When Tea Party rallies were organized across the country nearly a decade ago to protest runaway government spending and debt, left-leaning critics were quick to say the outcry was more about political tribalism — specifically, at the time, white identity politics — than fiscal responsibility. As someone who supported that movement, spoke at events, and even co-authored a book with Sen. Rand Paul about the Tea Party, I pushed back strongly on such accusations.
But the critics had a point.
It wasn’t just government spending that motivated the masses. This realization came to me in full during the 2016 presidential election, when many in the same right-leaning base that formed the Tea Party went all in for Donald Trump, who wasn’t exactly a proponent of smaller government.
Last week, President Trump signed and a Republican Congress passed the most exorbitantly monstrous spending bill in decades, outdoing even Barack Obama and the Democrats. Many conservatives aren’t happy with the omnibus bill, but seemingly those most eager to defend it and the president on social media are often the same people who might have attended a Tea Party rally prior.
It is the same sort of bill Tea Partiers once cried out against under Obama.
This isn’t logical.
It’s not that these Tea Party activists weren’t serious about Washington’s fiscal recklessness back then. But there was something more visceral in play (though I do not believe it was primarily racism, as many on the left insisted). It wasn’t mere policy that inspired them to organize and protest. It was tribal. They had a deep emotional need, a yearning, to express their disapproval of the current regime. Democrats’ irresponsible spending just happened to be the rallying point.
The March for Our Lives is similar.
The hundreds of thousands who attended the many rallies across the country on Saturday to call for increased gun control no doubt believe more laws will prevent or reduce school shootings. They were unquestionably concerned about gun violence and children’s safety. I do not doubt their sincerity. This is especially true of the Parkland school shooting survivors.
But school shootings are also at historic lows (though today’s smartphones might present a different perception). We did not see mass rallies in the wake of the Columbine school shooting two decades ago, or anything like March for Our Lives pro-gun control events during the Obama years.
What has changed? The Parkland school shooting survivors consistently speaking out, maintaining a high profile, and thus inspiring gun control advocates has certainly created a different dynamic.
So has Donald Trump.
It is almost impossible to imagine March for Our Lives taking place if a Democrat occupied the White House. Yes, former President Barack Obama wanted more gun control, but the National Rifle Association — a primary focus on Saturday—still existed during his presidency, school shootings were still occurring, and Republicans were still being blamed.
For that matter, the “War on Terror” that energized the Left so vehemently against President George W. Bush — including the largest global protest in history in 2003—was continued in earnest under Obama.
But where were the massive (or any) anti-war protests from 2009-2016? Obama, too, sought regime change, started new wars, expanded the Patriot Act, and wracked up civilian death tolls abroad worthy of Bush-Cheney.
There were no protests because, in retrospect, the 2003 anti-war rallies were always more about opposing Bush than the Iraq War (you can see a similar reverse dynamic now, where many liberals have become warm to Bush simply for being anti-Trump since their rage has now transferred to Trump). It is also fairly safe to say that if Obama or President Bill Clinton had launched the Iraq war, there would have been no protest, or certainly none of that scope.
The Occupy and Black Lives Matter movements come to mind as two mass protests, and perhaps exceptions to a president dictating how these events unfold, that occurred under Obama. But those movements, too, were also primarily fueled by “us vs. them” narratives (the little guy vs. corporate America, or African-Americans vs. police).
Still, as a conservative and libertarian, I can say with a great deal of certainty that if John McCain had become president in 2008, there would have been no Tea Party. The Tea Party did begin with Bush, but it was Obama and his party that would become the primary focus.
If Hillary Clinton had won the last presidential election, there probably would not have been a March for Our Lives or similar event, even if the rest of recent history had occurred just the same, including the Parkland school shooting and gun laws remaining unchanged. There also likely would have been no Women’s March in 2017 or 2018.
One might reply that Hillary Clinton is not an NRA-supporter or perceived as misogynistic like Trump. True, but again, school shootings still happened (more, in fact) prior to Trump, as did obviously sexual assault and harassment. The “Me Too” movement sparked by the Harvey Weinstein revelations came after the original Women’s March.
These issues exist despite and outside of who occupies the White House.
But the flashpoint is still Donald Trump.
Whether it’s gun control or women’s equality, the actual issues are often secondary to the emotional need to shake a fist at figures that so simply and satisfyingly personify the “enemy.” Gun violence, sexual assault, war and fiscal discipline are each more abstract than Barack Obama, Donald Trump or whoever might follow them. Each of these issues will likely be given more or less attention in the future based on who is president, irrespective of their impact on society during the moments where the most or least noise is made about them.
Thousands marched to protest gun violence on Saturday. But that specific issue was not what they were primarily protesting. It rarely is.
Jack Hunter is the politics editor at Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.
