What is the Tea Party?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

It's interesting that the tea parties are lumped with the religious right in popular perception, since in actuality (once you remove the attempts to take over the tea parties) they are fiercely opposed in the civil war within the GOP. The Tea Parties are facing off against both the theocrats and the neocons ... and claiming a few victories in the process.

It may be challenging to anyone used to thinking of Republicans as by default on the wrong side, but there are factions within and some factions are better than others. Just as some factions of Democrats are better than others.

So if faced with a choice between the Tea Party routing the neocons or the other way around, the question to ask yourself is which outcome is worse for the country as a whole.

And don't say "I want X to win because the Democrats can beat X" because that falls into "be careful what you wish for you might get it" and X beats both the other side and the Democrats. I want an honest assessment of which side of the Republican civil war you would rather power be shared with.

[Primula Baggins]

We've had neocon rule and it was disastrous, IMO. If I had to choose, I'd pick the Tea Partiers. But I'd rather have neither (liking my right to control my own body, and civil rights for everyone in America, and religious pluralism, and science used as a basis for public policy, and social justice as a civic virtue, and access to the ballot for all citizens, and all that jazz).

[halplm]

We've had neocon rule and it was disastrous, IMO. If I had to choose, I'd pick the Tea Partiers. But I'd rather have neither (liking my right to control my own body, and civil rights for everyone in America, and religious pluralism, and science used as a basis for public policy, and social justice as a civic virtue, and access to the ballot for all citizens, and all that jazz).

I'm not going to comment on the right to control your own body, because it's using the assumption that the life within you has no rights, which I find repugnant.

Who exactly among the tea party movement is advocating denying civil rights for anyone?

Who exactly among the tea party movement is anti-religious freedom?

Who exactly among the tea party movement is denying the role of real science in public policy? (no, global warming is not real science)

Who exactly among the tea party movement is stating social justice is not a civic virtue?

And who on earth among the tea party movement is proclaiming that access to the ballot for all citizens should be denied? Seriously, I've seen a lot of lies about the tea party movement, but this one takes the cake.

[Primula Baggins]

So you're with the Tea Party Senate candidates (Angle, Buck, Miller, and O'Donnell) who think abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest—a raped woman or young girl should be forced to carry and give birth to her rapist's baby, and prosecuted and imprisoned if she doesn't. That's getting government interference out of our lives, turning women into government-monitored incubators with no rights of our own?

Your statement about global warming makes my point there for me; I don't need to add anything.

As for access to the ballot, check out this news story from Wisconsin. Some among the Tea Party movement were setting up a plan for voter caging that focused on minorities and students.

As for religious toleration, check out this story about Mark Williams, a leader in the tea party movement (link). I would link to the blog post discussed, but it appears to have been scrubbed. But there's plenty more where that came from.

I remembered incorrectly the source of a quote about Elizabeth Warren's new appointment; it was Senator Judd Gregg, not a Tea Party movement figure, who said "My concern is that she would use the agency for the purposes of promoting social justice" (link). He didn't seem pleased at the idea, but he's not a Tea Partier, just a vin ordinaire Republican.

As for the civil rights question, consult statements by various Tea Party spokesmen and -women about gay rights and the rights of immigrants or their U.S.-citizen children born in the United States.

[Griffon64]

Argh, we've gone back and forth on abortion so often, can we keep it out of this thread, maybe? We all know where we all stand on this stuff, and there's no convincing anyone.

( I will say that I find your point about keeping government interference out of our lives RE making abortions illegal interesting. )

... access to the ballot for all citizens ...

I did a quick Google, and of course, the results I got was all stuff about the Tea Party being denied a slot on the ballot.

I read the link and it is a little light on details, so I can't really take from it that that is a party-wide policy. The actual transcript would be really helpful, instead of learning all about it through the filter of a liberal advocacy group. They may be presenting it fairly, or they may not.

[yovargas]

I read the link and it is a little light on details, so I can't really take from it that that is a party-wide policy.

Their can't be a party-wide policy since everyone keeps denying that there is a Tea Party, aka "it's a movement, not a party". My impression is that that is half true and half a PR move.

