Here’s a narrative: A radical president came to power in the United States, gaining control of the white house, senate, and house or representatives. With the opposition powerless to oppose his actions, the president rapidly expanded the role of government, made drastic increases to government spending, and in a real sense changed the fundamental nature of American democracy. Eventually, a grass-roots conservative opposition took form, spread rapidly across the population, gained political power and began to pull back changes made by the radical president, George W. Bush.
Liberals weren’t the only ones wandering in the desert during the Bush administration; fiscal conservatives had no representation in office. As a fiscal conservative, Obama isn’t any better. Thus fiscal conservatives have every right to be angry, energized, and pushing for change of leadership. The timing may seem conspicuous–where were fiscal conservatives when Bush was in power?–but their position is entirely valid.
Understanding tea partiers motivation is an imposing task; they have risen so rapidly that it’s difficult to understand what drives them. They’ve been diagnosed as know-nothings, racists, and lunatics. They’ve been said to follow Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Koch brothers. And surely, in a movement this large, some are, just as some small number of Obama supporters actually are socialists, communists, or members of radical groups. But fiscal conservatives seem to be the ones effecting change: consider that senate winners Rubio, Toomey, Paul, and Kirk are legitimate thinking fiscal conservatives, while senate losers Angle and O’Donnell are not.
Racism, ignorance, and stupidity have no place in politics. Fiscal conservatism is sorely need, and thus far it seems to be the primary beneficiary of the tea parties.