Tea Party Arguments Summed Up

[HockeyGod]

This is a rather interesting video. While a parody in some regards, it is very interesting!

"They have gotten to you with their so called facts."

Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier

[Callie Del Noire]

Cute.. I'm not a tea-partier, but it makes me worried that everytime the more rational conservative/moderate portion of the republicans look to be recovering the reigns from the folks who are in control these whack jobs show up and derail the attempt. I want a party that isn't looking to regulate thought of the citizens at large, looks to genuinely trim the fat from government and (this applies to both sides) UNDERSTANDS what the word compromise means.

Because in my opinion, neither side represents the public interest, that comes from debate and compromise. And the legacy of the Bush (II) White House is a chronic lack of compromise, cooperation and reasoned debate. We have two parties who don't reflect the public interest but the special interests that they are beholding to.

But I like this guy's work. Anyone know if he ever took his job back at best buy?

[RubySlippers]

I debated one of these people over the health care reform passed. He brought out the Constitutional arguements and the "why should I pay for your health care" position.

I said to him and others fair enough. The US Constitution doesn't give any right to a FEDERAL army save during time of war when state militias are brought under Federal command so go get a rifle, abolish the army (and air force) and have some people learn to fly fighters all paid for by the state of Florida. Why should I pay for your three childrens free public education they are your children YOU pay for that its the same thing if one takes the second arguement. Roads I don't like paying for your car and its use you can pay per mile a tax for that to meet all the costs and stop hitting up the taxes used for that. [Those were two examples from each of the two points.]

Its fine to say you want smaller Constitutional government but then live with the consquences. If you don't want to pay insurance for others ,which is the basis of insurance I added my house burglary insurance pays for everyone covered, then fine but then get rid of ALL insurance and government care even the VA. After all I told a vet that you got paid for the fighting, got medical care while in and were now mustered out my obligation to your care should be gone and I'm sad your disabled but go get  a job I don't want to give you a pension. I told him it was just an arguement along what they are saying if taking to their full conclusion.

I even mentioned that we could toss the Federal minimum wage and mployment laws after where is that in the Constitution people should be free to work for what they can get and employers want to pay. That could add oogles of jobs just pay $3.00 an hour over a 80 hour workweek and if they won't take it then tough.

I think this summed it all up nicely lets go to a "fuck you" society where we all care for ourselves or others as we feel like or let the distraught die and decrease the surface population. I favor government programs and sensible benefits for all paid for by properly spread out taxes say a 5% tax bracket to 70% for the very rich and few loopholes. then met the needs the people seem to want not what they are asking for.

[Callie Del Noire]

Ruby, would you say that either side isn't working for some special interest or not? That is MY big issue with Washington. They passed some legislation back in the mid to late 70s I think. They followed up a lead on one senator, then all of a sudden the office was cut to the throat for budget.

One of the best things I respect the President was his laying down the law on staff leaving the White House after a few years to go straight into a nice fat lobbyist job or folks who worked for Special Interests forming legislation dealing with it (in any area aside from politics that would be a massive conflict of interest).

I still don't think he merits a Peace Prize yet, but he's not as foul as some presidents that come to mind (I never voted for his predecessor) and he's trying.

Personally, I think if we could cut the influence peddling by 1/2.. just 1/2 of what it is now.. we'd most likely manage to save a TON of the budget without a lot of changes. Less pork and influence peddling. Companies run this country, and they shouldn't.

[Jude]

Pork isn't always about business, in fact most of the time it's about citizens.  We have a congress that consists of individual representatives who would vote against a package that gives the US a net job growth of 200,000 positions if it meant that their home state lost 10,000 jobs -- that is why congress is so ineffectual and broken.  Look at the polling numbers, people are always far happier with their congressman than congress at large because he's working exclusively for the interests of his constituents and not the country.  This is what kills compromise, secures earmarks for strange projects to buy votes in places where it's completely senseless, and gets people re-elected in their home state.

I still think the reason why our Democracy is failing is purely us:  people don't vote abstractly enough.  They think "is this good for me" and not "is this good for the country."  A nation of citizens voting their own interest doesn't always equate with a policy that is good for the majority in a Democracy -- especially when you have a piecemeal government like we do.

I blame the wave of populism for all our problems.  Because of it we can no longer take a critical look at ourselves and wonder what happened that made our country exist in a simultaneous state of confidence and ignorance.  Every political spends most of election season trying to use lofty rhetoric to talk about how "great the American people are" while offering unrealistic solutions in speeches that refuse to even hint at the difficulties and sacrifices that lay ahead.  Then we all get disappointed when that politician takes office and reality crushes them, so we vote the other way, never once realizing it was our own idiotic expectations and inflated self-image that got us there to begin with.

[mystictiger]

The BBC Americana Podcast recently did a very episode on the tea party. I had initially dismissed it as cranks and wierdos at the extreme right fringe of American politics. I'd be grateful if people could point me towards neutral sources / sites about what the TP actually want beyond 'Freedom'.

[HairyHeretic]

I think they want Obama to admit he's from Mordor.

[Trieste]

Nuh-uh, Bush had the ring! I saw the pictures!

I refuse to take P&R seriously this evening.

