Tea Party- please explain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, here's an article about the Tea Party movement I found useful in understanding it as a social phenomenon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html

I think a lot of people have been experiencing economic upheaval and uncertainty about their future. A lot of people are unemployed -- and they are angry -- a lot of them are white men. They are angry about being in the position they are in -- no jobs to be found, can't support themselves -- and they don't want to be lumped in with the people they have despised for getting government assistance (blacks on welfare, illegal immigrants). They are angry and need to direct their anger towards someone -- with a black man elected president, that is where their anger is going. "Take back our country" means get it back in the hands of church-going white people.

They are feeling poor and they don't want to know that handouts are going to people who aren't deserving of help, like them. THEY have worked all along -- this is just a temporary set-back. THey aren't like the other unempluted people who never wanted to work. They oppose government getting involved in things -- unless it is after the fact -- it's OK for government to go in and fix the big oil spill after it happens, because that's what the federal government is for -- but it shouldn't regulate businesses to much ahead of time because that wouldn't be good for business.


Then the Tea Partyers should be MAD AS HELL at the Bush Administration. They got us into this mess!


These people don't want government to be involved in health care at all, they want their old jobs back so they can have health insurance the old-fashioned way. Poor people who don't work shouldn't have health care or health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking about the tea party movement as a whole, but this particular element of it. I recognize that it doesn't represent the core of the movement, but it is more than an "extreme" or "fringe" element of it and the tea party has welcomed these people into the group.

Well, thanks for the clarification. I am assuming that OP wanted to know about the mainstream party ("I'm from another country, I don't know anything about it") so why not start there and then discuss the fringe? The Tea Party has not 'welcomed' racist freaks-but rallies are not invitation only. If you go to any rally in America you will see freaks on the fringe. I would draw my conclusion about the Party from the speakers--do the overwhelming preponderance spew racist rhetoric? No.

Your conclusions would be like me describing naturalists to someone who knew nothing about them as people who chain themselves to trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here's an article about the Tea Party movement I found useful in understanding it as a social phenomenon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html

I think a lot of people have been experiencing economic upheaval and uncertainty about their future. A lot of people are unemployed -- and they are angry -- a lot of them are white men. They are angry about being in the position they are in -- no jobs to be found, can't support themselves -- and they don't want to be lumped in with the people they have despised for getting government assistance (blacks on welfare, illegal immigrants). They are angry and need to direct their anger towards someone -- with a black man elected president, that is where their anger is going. "Take back our country" means get it back in the hands of church-going white people.

They are feeling poor and they don't want to know that handouts are going to people who aren't deserving of help, like them. THEY have worked all along -- this is just a temporary set-back. THey aren't like the other unempluted people who never wanted to work. They oppose government getting involved in things -- unless it is after the fact -- it's OK for government to go in and fix the big oil spill after it happens, because that's what the federal government is for -- but it shouldn't regulate businesses to much ahead of time because that wouldn't be good for business.


Then the Tea Partyers should be MAD AS HELL at the Bush Administration. They got us into this mess!


These people don't want government to be involved in health care at all, they want their old jobs back so they can have health insurance the old-fashioned way. Poor people who don't work shouldn't have health care or health insurance.

This shows your ignorance. Tea Partiers are mad as hell at certain aspects of the Republican Party and its policies under the past administration. That is why Republican incumbents are also being voted out. So much ignorance on this board. Do your HW--sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking about the tea party movement as a whole, but this particular element of it. I recognize that it doesn't represent the core of the movement, but it is more than an "extreme" or "fringe" element of it and the tea party has welcomed these people into the group.

Well, thanks for the clarification. I am assuming that OP wanted to know about the mainstream party ("I'm from another country, I don't know anything about it") so why not start there and then discuss the fringe? The Tea Party has not 'welcomed' racist freaks-but rallies are not invitation only. If you go to any rally in America you will see freaks on the fringe. I would draw my conclusion about the Party from the speakers--do the overwhelming preponderance spew racist rhetoric? No.

Your conclusions would be like me describing naturalists to someone who knew nothing about them as people who chain themselves to trees.

Well, I wasn't just responding to the OP's question but responding as the convo evolved. There was a conversation about the prevalence of racism within the movement and it is prevalent enough that it is worth talking about in understanding what the movement is all about, not just on paper, but on the streets.

Considering that Tea Party leaders have also come out in favor of the Arizona Immigration Law (which goes against the original Libertarian tenets they held) and other causes with similar entanglement in racialized issues, I think it's very important to attempt to understand the underlying motives, which are largely predicated not necessarily in the explicit racism seen at rallies, but in more subtle, implicit forms of racism... starting with the "our country" bit.

A lot of the policies they are opposed to have been in place for a long time, supported by both Republican and Democrat administrations. The "our country" bit only came about once a person of color was in office... hard not to connect those dots and wonder if "our" country means "the one where white people were solely in charge."

[Anonymous]

I get your point, but I personally think you are connecting a lot of dots (ie making huge leap and bound inferences) that might say more about your paranoia than theirs. Is the song "Our country tis' of thee' racist? It also mentions "our country". And you can be for the AZ law and not racist; or are you implying that 70% of our country (oops! 'our country') is deeply racist? I look forward to the AG's challenge.