[Griffon64]

True enough! I was merely using well-used terms in a default manner.

[Primula Baggins]

Griff, I agree I should have let the abortion point drop. Not productive.

Hal wasn't asking me to establish that these are Tea Party poicies, officially; in any case the whole point of the movement is that tyhere aren't such things. He asked, "Who among the Tea Party. . . ?" I responded by giving examples of people among the Tea Party who held the positions in question.

Of course the movement is not monolithic and I know there's a range of attitudes. But the average position wasn't what I was talking about. The movement's tent is so large that it does include people with positions that I think are deplorable. They're not the majority, but it can't be denied (as Hal was trying to deny) that they're there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Um, this is not a thread about the tea party movement, and I won't hesitate to move or remove posts if it continues to divert in that direction.

[Primula Baggins]

Maybe we could use a thread on the Tea Party movement? Or maybe there's one already that these could be split into. I've got to work for a few hours first, but I'll look at lunchtime.

[Griffon64]

I wouldn't deny that there's deplorable positions right across the political spectrum. Democrats are not worth turning away from because of fringe positions ... the average Democrat position has good and bad points to it, and I tend to concentrate on the average position, because a democracy functions by majorities. It should self-correct for outliers, so I don't expend too much energy on worrying about them ( of course, this strategy isn't always sound, and sometimes the nuts fall through the cracks. It has happened. ). What I'm trying to say is that I try to focus on positives, not negatives, and I try to encourage positives, not elevate negatives to more attention thnt I elevate positives. Else you end up with what feels to me like kinda histrionic over-reactions ( on all sides ) over matters that would have quietly died away if everybody wasn't actively rooting them out. ( And yes, sometimes you want things brought to the light and stopped, such as your civil rights example. And sometimes, things are just noise. )

I'm not making my point very well. I guess I just want a tendency to sanity and moderation and everyone pulling their weight and carrying their fair share. Everywhere. Which, I hope, brings the thread topic closer to its original purpose.

I'm sure we've talked about the Tea Party movement before. That's just too juicy a thing for a liberal-leaning board to keep quiet about.

[Cerin]

To answer the question of the thread title, there is no Tea Party. If there were, then these so-called Tea Party candidates would be running as Tea Party candidates. They aren't; they are all, without exception I believe, running as Republicans.

The 'Tea Party' movement is simply the expression of a more right wing (and I personally feel, a more ignorant and reactionary) Republicanism.

[halplm]

Your statement about global warming makes my point there for me; I don't need to add anything.

What, that politicians will exploit and fund bad science as long as it fits their social agenda?

As for access to the ballot, check out this news story from Wisconsin. Some among the Tea Party movement were setting up a plan for voter caging that focused on minorities and students.

Ah, so accusations are now proof? I believe the tea party movement position here would be to stop voter fraud? Are you for voter fraud? Lots of people are, particularly those in power, which is one thing the tea party movement is quite definitely against.

As for religious toleration, check out this story about Mark Williams, a leader in the tea party movement (link). I would link to the blog post discussed, but it appears to have been scrubbed. But there's plenty more where that came from.

If there are plenty more, please use a better example. I've never heard of Mark Williams as a so-called national leader of the tea party movement, especially as such a thing cannot exist. And while his statement was idiotic, it was aimed at insulting terrorists, which I personally have no problem with. The issue being discussed has nothing to do with religious toleration, and everything to do with the proposed ground zero mosque which is not a religious issue, but a stupidity one. I imagine most in the tea party movement are opposed to the mosque at ground zero because they are generally intelligent well informed people, but I don't think it would have anything to do with them agreeing with the ideas of the movement, which have nothing to do with religion at all.

I remembered incorrectly the source of a quote about Elizabeth Warren's new appointment; it was Senator Judd Gregg, not a Tea Party movement figure, who said "My concern is that she would use the agency for the purposes of promoting social justice" (link). He didn't seem pleased at the idea, but he's not a Tea Partier, just a vin ordinaire Republican.

So your statement had 0 to do with the tea party movement, I see.

