Tea & Crackers: How Corporate Interests and Republican Insiders Built the Tea Party Monster

"They're going to look at your age, your vocation in life, your
health, your income. . . ." says a guy active in the Northern Kentucky
Tea Party.

"Your race?" I ask.

"Probably," he says.

"White males need not apply," says another Tea Partier.

"Like everything else, the best thing you can do is be an illegal alien," says a third. "Then they won't ask you any questions."

An amazing number of Tea Partiers actually believe this stuff, and in
the past year or so a host of little-known politicians have scored
electoral upsets riding this kind of yahoo paranoia. Some are career
Republican politicians like Sharron Angle, the former Nevada
assemblywoman who seized on the Tea Party to win the GOP nomination to
challenge Harry Reid this fall. Others are opportunistic incumbents like
Jan Brewer, the Arizona governor who reversed a dip in the polls by
greenlighting laws to allow police to stop anyone in a Cypress Hill
T-shirt. And a few are newcomers like Joe Miller, the Alaska lawyer and
Sarah Palin favorite who whipped Republican lifer Lisa Murkowski in the
state's Senate primary. But the champion of champions has always been
Rand Paul, who as the son of the movement's would-be ideological founder
was poised to become the George W. Bush figure in the Tea Party
narrative, the inheritor of the divine calling.

Since Paul won the GOP Primary
in Kentucky, the Tea Party has entered a whole new phase of
self-deception. Now that a few of these so-called "outsider" politicians
have ridden voter anger to victories over entrenched incumbents, they
are being courted and turned by the very party insiders they once
campaigned against. It hasn't happened everywhere yet, and in some
states it may not happen at all; a few rogue politicians, like Christine
O'Donnell in Delaware, might still squeak into office over the protests
of the Republican establishment. But in Kentucky, home of the Chosen
One, the sellout came fast and hard.

Paul was transformed from insurgent outsider to establishment stooge
in the space of almost exactly one year, making a journey that with
eerie cinematic precision began and ended in the same place: The Rachel Maddow Show.
When he first appeared on the air with the MSNBC leading lady and noted
Bible Belt Antichrist to announce his Senate candidacy in May 2009,
Paul came out blazing with an inclusive narrative that seemingly offered
a realistic alternative for political malcontents on both sides of the
aisle. He talked with pride about how his father's anti-war stance
attracted young voters (mentioning one Paul supporter in New Hampshire
who had "long hair and a lip ring"). Even the choice of Maddow as a
forum was clearly intended to signal that his campaign was an
anti-establishment, crossover effort. "Bringing our message to those who
do not yet align themselves as Republicans is precisely how we grow as a
party," Paul said, explaining the choice.

In the early days of his campaign, by virtually all accounts, Paul
was the real thing -- expansive, willing to talk openly to anyone and
everyone, and totally unapologetic about his political views, which
ranged from bold and nuanced to flat-out batshit crazy. But he wasn't
going to change for anyone: For young Dr. Paul, as for his father, this
was more about message than victory; actually winning wasn't even on his
radar. "He used to talk about how he'd be lucky if he got 10 percent,"
recalls Josh Koch, a former campaign volunteer for Paul who has broken
with the candidate.

Before he entered the campaign, Paul had an extensive record of loony
comments, often made at his father's rallies, which, to put it
generously, were a haven for people gifted at the art of mining the
Internet for alternate theories of reality. In a faint echo of the
racially charged anti-immigrant paranoia that has become a trademark of
the Tea Party, both Paul and his father preached about the apocalyptic
arrival of a "10-lane colossus" NAFTA superhighway between the U.S. and
Mexico, which the elder Paul said would be the width of several football
fields and come complete with fiber-optic cable, railroads, and oil and
gas pipelines, all with the goal of forging a single American-Mexican
state. Young Paul stood with Dad on that one -- after all, he had seen
Mexico's former president on YouTube talking about the Amero, a proposed
North American currency. "I guarantee you," he warned, "it's one of
their long-term goals to have one sort of borderless, mass continent."
And Paul's anti-interventionist, anti-war stance was so far out, it made
MoveOn look like a detachment of the Third Marines. "Our national
security," he declared in 2007, "is not threatened by Iran having one
nuclear weapon."

With views like these, Paul spent the early days of his campaign
looking for publicity anywhere he could get it. One of his early
appearances was on the online talk show of noted 9/11 Truth buffoon and
conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. The two men spent the broadcast
exchanging lunatic fantasies about shadowy government forces, with Paul
at one point insisting that should Obama's climate bill pass, "we will
have an army of armed EPA agents -- thousands of them" who would raid
private homes to enforce energy-efficiency standards. Paul presented
himself as an ally to Jones in the fringe crusade against establishment
forces at the top of society, saying the leaders of the two parties
"don't believe in anything" and "get pushed around by the New World
Order types."