[Hunter]

It's not surprising to see that conservatives are still being treated with the usual dosages of contempt and ridicule.   Which is why I usually stay away from this forum.

I mean, after all, you wouldn't want to ADMIT that the other side had a brain or anything.  Or were capable of doing their decision making.

[Caeli]

I'm sure that liberals enjoy the same amount of contempt and ridicule from the other side.

You are, of course, entirely welcome to refute the statements presented by the video.

[Serephino]

Compromise would be good.  I have noticed that it's Democrats vs. Republicans, with both parties fighting the other tooth and nail.  I'm just a little more disgusted with Republicans at the moment because the attack ads from them link all Democratic candidates with Obama and Pelosi.  Then they say that those two are responsible for the bailouts, which as that video stated, Bush passed the first one; the one where most of it ended up being given away as bonuses. 

They also blame the national debt on Obama, which is bullshit.  Again, Bush spent all that money in Iraq, I think.  He never really told anyone where all that money went.  Obama is trying to fix it, it's just not easy.  This is going to take a lot of time and everyone setting aside personal agendas. 

I also agree with Jude that populism is largely to blame.  Everything wasn't fixed overnight as expected, so now Democrats are worthless.  Then when Republicans get back power and they don't fix anything either, in fact, they may make it worse, public opinion will swing the other way.  We'll just keep going back and forth until everything collapses in my opinion.   

[Jude]

I think when Republicans get back in power things actually will improve.  Not because of anything they actually do, of course, but because of the change of perception by business (which is currently holding on to about a trillion in capital waiting for a good time to spend it -- aka when Republicans are in charge again so that they feel more "secure").

[itsbeenfun2000]

i think i have said this before on here. i never left the republican party it left me. would be nice to go back to the one that actually cared about the majority of citizens in this country

[Noelle]

It's not surprising to see that conservatives are still being treated with the usual dosages of contempt and ridicule.   Which is why I usually stay away from this forum.

I mean, after all, you wouldn't want to ADMIT that the other side had a brain or anything.  Or were capable of doing their decision making.

Then instead of making reactionary posts, perhaps you could make your case known in a thoughtful manner that we can actually discuss intelligently instead of making a post dripping with your own brand of contempt and ridicule.

That being said, the people of E are largely liberal just based on the demographics they tend to fall into -- it shouldn't surprise you that a forum that openly accepts the GLBT community among other things would happen to slant in that direction, but since you "stay away from this forum", you probably wouldn't realize that there are individuals with more conservative ideas here who come to debate and though their opinions might not be popular (I know a few of my own haven't been particularly liked), they are openly discussed and moderated for civility like any other thread.

Nobody's saying that "the other side" doesn't have a brain. If your facts are wrong, they're wrong. If your perception is skewed, it's skewed. If you don't like what this video has to say in terms of the Tea Party, then let's talk about it.

[Brandon]

The posted video is whats saying "the other side" or rather the tea party doesnt have a brain, not elliquiy. I find myself quite disappointed by the video for many reasons. For example, rather then talk about the issues that the tea party actually stand for and address they go on to the ignorance that is precieved in the tea party and amplifies it to astonishing levels. I know its supposed to be a parody but they could have done an out take to actually talk about the tea party's beliefs. As is, it kind of just feels like its there to demonize them

Dont get me wrong here, Im sure there are some poeple like that in all parties. However tea party people I have spoken with have mostly been down to earth individuals with strong beliefs that lean toward the conservative side. As I understand it, some of the major things they believe in is no new taxes, reduced government spending, smaller federal government, greater budget balancing, and term limits. I have not heard a tea party supporter even address some of the issues in that video like gay marriage, abortion, or border security though I would be interested in hearing what their official stance is.

Personally I have many points of view, some progressive and some conservative, so I am an independant and likely always will be. This kind of video does not do anything for me because my research into candidates is what decides my vote. However its a shame that I almost always feel like Im picking the lesser of evils instead of the right person for the job

[Vekseid]

The only federal programs that make up a significant portion of the budget are
1) Medicare
2) Social Security
3) Defense

The smaller federal government angle is no less nonsensical, honestly, as tea partiers tend to support those programs. The only one of those that is out of control is Medicare, which could have been handled in a far superior manner if Republicans had made genuine principled stands - but they didn't.

All the stimulus did was replace the collapse in state and local spending. It should have been a lot larger, with more directed at small businesses and local banks, rather than the drip we got.

[Noelle]

Brandon, the Tea Party wasn't originally intended to lobby for specific social issues -- even the original founder claims that the Tea Party as it stands now is a joke. They were initially aiming for relative nonpartisan status, but it was quickly hijacked by mostly Republicans looking to ride the wave and bank on dissatisfied Americans.

As for my extended view on the video, it was ironically spot-on to most of the conservatives/Tea Party members I've spoken to lately. Maybe it's not representative of the more civilized, well-spoken members, but unfortunately the loudest are often given the greatest press, whether or not they're the majority. I'd say this video probably addresses the majority of outsiders' encounters with the Teabaggers as they stand today.

