The new Scripps-Howard column surveys yesterday's tea parties and asks if it's time for a new tax revolt.

I posted my thoughts late last night. A condensed version appears in the column. Also in the column, and over at his Philly Weekly lair*, Joel issues his verdict on yesterday's mass demonstration of anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-debt fervor:

Sad to say, but the tea parties were one of the biggest displays of sore loserdom seen in recent U.S. history.

Sore loser: This guy forget to roll over and play dead on January 20.
I'll leave it to Dr. Zaius to unearth bigger displays of "sore loserdom" from the party of who gave us that tireless phrase, "selected, not elected." But for now I wonder what Joel would have these people do?

He complains that the tens of thousands of people who turned out yesterday, often under less than ideal weather conditions, weren't in the streets months ago. Well, so what? If it turns out that a million or even just 250,000 people around the country took the time to show up for these events, does that mean anything at all? I'm not sure what the answer is myself, but I don't think it's merely "sore loserdom" at work.

Nevertheless, Joel apparently buys the line that the whole thing is just Fox News-driven "astroturf":

No doubt the demonstrations included many people legitimately concerned about the growth of government, regardless of which party is in power. But the glee of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News gang in promoting the tea parties suggests those sincere folks were co-opted by Republican operatives less concerned about free market capitalism and more interested in undermining a Democratic president.

Notwithstanding a couple of caveats about the protesters' sincerity and "legitimate concerns," Joel really doesn't know who these people are, except that they watch Fox News and listen to AM talk radio. These are disaffected Bush voters and "Anybody But McCain" people. These are Palin 2012 fanatics and Ron Paul die-hards. Although I guess they are "losers" in the technical sense of not only having lost the general election but, in most cases, the primaries as well, they've been complaining for a long time. It just took a Democratic president, a reckless Congress, and the prospect of $1 trillion budget deficits every year for the next 10 years to get them together and yelling on street corners and in front of government buildings. This has been a long time coming.
Sore loser in training: This kid doesn't pay any taxes and he's not even old enough to vote! What's he complaining about?
Events shape politics. Joel knows this. So do other liberal Democrats who have tried to dismiss the anti-tax, anti-big-government protests. They shouldn't act so surprised.

Joel then goes on to express his dismay at the "alarming rhetoric" on display, which is pretty commonplace at mass demonstrations. Yglesias got all hot and bothered about this, too. And the Huffington Post is touting "The 10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs," which includes a picture of the Statue of Liberty with her head in her hands. (Qu'elle horror! Have the Rethugs no shame!) "Maobama" = "Bushitler". I guess Obama Derangement Syndrome going to be a fact of life, after all.

Outrageous signs are one of those things we like to focus our attention on -- just peruse Zombie Time's Hall of Shame -- to show how crazy some of our political opponents are. But from what I could tell, there was remarkably little seditious libel or overt displays of imagining the king's death to be found yesterday. Texans -- not unlike San Franciscans -- talk about seceding every few years. Big deal. This is political street theater, after all, not the Oxford Union.

Finally, there's this:

Many carried signs warning of 'taxation without representation,' which is ridiculous: Whether you love or hate the new policies in Washington D.C., they are being crafted and carried out by duly elected representatives of the people.

Wrong year, dummy: This sore loser mistakenly spray painted "1776" on his computer monitor, when he could have just typed in "2009."
"Taxation without representation" -- yeah, that's dumb. One of the problems with this tea party business, and the main reason I've been so ambivalent about it, is that it puts a lot of hope in lightning striking twice. I'm all about recurring to first principles, especially the American Founding's principles, but our situation today isn't Boston circa 1773. It's different, and therefore requires a different response. But beyond decrying (frequently misspelled) slogans on homemade placards, you would do well to actually listen to what these people are saying. It's all pretty much the same thing. The debt is going to kill us. Big tax increases are inevitable. We have to vote the bums out.

Again, I don't know whether this movement will spark a Proposition 13-like tax backlash or what. And I don't think rallies persuade anyone of anything, for the most part. But dismissing this as Joel does -- and as some of his fellow travelers do in a far more contemptuous way -- would be a regrettable error.

* Speaking of regrettable errors, I spelled "lair" wrong in the paragraph near the top of the post. Not a Freudian slip, just carelessness. Sorry.

Update: Tim Slagle at Big Hollywood makes a similar, if a bit more cutting, point:

The popular meme circulating throughout the “unbiased” media yesterday was: The original Tea Party was about taxation without representation but Americans HAVE representation and Republicans are just mad because they lost. The more I twist that in my head, the more absurd it sounds. What they’re really saying is: you are only allowed representation in government if you’re the majority.

Funny how that didn’t seem to be the case in California when Prop. 8 passed. I don’t remember any snide reporter telling a disappointed same-sex couple “Hey, you lost, get over it.” In fact, their protests have been covered by teary-eyed reporterettes (too young to remember Selma) as a modern civil rights struggle. (How is the right to keep your income and raise children free from debt not a civil right?) And the justification of majority Democracy gave no comfort to Prop. 8 opponents who went to court to overturn the majority.

...

If you want to talk about taxation without representation, how about the millions of children who are not old enough to vote; the ones who have been saddled with thousands of dollars of debt in just the past hundred days of this administration? Certainly their voices should be heard, although it’s probably assumed Americans below voting age would have made the same childish misguided decision the Obamaphiles did.

It’s funny how Democrats only support democracy when it skews in their favor. Things like abortion rights, gun control, and nontraditional marriage, are just “too important” to leave up to the electorate. But when it’s a decision to limit salaries, ban smoking from bars, tax the rich, or any other thing the Left wants, populism rules.

I don't think I disagree with a word of that.