Unsurprisingly, the GOP froze Paul out, attempting to exclude him
from key party gatherings in Kentucky like the Fayette County Republican
Party Picnic and the Boone County Republican Party Christmas Gala. "We
had the entire Republican establishment of the state and the nation
against us," says David Adams, who mobilized the first Tea Party
meetings in Kentucky before serving as Paul's campaign manager during
the primaries.

The state's Republican establishment, it must be said, is among the
most odious in the nation. Its two senators -- party kingmaker and Senate
minority leader Mitch McConnell and mentally disappearing ex-jock Jim
Bunning -- collectively represent everything that most sane people
despise about the modern GOP. McConnell is the ultimate D.C. insider,
the kind of Republican even Republicans should wonder about, a man who
ranks among the top 10 senators when it comes to loading up on pork
spending. With his needle nose, pursed lips and prim reading glasses,
he's a proud wearer of the "I'm an intellectual, but I'm also a
narrow-minded prick" look made famous by George Will; politically his
great passion is whoring for Wall Street, his most recent triumph coming
when he convinced Republican voters that a proposed $50 billion fund to
be collected from big banks was actually a bailout of those
same banks. Bunning, meanwhile, goes with the "dumb and unashamed"
style; in more than a decade of service, his sole newsworthy
accomplishment came when he said his Italian-American opponent looked
like one of Saddam's sons.

Paul's animus toward the state's Republican overlords never seemed
greater than in August 2009, when McConnell decided to throw a fancy
fundraiser in Washington for the national GOP's preferred candidate,
Trey Grayson. Attended by 17 Republican senators who voted for the TARP
bailout, the event was dubbed the "Bailout Ball" by Paul's people. Paul
went a step further, pledging not to accept contributions from any
senator who voted to hand taxpayer money over to Wall Street. "A primary
focus of my campaign is that we need Republicans in office who will
have the courage to say no to federal bailouts of big business," he
declared.

The anti-establishment rhetoric was a big hit. Excluded from local
campaign events by the GOP, Paul took his act to the airwaves, doing
national TV appearances that sent his campaign soaring with Tea Party
voters. "We were being shut out of a lot of opportunities in the state,
so you go with what is available to you," says Adams. "And what was
available was television."

In the primary almost a year later, Paul stomped Grayson, sending
shock waves through the national party. The Republican candidate backed
by the party's Senate minority leader had just received an ass-whipping
by a Tea Party kook, a man who tried to excuse BP's greed-crazed fuck-up
in the Gulf on the grounds that "sometimes accidents happen." Paul
celebrated his big win by going back to where he'd begun his campaign, The Rachel Maddow Show,
where he made a big show of joyously tearing off his pseudolibertarian
underpants for the whole world to see -- and that's where everything
changed for him.

In their first interview, Maddow had softballed Paul and played nice,
treating him like what he was at the time -- an interesting fringe
candidate with the potential to put a burr in Mitch McConnell's ass. But
now, Paul was a real threat to seize a seat in the U.S. Senate, so
Maddow took the gloves off and forced him to explain some of his nuttier
positions. Most memorably, she hounded him about his belief that the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power. The money
exchange:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

Paul: Yeah. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form.
But what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we
find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?

Paul was pilloried as a racist in the national press. Within a day he
was completely reversing himself, telling CNN, "I think that there was
an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal
intervention in the Sixties." Meanwhile, he was sticking his foot in his
mouth on other issues, blasting the Americans With Disabilities Act and
denouncing Barack Obama's criticism of British disaster merchant BP as
"un-American."

Paul's libertarian coming-out party was such a catastrophe -- the
three gaffes came within days of each other -- that he immediately jumped
into the protective arms of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party.
"I think he's said quite enough for the time being in terms of national
press coverage," McConnell said, explaining why Paul had been prevailed
upon by the party to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press.
Some news outlets reported that Paul canceled the appearance after a
call from Karl Rove to Adams, who concedes that he did speak with Rove
around that time.

Soon after, McConnell threw yet another "Bailout Ball" fundraiser in Washington -- only this time it was for
Rand Paul. The candidate who just a year before had pledged not to
accept money from TARP supporters was now romping in bed with those same
politicians. When pressed for an explanation of Paul's about-face on
the bailouts, Adams offers an incredibly frank admission. "When he said
he would not take money from people who voted for the bank bailout, he
also said, in the same breath, that our first phone call after the
primary would be to Senator Mitch McConnell," says Adams. "Making fun of
the Bailout Ball was just for the primary."

