The Tea Party . . . Party

Jay Severin is a radical capitalist and fierce hawk who talks for Boston’s 96.9 WTKK.

He tearfully covered today’s demonstrations, praising the “patriots" in the streets, hurling slurs at President Obama, a man he routinely denounces as a “domestic enemy of the Constitution.”

This afternoon, Severin kept suggesting that the April 15 movement transition into an electoral machine. “The ‘Tea Party,’” he mused to co-gabber Michael Graham, “There’re worse names.”

[Redacted and edited for clarity: By the mental sketches of Severin] Severin sketched an interesting possibility (if improbability): A hard right caucus dedicated to laissez-faire economics and drastic reductions to the size and scope of government; the only explicitly nationalist party around; anti-immigrant, pro-military; deeply opposed to international organizations and hyper-sensitive of threats to the national interest.

Severin claimed the Tea Party could easily rope one-third of the popular vote. That’s a great exaggeration. He overestimates the radicalism of the white middle and lower middle classes. Yes, they’re hurting, especially the latter, and their anxieties are real.

But many are too proper, too gentle, too ‘Main Street conservative.’ They’d be repelled by the party's militancy and extremism (both rhetorical and policy-wise), by its thinly-veiled ethnic and racial chauvinism, by its violent undercurrents.

Scots-Irish, with their staunch individualism and warrior legacy, would be the natural constituency. The Tea Party would probably play well in the South and urban Middle West. Even there, I suspect libertarian extremism would mean quick termination of interest among blue collars.

What’s really fascinating about the party is that, whatever Severin might say, it wouldn’t be conservative. We’re talking about a coalition animated by two principles: The maximization of profit and the minimization of threats to national interests . . . in over-drive. We’re talking jungle capitalism and a three word foreign policy: “Islam delenda est.”

Where Ayn Rand and Curtis LeMay meet, there is the Tea Party. Where in that orgy of morally-sanctioned greed and jackboot diplomacy is there room for Sunday afternoon dinner? The Tea Party would be right wing, but not conservative.

Realizing that the Tea Party would strip the GOP of some of its worst elements, I badly want it to exist. And not just to exist, but to thrive. Of course, lacking a clear religious component, Christianists would by and large remain where they are, further strenghtening the forces of theoconservatism within the Republican fold.

You can’t win, can you?

Finally, a scenario, and questions:

Against all odds, the Tea Party explodes onto the stage of American politics. While largely rejected in areas like New England and the Pacific Northwest, it manages to establish significant national presence.

In the 2010 midterms, it grabs a few dozen seats in the House and even two or three in the Senate. A number of Republicans defect, filling its ranks. A few Democrats also join. Poised to make further gains in the next election, who runs for POTUS in 2012 under its banner?

How does that candidate change the election? How does the Tea Party alter our socio-political discourse? Is it ultimately a force for good or for bad?

"Show your work."

Update: For the record, the local Tea Party was a damn depressing circus act (where BHO citizenship-truthers can assemble free of harassment and mockery, there normal people should fear to tread). The rhetoric was generally over-the-top. All heat, no light. Organizers called it "huge," but it was dwarfed by the massive pro-immigrant march back in spring of 2006, which was at least three to five times as large.