[Brandon]

Interesting. I had no idea what the history of the tea party was but I have seen a lot of demonizing going on by mainly the democrats and Ive often wondered why beyond the fact that theyre a group of different political beliefs. Thats another conversation though

Although an interesting thought I know have is: Why do I always find the intelligent and well spoken individuals of groups like this?

[Vekseid]

People as individuals are personable and reasonable, for the most part. Most people are not confrontational by nature. Put them in a group and that changes, especially the more authoritarian ones.

Also, since you share many of their values, they aren't going to seem as absurd to you as they would to some of us.

[dominomask]

Interesting. I had no idea what the history of the tea party was but I have seen a lot of demonizing going on by mainly the democrats and Ive often wondered why beyond the fact that theyre a group of different political beliefs. Thats another conversation though

Although an interesting thought I know have is: Why do I always find the intelligent and well spoken individuals of groups like this?

The short version of what I'm going on about: There'a a lot of straw-man in that video. (Feel free to dodge the word-hose)

When a person begins describing the members of a group with which they disagree, they are likely to describe the least coherent, sane, attractive, and socially "ept" members of that group.  When defending a group that they approve of, they are likely to point to the members that are the MOST sane, coherent, attractive, and socially "ept".  News organizations, in an attempt to be inflammatory/interesting (all I want for christmas is that was stop conflating the two...) tend to focus on the same extremes, depending on whatever editorial point they are, either overtly or covertly, trying to make.  Then something alchemizes in our minds, and that attractive or unattractive person becomes the platonic ideal of all members of that group, so if you meet an unattractive member of a group you identify with, you are likely to excuse or dismiss them, while attractive members of opposing groups are misguided or antichrist/hitler-esque charming liars.

There are intelligent, funny, charming, well-groomed, well-meaning, educated and/or folksy people in every organization, because humans are complex creatures.  There are also reactionary, boorish, mis-informed, malicious, stupid, ugly people in every organization, because humans are complex creatures (think for a minute about the last fan or business convention you attended...yeah...even united fronts are mixed bags, and not every front is all that united).  This is why it's important to have arguments with your head and not your heart...look at their arguments and your own based on principles of logic and with an eye towards common logical fallacies and historical example rather than the number of teeth in someone's upper bridge.

I am very liberal, but I'm married to a conservative, and it works because we respect each other and don't treat our ideals with the unreasoning "rah rah" that should be reserved for sports teams.  I am pro-environment, but I have to admit that there are a lot of environmentalists that I would be embarrassed to be associated with.  My husband feels the same way about a lot of conservatives.  We were both kind of excited in the early days of the tea party, hoping that it marked a change back toward secular republicans and constitutional libertarians...we're not all that excited anymore. :/

I find the vast majority of the tea party arguments I've heard from people who claim membership in that group poorly reasoned and incoherent, and it seems reasonable to me that the group is mostly attractive to people wanting to vent their spleens and take a break from complexity, and I find their selection of candidates...baffling.  But I'm only hearing the most sensationalized members, and those who seem to be going out of their way to be sensational for the sake of attention, which is not an unusual tactic for a third party trying to break into politics.  It's insufficient reason to assume that all tea-partiers are ignorant, mindless bigots, but they're certainly failing to "sell" me on their ideas.

[Serephino]

I think the average Tea Party member means well, but as it's been said, those that scream the loudest get the most attention.  It's the leaders who are extremist fubar fucktards; like Sarah Pailin for instance...  And for some unfathomable reason the average member is swallowing the crap they're being told without question.

Christine O'Donnell has been in the news quite a lot, and there was even something I saw on TV that was a recording of her asking where the separation of church and state is in the Constitution.  That just baffles me.  Then there was another one who claimed that Planned Parenthood was run by witches who drink the blood of innocent unborn babies.  *is scared*
   

[Noelle]

Well, fortunately O'Donnell got royally destroyed in the polls, so masturbators in the state of Delaware can wank easy!

I think the Tea Party has probably wandered down a path of no return. They're really no different than Republicans now, and most are just hoping it'll end up being another Green Party situation where vote-snatching ruins their chances during select years. It's kind of a shame they didn't retain their original intent and instead got bombed into the ground by uber-conservatives just looking for another outlet to vent their frustrations about gays and dead babies.

[Zeitgeist]

The posted video is whats saying "the other side" or rather the tea party doesnt have a brain, not elliquiy. I find myself quite disappointed by the video for many reasons. For example, rather then talk about the issues that the tea party actually stand for and address they go on to the ignorance that is precieved in the tea party and amplifies it to astonishing levels. I know its supposed to be a parody but they could have done an out take to actually talk about the tea party's beliefs. As is, it kind of just feels like its there to demonize them

Precisely. The video's purpose is only to make liberals feel better about themselves. It is a parody indeed, a parody on what people who identify themselves as Tea-Party people are, or rather what liberals like to fool themselves (and others) into believing. The last laugh will be on them.

If one was truly and genuinely compassionate, they would realize the limits of government to protect us from ourselves. Keeping a caged bird fed and fattened is far more insidious than letting it free, even on the risk of failure, injury or death.

[Noelle]

It's obviously biased, yes -- it's not a video made to be a serious educational tool, so it shouldn't be treated as such. However, realize that parody has to start from real life. The Tea Party, as we have seen, had a much different beginning than the places that Republicans in Tea Party clothing have taken it.