With all the "just for the primary" stuff out of the way, Paul's
platform began to rapidly "evolve." Previously opposed to erecting a
fence on the Mexican border, Paul suddenly came out in favor of one. He
had been flatly opposed to all farm subsidies; faced with having to win a
general election in a state that receives more than $265 million a year
in subsidies, Paul reversed himself and explained that he was only
against subsidies to "dead farmers" and those earning more than
$2 million. Paul also went on the air with Fox News reptile Sean Hannity
and insisted that he differed significantly from the Libertarian Party,
now speaking more favorably about, among other things, judicious troop
deployments overseas.

Beyond that, Paul just flat-out stopped talking about his views --
particularly the ones that don't jibe with right-wing and Christian
crowds, like curtailing the federal prohibition on drugs. Who knows if
that had anything to do with hawkish Christian icon Sarah Palin agreeing
to headline fundraisers for Paul, but a huge chunk of the candidate's
libertarian ideals have taken a long vacation.

"When he was pulling no punches, when he was reciting his best stuff,
I felt like I knew him," says Koch, the former campaign volunteer who
now works with the Libertarian Party in Kentucky. "But now, with Mitch
McConnell and Karl Rove calling the shots, I feel like I don't know him
anymore."

Hardcore young libertarians like Koch -- the kind of people who were
outside the tent during the elder Paul's presidential run in 2008 --
cared enough about the issues to jump off the younger Paul's bandwagon
when he cozied up to the Republican Party establishment. But it isn't
young intellectuals like Koch who will usher Paul into the U.S. Senate
in the general election; it's those huge crowds of pissed-off old people
who dig Sarah Palin and Fox News and call themselves Tea Partiers. And
those people really don't pay attention to specifics too much. Like
dogs, they listen to tone of voice and emotional attitude.

Outside the Palin rally in September, I ask an elderly Rand supporter
named Blanche Phelps if she's concerned that her candidate is now
sucking up to the same Republican Party hacks he once campaigned
against. Is she bothered that he has changed his mind on bailouts and
abortion and American interventionism and a host of other issues?

Blanche shrugs. "Maybe," she suggests helpfully, "he got saved."

Buried deep in the anus of the
Bible Belt, in a little place called Petersburg, Kentucky, is one of
the world's most extraordinary tourist attractions: the Creation Museum,
a kind of natural-history museum for people who believe the Earth is
6,000 years old. When you visit this impressively massive monument to
fundamentalist Christian thought, you get a mind-blowing glimpse into
the modern conservative worldview. One exhibit depicts a half-naked Adam
and Eve sitting in the bush, cheerfully keeping house next to dinosaurs
-- which, according to creationist myth, not only lived alongside humans
but were peaceful vegetarians until Adam partook of the forbidden
fruit. It's hard to imagine a more telling demonstration of this
particular demographic's unmatched ability to believe just about
anything.

Even more disturbing is an exhibit designed to show how the world has
changed since the Scopes trial eradicated religion from popular
culture. Visitors to the museum enter a darkened urban scene full of
graffiti and garbage, and through a series of windows view video scenes
of families in a state of collapse. A teenager, rolling a giant doobie
as his God-fearing little brother looks on in horror, surfs porn on the
Web instead of reading the Bible. ("A Wide World of Women!" the older
brother chuckles.) A girl stares at her home pregnancy test and says
into the telephone, "My parents are not going to know!" As you go
farther into the exhibit, you find a wooden door, into which an eerie
inscription has been carved: "The World's Not Safe Anymore."

Staff members tell me Rand Paul recently visited the museum
after-hours. This means nothing in itself, of course, but it serves as
an interesting metaphor to explain Paul's success in Kentucky. The Tea
Party is many things at once, but one way or another, it almost always
comes back to a campaign against that unsafe urban hellscape of godless
liberalism we call our modern world. Paul's platform is ultimately about
turning back the clock, returning America to the moment of her
constitutional creation, when the federal bureaucracy was nonexistent
and men were free to roam the Midwestern plains strip-mining coal and
erecting office buildings without wheelchair access. Some people pick on
Paul for his humorously extreme back-to-Hobbesian-nature platform (a
Louisville teachers' union worker named Bill Allison follows Paul around
in a "NeanderPaul" cave-man costume shouting things like "Abolish all
laws!" and "BP just made mistakes!"), but it's clear when you talk to
Paul supporters that what they dig most is his implicit promise to turn
back time, an idea that in Kentucky has some fairly obvious
implications.

At a Paul fundraiser in northern Kentucky, I strike up a conversation
with one Lloyd Rogers, a retired judge in his 70s who is introducing
the candidate at the event. The old man is dressed in a baseball cap and
shirtsleeves. Personalitywise, he's what you might call a pistol; one
of the first things he says to me is that people are always telling him
to keep his mouth shut, but he just can't. I ask him what he thinks
about Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act.

