Who are the real tea party?

matthew8

On a thread about a possible Irish tea party I said certain people had "hijacked" the tea party and did not stand for it's principles.

We have to establish first, what does the tea party believe?

Well, the tea party's name originated in Rick Santelli's famous appearance on CNBC calling for bad loans to be dumped into the river in Chicago in the "Chicago tea party" and that we should stop bailing out banks, so first we can establish that tea partyers should be against bank bailouts.

Here is a list of well-known tea partyers:
Rand Paul
Jim DeMint
Mike Lee
Michele Bachmann
Ron Paul
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Herman Cain

Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann were firmly opposed to the bank bailouts under Bush and Rand Paul would have been opposed to these too, holding the same economic positions as his father, needless to say they voted against Obama's bailouts too so they're in the clear for this criteria. Jim DeMint voted for the Bush bank bailout and against Obama's bailout, so on this criteria he's seemingly not a tea partyer but an ordinary republican. Sarah Palin, though she opposed, like everything else of Obama's, Obama's bank bailouts, not only supported Bush's bailout but ran for veep alongside one of their biggest supporters! So on this criteria she's not in. Mike Lee is a freshman senator, however he is more like Rand Paul than anyone else so meets this criteria for being a tea partyer. Cain and Perry were pro-Bush bailouts so don't meet this criteria.

The main other criteria is that you are small (federal) government, as we can see in this common tea party symbol:


But what does small government mean? Well, that would probably be (in order of priority) that taxes should be low, the function of the military is purely defence, the government should not say who can own a gun or what to do with it so long as humans are not harmed, that the nanny sate should be made smaller or removed. The tea party is also strongly constitutionalist. All the well-known tea partyers meet the first and third criteria but Palin, Cain, Perry and DeMint do not meet the second criteria. Only the Pauls fully meet the fourth criteria.

So I have established that Cain, Perry, Palin and DeMint, while leaders of the tea party, do not hold enough values to be true tea partyers, though I am willing to call DeMint a tea partyer. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann seem to be the 2 who most identify with the tea party while Mike Lee and Rand Paul agree on enough issues to be tea partyers.

Or is the tea party defined by those who are, or claim to be, in it?

Also, some people have made insulting comments on the social stances of the tea party and even compared them to Nazis (despite the fact that the 2 disagree on the vast majority of issues), however the tea party is primarily an economic group doggedly opposed to regulation and taxation, unlike the Nazis.

AhSureTisGrand

If I were a "true Tea Partyer" as you describe I think would have long ago stopped associating myself with the movement. Although it may have been started with nobler aspirations, the prevailing image of the Tea Party is (to me) one of conservative, racist hicks, whose interests in libertarian minarchism only extend as far as gun control and taxes.

Perhaps they're not that bad at all, but in that case they certainly suck at PR

matthew8

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

If I were a "true Tea Partyer" as you describe I think would have long ago stopped associating myself with the movement. Although it may have been started with nobler aspirations, the prevailing image of the Tea Party is (to me) one of conservative, racist hicks, whose interests in libertarian minarchism only extend as far as gun control and taxes.

Perhaps they're not that bad at all, but in that case they certainly suck at PR

Well the Irish media is extremely anti-republican and tea party which is why they seem to suck at PR. In the states MSNBC is committed to bringing them down too but no one watches that. CNBC and FOX are the republican channels so they get a lot of good press over there. The tea party is firmly opposed to racism and believes race has nothing to do with government. As for the "hicks" comment, it is an extremely overplayed comment, the 25% of Americans who claim to hold tea party beliefs are not hicks.

However your comment on their libertarian stances is sadly true, contrary to their small government stance.

AhSureTisGrand

I see aggressive patriotism, the cult of the Constitution and a deep distrust of a president seen as alien. Do the signs about the non-aggression principle just not get photographed or something?

matthew8

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I see aggressive patriotism, the cult of the Constitution and a deep distrust of a president seen as alien. Do the signs about the non-aggression principle just not get photographed or something?

The first photo appeared to be taken at one of the rallies in the desert west, that would be the one that would attract the most hicks, however the constitution was an excellent document, in particular the bit that said the pres has to ask congress before going to war. The second photo was not representative and showed possible birthers who are a fox-fuelled faction of the tea party. The third photo was in the city and attracted the mainstream and had many of the don't tread on me flags as well as American flags which I don't see a problem with.

The problem is how the tea party is reported, here's a typical report:
*show sign indicating Obama is a muslim*
*talk to birther*
*talk to hick*
*talk to clueless person*
*show some bearded redneck holding a sign that doesn't make sense*

Then many would-be tea partyers get put off protesting because they don't want to be associated with hicks.

Overheal

I'll happily give credit to the core tea party that they have valid concerns. Reducing the deficit, the size of government, slashing entitlements, etc. but I wouldn't say I agree with everything, like the resistance to taxation as a means to defeat our sovereign debt. And I think they go a little far in calling for the abolition of some things. We still need an FTC, an FAA, an FCC, an etc. (;))

But like any protest movement they were easily hijacked by *a lot* of fringe lunatics. From the barely literate (going by some placards) to the Birthers to the Islamophobes and the Racists.