Ultimately, nobody will have the "last laugh" because the truth is, nobody's party ever stays in power forever. Politicians and citizens alike need to stop pretending that they're "taking back America" or that their party is the only one who should ever be in a position of power or that they have every single solution and right answer. Many legislate with this exact delusion -- and that's where we start playing legal back-and-forth with party after party overturning (or attempting to overturn) bills, because we don't (often) try for staying power in a bill, we play posturing games and pretend the other side doesn't matter even though inevitably, they will take your position someday.

[ReijiTabibito]

This might be out of place, here, but with Noelle's comment on the back-and-forth nature of the US government, and the recent election results, I thought this might be the right place to post it.

The Senate is unchanged, but the House is in Republican hands.  And I can just hear the voices saying, "okay, now we're gonna get things done!"  And it's not wrong to think that - this is a prime opportunity for things to get turned around, and for the moderates, which this country needs right now far more than any radical, to help this country out of the hole it's in.

Problem is, I'm already starting to see the seeds of discontent and of a certain mentality foment.  In a BBC news article, it said that the new House Speaker had been quoted as this election sending a signal to Obama to "change course."

And I'm just worried, really worried, that between this and the leftover hurt feelings about Obamacare (and let's not kid ourselves about it, really), that the House is just going to sit there and block most of what Obama tries to do so that in a couple of years, when the next election comes around...

[Noelle]

You're not off-base about that at all. Palin was quoted as saying: "The GOP has to understand, that machine has to understand, we are not sending Republicans … to D.C. to sing Kumbaya with Obama. We're sending them to stop Obama!"

Attitudes like this disgust me. Attitudes that are purely just to throw a fit and say no to everything hurt us more in the end. It's juvenile politics and it's time to grow up beyond that. Sarah Palin needs to take a permanent vacation from politics and keep her mouth shut, but sadly, there are plenty of supporters out there who want absolutely nothing to do with compromise and have the delusion I described before that their party is going to be in office for the rest of forever and that they'll always make better decisions on every issue ever than the others.

[ReijiTabibito]

Go figure.  And this is really the best that the Republican party could come up with to be a VP for John McCain?  Makes me wish for the days when traditionally, the VP was the candidate who got the second most nominations in the party.  Sometimes.  Maybe.

Part of the problem with partisan politics, and why moderation faces such a long road ahead (I feel), is the fact that the media in this country is incredibly stilted.  FOX News (if you can even call them 'News'), Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and their contemporaries make negotiation difficult, if not downright impossible.  They treat politics like a war - either you're for us or against us, and there is no compromise.

Which is fine - in war.  But this isn't war, this is politics, where negotiation and compromise are absolutely key to being able to reach an end decision.

Great example from when all the Obamacare was going on: the moderate Republicans wanted to sit down and talk with the moderate Democrats, find some common ground, hash out a solution.

The moderates, though, were hogtied by Beck, Limbaugh, & Co, who stirred up the country (most notably the elderly) with their talk about 'death panels' and whatnot.  Now, anyone could tell you that that was not where Obamacare was headed, and give a reasonable explanation.

Problem was, the damage was already done, the radicals had declared war, and their battle cry was that the government was trying to kill your dear sweet old Granny.  An oversight?  Of course not!  Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize that saying that would galvanize people to opposition, because you do not want to negotiate with people who are trying to 'kill' your dear sweet old Granny!


I find it hugely sad and ironic that the American people who are fighting not one, but two wars against radical Islam, and seeing what sort of misery that produces, are not even capable of recognizing radicalism on the part of their own people.

[Mr. Vyce]

And, as a brief aside, even childrens' books are not safe from radicalism. There are books for little kids that are pro-Republican, pro-Democrat, and pro-Tea Party alike. At the least, they advocate why their party is innately righteous, will keep Mommy and Daddy employed, protect the citizens and prevent kids from having to sell broccoli with their lemonade.

[Brandon]

This is something I often find confusing when it comes to politics: Shouldnt every opinion be given the chance for expression? There seems to be a heavy theme of "they are radicals so disregard them". However in a culture where the free expression of ideas helps our society grow and improve I find the very idea that anyone being disregarded for almost any reason is foolish

Im not saying anyone has to like or agree with an opinion but Im always tempted to cry foul when it seems like any point of view is being stifled or disregarded simply because its considered radical

[Jude]

Allowing people to express their opinion isn't the same as paying attention to it.  Radical opinions are better off disregarded in many instances because feeding them attention and making a martyr of them is dangerous.

[Brandon]

Allowing people to express their opinion isn't the same as paying attention to it.  Radical opinions are better off disregarded in many instances because feeding them attention and making a martyr of them is dangerous.

How so?

[Jude]

Burn the Quran man.  In paying attention to him we shined a national spotlight on him that was undoubtedly used to recruit many terrorists.

Practicality aside, you're missing the point of the first amendment.  People are guaranteed the right to expression, not the right to be listened to.

EDIT:  And on topic, I agree that the video is a generalization of the most vocal Tea Party voices and not a representation of every member of the party.

