Confused anger

Have you ever tried to reason with an angry drunk?

Well, if you haven’t before, you’ll likely get a chance this week. Try to convince someone on the verge of blacking out that what they’re saying makes no sense. Not only will this prove highly entertaining, but you probably will not succeed. Logic just doesn’t work with the intoxicated.

I’m beginning to feel that explaining economics to the Tea Party works roughly the same way.

Recently, The New York Times conducted a study on the beliefs of Tea Partiers nationwide and allowed them to send in two-minute videos explaining their gravest concerns for the nation. The surveys revealed some severe cases of cognitive dissonance.

Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif., told the Times, “I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” Then she added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

The Boston Globe quoted Valerie Shirk, 43, of Prospect, Conn.: “The problem in this country is that too many people are looking for handouts.”

She explained: “I agree with the signs that say, ‘Share my father’s work ethic — not his paycheck.’ We have to do something about the whole welfare mentality in this country.” She and her husband have 10 children and are on Medicaid.

Listening to the online video snippets, the Tea Partiers collectively sounded like a self-righteous frat brother who just got thrown out of Kilroy’s for puking on the bar: They’re angry, and they don’t know why.

Sure, each person had their own reasons, but few of them were the same — and many were even contradictory. The one thing they shared was anti-government belligerence.

The New York Times/CBS News poll results backed up my suspicion. Fifty-three percent of self-identified Tea Party members are angry, but there is no agreement among them about what, precisely, they are angry about.

When they do venture to explain their grievances, they offer only overly general blanket statements about Washington or disconnected cherry-picked statistics. As far as I’ve seen, there is little to no understanding of how federal budget deficits work or even what spending contributes to the deficit.

They fiercely protest government spending but find Social Security and Medicare, which make up roughly 41 percent of the 2010 federal budget, to be worth the cost to taxpayers.

Signs held up at Tax Day rallies included one that read “Starve the Beast by Tax Cuts,” an old conservative line that proved only to massively increase the deficit under President Reagan and both Bushes.

In fact, the deficit-financed Bush tax cuts will have cost $2.48 trillion for the 2001-10 period.

While eight in 10 Tea Partiers say that they are more concerned with economic issues than social ones, they exhibit no real understanding of macroeconomics, simultaneously demanding smaller government, lower taxes, a reduced deficit and the retention of our biggest federally financed programs, Social Security and Medicare.

They want to have their cake and eat it, too. Simply put, it is economically impossible to have all of these things.

It is, however, possible to be angry.
 

E-mail: akames@indiana.edu