
The stated goal of Tea Party: The Documentary Film (a movie made by tea partiers, for tea partiers) is to reveal the heart of the movement, "to share the story with those on the outside who are looking to understand its true nature."
In that, it fails. The tea partiers it follows -- a pastor/Revolutionary War re-enactor, a black Libertarian, a health insurance agent, a urologist and a Tea Party organizer -- talk about protecting their freedoms. But which freedoms?
The confusion may be a product of the film's production. The movie has a plotline of sorts, following the partiers on their way (both physically and philosophically) to the 9/12 march, but it also takes us on wild, nonsensical tangents and relies heavily on the montage.
We're taken to a restaurant in Georgia called the Right Wing Tavern, where "The Kennedy" sandwich features a dip "for drowning." We watch a Revolutionary War re-enactor struggle for a full minute to buckle his seatbelt before he takes off toward a tea party.
One montage includes a time-lapse of grass growing. Indeed, the movie champions the grassroots while liberally featuring FreedomWorks reps, including Dick Armey. (FreedomWorks helped funnel funding to the movie.)
The movie cries, "We're not racists!," using the white re-enactor/pastor's black congregation to prove it.
But at its core, the film is devoted to why the tea partiers do what they do. They are cast as "real Americans:" people who eat dinner with their children, coach Little League, and help their neighbors paint a house.
It's about what each of them are fighting, or fighting for. Each is earnest, passionate and sincere.
But after 105 minutes, one still does not understand what freedom these tea partiers are fighting for. They talk only about freedom. They fear they're on the verge of losing their freedom, and want to protect it for their children.
But what freedom are they scared to lose? No one ever really says.
The urologist is scared that health care reform, specifically a public option, will deny patients the freedom to choose their own treatment. But he's the only one focused solely on health care. Many tea partiers are upset about a broader range of things: bailouts, the stimulus, government involvement in the auto industry, cap-and-trade.
It's never spelled out, but one could string the montages together into one stream of logic:
The federal government has, via TARP et. al., taken some control over the banks and the car companies. Health care opponents argue the government is angling for control over hospitals and insurers; cap-and-trade opponents argue pols want to tell private businesses how to operate, too.
It may seem as if the government is slowly taking over, well, everything. And a government that controls what was once the private sector is one that would control its citizens and have no qualms about revoking the Bill of Rights.
Is that the true heart of the tea parties? It's just a guess. But there is one truly telling moment. The Libertarian, driving along a suburban road and explaining his philosophy, tell us he's fighting against change. Things, he says, just don't need to change.
RHERSH12
December 7, 2009 11:07 AM
For any change there's a No Brigade willing to stand in the way. Trim trees for power lines? pave a gravel road? new school curriculum? someone will tell you it doesn't need to be done and the old way is better. Often they have good arguments that should be weighed against the benefits of the change. But I don't see any positive arguments from the Tea Partiers. What, exactly are they trying to preserve? What standards, resources or traditions do they support? I think that most Tea Partiers legitimately feel that things are changing in some undefined ways to their detriment and they've fixed on Obama as the cause of this. They don't trust Democrats, though most probably wouldn't be able to articulate why. Case in point: the bailout. This is arguably the largest government interventionin private business ever, yet the opposition to it targets Democrats, not Bush who initiated it. Their discontent is being used by others to turn them into a convenient obstacle to the Democrats' agenda. Beck, Limbaugh and others don't really care which direction the mob charges off as long as they get their cut of the torch and pitchfork sales.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brad Friedman (The BRAD BLOG)
December 7, 2009 12:48 PM
Thanks for the review, Rachel.
The question of just what "freedoms" are being taken away -- the ostensible cause behind the tea party movement (if not the real one) -- is discussed with a few of the tea baggers in my short film :Rise of the Tea Bags" recently shot in L.A. on the first day kick-off of the new "Tea Party Express II" national tour.
My exchange with the protester, allowing him to detail exactly what freedoms "Barack Hussein Obama" has taken away (about 3 or 4 mins into the film), seems to summarize well what you discuss as the problem of the documentary film you smartly review above.
You can watch "Rise of the Tea Bags" (via YouTube) here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7487
...I believe you'll find it rather amusing, and hopefully enlightening...
Brad
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aarrgghhv2
December 7, 2009 1:14 PM
is their any more telling reason that these people are fringe conspiracy nutjobs? as the saying goes, "the only constant in the universe is change"! but i guess when your enemy is change, the only constant in your universe is paranoia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 8, 2009 7:58 AM
Perhap, "change" occurs in many undesirable forms.
