it is true - however the primary cause of this is the increased call for accountability by those opposed to the organization in the first place so in that respect it is a self fulfilling prophecy (Hood, 1991). Be that as it may, the lack of understanding as to what the Tea Baggers say they want and what is actually involved in even running a government is mind boggling. There is a reason that Universities have Graduate Degrees in Public Administration, Public Policy, Defense Policy, Intelligence Policy, Food Policy, etc. I will give you a hint, it is certainly not to entertain themselves by laughing at how they got one over on a bunch of overzealous right wingers with an agenda.

It wasn't fraud folks... probably

So with all the stuff going on with Alvin Greene, dolls and all, I am not sure whether people are so upset that this guy actually won or that he is actually taking himself seriously as a candidate. We all know the FEC and SLED are investigating where he got the money, which is interesting enough in and of itself; but I am curious as to where all of these other conspiracy theories are coming from: he is a Republican Plant and the like. Seriously folks, lets consider this for a minute.

What is the purpose of planting anyone to run against DeMint. He has one of the safest seats in the country. No Republican running for Congress has won by less than 7% in the past 6 years (and that is Joe Wilson on the low end). It simply makes no sense to run a plant in the Dem. Primary unless their is a concerted effort at expanding Political Theatre in South Carolina - unless DeMint has some form of Larry Craig-esque secret in his closet he will win regardless of his opponent.

Allow me to propose another alternative, well a combined alternative really: the voters are simply not that informed coupled with the fact that Rawl was targeting the wrong set of Dem backers. We already know that the median voter's choice is based primarily upon party identification. We also know that the median voter is not well informed on policy specifics. Couple this with the fact that Rawl was spending his time and efforts, betting on a Primary Coronation, with the Dem elites and you have a recipe for disaster if anyone is on the ticket ahead of you.

This may sound like conjecture but I have looked at the data. Greene’s victory does not associate well with any of the traditionally tested impacts on voter choice. The margin of victory was not well correlated to voter turnout, so there was no precint flooding going on. There was, however, a significant correlation between the down-ticket races that people normally do not care about and Greene's victory. Bottom line, people did not know much about either candidate so they simply voted for the first name they saw.

Now I know that everyone likes to think of themselves as well informed and likes to believe that their opinion is not only valid but accurate - if that were truly the case, Alvin Greene would not have won a single precint, let alone over 95% of all the counties in the state. Sorry to say folks, but when stuff like this happens it is obvious that there needs to be less debating platitudes about Healthcare, Immigration, etc. and mre debating the merits of one candidate or another... but seriously is anyone going to buy the first edition Alvin Greene action figure?