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.