Dear Mr. President:
I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.
Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.
I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
Senator Webb's office told the Washington Times Water Cooler the president has not replied back in writing, and the decision to write the president a letter on this issue comes from Mr. Webb's concern about issues of constitutional checks and balances.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
April 30, 2010 5:03 AM
Thanks for the review, Rachel.
The question of just what "freedoms" are being taken away -- the ostensible cause behind the tea party movement (if not the real one) -- is discussed with a few of the tea baggers in my short film :Rise of the Tea Bags" recently shot in L.A. on the first day kick-off of the new "Tea Party Express II" national tour.
My exchange with the protester, allowing him to detail exactly what freedoms "Barack Hussein Obama" has taken away (about 3 or 4 mins into the film), seems to summarize well what you discuss as the problem of the documentary film you smartly review above.
kamagra m65
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom
July 20, 2010 7:55 PM
LOL! I loved that BradBlog video. Very engaging. Of course it's extremely biased and cut to expose the protestors in the worst possible light, but still highly entertaining. In reality though, in any crowd you will find those who can articulate their views and those who cannot. Showing those who have trouble is hardly fair. Many tea partiers (not tea baggers, which is an obviously derisional term) have a visceral understanding of how government is slowly chipping away at their inalienable rights without being able to cite specific examples of it. There's nothing wrong with them coming out to support those who are able to articulate their views.
What are those views? Specifically, the current ground-swell in opposition to government growth comes from the massive power grabs by the new administration and Congress. Many tea partiers were not happy with the Bush power grabs, such as the Patriot Act, however they assumed that the new powers would be relinquished when the immediate apparent threats diminished. But as usual, the government never relinquishes any powers, but builds and builds upon power grabs. Now Obama happily uses the Bush powers he once derided to push through his own agenda. And on top of that, Obama and the Congress have pushed through (via underhanded and devious means) huge new power grabs including health care "reform", which is really a first step to nationalization.
What's wrong with government power? Government power always diminishes the freedom of individuals. What freedoms? The freedom to manage and dispose of your personal property as you see fit, and everything that entails -- less freedom of speech (e.g. donating to campaigns and PACs), providing for your family, and remaining independent of government social programs. Obviously the more government takes from the populous, the more people will have to fall back on government social programs, which creates a feedback loop -- the programs get bigger, requiring more taxation, which pushes more people into their grasp.
But taxes are lower for most people, you say. Well, not exactly. Taxation of the people is not merely in the form of income taxes. Taxation also includes unfunded liabilities, regulatory burdens, unintended consequences of laws, diminished lending capacity, and most of all inflation -- the insidious tax created by the printing of money by the Federal Reserve in order to bail out the banks and fund the Treasury. All of these things adversely impact employment, investment, and savings. The more the government controls of the economy, the less is available for private individuals. The methods by which wealth is transferred is not usually obvious (or a hell of a lot more people would be protesting!), but the results felt definitely are.
What other freedoms have been infringed? The ability to freely negotiate contracts is a huge one. From employment to mortgages to marriage, the government is a third party to nearly every private transaction, dictating terms that may be either harmful to you or which may ruin an otherwise amiable deal between the two private parties. This causes unemployment and otherwise lowers people's standard of living. In many cases, the government mandates (or incentivizes) that you deal only with a monopoly, which is never in your best interests. Whether a regulated/subsidized utility company, government run service, or other special interest, it is always inefficient and harmful to not have competitive choices.
What else is wrong with government power grabs? Already the major entitlement programs are bankrupt. We have an unfunded liability of some $60 trillion which cannot possibly be met, meaning that the elderly and infirmed will have to forego benefits in the future. Their choice to opt for a private alternative had long ago been taken away and now the public promise will not be honored. Our annual budget deficit is getting untenable, with the national debt now over $13 trillion. At current super-low interest rates, this debt is serviceable. But interest rates will go higher. Much higher. And beyond a point not to far from current levels, even moderately higher interest rates will cause our debt to be unserviceable even if we raise taxes significantly. Then we will be forced to monetize the debt by printing money, which can cause a hyperinflationary spiral, impoverishing everyone.
The list goes on, but I've take quite a bit of space here already. But it should be clear that these are some of the reasons people are joining the Tea Party movement and demanding smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty. Not everyone is able to put their finger on these issues, but that doesn't mean they don't understand that our current direction is the wrong one. They know that it will not last and that freedom is ultimately preferable to promises of government safety nets.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?