It is amazing how few people understand the tea party movement. The movement is portrayed as fringe right wingers, radicals, conspiracy nuts, and so forth. Yet extremism has nothing to do with what the movement is all about.
What is really going on is that conservatives are throwing out the neoconservatives. Neocons aren’t really conservatives, yet they managed to hi-jack the Republican party after the 2000 election. The Bush administration betrayed the conservative movement by going neocon, and the leaders of the tea party movement are fighting to retake control of that movement.
To understand this, take a look at the world’s smallest political quiz. As Wikipedia notes, this quiz was developed in 1969 to show that the traditional left-right political spectrum was too simplistic. The quiz defines political views on two axes: fiscal and social. Social liberals believe in gay marriage while fiscal liberals believe in single-payer health care. The point is that you can be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative — a libertarian — or a social conservative and a fiscal liberal — which the quiz calls a “statist.”
The election of Ronald Reagan resulted from a coalition of the traditional conservatives and libertarians. Reagan was fiscally conservative but his record on social issues was mixed, reflecting this conflicting coalition. But the 1980s also saw the rise of the neoconservatives, who demonstrated that there was a third axes in the political spectrum.
Possible side effects include flushing, nasal congestion, headache, visual changes, backache cialis generic from india and stomach upset. People of all ages can consult a urologist should they encounter problems with their urinary tract. http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/pet-toy/ order cheap viagra When you choose an online source for getting lowest prices cialis over the web, then it is best to find medical marijuana Denver outlets for dispensing legally. These days, brand levitra 20mg males are reading more about erectile dysfunction.
One former neoconservative recorded recorded that neoconservatism “originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats.” In other words, they were socially and fiscally liberal, but considered themselves “conservative” on foreign policy issues. This is ironic, as during the 1910s through 1930s, the conservative view of foreign policy was isolationist, that is, that America should engage in free trade but take military actions only in self-defense. It was the liberals — progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — who had a more expansive or interventionist view of American military might. It was only when the Vietnam conflict became controversial that hawkishness became a conservative characteristic.
Whether you consider interventionists to be liberal or conservative, many neocons were not socially conservative and they certainly were not fiscally conservative. When Bush ran for president in 2000, he campaigned as the successor to Ronald Reagan and specifically promised not to engage in nation building — something that the neocons believed in. In office, Bush not only betrayed the fiscal conservatives (including the libertarians and traditional conservatives who supported Reagan), but the non-interventionists (including libertarians and a segment of traditional conservatives who call themselves paleoconservatives).
After the 2008 election, libertarian-conservative leaders such as Grover Norquist and David Koch resolved to rebuild the movement, but without the neocons. Tea parties were the result.
Tea parties attract lots of people I would be proud to call friends, and lots of people who just make me roll my eyes. But by focusing on taxes and spending — i.e., fiscal conservatism — and agreeing to disagree on social issues, the parties bring together the traditional conservatives and libertarians while they exclude the neocons.
It was amazing how the major press outlets vilified the Tea Party movement. It was almost as if the Tea Party movement threatened the story line they held to in their news stories all summer and fall.
Then came elections in NJ, VA and MA. Democracy would be so much easier without elections.
Hear, hear.
The tea baggers are essentially run by rich, educated white men. The rest is merely small details. I’m a bottom-up guy, and prefer the grass-roots movements, but teabaggers aren’t really grass roots. I appreciate the fun they are causing, however.
DS
I have met many of the people in the tea party moment, most of them have never been involved with politics in the past. They are not led by big money and are grass roots. Yes, some big money groups have joined them, after the fact. The Money is following the movement.
The problem with the left is, the tea party is not a left wing grass roots movement, so they are called Obscene names based on the tea party name to degrade them.
The left is very good at making a boogy man out of a person or group or grass roots movement they dislike.
It is amazing how the people rise up, when they feel threaten by their own government and their rules and mandates.
Way to race into the gutter, Danny Boy. But I’m not surprised that you self-describe as a bottoms kinda guy.
Andy said: “It was amazing how the major press outlets vilified the Tea Party movement.”
sprawl said: “They are not led by big money…”
Big ole B f-ing S. The movement has been championed by the most popular news network in America, and bank rolled (indirectly) by the same multinational corporation that signs the network goons paychecks. I think it’s great that people are taking to the streets to express their displeasure with government. My grandmother is an avid tea party member and has marched on Washington, despite the fact that she has socialized health care and is on SOCIAL security.
