It irritates members of both when I note the similarities of the Tea Party movement that swept the nation in the 2010 election and the peace movement of the late 1960s and early ’70s — but they’re similar.
Both represent the surge in political activity by hundreds of thousands, even millions, of previously uninvolved citizens. Both focused on what are undeniably central political issues: war and peace, the size and scope of government.
Both initially proclaimed themselves nonpartisan or bipartisan, but quickly channeled their efforts into one political party — the peace movement in the Democratic Party, the Tea Party in the Republican Party.
Both movements were critical of leaders of the party they flocked to. The presidents who escalated American involvement in Vietnam were Democrats, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
Similarly, Republican George W. Bush increased federal involvement in education and sponsored the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, and GOP appropriators increased federal spending more than the Tea Partiers like.
Any inrush into political activity by hundreds of thousands of people will bring forward a certain number of wackos. Tea Partiers, like peaceniks, beat moderates in party primaries and then lost in November.
But both movements also thrust forward many solid citizens with strong convictions, and some turned out to have good political instincts.
Peace activists meeting in a living room in Denver in 1972 seeking a congressional candidate passed over lawyer Jim Schroeder and settled on his lawyer wife, Pat. She won the seat and turned out to be a competent and well-known House member for 24 years and was, briefly, a non-frivolous candidate for president.
Similarly, in April 2010, a plastics manufacturer from Oshkosh named Ron Johnson decided to run for the US Senate in Wisconsin. Mainstream media ignored him and focused on candidates like Christine O’Donnell as part of its project to depict Tea Partiers as weirdoes. But Johnson beat a competent and hard-working three-term Democratic incumbent.
When new people embrace politics, they can change the nature of a great political party. From 1917 to 1968, the Democrats were the more militarily interventionist of our two parties. Since 1968, they’ve been the party more likely to oppose military intervention. That transformation was the work of the peace movement.
New movements can ultimately strengthen a party, particularly one like the late 1960s Democratic Party, which saw some of its historic constituencies (Southern whites, big-city Catholics) flee its ranks. Similarly, the GOP in 2006 and 2008 lost many voters they had rallied to re-elect Bush in 2004.
But new movements prove troublesome for the political pros. Peaceniks and Tea Partiers naturally want presidential nominees who are true to their vision. They’re ready to support newcomers over veteran incumbents who’ve voted “the wrong way.”
But the things that make candidates attractive to movements can also make them unattractive to independent voters.
The Democrats struggled with this in the 1968, 1972 and 1976 cycles. Since then, Democratic candidates have strived to meet peace movement litmus tests. Bill Clinton did so by saying that he agreed with the arguments of opponents of the 1991 Gulf War resolution but would have voted for it.
Republicans are now grappling with a similar situation. Mitt Romney is next in line, but some of his past positions are — how to put this politely? — in tension with those of the Tea Party movement. Tea Party types have been scrambling to settle on an alternative, so far without success.
Tea Partiers will grouse if Romney is nominated. But maybe they need patience and perseverance. One lesson of history is that a movement can reshape a party. Another is that it takes time.