A "Movement" Still Waiting To Party

Here we are eleven months before the midterm elections and what New York Times columnist David Brooks calls the "tea party tendency" already figures into discussions of the Republican Party's future.

That political table talk is going to intensify now that movement organizers have announced plans to target businesses that fund "socialism" and back "the leftist agenda" of the Obama administration.

Quite a declaration but the most interesting part is what was left unsaid: The plan this time will include economic pressure. Allen Hardage from the "Tea Party Patriots" makes it plain:

"We will march on the offices and overwhelm with communication of select primary advertisers to the major media outlets in the nation to demand that they stop funding slanted news and covering up the corruption of politicians in both parties that are destroying our nation. These companies are not misguided or misunderstanding in what they are doing. Having spent the last 21 years working in advertising I can tell you that before someone take out an advertising plan on CNN, MSNBC etc, they know where they stand. Contrary to popular belief it's not just about money, if it were MSNBC would have no advertisers."

Tough talk. Can he deliver? When it comes to raging against the machine, the tea partiers are in a league of their own. So far, however, they haven't blocked or reversed any of the Democratic policy initiatives they so detest, like government stimulus spending, support for ailing automakers or health care reform regulation. (To be fair, the first two were enacted before Rick Santelli got the ball rolling and the third hasn't yet been signed into law - though that now is a formality.)

Another unknown is whether this new tack will force long-time pillars of GOP support to choose sides. In his column Brooks alluded to the passion and the popularity of the tea party brigades which he believes will dominate the Republican Party in the near term. It's clear that Brooks, a middle-of-the-road conservative, is not happy about that prospect of a rabble pushing aside the establishment.

"It could be the ruin of the party, pulling it in an angry direction that suburban voters will not tolerate. But don't underestimate the deep reservoirs of public disgust. If there is a double-dip recession, a long period of stagnation, a fiscal crisis, a terrorist attack or some other major scandal or event, the country could demand total change, creating a vacuum that only the tea party movement and its inheritors would be in a position to fill."

(You can read conservative reaction to Brooks' piece from Glenn Reynolds, Will Collier, and Melissa Clouthier.)

If Brooks is right and the "tea party tendency" continues to dominate the party, a move against (so far unnamed) corporations would rub important Republican backers the wrong way. Don't confuse the moneyed interests with pitchfork-toting populists. Outside of low taxes and laissez-faire economic policies, these groups have little in common. If there are demands calls to punish companies that advertise with CNN or MSNBC? (whose parents are Time Warner and General Electric, respectively) that strikes awfully close to home. The corporate set isn't interested in disrupting a system that makes them billions, thank you. This crowd may tune in to Glenn Beck for kicks, but by education and temperament, they are a lot closer to Tim Geithner.