My suggestion to the tea party is to get the Glen Becks, Bachmans and Joe the plumber types away from the microphone and get people like Randall up there (you know, smart people). Until then you will just be the code pink of the right, scoffed at by anyone with half a brain.
The tea party can’t tell anyone to help or not, they have no real leaders. Every area is a little different with different leaders.
I think it is funny that the left want to tell the tea Party how they should run their groups.
“…while they exclude the neocons.”
Somebody forgot to tell Sean Hannity.
sprawl said: “…they have no real leaders.”
Exactly!
Why does the left fear the tea party?
What are you afraid of?
Please explain how extremism has nothing to do with a movement named after the critical Boston catalyst of a violent revolution?
If it is indeed a natural movement of the people (and not an astroturfed, top-down structure as Dan suggests), then you cannot in good historiographic form define it by a priori philosophy. You must look at the zeitgeist that is motivating every individual actor. As such you cannot ignore those like Joseph Stack or the Oath Keepers or Iowa Rep Steve King’s response to suicide missions against the IRS. It is not for you to decide whether these people are in agreement or not with some non-existent Tea Party platform, because no such platform exists. The Tea Party is, as you claim, a movement. It springs from the wishes of these men and those like them.
If you don’t think a great many people think our tree of liberty is desiccated and in need of blood, you are not listening. I’m more concerned that too many people think it is time to sacrifice some patriots and tyrants and you and they don’t consider that at all extreme.
Dan:
the teabaggers aren’t really grass roots
I don’t know why I even bother logging on to Daily Kos or Huffington Post anymore, because I can get all the hard-left talking points directly from Dan right here.
It is either willful ignorance or deliberate dissembling to suggest that the movement is anything other than grass roots. It is grass roots in a way that Democrat movements used to be, half a century ago. There is no central authority. There is no central organization. There is no central treasury.
But most critically, the tea bag movement does not have a cohesive unified epistemology. Or, in other words, they’re still trying to establish what their principles are. (And this is why I cannot and will not support the movement.) Sure, they have managed to unify under some bromides: “Lower taxes!” “Less government!” Well, those aren’t principles. Those are just birthday wishes. You want less government? Look at Somalia. They have less government. How’s that working out? “Less government” is not a metaphysical absolute. As long as a government is performing only its legitimate function of protecting individual rights, it can be as large as it has to be — how else can a population of hundreds of millions be governed? Conversely, a tiny, miniscule government that violates the liberty of citizens by the breadth of a grain of sand is overreaching and needs to be curtailed. The tea party, like virtually every other pragmatic political movement today, is so concerned with “how” that they continue to fail to ask “why.”
Huge swaths of the tea partiers are incensed that one chapter decided to pay Sarah Palin to speak, given that she is Part Of The Problem (Tm) against which the movement rails, so there is most certainly no accord in terms of the message the movement is promulgating. Are they for small government or are they for pro-Christian positions? Because the moment Palin takes the stage, I don’t care who you are, your group just lost any pretense it had at pushing a rational, secular message. The tea partiers’ left hand knows not what the right hand is doing. In comparison to the tea baggers, even the more dilute vestiges of Democratic activism are marching in absolute lockstep. So yes, Dan, the tea bag movement is grass roots, no matter how often you lefties repeat that it is not.
And of course Fox News is going to give the tea bag rallies lots of coverage. They know their viewers tune in for it. Fox News is nothing more than Han Solo here: “Look, I’m not here for your rebellion, Princess, and I’m not here for you. I expect to be well paid. I’m in it for the money.” Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
No taxation without representation. No gov intrusion into our lives.
So many people only believe in those human rights because of a top-down, corporate structure?
And George Soros isn’t pushing anything on others. Yeah, right.
The MSM vilifies anything that they don’t agree in, giving very slanted views.
If you want big gov, you need to pay. It’s awfully immoral to force others to pay.
In 2007 (IRS), the top 5% of earners pay 60% of all Federal income taxes. That’s not enough? Actually, more revenue cannot be raised with higher rates. See Arthur Laffer & Andrew Mellon. Before Bush tax cuts, the top 5% paid 55%.
For more econ education:
http://fee.org/
http://mises.org/
“The Code Pink of the right”…
I almost laughed out loud in the middle of class at that. Priceless.
That is a good point, that the Left can’t recognize a grass roots movement anymore. Does anybody remember a year ago when the Lefty Dans were trumpeting the “grassroots” movement that elected Obama and that was going to become a vast internet movement to force five-year plans on the economy? Anybody notice that they aren’t around anymore? Some movement.
Like I said before, for people like Dan and Daily Kos, elections take all the fun out of democracy.
