American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts

[Lord Mord]

TN,

Honestly, I don't really know what the Tea Party wants. They scream about government spending even while many of their members receive Social Security payments. They rail against "socialized medicine" even though they gleefully accept Medicare.

These two are hypocritical and make sense as criticism of the movement. This last however ...

They are angry about using taxpayer money to bail out the financial industry even while they oppose any sort of government regulation of said industry.

... isn't quite in focus either. Why should these two things be incommensurate? Why should an opposition to regulation also entail bail-outs? Why couldn't a person say, "Don't regulate them, but if they fail, it's their own damn fault, and let them rot"?

As best I can tell, the Tea Party is simply angry because the president is black and a Democrat, and that the Democrats control Congress.

There was a link here recently to Weasel Zipper, and while some of what the posters there bears out your accusation, for the most part, a remark of this kind only gives them more ammunition. Yes, that's it, keep up the fundamental disconnect, pretend that they can only be delusional and that only people who disagree with them can have any claim on validity ... and you're just substantiating their claims that nobody listens to or cares about their values, and you give them that much more reason to fight.

Go out of your way to marginalize them, and you prove their philosophy of self-defense true. They almost have to react with violence just so that effective debate isn't limited to only "sanctioned" points of view.

If they're wrong, then they're wrong on the merits of their arguments, not on the basis of what we arrogantly imagine we know is in their hearts. I mean, really, how fucking dare we? Who do we think we are?

As for the bits of explicit racism ... well, I think it's a bit like the "Bush is Hitler" that tarnishes the Left. We'd rather people ignored it as the babbling of fringe loonies, so that we can focus on our issues. Why not extend the same courtesy? Reward the good, ignore the bad, like it was never said or done.

[jurble]

It's entirely reasonable to be anti-regulation and anti-bailout. That's pure free-markets right there. Let them do whatever they want, but let them die if they fail.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Honestly, I don't really know what the Tea Party wants.

There is no Tea Party. And because there is no Tea Party, there is no Tea Party platform.

Any group of people, regardless of their specific political beliefs, can hold a rally and call themselves a Tea Party.

Sure, there are organized attempts by some people to hold tea parties, but that really amounts to simple networking because there is not, nor can there be, any authoritative central control. There is no way to prevent some group or individual from calling a "tea party". Therefore, you are not going to be able to find a clear doctrine of "Tea Party" beliefs. In a lot of ways, it's similar to the "Reform Party" of former Ross Perot supporters. General agreement that things are messed up, but disagreement on the specifics.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

In a lot of ways, it's similar to the "Reform Party" of former Ross Perot supporters. General agreement that things are messed up, but disagreement on the specifics.

[TrackerNeil]

... isn't quite in focus either. Why should these two things be incommensurate? Why should an opposition to regulation also entail bail-outs? Why couldn't a person say, "Don't regulate them, but if they fail, it's their own damn fault, and let them rot"?

A person could say that, and it would be rational if not sensible, particularly for a libertarian or a friend of big business. However, these Tea Party people (TPP) don't really take that tack. They're supposedly on the side of "the people", and yet they back just about every pro-business inclination of the Republican Party and oppose most every government initiative supported by Democrats. That doesn't make sense, particularly when a good number of the TPP are on the government teat.

There was a link here recently to Weasel Zipper, and while some of what the posters there bears out your accusation, for the most part, a remark of this kind only gives them more ammunition. Yes, that's it, keep up the fundamental disconnect, pretend that they can only be delusional and that only people who disagree with them can have any claim on validity ... and you're just substantiating their claims that nobody listens to or cares about their values, and you give them that much more reason to fight.

Go out of your way to marginalize them, and you prove their philosophy of self-defense true. They almost have to react with violence just so that effective debate isn't limited to only "sanctioned" points of view.

I don't really have the power to "marginalize" any movement, but let's examine your claim anyway. If I use a group's nonsensical standpoints to "marginalize" them - which by your lights seems to mean pointing out the glaring inconsistencies of their position on the issues - then their philosophy is...proven true? Does that go for white supremacist groups? Or flat-earthers? Creationists? Geocentrists? I sure wish someone would marginalize my views on same-sex marriage...then it would be legal in all fifty states!

[Lord Mord]

I've come to understand that there is a Tea Party, but that it is nascent -- a bunch of individual outposts of mutual indignation each trying to form a new manifesto and a new narrative. It won't be a national party until there is more cohesion between the units, but at the lowest level, technically, I believe the Tea Party exists.

[Shryke]

Mostly at the highest, as the various Tea Party groups are generally sponsored by major Right Wing organizations of one flavour or another.

Most of the really big protests are put together by Freedomworks, who are essentially an arm of the GOP.

[lokisnow]

I've come to understand that there is a Tea Party, but that it is nascent -- a bunch of individual outposts of mutual indignation each trying to form a new manifesto and a new narrative. It won't be a national party until there is more cohesion between the units, but at the lowest level, technically, I believe the Tea Party exists.

the funders of all these nascent organizations, pouring in hundreds of millions to them, do not want a national party, they want an extremely loud and attention grabbing, motivated group of ardent right wingers. They also want a group capable of bypassing all the horrors of political correctness, a group that is able to call a nigger president a nigger president. they need the group to be very loud because the non-fox news press is incapable of noticing anything that's not loud. They need them to be attention grabbing and different because then the non-fox news press will treat them as totally legitimate and worth covering. and being able to call a faggot a faggot, well that's just icing on the cake, a bonus that makes everyone inside the circle feel good.

they don't need to worry about fox news covering them, since fox news is one of the funders pouring millions of dollars into the tea party.