I can't remember where I heard this, but Democrats elected Obama on the change platform because they were looking for policy change.  Independents and Republicans who swung for him were looking for policy change on a few key issues but more importantly, they were hoping that the way the administration achieved its aims would be fundamentally different.  The reason Democrats were killed in this mid-term election cycle is because the Obama Administration and Democratic controlled congress largely used the same tactics to the same effect as their Republican predecessors.

The end result?  A bunch of Democratic legislation was passed, the debt was run up, and now we'll have government gridlock while the country is recovering.  Things might be okay, or perhaps the gridlock will exacerbate the situation at a very unfortunate time.  The majority of the country seems to agree with me here:  more should've been done on jobs, as opposed to the Democrats passing through as many of their ideological initiatives as they possibly could while having a majority in both houses of Congress with a Democratic President.

[Mr. Vyce]

This is something I often find confusing when it comes to politics: Shouldnt every opinion be given the chance for expression? There seems to be a heavy theme of "they are radicals so disregard them". However in a culture where the free expression of ideas helps our society grow and improve I find the very idea that anyone being disregarded for almost any reason is foolish

Im not saying anyone has to like or agree with an opinion but Im always tempted to cry foul when it seems like any point of view is being stifled or disregarded simply because its considered radical

Good point, Brandon. I'm not saying that people should not have the right to express their opinions by a longshot, as they do help society grow and evolve with the times. (Otherwise, we wouldn't be doing so now.  ;)) It is just this mindset of "you're either with us or agin us" and caricaturizing political foes as soulless tyrants or literal monsters ("Help, Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!"), particularly in children's books, that is counterproductive in my eyes.

[Brandon]

Burn the Quran man.  In paying attention to him we shined a national spotlight on him that was undoubtedly used to recruit many terrorists.

Practicality aside, you're missing the point of the first amendment.  People are guaranteed the right to expression, not the right to be listened to.

That is a superb example of one radical opinion that should have been ignored, but a lousy example for why we should disregard them all. What is considered radical to one culture and time would be normal to another. The same could be said for peoples opinions, what is radical to me might be normal to you or visa versa.

Disregarding anything just because the word radical is put on the person/idea seems foolish to me. Its fine to disregard an idea on its own merits but not just because someone considers it radical

I will agree that a "youre with us or against us attitude" doesnt help anyone. That very attitude helped seal our victory against England in the revolution.

[Trieste]

You're not off-base about that at all. Palin was quoted as saying: "The GOP has to understand, that machine has to understand, we are not sending Republicans … to D.C. to sing Kumbaya with Obama. We're sending them to stop Obama!"

Make no mistake, I'm angry with both parties. I think they are both having difficulties of their own making right now, and it's only making our situation worse.

However, I am angrier with the GOP, because what I see the GOP doing is a) going back on things they offered as compromises not too long ago (see the point in the video about large pieces of the healthcare bill being compromises formerly acceptable to reps now blocking it) and b) doing their damnedest to keep ANYTHING from passing through the Senate and the House and then turning around and screaming about how Obama &co can't accomplish anything.

No.

You don't get to do that.

Fuck you, Washington.

[Jude]

That is a superb example of one radical opinion that should have been ignored, but a lousy example for why we should disregard them all. What is considered radical to one culture and time would be normal to another. The same could be said for peoples opinions, what is radical to me might be normal to you or visa versa.

Disregarding anything just because the word radical is put on the person/idea seems foolish to me. Its fine to disregard an idea on its own merits but not just because someone considers it radical

I will agree that a "youre with us or against us attitude" doesnt help anyone. That very attitude helped seal our victory against England in the revolution.

I don't disagree with you at all -- I also don't think anyone "should" be ignored.  Should evokes thoughts of some sort of imperative to ignore a certain category of expressed thoughts, which I disagree with.  I just don't think all opinions "should" be listened to either.  Like I said, the first amendment gives you the right to voice your thoughts, that doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

Only when an opinion is so far out of the mainstream that it is clearly without merit and paying attention to it could possibly do damage would I endorse ignoring that opinion.  This isn't without problems, as it is easily abused and often used to silence thoughts which conflict with pervasive, widely held opinions.  You have to be careful.

[Serephino]

Make no mistake, I'm angry with both parties. I think they are both having difficulties of their own making right now, and it's only making our situation worse.

However, I am angrier with the GOP, because what I see the GOP doing is a) going back on things they offered as compromises not too long ago (see the point in the video about large pieces of the healthcare bill being compromises formerly acceptable to reps now blocking it) and b) doing their damnedest to keep ANYTHING from passing through the Senate and the House and then turning around and screaming about how Obama &co can't accomplish anything.

No.

You don't get to do that.

Fuck you, Washington.

This!   It is seriously pissing me off that they stomped their feet and dragged their heels trying to block Obama from getting anything done, and then during the election they point and say look!  He didn't do what he promised! 

I'm not saying President Obama and the Democrats have all the answers, but it seems like all the Republicans care about is getting back power.  Like Noelle said, they're two year olds with power.  They passed the health care bill with tons of compromises then cried that they were bullied into it.  *grumbles*

But if I remember my Civic lessons correctly, only half the House and Senate were up for election this year.  The other half are up next year, and if Republicans don't make things better they'll be the ones getting slaughtered.   