Based on the incoherent discussions so far here about the Tea Partiers, I’d say the “movement”–such as it is–serves as political a Rorschach test reflecting the ideologies of those reacting to it.
Three things seem clear, however, about the Tea Party movement. First, most of its members seem to be aware of the fact that the average person has been screwed by our corporate socialism form of government.
Second, they correctly see that neither the Republican and Democratic party establishments are of any help in the matter, since these are the right-wing and left-wing branches, respectively, of the dominant corporate socialist government system.
Third, the confusion over what direction the movement should take is broad, and a clear agenda a long way from happening. If anything, the Tea Party movement resembles the left wing “International A.N.S.W.E.R.” “anti-war” movement from several years ago, which was just as dazed and confused and a hodgepodge of often quaint left-wing causes in its own way. That left wing movement was united in its opposition to the Iraq war, but every other left-wing cause du jour was also prominently represented with no discrimination or eye towards persuading typical voters.
With the Tea Partiers, it seems many right wing causes du jour are represented, including the Ron Paulistas, the Birchers have resurfaced, and of course, the racist “Birthers,” who can’t seem to get around their brains the fact that a black man was actually elected President of the United States.
A side note…many Tea Partiers in California have undertaken a highly sensible initiative campaign to prohibit civil service unions from taking wage deductions from their members for political activities (See http://unplugthepoliticalmachine.org/main.php“. However, they still allow the Birthers and other dubious advocates to display their wares–turning off many people, like me, who otherwise can support the more sensible parts of their agenda like hobbling the civil service unions.
In my view, continuing to allow the Birthers such prominence betrays the ultimate political naivete of the Tea Party “leadership” (such as it is).
msetty,
If anything, the Tea Party movement resembles the left wing “International A.N.S.W.E.R.†“anti-war†movement from several years ago, which was just as dazed and confused and a hodgepodge of often quaint left-wing causes in its own way.
That is actually a pretty fair assessment. I’m not sure the Tea Party is as organizationally cohesive as ANSWER was, but it compares well in terms of its ideological structure. To wit: I don’t think you’ll ever see a tea rally as large as the anti-war march on Washington back in 2003.
Grover Norquist’s misguided “make government so small you could drown it in a bathtub” concept is the closest thing the tea party has to a unifying principle, and yet it runs counter to a rational understanding of the proper role of government in society. Making government small, either in absolute or proportionate terms, is irrelevant; making government act within its charter, the law, and the consent of the governed is the whole ballgame. For as long as the tea partiers accept Norquist’s postulate without affording it the critical examination that would expose it as the flawed concept it is, the movement will never mature into a substantial and resilient political force.
The racist angle is an easy tack, but a red herring. Most voters alive today grew up in an era in which the Civil Rights Act has always existed. Racism has never been internalized by the post-Boomers, Gen-Xers, or Millennials. It exists in the world, but it has never held personal or emotional validity to most of them. They see racism as an artifact of the past. It’s worthless. It’s the typewriter. It’s flat-earth. It’s feudalism. Why would anybody waste time with that?, they ask. I would suggest that, to the extent that there is opposition to Obama among voters of those demographics, whether or not under color of the “birther” flag, that opposition is driven by disagreement with Obama’s ideology and positions on the issues and has nothing to do with Obama’s race.
Pragmatically speaking, if the tea party does nothing more than undermine the neocons, I will consider it to have conferred a boon on American society.
Look – this weak-*ss tactic of “whaddya so afraaaaid of” is dim-bulbery. It’s trotted out when Barbie Palin is pointed out as low-wattage as well. It doesn’t work. And the original name of the movement was tea-baggers. You cannot flap your arms away from that, no matter how hard you call widdle namie-names.
No one is fooling anybody with this nincompoopery.
But let us reflect on who was renting buses to send teabaggers to townhall meetings and demonstrations in DC, and whether he’s one of the richest men in the country, and whether Astroturf is grass-roots, and if one narrow demographic is a root or “roots”, and whether corporate interests would be harmed if the “protests” didn’t work and action was taken.
It is true our corporatocracy cannot meet the needs and desires of the citizenry, and cannot repond to society. I note that on Charlie Rose last week (February 18th) Mohamed El-Erian of PIMCO finally said it out loud: there is a paradigm shift happening where folks are recognizing that there is a problem in letting capital run the system and that politics mainly responds to corporate donors and not the larger polity. The teabaggers main platform is to further cut taxes and their issue is with getting more cut-cut-CUTers! elected. Good for them, maybe they’ll get a few more % than the Paulites. I enjoy watching their displays and get a good laugh out of it, keep ’em coming. Maybe the’ll effect a little change too.
