End of the Tea Party?
The high price of political participation in America
Few anti-establishment movements have had such swift success as the Tea Party, which has moderate Republicans scrambling, a new breed of conservatives rising, and even a congressional caucus. But the one thing it doesn’t have, according to Politico, is money:
Some leading tea party activists are concerned that their efforts to reshape American politics, starting with the 2010 elections, are being undermined by a shortage of cash that’s partly the result of a deep ambivalence within the movement’s grass roots over the very idea of fundraising and partly attributable to an inability to win over the wealthy donors who fund the conservative establishment.
This is problematic. Notes conservative grassroots leader Ned Ryun: “Without money, nothing quite works like it could.”
Ryun’s right. The price tag to participate in American politics is exorbitantly high. In 2008, candidates, their supporters, and other election-related groups spent over $5 billion. Presidential campaigns distort the totals, but not by as much as you’d think. The 2006 congressional midterm elections still saw $2.8 billion in campaign-related expenditures.
That’s just the price of getting into office. The Democratic and Republican parties have raised over $800 million combined both to help re-elect party members, and to provide cover for sitting officials. Then there are lobbyists, who spent $3.49 billion last year.
If you’re starting to get the impression that American politics is pay-to-play, you’re right. This has always been a problem for advocates who don’t represent wealthy interests. But for most American voters, it is still largely possible to find representation from within the two major political parties. Chances are that you can identify a candidate who roughly shares your views.
That, at least, was the conventional wisdom about how the system worked. But the Tea Party’s emergence has put on display a sizable minority of Americans who did not feel adequately represented by (most) members of the establishment. Now money woes suggest the Tea Party will never be more than a perpetual anti-government protest. That’s because inadequate financing will likely doom Tea Party candidates to irrelevance in electoral politics.
A representative democracy should always be worried when the structure of politics denies a persistent minority any voice in government. Usually, “structures” refer to some kind of explicit discrimination–such as limited voting rights for ethnic minorities, or a first-past-the-post system like ours, where minority candidates have little hope. Nations that have needed to redress endemic inequities of representation have usually modified the electoral process to provide minorities adequate access to the chambers of government.
The American problem is more insidious. Formally speaking, there are no barriers to entry. It’s easy to become a candidate here. The problem has been the steady monetary arms race that makes it difficult for newcomers – or those outside the flush establishment – to raise the resources to compete.
Even those who disagree with the Tea Party should be concerned. For as their namesake demonstrated, when real representation isn’t an option, there’s usually only one way to make your voice heard. If we want to avoid another “real” Tea Party, it may be time to revisit real campaign spending reform. Not because it’s fair. But because it’s right.
-Sam
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user Fibonacci Blue.
Related posts:
- Papal encyclicals and the two-party system
- How much is too much?
- Politicians and party
- Primaries as partisan purifiers
- Tea Party Philosophy
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