[errantwandering]

There weren't really that many compromises on the health care bill, and the republicans didn't pass it.  It went through the house without a single republican vote.

Frankly, I don't see things getting better, but I could be wrong.  Right now we have a heavily republican house, a senate with a slight democrat majority, and a democrat president.  This would be an excellent time for the two parties to stop behaving like children and work out a few compromises to get the country back on the right path.  If they don't work together, not a single thing will be accomplished until the next election.  They haven't been playing nice for years now, they aren't going to start now, however.  What is going to happen is that the republican's first move will be to try to repeal the health care bill that they all feel was forcibly shoved down the country's throat, which, in all honesty, it was, and then start from scratch.  Obama and the Democrats will see their "historic legislation" in jeopardy and do everything they can to maintain it, and absolutely nothing will get accomplished. 

Yeah, the next two years will be all kinds of fun.

[Trieste]

If they repeal that healthcare bill, it had better be because they have an acceptable replacement inked and ready to go. If they try to 'repeal and replace' without actually replacing, I'm pretty sure they will end up earning the ire of every damn parent in the nation whose kids just LOST THEIR MEDICAL COVERAGE because the GOP was being GO-stupid. The current one (PDF here) doesn't really cut it in the new parts, and also seems to include a lot of the old parts that are also cornerstones of 'Obamacare'.

It's ridiculous.

So, uh, not only was this particular bill not 'forcibly shoved down the country's throat', the GOP is also hardly going to 'start from scratch'. My heroes.

[Brandon]

While not the topic, I have to say that from my point of view obamacare was shoved down our throats. With the exception of Elliquiy I can think of only 2 people out of probably around 50 who wanted it. A handful of unsures (I'll be generous and say ten) and then the rest didnt want it for varying reasons.

Obamacare was something that the majority of people in my life didnt want for one reason or another. They expressed their opinions to our state legislation but the politicians forced it on us anyway

[Trieste]

And the rest of the Tea Party arguments...?

[Brandon]

My understanding of the tea parties goals, arguments, and beliefs is quite limited. Ive had some conversations with people who identify themselves as tea partiers or support the tea party and we have had limited political discussions driven partly by intellectual curiousity but Im no expert on them. I can only give my point of view from my experiences with them

Now if you're asking me if I think they are right about everything then the answer is no. I have yet to find a party that I agree with on every issue which is why I am still an independent. However they, like all Americans, have every right to express, discuss, and evaluate their and others opinions and concerns. I believe they should be heard and if their arguments dont add up dismiss the individual arguments based on the arguments own merits, not because it comes from the tea party

[Vekseid]

Precisely. The video's purpose is only to make liberals feel better about themselves. It is a parody indeed, a parody on what people who identify themselves as Tea-Party people are, or rather what liberals like to fool themselves (and others) into believing. The last laugh will be on them.

If one was truly and genuinely compassionate, they would realize the limits of government to protect us from ourselves. Keeping a caged bird fed and fattened is far more insidious than letting it free, even on the risk of failure, injury or death.

The Tea Party isn't opposed to the nanny state, however.

The only major, clearly nanny-state program is social security, and I've only seen the younger ones oppose that. Insurance items such as national defense and universal medicare increase their benefit and reduce costs with the size of the protected pool, but those aren't being opposed by the tea party either.

Budget wise, everything else is a drop in the bucket, the vast majority of which is similar single-investment-mass benefit stuff like that (chemical evaluation and testing, water management, etc). No human can protect themselves from every threat, and the convenience of government is that, at least until malregulation comes into play, you can make that work on large scales.

[mystictiger]

To say that the Tea Party has goals is to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of the Tea Party. It is not an ideologically homogenous group. Granted, neither are the Democrats or the Republicans. It, at least from this side of the pond, draws on many different groups, ideologies and approaches that have simply nucleated around a few simple messages:
Small government, lower taxes, more 'freedom'.

The rhetoric is so deceptively simple - they don't say which bit of the governments that they would cut, they don't say how they would balance the budget, and they don't say how they champion freedom but if you are against them you are automatically against freedom.

To dismiss the Tea Party as intellectually weak or lacking or strange is not a valid response. There are genuine greivances. It is the duty of the political leaders to reveal the shallowness and narrow focus of this movement. If you vote on a single issue subject, you end up getting only one answer you want amidst a blizzard of ones you don't. I think one should vote for a party that best reflects your hopes and dreams rather than your frustrations and anger.

But then I'm actually a socialist, unlike Obama.

[Jude]

The Tea Party is as single-minded as the Republican and Democratic camps, perhaps more so -- maybe not at its inception, but the movement was hi-jacked by ultra conservative figures like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and the Koch Brothers.  The Tea Party has become less of a tax-payer revolt (which is what it began as) and more about conservative ideological purity.  Look at the candidates that they backed if you don't believe me.