But widespread movement? Nah. Widespread among conservative whites? Sure. But so what? Their message doesn’t resonate. No one’s message will resonate until our societal bifurcation is erased and the corporatocracy is felled.
DS
Why does the tea-party have Palin and Gingrich speaking and endorsing them? You can’t get more neo-con than that.
If they really want to get grassroots, get the “big name” people to champion your cause like Ron Paul — and get away, far away, from the polarizing people.
Seriously, though…Sarah Palin? You betcha’ Tea Party is neo-con to the core. I also don’t believe Reagan was all that fiscally conservative. He spent wildly and increased taxes too, contrary to people’s notion.
Dan uttered his usual wharrgarbl:
Their message doesn’t resonate.
If that’s true, why are you and other lefties expending so much effort attacking it with methods straight out of the Rules for Radicals playbook? Ah, because you know the tea parties are a threat to your hustle. Disjointed and unprincipled as they are, they’re resonating all too well with middle America. They’re resonating like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge circa November 1940. And you’re Leonard Coatsworth, Dan.
For a pretty even-handed assessment of the tea partiers and not just more of Dan’s copy-and-paste, visit its Wikipedia page.
My picks for 2012 President/Vice-President party nominations:
T Party – Ron Paul and Sarah Palin
Republican Party – Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee
Democratic Party – Barack Obama and Joe Biden
I believe it is wrong to encourage murder, as when T party spokeswoman Diane Capps said, “What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd? He got hung. And that’s what I want to do with Patty Murray.” at Asotin, Washington, on February 13.
Poor Dan is about to blow a gasket. His trademark juvenile name-calling is even more lame than before.
We can’t wait to hear how Dan explains why these people he thinks are stupid and non-existent have destroyed the Democrats’ great 5-year plans. (I will bet $5 he will blame Fox News.)
Anyone have anything about bus rides, rich white people, Astroturf, narrow target demographic, corporate interests, paradigm shifts, corporate platforms, one idea, etc?
No?
Ah. That explains the last few comments then.
DS
Dan, you are a good boy for not calling anyone names in your last post. See, you can be a good boy if you want to be.
And this is Astroturf (from Politico.com):
February 25, 2010 : Obama campaign arm focuses on talk radio
The Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America has quietly launched an initiative aimed at making Obama supporters’ voices heard on the largely conservative airwaves.
“The fate of health reform has been a focus of debate in living rooms and offices, on TV and online — and on talk radio. And since millions of folks turn to talk radio as a trusted source of news and opinions, we need to make sure OFA supporters are calling in with a pro-reform message,” says the introduction to the online tool.
The online tool presents users with a radio show discussing political topics, to which supporters can listen live, and the phone number for that station, for when health care comes up. It also offers tips for callers and talking points on the issue. Supporters are then encouraged to report back on their encounters.
ws said: Seriously, though…Sarah Palin? You betcha’ Tea Party is neo-con to the core. I also don’t believe Reagan was all that fiscally conservative. He spent wildly and increased taxes too, contrary to people’s notion.
THWM: Teabaggers don’t care about that.
More wharrgarbl from Dan:
Anyone have anything about this hard-left talking point? Or this hard-left talking point, this other hard-left talking point, yet another hard-left talking point, this even more fabricated hard-left talking point, etc?
Dan, nobody here but you cares about pushing all that leftist fantasy. If you’re looking for reinforcement of your imaginary worldview here, you’re going to be at it a while.
ws:
I also don’t believe Reagan was all that fiscally conservative. He spent wildly and increased taxes too, contrary to people’s notion.
Were you there? Because this sounds a lot like the mainstream media revisionist version of Reagan, and not like what Reagan actually did. The Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 lowered taxes for most Americans starting with the 1982 tax year (meaning people would start to see the benefits in early 1983). After the 1981-1982 recession, starting in early 1983, sure enough, America experienced phenomenal economic growth that sustained through the remaining six years of Reagan’s presidency — almost 4% annual GDP growth — most of it to the benefit of the middle class.
Of course, to hear today’s media describe it, 1980s America was practically a dust bowl, with Wall Street robber barons ruthlessly pillaging the countryside. This class-warfare fantasy of revisionist history is, well, bullshit. The mid-1980s were awesome.
Now, Reagan did spend a lot on defense, so that part is accurate to say. Of course, a Democratic Congress controlled the nation’s purse strings throughout his presidency, so attributing any spending solely to Reagan is a mischaracterization at the very least.