As for the civil rights question, consult statements by various Tea Party spokesmen and -women about gay rights and the rights of immigrants or their U.S.-citizen children born in the United States.

So you feel that blanket statements about being anti-civil rights, is appropriate when you are actually specifically referring to gay marriage and illegal immigration, both of which are not civil rights issues in the eyes of anyone opposed to them (rather, there are well reasoned arguments), but are usually shoehorned into being civil rights issues for the entire purpose of saying the opponents are bigots?

I don't think gay marriage is or would be something the tea party movement would be directly interested in. However, given the biggest problem with Illegal immigration is spending way too much to accomplish very little, that would be an issue the tea party movement is concerned about... but most likely only in the states it effects the most, rather than on a national scale.

[halplm]

To answer the question of the thread title, there is no Tea Party. If there were, then these so-called Tea Party candidates would be running as Tea Party candidates. They aren't; they are all, without exception I believe, running as Republicans.

The 'Tea Party' movement is simply the expression of a more right wing (and I personally feel, a more ignorant and reactionary) Republicanism.

You feel very wrong, as they are entirely more well informed than many most republicans have been for a long time, as they are not rubber-stamping the Republican Party candidates (as an ignorant voter would), but voting for candidates they actually agree with.

As for more "right wing" than the Republican party... well, since the Republican party has been moving steadily to the left for more than a decade, such that some can switch to democrats without changing their platform, or in Delaware you can have a Republican that is indistinguishable from his opponent (thankfully not in the general)... then yes, the movement is more conservative than the Republican party has become.

[N.E. Brigand]

since the Republican party has been moving steadily to the left for more than a decade

I'd like to know more about this.

[Cerin]

they are not rubber-stamping the Republican Party candidates (as an ignorant voter would), but voting for candidates they actually agree with.

Yes, they are choosing, from among Republican Party candidates, the more right wing Republican candidate.

[Primula Baggins]

I'd have to argue that Tea Party candidates who advocate changing the 14th amendment or repealing the 17th, or who have proposed armed rebellion or secession from the United States, or who urge laws against being Muslim in America, or who would outlaw abortion even to save the mother's life, or who would eliminate Social Security and Medicare, or who would close all the public schools . . . they're probably a little to the right of what has been (even in the good old uncorrupted days) the typical Republican platform. The goalposts have been moved, and former moderates now apparently qualify as "left-wing."

The same thing's happening among Democrats, of course; positions that are now labeled "center-left" could have come out the Republican playbook thirty years ago, and people who are actually still advocating progressive positions are ridiculed as irrelevant extremists by leaders of their own party.

[yovargas]

I imagine most in the tea party movement are opposed to the mosque at ground zero because they are generally intelligent well informed people...

It's random, unnecessary statements like this that make attempts at discussion with you so frustrating and pointless. Ugh.

[River]

The left wing has been moving rightward in the US over the past decade or so (the final form of the health care package? it borrowed very heavily from GOP ideas shot down in the 90's as too conservative).

Anyway, we'll see how it shakes out in November. My own political preferences aside, what's most important to me right now is a Congress that does the job we're paying it to do. The passage and non-passage of budgets has many alarming impacts on me and my job and all the idiotic election-year posturing on both sides has me more on edge than anything either party is saying, but I fear that if enough obstructionistic types get elected then it's just going to be worse for everyone in terms of government doing its job (in other words, I'd like to see people elected who interested in...wait for it...governing). It would be nice to have some inklings about my fate sooner rather than later so I can start making some hard plans about what happens in March, when my fellowship terminates. It would also be nice for my boss, so he can look into hiring a replacement for the tech who retired last month and recruiting new grad students to replace those that have graduated.

[nerdanel]

I imagine most in the tea party movement are opposed to the mosque at ground zero because they are generally intelligent well informed people...

It's random, unnecessary statements like this that make attempts at discussion with you so frustrating and pointless. Ugh.

Then again, we've also had a statement in this thread that the Tea Partiers are evidence of an ignorant, reactionary conservatism. So those statements come close to canceling each other out. Hopefully we can discuss the merits of the Tea Partiers' ideas themselves, rather than speculating about their intelligence in either direction.