It's one of the lovely side effects of joining a party, you get associated with everybody there. There's also the problem that they haven't really seperated themselves from the GOP. Even though the whole movement was supposed to be this breakaway of GOP support it seems like after the midterms they're all one big family again, except that a couple of them want to talk about slightly different things at the dinner table. They'd have more legitimacy as their own political party, but alas, American politics has been whittled down into a shambles of a 2-party system, in spite of everything, even the founding fathers originally hoped that our system would remain non-partisan. I would have so much more respect for the movement as they operated essentially as a non-partisan or even at least a third-partisan entity.

gargleblaster

Overheal wrote: »

I think they go a little far in calling for the abolition of some things. We still need an FTC, an FAA, an FCC, an etc. (;))

But like any protest movement they were easily hijacked by *a lot* of fringe lunatics. From the barely literate (going by some placards) to the Birthers to the Islamophobes and the Racists.

A little far?

As for literacy, it is so much worse than simply an inability to spell or use correct grammar.

They don't seem to understand what they're talking about, at all. And I'm not talking about the fringe, I mean their leaders. None of them seem to have a clue what the word 'socialism' means, yet they use it as a red flag to get their mindless followers all frothing at the mouth in terror at the idea that the evil commie Obama is going to - I have no idea what they're so afraid of, even. Try to provide healthcare for all, like all the civilized countries do?

It's ludicrous that most people in this country wanted a public option, yet these people have hijacked the discourse in the mainstream media to the point that most Americans still don't know that. Gee, I wonder why that is. And I wonder why this fringe element has been given so much attention which it does not deserve.

Also, Rick Santelli didn't start this movement. Why don't people care about accuracy anymore?

http://broadcatching.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/playboy-mysteriously-pulls-rick-santelli-koch-industries-tea-party-astoturfing-article/

RichieC

They know what socialism means, Gargleblaster, it's everything they don't like.

it's not correct but it is to their followers.

RichieC

They know what socialism means, Gargleblaster, it's everything they don't like.

it's not correct but it is to their followers.

gargleblaster

But it isn't, though. Not even close. This is part of how they get these people voting against their own self-interest.

matthew8

gargleblaster wrote: »

A little far?

As for literacy, it is so much worse than simply an inability to spell or use correct grammar.

They don't seem to understand what they're talking about, at all. And I'm not talking about the fringe, I mean their leaders. None of them seem to have a clue what the word 'socialism' means, yet they use it as a red flag to get their mindless followers all frothing at the mouth in terror at the idea that the evil commie Obama is going to - I have no idea what they're so afraid of, even. Try to provide healthcare for all, like all the civilized countries do?

It's ludicrous that most people in this country wanted a public option, yet these people have hijacked the discourse in the mainstream media to the point that most Americans still don't know that. Gee, I wonder why that is. And I wonder why this fringe element has been given so much attention which it does not deserve.

Also, Rick Santelli didn't start this movement. Why don't people care about accuracy anymore?

http://broadcatching.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/playboy-mysteriously-pulls-rick-santelli-koch-industries-tea-party-astoturfing-article/

The people also didn't want raised taxes. No one is taking on the fact that Palin does not resemble what the tea party stands for. This is splendid news.

Also, as for "civilised" countries providing free healthcare, since the abolition of slavery the USA has been the most civilised country in the world.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

Also, as for "civilised" countries providing free healthcare, since the abolition of slavery the USA has been the most civilised country in the world.

you only got equality laws in the 60's, mate. look at what you did to South America too, and laos (U.S. dropped over 2 million tonnes of bombs in Laos, the most bombed country on earth) Vietnam... and on and on...

civilised.. yea. the whole country was built on the blood and sweat of others.

gargleblaster

matthew8 wrote: »

The people also didn't want raised taxes. No one is taking on the fact that Palin does not resemble what the tea party stands for. This is splendid news.

Also, as for "civilised" countries providing free healthcare, since the abolition of slavery the USA has been the most civilised country in the world.

The people didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class. A clear majority supported getting rid of the cuts for those making $250K and up.



As for being a civilized country - are you joking?! You want to use slavery as an example of how civilized this country is? You have to be kidding me.

After the abolition of slavery we adopted a caste system, forcing black people into a second class.

Anti-miscegenation laws weren't repealed until almost 1970. It took the national guard to be able to desegrate schools in the south FFS, and this was three years after the federal government made segregation illegal!


If you like, I can also tell you about more recent examples of racism, such as bank loans and interest rates. Let me know.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

The people also didn't want raised taxes.

And kids don't want to eat vegetables. Some people don't like to wear seatbelts. It doesn't mean that they are the best choice for them. We still elected people that spent, basically, our own money, and to pay it down we're going to end up paying for it one way or another.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

And kids don't want to eat vegetables. Some people don't like to wear seatbelts. It doesn't mean that they are the best choice for them. We still elected people that spent, basically, our own money, and to pay it down we're going to end up paying for it one way or another.

