Where is the Tea Party on social issues? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 08-08-2010, 05:46 PM

i think we've seen enough posts that use variations of "you are full of shit." there are other ways to disagree. use some imagination. sheesh.

FoolThemAll · 08-08-2010, 05:49 PM

Yeah guys, 'fascist' is the new 'anti-american'. Get with the times.

roachboy · 08-08-2010, 06:01 PM

i love one-dimensional little drive-by posts o so much. no really.

Wes Mantooth · 08-08-2010, 06:54 PM

I still think without firm leadership or a proper public platform its too difficult to truly define exactly what they stand for, there are too many people involved with it who carry too many different ideas about what direction the party should take. Its easy to point at toothless rednecks carrying misspelled hate signs to rallies as the face of a movement but three years ago they were carrying the same signs to Joe the Plumber rallies and acting all hot and bothered about McCain/Palin. They want to bitch and will latch on to any movement or party that even slightly tolerates their presence, without leadership to condemn the practice on a national level what can anybody really do about it?

On the flip side I'm not sure if you can point to any of the high profile members as an example either. How many of them are usurping the movement to stay relevant in the press? How many of them will scurry back to the GOP the minute the next Presidential election rolls around? In other words we don't know if somebody like Sarah Palin is either a real representative of the movement or somebody that's going to stick around and help define it when an opportunity arises in the GOP come the next election. Can we look find any numbers to see how many self identified members across the US support any of the people trying to emerge as the face of the party (that's an honest question, have there been any polls that would give us an idea)?

I think we can all read the writing on the wall about the direction this movement is taking if things don't change. However I'm not sure its fair to paint everybody involved right now in the Tea Party with the same broad brush until a platform is outlined behind popular leadership. Without a point of reference subscribed to by the majority of its constituency its all guess work based on personal experiences and whatever we can gather from the press.

Baraka_Guru · 08-08-2010, 07:02 PM

Well, the maddening thing about all of it is just that: there is no centre. It's all a reaction to a generic disdain for taxes and spending, and beyond that is a mish-mash of variables that fits under that umbrella.

Bear in mind that the whole feel to the movement is that it is a reaction against something, rather than a movement supporting something. It's a negation that way.

The movement is named after a high-profile piece of American history that involved sabotage and vandalism, an event that was one of several leading up to a revolutionary war.

That's the background context we're dealing with: a reactionary outrage against order based on the perception that people are being treated unfairly and unjustly. Except this time around, it's debatable as to whether that's true.

Regardless, I don't think the Tea Partiers of today can declare they're being taxed without representation. I think they're just tired of the way the American Dream is crumbling before their very eyes. The world's last remaining superpower is going broke, and this is what it sounds like.

Wes Mantooth · 08-08-2010, 07:15 PM

I'm not really sure if the name is supposed to be that specific though BG, it might very well be because it sounded "patriotic" while vaguely referencing a coming revolution from a pissed off population. But that's just a guess.

Anyway I think being tired of watching the American dream crumble or we're being treated unfairly is why its so hard to pinpoint them with any real accuracy. There are so many theories on why things are going wrong and why from "minorities and immigrants are messing everything up" to "I'm being taxed to death and can't afford it" to "social programs are too costly" to what the fuck ever. But its hard to say if Mr taxed to death is on the same page as Mr illegal immigrants need to die.

I don't know, again just kind of thinking out loud.

Baraka_Guru · 08-08-2010, 07:20 PM

Yeah, I'm just spouting thoughts at the moment, myself.

When it comes to "tea party," I'm assuming they're not referencing afternoon tea on the terrace, or perhaps at Mildred's. They took the name knowingly, so now it's stuck. I didn't know they were trying to be non-specific about it.

Wes Mantooth · 08-08-2010, 07:33 PM

Thats funny, I guess you never know. Perhaps the whole movement is an afternoon tea party gone VERY wrong.

No I know what mean and the name does carry with it a certain image giving us clues to whats goin' down. The tea party does get thrown around a lot here by groups needing an identity against the powers that be and its meaning tends to get watered down to the point of sometimes just being a pointless slogan that sounds neat. Along the lines of "remember the Alamo" and slapping the rebel flag on a truck bumper the person or group using it may have no idea the real historical connotation behind it, again I have no idea why they choose it, just making conversation.

roachboy · 08-09-2010, 03:05 AM

it's shocking to find tea partiers behind protests around the country against the building of mosques, isn't it?

Quote:

Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

While a high-profile battle rages over a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”

Feeding the resistance is a growing cottage industry of authors and bloggers — some of them former Muslims — who are invited to speak at rallies, sell their books and testify in churches. Their message is that Islam is inherently violent and incompatible with America.

But they have not gone unanswered. In each community, interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths have defended the mosques. Often, they have been slower to organize than the mosque opponents, but their numbers have usually been larger.