There will be no national party, never, not ever.

[Lord Mord]

TN,

Conservatives are always bitching about how the left say nothing but "racist" to them. It just seemed like your post was proving their point.

[Shryke]

TN,

Conservatives are always bitching about how the left say nothing but "racist" to them. It just seemed like your post was proving their point.

What's wrong with calling something what it is?

[TerraPrime]

What's wrong with calling something what it is?

The word "Racist" hurts their feelings, I think.

[Foreverlad]

There is no Tea Party. And because there is no Tea Party, there is no Tea Party platform.

Any group of people, regardless of their specific political beliefs, can hold a rally and call themselves a Tea Party.

That's quite a profound idea.

If the left really wanted to nip the TP'ers in the bud, they could start unofficially sponsoring their own Tea Party events to promote PETA, alternative energy, universal health care or regulation. Toss together a few handmade rally signs both advocating and demonizing a stance, break down arguments to a few key phrases you can spout at passersby, and work on your tan. Send a few groups out into the already planned libertarian/right wing events, schedule your own events under the Tea Party name, and watch chaos ensue.

You either force the Tea Party to take an official stance with clearly delineated policies, or the political movement drowns in the convolutions. In either case, you risk alienating the TP fanatics through confusion or distaste for policy. You even stand a chance at forcing the TP'ers to establish an official representative or leader.

[BloodRider]

Oh please . . . man up. Surely you aren't ignorant of the kinds of things posted on liberal blogs and forums about conservatives (like this very forum)? I think it's time for both sides to drop the pretense of having the moral high ground, and just admit that they use whatever ammo puts itself at hand to tear down the other side.

Man up? He he. You really do not know your audience, do you?

Anyways. When people on the left - for that matter - anyone is a true believer it makes mt skin crawl. And the left has its share of crazies, but they are marginalized in the party, or at least kept quiet.

Still how lame and childish is it that you defend these people's obviously horrible behavior with, "but they did it too?"

But really - this is the problem with the right. They are driving away the middle and loosing ground to the left. And when they do it drives the crazies even crazier, the party moves even further right. They are marginalizing themselves.

[TrackerNeil]

TN,

Conservatives are always bitching about how the left say nothing but "racist" to them. It just seemed like your post was proving their point.

Well, to be fair I also said "inconsistent", and implied "hypocritical" and "foolish."

[The Progressive]

There is no Tea Party. And because there is no Tea Party, there is no Tea Party platform.

Any group of people, regardless of their specific political beliefs, can hold a rally and call themselves a Tea Party.

That's very incredibly naive I have to say. First, any gathering of teabaggers in significant number are always sponsored and supported by major GOP and affiliated outfits. Second, pick any teabaggers gathering at random and you'll notice some hard to miss lunacy about socialism, Obama's birth certificate, deficit spending, expansion of federal government power and entitlement programs. That's pretty much the teabaggers platform even though some of its core ideas contradicted others, but one really shouldn't expect rationality and consistency from teabaggers.

I also disagree with the suggestion that the left should nip the tea leaves at its bud. Let it blossoms and break the back of the GOP I say.

[Mad Monkey]

The Tea Party is not a real, official party but that's far from saying that they don't exist. Sure, there's no single Tea Party movement, but for a movement that doesn't exist they sure happen to get a lot of media coverage and a lot of people claiming to speak for them.

I also disagree with the suggestion that the left should nip the tea leaves at its bud. Let it blossoms and break the back of the GOP I say.

Yeah, I don't see how "the left" should be held responsible for Tea Partiers. It's not like liberals are the ones who are claiming to speak on behalf of the Tea Party, and it's not as if you're seeing a bunch of Tea Parties in favor of Bernie Sanders or some people.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

What's wrong with calling something what it is?

What good does it do? What good does it ever do?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But really - this is the problem with the right. They are driving away the middle and loosing ground to the left. And when they do it drives the crazies even crazier, the party moves even further right. They are marginalizing themselves.

If you are correct, then Democrats should not only retain control of Congress, but actually increase their margin of control. I wouldn't bet the mortgage on that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Tea Party is not a real, official party but that's far from saying that they don't exist.

I didn't say tea parties or tea partiers don't exist. I said "The Tea Party" doesn't exist. I think it's telling that you switched from the singular "The Tea Party" to the plural "they don't exist" in your sentence, which illustrates the point rather well. There is no "party platform" or primaries to hammer out disagreements and create an "official" stand on issues. Various people on the state and local level have organized tea parties within their state, but that doesn't mean that every tea party even within the same state is controlled by the same people.

Sure, there's no single Tea Party movement, but for a movement that doesn't exist they sure happen to get a lot of media coverage and a lot of people claiming to speak for them.

Again, I never said there isn't a movement, which I think is the perfect descriptor. I said there wasn't a "Tea Party". Until people start viewing tea parties as a decentralized plural rather than a cohesive singular, they're going to be misunderstanding them.

The "movement" label, though, is perfect, because it's reminiscent of things like the "antiwar movement" and "environmental movement", which also had some internal inconsistencies if you looked closely enough.

[BloodRider]

If you are correct, then Democrats should not only retain control of Congress, but actually increase their margin of control. I wouldn't bet the mortgage on that.

I will bet that the gains will not be as good as in other off election years. This is not a contract on America year. Of course that is very hard to determine without examination by some political analysists And everyone know they have a liberal bias.