Back to the old argument of "the government knows best how to spend YOUR money".

gargleblaster

matthew8 wrote: »

Back to the old argument of "the government knows best how to spend YOUR money".

No, back to the old argument of "This economy is hurting, and we can spread the burden evenly or force only those at the bottom to suffer."

So thanks to the tea party, the wealthiest few don't have to share the burden, they get to keep their tax cuts. Who gets to suffer? Veterans, students, sick people, old people, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks, tea party!

matthew8

gargleblaster wrote: »

No, back to the old argument of "This economy is hurting, and we can spread the burden evenly or force only those at the bottom to suffer."

So thanks to the tea party, the wealthiest few don't have to share the burden, they get to keep their tax cuts. Who gets to suffer? Veterans, students, sick people, old people, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks, tea party!

And these groups of people don't pay tax? Some wealthy don't take their share of the burden because of bailouts but that's what the tea party is against, however many are taking their fair share and then some.

How is not raising taxes FORCING people at the bottom to suffer? Let's scrap the federal reserve so that the little money the poor have will at least be worth something.

Suryavarman

gargleblaster wrote: »

If you like, I can also tell you about more recent examples of racism, such as bank loans and interest rates. Let me know.

Do tell...

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

Back to the old argument of "the government knows best how to spend YOUR money".

No, back to the argument of whether they know best or not, we democratically elected them to have control over our sovereign spending, they spent it, and we have to pay for the expenditure one way or another.

How is not raising taxes FORCING people at the bottom to suffer?

Basing this point entirely off Gargle's: it goes back to what Obama said the other day and he may have a point - should college students be asked to fork out more for their education before we look at taking away more breaks and loopholes from corporations and the wealthy.

Monty Burnz

matthew8 wrote: »

Also, as for "civilised" countries providing free healthcare, since the abolition of slavery the USA has been the most civilised country in the world.

I disagree.

gargleblaster

Overheal wrote: »

Basing this point entirely off Gargle's: it goes back to what Obama said the other day and he may have a point - should college students be asked to fork out more for their education before we look at taking away more breaks and loopholes from corporations and the wealthy.

That's putting it rather mildly, I'd say.


As for discrimination in lending practices, it is well-documented. Study after study shows this disparity, yet most are brushed aside because the methodology fails to take into account every detail about the applicants, the processes involved, etc. However recently there was an exhaustive study conducted and what do you know - the results weren't surprising at all.


Here are a couple of noteworthy links if you're interested in the raw data. Google searches of the main terms (discrimination, lending, mortgage, interest) will net plenty of hits.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1525/sp.2009.56.1.49
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12827686/Civil-Rights-and-the-Mortgage-Crisis

I could post up some charts but you can just assume they show the basic trend that one would expect from a country in which race is such a polarizing factor. It boils down to a ~60% differential between whites and minorities (with identical credit histories) in mortgage loan approval. Where interest rates are concerned the evidence is even more clear-cut, which has led to more than a few lawsuits (in which the plaintiffs won, of course, because duh).

matthew8

This was meant to be a discussion on who is really in the tea party, not another opportunity for people to call the tea partyers names. If you want to do that start a thread called "the tea party mudslinging thread" and get a mod to sticky it so it's the only place is happens.

So, is Palin in the tea party?

jank

matthew8 wrote: »

The people also didn't want raised taxes. No one is taking on the fact that Palin does not resemble what the tea party stands for. This is splendid news.

Also, as for "civilised" countries providing free healthcare, since the abolition of slavery the USA has been the most civilised country in the world.

Define "civilised".

matthew8

jank wrote: »

matthew8 wrote: »

The people also didn't want raised taxes. No one is taking on the fact that Palin does not resemble what the tea party stands for. This is splendid news.

Also, as for "civilised" countries providing free healthcare, since the abolition of slavery the USA has been the most civilised country in the world.[/QUOTE]

Define "civilised".

I probably should have said since the abolition of slavery up until the 1960s when a bad trend was started. They were civilised in the sense that they avoided silly conflicts and had a strong economy and a good monetary system, well, at least until 1913.

jank

matthew8 wrote: »

jank wrote: »

I probably should have said since the abolition of slavery up until the 1960s when a bad trend was started. They were civilised in the sense that they avoided silly conflicts and had a strong economy and a good monetary system, well, at least until 1913.

Lots of civilisations were like that for a period of time until of course the oppisate happened. By your defination China is the most civilised country in the world.

gargleblaster

matthew8 wrote: »

This was meant to be a discussion on who is really in the tea party,

It's not a mystery, despite the fact that the truth doesn't exactly get a whole lot of press.

Oh sorry, you asked who is in the party, not who started it.

Sorry, it does get a bit frustrating seeing how many people believe that it ever was a grassroots movement, or that it ever wasn't about promoting the interests of right-wing extremists and billionaires.

Does it claim exclusive membership, subject to approval? If not, then anyone who supports the party would be 'really' in the party, I would think. Didn't Palin give speeches for tea party rallies? Was she not invited to do so?