As attorneys, we are taught to evaluate situations, arguments and positions from every angle. You would think that would cause us to avoid politics like the plague. However, as most Americans realize, the exact opposite is true. Lawyers are drawn to the political arena like policemen to a doughnut shop. This is even true of the so-called Tea Party movement. All across America, this somewhat contradictory, hard to describe, movement continues to attract the interest and participation of the Juris Doctorate.
This past Sunday afternoon, I met a fellow lawyer – personal injury attorney David Commoner – at our local bar association’s picnic. David was born as “David Comfield” in an upscale suburb of Connecticut, but has worked his entire life to be accepted by the blue collar “common folk,” as he calls them, at least since choosing the personal injury field. His efforts included changing his name. He is known as a merely adequate lawyer who somehow manages to win most cases he tries, and as an above-average softball player whose teams nonetheless seem to lose more games than they win. Given David’s name change, it was not surprising to learn that David is quite sensitive to names, labels and the like. Still, when Judge Mathew “Dead Ringer” Stout won his horseshoes match and yelled “Take that, you Tea Party, Jury-Tampering SOB”, it was still somewhat interesting to learn David believes the “Tea Party” is misnamed.
“What do you mean, misnamed?” I asked.
“Although it’s hard to get a definitive finger on the movement’s skipping pulse,” he answered, “generally, the Tea Party movement advocates an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and reducing government spending, the national debt and the federal deficit. At least that’s what the man behind the curtain says. (For David, all references to the all-knowing Wizard of Oz are actually references to the Wizard’s modern day incarnation – wikipedia.) But the original Boston Tea Party was about NONE of those.”
His pronouncement shocked me, of course, but I soon realized he was correct. The fabled Boston Revolt was not about reducing taxes. It was a protest against taxation without representation – not the amount of the tax imposed, or whether it should be decreased or increased.
“Besides”, he finished, “the modern Tea Party is a Canadian Rock Band. How can a basically libertarian movement adopt its name from a rock band from a socialist nation? Those politicians should pick another name, and leave the “Tea Party” moniker for the more important aspects of life – such as Jeremiah Weed.”
Since I thought Jeremiah was a bullfrog and Weed was a California/Oregon medication, his rambling seemed particularly off point at this juncture.
“Jeremiah Weed?” I inquired.
“Absolutely,” he pontificated. “It’s a distillery company that makes both a traditional bourbon and an ice tea flavored vodka. Mix those together, and then, my friend, you have a Tea Party.”
“I thought you were a tea totaller?”
“Oh, I am, I’d never drink those things.” (David is also known as a stream of conscous speaker for whom contradictions are merely opportunities to enlighten.) “It’s just when us tea totallers add up the tea leaves, it leaves us with the conclusion that the label fits the drink to a “t.”
“So what would you call the “Tea Party” movement, then?” I inquired.
“Oh, I haven’t given it much thought,” Commoner responded. “Perhaps governo anaresseca.”
“Isn’t that Italian for “anorexic government?” I followed up.
“This is an American law picnic,my friend,” interjected Judge Stout as he wandered over. “You boys need to knock of the Italian and political talk and stick to the proper subjects: law, softball, horsehoes and frisbee – before we run you out of Dodge. Now saddle over here and I’ll give you a lesson or two in the law of horseshoes.”
Commoner just shook his head and pointed toward the baseball diamond where the softballers were congregating. I also declined. I’d learned enough legal picnic lessons for one day and, in any case, I generally find competing with judges is a losing situations, especially if you win.
© 2012 under analysis LLC under analysis is a nationally syndicated column of the Levison Group. Charles S Kramer is a principal of the St Louis based law firm, Riezman Berger, PC. Comments or criticisms about this column may be sent to the paper in which you read this column, or to the Levison Group at comments@levisongroup.com.