[Anonymous]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/holder-az-immigration-law-not-racist.html


" TAPPER: Do you think it's racist?

HOLDER: I don't think it's racist in its motivation. But I think
the concern I have is how it will be perceived and how it perhaps could
be enacted, how it could be carried out. I think we could potentially
get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how
they look as opposed to what they have done, and that is I think
something that we have to try to avoid at all costs."

[Anonymous]

Just to add on-- the crux of the AZ issue is whether, in the face of federal inaction, a state has the right to act in ways to protect its interests. To say yes is extremely consistent with libertarianism.

[Anonymous]

In some ways, yes. But in the idea of keeping government in general out of people's individual lives, which is a far larger tenet of libertarianism than federalism is, this is a major inconsistency for tea partiers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to add on-- the crux of the AZ issue is whether, in the face of federal inaction, a state has the right to act in ways to protect its interests. To say yes is extremely consistent with libertarianism.

Maybe the anarchist wing of libertarianism. The AZ law is completely unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Well, perhaps the Tea Party cannot be summed up by libertarianism then. It is, after all, 'something new'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, perhaps the Tea Party cannot be summed up by libertarianism then. It is, after all, 'something new'.

What is it then? What do they want? Lower taxes? If so, then they've got the man they want in office, since Obama's tax plan would lower taxes for some 90+% of Americans.
Do they want increased freedom from government meddling in their private lives? If so, then their beef should be with the Bush administration and his blatant and wanton disregard for civil liberties and protections through the PATRIOT Act and other legislation.
Are they generally motivated by a fear of change and largely constituted by while folks who have, for years, bought into rhetoric that public assistance is for lazy, uneducated, non-contributing members of society and upon finding themselves on the other side of that line AND with a black leftist in office are feeling threatened that their previously lofty, privileged place in society is being threatened and likely won't be returned to them, with good reason? If so, then, yea, keeping holding up signs questioning Obama's citizenship, insisting he is a Muslim (which in and of itself is bigoted because the implication is that Muslim = bad), representing him as an African witch doctor, supporting legislation that flies in the face of whatever loose tenets the movement does claim to hold (Arizona Immigration), and demanding "their" country back, which hasn't really changed THAT much under Obama and just SEEMS different because for once in their lives, they are GENUINELY threatened by non-white, Christian males and their imagined fears of being the truly marginalized group in our society are being realized in the form of the stripping of their unearned privilege.

Are their some legitimate voices mixed into the crowd? Absolutely. Rand Paul, who is a bit whacky in his own right, is a legitimate libertarian associated with the movement. But the people on the street wouldn't know libeterianism if it hit them in the face and are simply angry, bitter folks who can't stand not being on top of the pyramid for once in their lives. That is reactionary and being reactionary does not constitute a political philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Your vast assumptions bring to mind a good op-ed in today's Post. They have different views from you -- yes, challenge the fringe, but if you are truly curious about the platform, why don't you attend a Tea Party rally and talk to more than one person about their intentions?

The Ugly Party Vs. The Grown-Up Party

"Unlike Weigel, most members of the Ugly Party -- liberal and conservative -- have little interest in keeping their views private. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh," Ann Coulter once said, "is he did not go to the New York Times building." Radio host Mike Malloy suggested that Glenn Beck "do the honorable thing and blow his brains out." Conservatives carry signs at Obama rallies: "We Came Unarmed (This Time)." Liberals carried signs at Bush rallies: "Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush." Says John Avlon, author of "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America," "If you only take offense when the president of your party is compared to Hitler, then you're part of the problem."

The rhetoric of the Ugly Party shares some common themes: urging the death or sexual humiliation of opponents or comparing a political enemy to vermin or diseases. It is not merely an adolescent form of political discourse; it encourages a certain political philosophy -- a belief that rivals are somehow less than human, which undermines the idea of equality and the possibility of common purposes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062903841.html

[Anonymous]

One take on the Tea Party Platform (though it seems a wide, wide umbrella). Straight from Wikipedia. Now sure how disturbing the below is; seems fairly tied to spending policy. Again, may not align with your views--but whence the hysteria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

"The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[71][72]

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution.(64.9%).
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)."

[Anonymous]

And you see, right there, just how ridiculous most of the support for the Tea Party is. Most of the "members" of the tea party (not the leaders, but the people on the ground) would be greatly harmed by a lot of the proposals. They would be harmed by a flat tax, harmed by a repeal of the Health Care bill, harmed by permanent extension of the Bush tax plan. Yet they support this group anyway. Why? Either they are stupid (an assumption I'd prefer not to make) for voting against their own self-interests and/or not realizing what their own interests are and how they are impacted by this platform, so INCREDIBLY altruistic that they are willing to vote against their own self-interests to help those at the top, or aren't really THAT interested in these platform items besides adhering to scare-tactic rhetoric and are REALLY drawn to the party for other reasons.

Explain to me why blue-collar, lower- and middle-class folks would support most of these measures?

[Anonymous]

Isn't that their choice to make? I can understand wanting to know why they make that choice, but not maligning them for it just b/cause we would reach a different conclusion. I am assuming the Tea Partiers have the same access to information etc. that you have (btw--statistically they are supposed to be pretty well-educated I thought, or at least more so than the 'average joe' you seem to be referring to).