"Well, hell, if it's your restaurant, you're putting up the money,
you should be able to do what you want," says Rogers. "I tell you, every
time he says something like that, in Kentucky he goes up 20 points in
the polls. With Kentucky voters, it's not a problem."

In Lexington, I pose the same question to Mica Sims, a local Tea
Party organizer. "You as a private-property owner have the right to
refuse service for whatever reason you feel will better your business,"
she says, comparing the Civil Rights Act to onerous anti-smoking laws.
"If you're for small government, you're for small government."

You look into the eyes of these people when you talk to them and they
genuinely don't see what the problem is. It's no use explaining that
while nobody likes the idea of having to get the government to tell
restaurant owners how to act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the tool
Americans were forced to use to end a monstrous system of apartheid that
for 100 years was the shame of the entire Western world. But all that
history is not real to Tea Partiers; what's real to them is the
implication in your question that they're racists, and to them that
is the outrage, and it's an outrage that binds them together. They want
desperately to believe in the one-size-fits-all, no-government theology
of Rand Paul because it's so easy to understand. At times, their desire
to withdraw from the brutally complex global economic system that is an
irrevocable fact of our modern life and get back to a simpler world
that no longer exists is so intense, it breaks your heart.

At a restaurant in Lexington, I sit down with a Tea Party activist
named Frank Harris, with the aim of asking him what he thinks of Wall
Street reform. Harris is a bit of an unusual Tea Partier; he's a
pro-hemp, anti-war activist who supported Dennis Kucinich. Though he
admits he doesn't know very much about the causes of the crash, he
insists that financial reform isn't necessary because people like him
can always choose not to use banks, take out mortgages, have pensions or
even consume everyday products like gas and oil, whose prices are set
by the market.

"Really?" I ask. "You can choose not to use gas and oil?" My
awesomely fattening cheese-and-turkey dish called a "Hot Brown" is
beginning to congeal.

"You can if you want to," Harris says. "And you don't have to take out loans. You can save money and pay for things in cash."

"So instead of regulating banks," I ask, "your solution is saving money in cash?"

He shrugs. "I'm trying to avoid banks at every turn."

My head is starting to hurt. Arguments with Tea Partiers always end
up like football games in the year 1900 -- everything on the ground, one
yard at a time.

My problem, Frank explains, is that I think I can prevent crime by
making things illegal. "You want a policeman standing over here so
someone doesn't come in here and mug you?" he says. "Because you're
going to have to pay for that policeman!"

"But," I say, confused, "we do pay for police."

"You're trying to make every situation 100 percent safe!" he shouts.

This, then, is the future of the Republican Party: Angry white voters
hovering over their cash-stuffed mattresses with their kerosene
lanterns, peering through the blinds at the oncoming hordes of suburban
soccer moms they've mistaken for death-panel bureaucrats bent on
exterminating anyone who isn't an illegal alien or a Kenyan
anti-colonialist.

The world is changing all around the Tea Party. The country is
becoming more black and more Hispanic by the day. The economy is
becoming more and more complex, access to capital for ordinary
individuals more and more remote, the ability to live simply and own a
business without worrying about Chinese labor or the depreciating dollar
vanished more or less for good. They want to pick up their ball and go
home, but they can't; thus, the difficulties and the rancor with those
of us who are resigned to life on this planet.

Of course, the fact that we're even sitting here two years after Bush
talking about a GOP comeback is a profound testament to two things:
One, the American voter's unmatched ability to forget what happened to
him 10 seconds ago, and two, the Republican Party's incredible
recuperative skill and bureaucratic ingenuity. This is a party that in
2008 was not just beaten but obliterated, with nearly every one of its
recognizable leaders reduced to historical-footnote status and pinned
with blame for some ghastly political catastrophe. There were literally
no healthy bodies left on the bench, but the Republicans managed to get
back in the game anyway by plucking an assortment of nativist freaks,
village idiots and Internet Hitlers out of thin air and training them
into a giant ball of incoherent resentment just in time for the 2010
midterms. They returned to prominence by outdoing Barack Obama at his
own game: turning out masses of energized and disciplined supporters on
the streets and overwhelming the ballot box with sheer enthusiasm.

The bad news is that the Tea Party's political outrage is being
appropriated, with thanks, by the Goldmans and the BPs of the world. The
good news, if you want to look at it that way, is that those interests
mostly have us by the balls anyway, no matter who wins on Election Day.
That's the reality; the rest of this is just noise. It's just that it's a
lot of noise, and there's no telling when it's ever going to end.