In light of the warnings by the political left about the Tea Party movement, readers may be surprised to know that Vancouver’s April 17 Tea Party rally featured a racially diverse lineup of speakers whose inspiring words could have offended no one. Organized by We the People, the event brought hundreds to Esther Short Park, including young families with children, idealistic teenagers, small-business people, community leaders and many candidates for election. Patrons of the adjacent Vancouver Farmers’ Market could see and hear Tea Party activists engaging peacefully in that most American of activities: grass-roots politics.
Nationally, Tea Party rallies have been carried out without so much as a broken window. And with a growing percentage of voters identifying with Tea Partiers, the movement — arguably the most significant in modern American history — stands squarely in the way of President Obama’s transformation of America to resemble the state-centered economies of Scandinavia, France and hapless Greece. Thus, Tea Party participants, not born yesterday, have come to expect cooked-up criticism from the likes of former President Bill Clinton and infiltrators such as the Beaverton school teacher suspended recently for plotting anti-Tea Party dirty tricks.
Columbian columnist John Laird came as close as print allows to snickering about the Tea Party movement in his April 18 column, “Antidote to Rancor: top two primary”. Laird wrote: “Last Thursday brought yet another carnival to the democratic process as Tea Partiers nationwide gathered to (1) ‘take our country back’ — to what, some of us wondered — and (2) denounce the behavior of any liberal infiltrators as — get this — beneath the dignity of a Tea Party rally.”
Objectives are clear
We don’t need to wonder about the movement’s objectives. The home page of We the People (http://www.wepeeps.org) explains: “the great American experiment has to this day been a question of a people’s capacity to self-govern, thus maintaining individual freedoms. When the balance of power between those governed and those given consent to govern become unbalanced, liberty and prosperity suffer. We desire that the essential balance of power, having been tipped to the side of those governing, would be restored to its optimal condition.”