If you’re generally a hater of Reagan, hate him for the one unforgivable thing he did: he let the bible-thumping fundies into the mainstream. If it wasn’t for Reagan, there would have been no George W. Bush — nobody would have taken seriously such a theocrat — and there probably would have been no Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin in the mainstream American political landscape today either.
sprawl asks: “What are you afraid of?”
I don’t fear the Tea Party, I mock it. If the noble principles that Mike and Scott speak of are really what the Tea Party is about, I will respect the movement when it starts walking the walk. Until then, I will poke fun at the arrogant and ignorant, hate filled people that lack basic spelling skills, and have become the “poster” (pun intended) children for using fear to prey on the weak minded.
bennett,
If the noble principles that Mike and Scott speak of are really what the Tea Party is about
I have said the exact opposite of that. In fact, I have fairly explicitly stated that I don’t think they have established their principles at all. If you’re going to attribute me, please at least don’t state that I said something 180 degrees the opposite of what I actually said. Thanks!
Mike,
Sorry about that. I didn’t provide enough context. I should have been explicit that the noble principles you spoke of (“making government act within its charter, the law, and the consent of the governed is the whole ballgame”) are NOT specific governing values of the tea party, but if they were, I would take the party more seriously. Sorry about the confusion. You and Scott are actually saying quite different things, and I shouldn’t have lumped you together. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.
bennett,
Much appreciated sir; your clarification made it easier for me to parse your original intended meaning.
And you’re entirely correct. The tea party has NOT embraced those principles (or any consistent epistemology) and is thus currently a disjointed pseudo-libertarian guerrilla squad of sorts. And guerrillas can be very effective in hit-and-run ambush tactics in the short term, but they lose in the long term to any force that is able to control enough ground that a quarry is left none to which to go. Forasmuch as the Democrats in general dislike the tea partiers, right now the Republicans are the ones more actively trying to corral and exploit them.
bennett said: I don’t fear the Tea Party, I mock it. I will poke fun at the arrogant and ignorant, hate filled people that lack basic spelling skills, and have become the “poster†(pun intended) children for using fear to prey on the weak minded.
THWM: Just as with O’Toole’s big oil sponsored highway lobbyist bullshit.
NO ONE IS GOING TO TAKE THE STREET AWAY FROM IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE!
The scary thing is that Teabaggers crave despotism and like O’Toole have no trouble with trampling over others freedoms to reach that objective.
Wrong.
What the media, Randall (and his CATO friends), and the comments on this blog miss is that the “Tea Party” (and I see Dan is up to his usual appeal to ridicule tricks–in this case, using the pejorative tea bagger, a crude sexual reference) was started spontaneously by Ron Paul supporters. This dates back to the 2007 anniversary of the Boston Tea Party when a grassroots movement organized a moneybomb which brought in over $6 million for Paul’s presidential bid. (It does not date to 2008 as Randall claims. See link below.)
Since then, statist republicans, including Palin and her geographically challenged ilk, have hijacked the grassroots movement, turning it into an fund-raising opportunity where only those who’ll fork out $550 a plate for lobster are allowed in sanctified halls to rub elbows with the
corporatistrepublican party elite.The media (f**k FOX) has forgotten the recent Tea Party movement’s origins, and seemingly so has Randall and the people who have commented here. What a shame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8
Frank,
Whether or not people have forgotten, ever knew or don’t care about the tea party origins doesn’t really matter, because as you pointed out, the party has been usurped by neocons and whatever you want to call the Glenn Becks of the world (neobiggots?). Maybe the origins are just as are many of the people involved with the party, but what the party has become is a megaphone for hate filled obstructionist trying to shout down their opponents with fear slogans. When I say they have become the code pink of the right, I was not joking. Currently their tactics are on about the same level, disrupt while voicing your opinion. At this point in time I see little substantive utility for either group.
Their origins lie in narrow, sheltered demographics, and their original moniker of tea bagger is instructive and comical at the same time. Thus its continuing and multifold utility.
DS
Dan,
[Citation needed].
Mike, you’re a part of that teabagging political mujahideen along with O’Toole!
hman,
What’s a mujahideen? Sounds like radical Muslim terrorism.
The tea party movement is basically for limited gov, more freedom (as long as not interfering with others), and lower taxes & spending.
If you are for more gov intrusion & control, & higher taxes, then you disagree.
You also have a perverted fetish (as does MSNBC & many others) on the teabagging.
It’s normal for people to fallaciously twist words just because they are opposed or don’t understand things. It really takes objective thinking out.