If you believe it's not valid to dismiss the Tea Party as (on the whole at least, not even individual) intellectually weak, then I don't think you're aware of all of the facts about them.  The Tea Party is still primarily based on tax policy and small government, yet Tea Party members are ignorant of actual tax rates.  Some of their philosophical points might have weight, and I'm not saying that they're any dumber than any other organization out there comparatively speaking (because I have nothing to back this up), but that doesn't change that they are fundamentally wrong about the facts of their central platform.  You'd think it would be intelligent to have the actual statistics on your position before coming to a philosophical conclusion, but no, they apparently don't feel the need to research their opinions.

EDIT:  There's various facts throughout these threads about Tea Party ignorance and ultraconservative hijacking.

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=65361.0
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=63731.0

There are more too -- I suggest looking at Vekseid's recent one about the funding for Tea Party events.

[mystictiger]

I have a very different perspective on all of this - the outsider looking in.

The British press characterises the Tea Party as "loosely-organised, leaderless and libertarian", or that "it has no leader, no national committee, no website. Instead there are many groups who vie to lead and speak for the movement". I find the idea that there are 'many Tea Parties' to be a compelling analysis - different groups with different agendas, united only by low-tax, small-government and so on. The Economist's analysis was delightful, mostly because it mocked the French, but their analysis of Tea Party affiliation was very interesting, especially the large amount of support by the Independents.

It appears that you can make a list of what your average democrat or republican (or labour or conservative or liberal democrat or Scottish nationalist) believe in. It'd be a fairly long list with lots of different issues, topics, policies, and areas of concern - a manifesto if you will. By contrast, the list of things that the Tea Parties advocate and commonly share would be much much smaller.

This, though, is as said - the view from the outside. We might not have the partisan bias that people in the US might have, but we also don't have the cultural sensitivity and connectedness.

[Noelle]

You might find the demographics of the Tea Party to be of interest to you.

I think they initially aimed to be a party to transcend partisan lines, but they failed miserably when they embarked outside of their original message to start preaching about social issues instead of sticking to their less tax, smaller government shtick. The demographics all point to a heavily Republican-type crowd; old, white guys with money, the majority of which have little, if any college education. My diagnosis is just a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[mystictiger]

Thank you for the link, but I think you over-state the case that they're basically Republicans. This table was very interesting indeed:

I agree that they tend to be male and also tend to earn more than $50k (well, anyone earning a lot of money is bound to want to pay less tax). I was struck by how... well... normal (and white) Tea Parties are. To directly quote the survey,

"Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income"

"In several other respects, however -- their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large."

"While opposition to the healthcare bill is perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of Tea Party supporters in the new poll, their views on abortion are also notable. Nearly two-thirds consider themselves "pro-life" on the abortion issue, compared with 46% of all national adults."

I suppose that I don't understand why these people aren't republicans, but rather list themselves as indies?

[Trieste]

They are basically Republicans, and Sarah Palin is their movement's homecoming queen. Anyone who tries to tell you differently is either deluded or lying.

There are regional Tea Party sects, but the national face is GOP - why do you think there was so much concern that they would hurt the Republican party? It isn't because the Tea Party is taking votes away from the Democratic party, or liberal-leaning independents. :P

The thing is that the GOP has been touting the benefits of smaller government and lower taxes for a long time. I personally am just completely on the opposite of that mentality, myself, so they do not and have never appealed to me. However, they certainly appeal to people with money to actually lose, don't they...?

[Noelle]

They may be representative, but unfortunately, they're also less-educated and less-informed on facts (as was shown here). I think part of the reason they distinguish themselves is because many Teabaggers feel that the GOP has gotten 'soft' and just aren't conservative enough anymore. I think that's why you see people like Sarah Palin jumping on the bandwagon from the GOP, and probably why the founder feels a lot of annoyance at the way the party has evolved. America is unsettled with both parties at the moment, so you have these conservatives struggling to separate themselves from the pack to say "See! I'm not like them!" and hopefully get an edge on the competition.

Me? I'm waiting for the day that the Tea Party politicians show that they don't have all the right answers just like any other party and that they're not some specials snowflake organization that magically speaks for "real Americans". If that phrase was never used again, I wouldn't miss it in the least.

[mystictiger]

They may be representative, but unfortunately, they're also less-educated ... (as was shown here).

No, it really wasn't! From your link

TP / Average America
No College: 34 / 35
Some College: 34 / 32
Graduate: 16 / 17
Postgrad: 15 / 16

I would really like to see a similar breakdown for other parties. The closest I could find was from the presidential election.

Me? I'm waiting for the day that the Tea Party politicians show that they don't have all the right answers just like any other party and that they're not some specials snowflake organization that magically speaks for "real Americans". If that phrase was never used again, I wouldn't miss it in the least

Absolutely! This was the best bit about BNP arse-hats getting elected in various elections - they're either forced to more moderate positions to be useful or they reveal how crap they really are.

[Noelle]

Sorry, perhaps I misworded what I meant. I think they're representative of an "average American" in mindset in that they're not terribly educated and often get their facts wrong. The Tea Party members I met at my old job were often old men who thought they had the solution to everything when really it wasn't terribly realistic and they could never offer any alternative explanations when their ideas were proven to be bunk. It seems that "average Americans" gravitate towards people who yell the loudest rather than people who have reasonable, albeit occasionally "grin and bear it"-type solutions. People often don't want to make the hard decisions if it means a better outcome overall, they want instant gratification through bullshit slogans like SMALL GOVERNMENT, LOWER TAXES that they can barely back with their own knowledge.

