I don't think that people should necessarily spend too much time interrogating the logical rigor of the Tea Parties' message. It's true, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, that few of these figures were waving signs on the streets when Bush was running up the deficit and Paulson was bailing out Bear Stearns. But I'm not sure that Republicans exhibiting a radically-heightened state of concern over Obama's actions is necessarily inconsistent. For better or worse, a lot of politics comes down to trust in leadership. The example I always come back to on this is the surge. Before it was George W. Bush's policy to add tens of thousands of new troops to Iraq, it was Howard Dean's policy. And he was the anti-war candidate. So was it inconsistent for liberals who supported Dean's plans to add troops to stabilize Iraq to oppose Bush's policy to do much the same? Not necessarily. Liberals trusted that Howard Dean wanted to end the war in Iraq and that his plan to increase troop levels to stabilize the situation fit into that strategy. Bush, conversely, showed little interest in ending the war in Iraq, and proposed the surge in opposition to the Iraq Study Group's proposal to ratchet down the conflict. Liberals didn't trust Bush intentions and they did trust Dean's. At the end of the day, that's not a crazy way to evaluate public policy debates. And even if it is, it's all most people who aren't policy professionals can really do. The Teabaggers are not necessarily opposing the specifics of Barack Obama's fiscal policy. They're opposing Barack Obama's fiscal policy in context of Barack Obama's broader philosophy. The stimulus and bailouts and tax policy are the parts of that philosophy that are happening right now, but they're not the whole of what's scaring the protesters. It's entirely possible that if John McCain was gravely explaining the need to nationalize the banks and build up our infrastructure to better compete with China, these same people would be nodding along. At the end of the day, they don't trust Barack Obama, and they're faced with the fact that his presidency began at a transformative moment that allows him to act much more aggressively than your average executive. The stimulus wasn't like Clinton's first budget. Obama was given an opportunity to lead with the thick edge of the wedge. No wonder they're protesting. They're scared. IN DEFENSE OF THE TEABAGGERS.
I don't think that people should necessarily spend too much time interrogating the logical rigor of the Tea Parties' message. It's true, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, that few of these figures were waving signs on the streets when Bush was running up the deficit and Paulson was bailing out Bear Stearns. But I'm not sure that Republicans exhibiting a radically-heightened state of concern over Obama's actions is necessarily inconsistent. For better or worse, a lot of politics comes down to trust in leadership. The example I always come back to on this is the surge. Before it was George W. Bush's policy to add tens of thousands of new troops to Iraq, it was Howard Dean's policy. And he was the anti-war candidate. So was it inconsistent for liberals who supported Dean's plans to add troops to stabilize Iraq to oppose Bush's policy to do much the same? Not necessarily. Liberals trusted that Howard Dean wanted to end the war in Iraq and that his plan to increase troop levels to stabilize the situation fit into that strategy. Bush, conversely, showed little interest in ending the war in Iraq, and proposed the surge in opposition to the Iraq Study Group's proposal to ratchet down the conflict. Liberals didn't trust Bush intentions and they did trust Dean's. At the end of the day, that's not a crazy way to evaluate public policy debates. And even if it is, it's all most people who aren't policy professionals can really do. The Teabaggers are not necessarily opposing the specifics of Barack Obama's fiscal policy. They're opposing Barack Obama's fiscal policy in context of Barack Obama's broader philosophy. The stimulus and bailouts and tax policy are the parts of that philosophy that are happening right now, but they're not the whole of what's scaring the protesters. It's entirely possible that if John McCain was gravely explaining the need to nationalize the banks and build up our infrastructure to better compete with China, these same people would be nodding along. At the end of the day, they don't trust Barack Obama, and they're faced with the fact that his presidency began at a transformative moment that allows him to act much more aggressively than your average executive. The stimulus wasn't like Clinton's first budget. Obama was given an opportunity to lead with the thick edge of the wedge. No wonder they're protesting. They're scared. 
