The morning after

I went to bed after midnight, feeling dispirited about the Republican beat-down that swept across the country. But you know what? The sun came up this morning. The Earth stayed on its axis. And my neighborhood streets looked as familiar as ever as I went on my morning run.

Even though the GOP rout in the House was one of historic proportions -- and even though, as I write this, we still don't know if Oregonians have elected a Republican governor for the first time since 1986 -- I'm OK with it. Why? For one thing, we all saw it coming. I would have been shell-shocked otherwise, but voter anger was volcanic and impossible to miss. What's still up for debate is correctly identifying the target of that anger: Obama? The Democrats? Incumbents, no matter what their party? Congress? The federal government? It's probably all of that.

There's no question that continuing concerns over the economy, and related worries about the mounting size of the federal deficit, eclipsed everything. We can debate all we want about whether Obama and the Democrats acted responsibly or not in responding to the economic disaster that Bush left behind but, the truth is, there's no objective answer. Judgment is subjective and history ultimately will shine a light on who and what was right, though there will still be plenty of room for other interpretations.

The second thing is that it's now time to put up or shut up. Whether you credit or blame the tea party movement for lighting the spark that ignited this fire, the burden is now clearly on those folks to make the transition from politicking to governing. That's where I have huge doubts -- and it's where I hope I am proven drastically wrong about bipartisan solutions that involve painful fixes to complex policy issues and budget choices.

The morning after is a good time to reflect on how we got here and where we might go from here. And I point to two superb articles in The Economist's (Oct. 30-Nov. 5) issue as exemplary.

The cover story, "Angry America," asserts that the rage directed at Obama is "overdone" -- a charge I completely agree with.

In the non-bylined column called Lexington, the essay "The good, the bad and the tea parties"  accurately portrays the challenge ahead.

"Ideology is one thing. But if the tea-partiers do well...especially if the Republicans capture the House, they need to move past ideology into the realm of practical policy. This means having something serious to say about how actually to bring spending under control. To date, they have preferred breezy slogans. Will they cut into pensions and Medicare, and if so how? Will they accept that taming the deficit will require hikes in taxes as well as cuts in spending? Will they continue to oppose reflexively every measure of a Democratic administration, or have the courage to share responsibility for the painful decisions the times demand? It has been all too easy from the outside to conjure up a mythic America of limited government, sing hymns to the constitution and denounce the federal bureaucracy in all its forms. Once they are in government themselves, that gig will be over."

 Illustration: The Economist.

Face of the Tea Party

Finally, some poll-based data on those who consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. If you were thinking of a monolithic group of poorly educated, below-average income hicks, think again.

From today's New York Times comes this story: "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated."

The principal findings: The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. [No surprise there.]

They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.” [Again, no surprise.]

And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.” [Ah, now there's the revealing characteristic.]

And what are they angry about?

Mostly, the recent health care reforms, excessive government spending and "a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington."

They are pessimistic about the direction of the country and believe that the policies of the Obama administration "are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich." [Hmmm, is that a bad thing?]

They believe Obama "does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 90 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

We've heard a lot of outrageous stuff in the past year or so from the extreme right wing -- those who scream "socialism" at every turn, those who believe Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, those who dispute the phenomenon of climate change.

This story, with the accompanying poll data and video interviews with Tea Party supporters, helps break down the easy stereotype. But it also helps put a face on those whose animosity about the new administration and its new policies reflects their loss of entitlement.

Photograph by Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times