[mystictiger]

I suspect that you're not just describing average Americans there. I would imagine that the Tea Party, strikes in France and Greece, and so on are all manifestations of a similar sense of disbelief with our politicians. One month they give billions to the bankers that cause the problems, and the next month they're doing a fire-sale on state services.

If given a vote the morning after the budget cut, I would've voted for 'Anyone Who Is Not In Power'

[Trieste]

Honestly, I think that people want lower taxes and less government because they do not trust the people in power with their money. I think that for some reason, people feel like they will fare better if they hang onto their hard-earned cash. I think that, as Vekseid has touched on earlier, many Tea Partiers don't realize how much is left up to the state governments, and whatnot.

In short, I think that Tea Partiers really do represent 'average Americans' in that they have their head jammed up their asses and don't realize the ramifications of their own battle cry. I think that your average American is woefully undereducated when it comes to politics. I think that the severe danger of the Tea Party is that these people are energized to vote without educating themselves about the electoral process, the budgeting process, and so on. If you want an example of the dangers of that, take a look at California. The Governator has, pretty much since he took office, refused to partake in budget hearings. He thinks they are ridiculous. He calls it 'kabuki theater' and makes fun of the process.

So, California, how are those tax refunds coming? Hm.

Ignorant people do not automagically become competent just because they decide to become active in politics. It makes them dangerous. It makes them shrill. It makes them smug. It makes them rather icky in general.

[mystictiger]

Ignorant people do not automagically become competent just because they decide to become active in politics. It makes them dangerous. It makes them shrill. It makes them smug. It makes them rather icky in general.

In my country, we call those people Conservative MPs ;)

But yes, I understand your point more generally. At the same time, educated people don't automatically become excellent leaders. I think of Blair's shameful conduct, and I think of the bitter disappointment that Obama, Prince of Peace, Lord of Hope, Herald of Change has become.

I just wish the US would hurry up and elect Jed Bartlet. A liberal philosopher king.

[Trieste]

If this causes the country to elect someone like Sticky Santorum as president, I'm outta here.

[Jude]

The Tea Party wasn't actually born from the Obama resurgence of liberalism -- that's a narrative they like to spin often so that they can envision themselves as freedom fighters reacting dramatically against a rising tide of socialism.  Was it a factor?  I can't deny that, I mean if Obama came into office and governed with extreme moderation they probably wouldn't exist.  I'd say the current brand of Tea Party is largely a reaction to John McCain being chosen as the Republican Nominee for the President in 2008.

Bush and Cheney ran the Republican party into the ground to the point that no one was willing to even consider voting for another neo-conservative, hardline Republican.  The party knew that anyone who had a chance of getting elected in 2008 would have to be a moderate with a record of independence in order to eschew anti-Republican sentiment.  McCain got the support because he was the only one running who had a chance of winning.  Attempts to placate the Republican base with the likes of Sarah Palin somewhat succeeded (especially while McCain doubled back on many issues to try and seem more conservative to the base in contrast to his reputation as a moderate), but when McCain lost the hardliners put all of the blame at his feet in order to avoid accepting the outright truth that the election was a repudiation of neo-conservatism.

From there this myth was born that the reason why Bush and McCain failed and the country turned against conservatives is because they weren't conservative enough.  At the same time the public brand of the Republican Party was melting down.  There were calls for ideological purity all over the place, which resulted in many moderates turning away from the Republican Party as their base basically ate them alive.

The Tea Party was born on Tax Day in 2009, and they spread like wildfire not because of the prominence of their ideas (which were very loose at the time, only somewhat partisan, but primarily an outcry against the Bailout and taxes), but because of rabid promotion on Fox News and Talk Radio.  Tea Parties sprouted throughout the country, and disaffected neocons found a vehicle back into public prominence as they transformed the Tea Party through media mouthpieces like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  Dick Army, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin all saddled themselves to the movement, and have been readily accepted -- Sarah Palin even spoke at their biggest convention.

If the Republicans had never sent a moderate in as the nominee in 2008, there would've been no backlash against the Republican establishment, and I highly doubt the Tea Party would've gone much of anywhere.  It was hijacked and blown up because it was necessary for them to do so, the party's credibility needed a vehicle to rebrand itself, and the Tea Party worked well.

What's especially sad is there could've been a shift away from the hard-right towards Libertarian ideals that would've left social conservatives out in the cold while growing the conservative party into something that the younger crowd could get behind.  While I am no Libertarian, I think they have a lot of ideas I can get behind, and I could see myself voting for a moderate Libertarian easily.  Unfortunately, social conservatism seems even deeper embedded in conservative politics than the corresponding governmental and economic principles which actually represent "freedom."

Neither the Republican Party or the Tea Party went Libertarian, the only real difference between them now is that the Republican Party is more pro-business.

[Vekseid]

No, it really wasn't! From your link

TP / Average America
No College: 34 / 35
Some College: 34 / 32
Graduate: 16 / 17
Postgrad: 15 / 16

I've said it before with regards to these stats and I'll say it again, I would love to see these normalized for age, gender, and racial makeup.