The mosque proposed for the site near ground zero in Lower Manhattan cleared a final hurdle last week before the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg hailed the decision with a forceful speech on religious liberty. While an array of religious groups supported the project, opponents included the Anti-Defamation League, an influential Jewish group, and prominent Republicans like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker.

A smaller controversy is occurring in Temecula, about 60 miles north of San Diego, involving a typical stew of religion, politics and anti-immigrant sentiment. A Muslim community has been there for about 12 years and expanded to 150 families who have outgrown their makeshift worship space in a warehouse, said Mahmoud Harmoush, the imam, a lecturer at California State University, San Bernardino. The group wants to build a 25,000-square-foot center, with space for classrooms and a playground, on a lot it bought in 2000.

Mr. Harmoush said the Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council.

“We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.”

Recently, a small group of activists became alarmed about the mosque. Diana Serafin, a grandmother who lost her job in tech support this year, said she reached out to others she knew from attending Tea Party events and anti-immigration rallies. She said they read books by critics of Islam, including former Muslims like Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan and Manoucher Bakh. She also attended a meeting of the local chapter of ACT! for America, a Florida-based group that says its purpose is to defend Western civilization against Islam.

“As a mother and a grandmother, I worry,” Ms. Serafin said. “I learned that in 20 years with the rate of the birth population, we will be overtaken by Islam, and their goal is to get people in Congress and the Supreme Court to see that Shariah is implemented. My children and grandchildren will have to live under that.”

“I do believe everybody has a right to freedom of religion,” she said. “But Islam is not about a religion. It’s a political government, and it’s 100 percent against our Constitution.”

Ms. Serafin was among an estimated 20 to 30 people who turned out to protest the mosque, including some who intentionally took dogs to offend those Muslims who consider dogs to be ritually unclean. But they were outnumbered by at least 75 supporters. The City of Temecula recently postponed a hearing on whether to grant the mosque a permit.

Larry Slusser, a Mormon and the secretary of the Interfaith Council of Murietta and Temecula, went to the protest to support the Muslim group. “I know them,” he said. “They’re good people. They have no ill intent. They’re good Americans. They are leaders in their professions.”

Of the protesters, he said, “they have fear because they don’t know them.”

Religious freedom is also at stake, Mr. Slusser said, adding, “They’re Americans, they deserve to have a place to worship just like everybody else.”

There are about 1,900 mosques in the United States, which run the gamut from makeshift prayer rooms in storefronts and houses to large buildings with adjoining community centers, according to a preliminary survey by Mr. Bagby, who conducted a mosque study 10 years ago and is now undertaking another.

A two-year study by a group of academics on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. The study was conducted by professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina. It disclosed that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.

Radicalization of alienated Muslim youths is a real threat, Mr. Bagby said. “But the youth we worry about,” he said, “are not the youth that come to the mosque.”

In central Tennessee, the mosque in Murfreesboro is the third one in the last year to encounter resistance. It became a political issue when Republican candidates for governor and Congress declared their opposition. (They were defeated in primary elections on Thursday.)

A group called Former Muslims United put up a billboard saying “Stop the Murfreesboro Mosque.” The group’s president is Nonie Darwish, also the founder of Arabs for Israel, who spoke against Islam in Murfreesboro at a fund-raising dinner for Christians United for Israel, an evangelical organization led by the Rev. John Hagee.

“A mosque is not just a place for worship,” Ms. Darwish said in an interview. “It’s a place where war is started, where commandments to do jihad start, where incitements against non-Muslims occur. It’s a place where ammunition was stored.”

Camie Ayash, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, lamented that people were listening to what she called “total disinformation” on Islam.

She said her group was stunned when what began as one person raising zoning questions about the new mosque evolved into mass protests with marchers waving signs about Shariah.

“A lot of Muslims came to the U.S. because they respect the Constitution,” she said. “There’s no conflict with the U.S. Constitution in Shariah law. If there were, Muslims wouldn’t be living here.”

In Wisconsin, the conflict over the mosque was settled when the Town Executive Council voted unanimously to give the Islamic Society of Sheboygan a permit to use the former health food store as a prayer space.

Dr. Mansoor Mirza, the physician who owns the property, said he was trying to take the long view of the controversy.

“Every new group coming to this country — Jews, Catholics, Irish, Germans, Japanese — has gone through this,” Dr. Mirza said. “Now I think it’s our turn to pay the price, and eventually we will be coming out of this, too.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us...mc=rss&src=igw

why you'd almost think there's something to all the accusations that the tea party is rife with xenophobes and racists.

and if you look at the front national in france, they use similar fears of being "invaded by mosques" to mobilize their neo-fascist consituency.

must be just a coincidence.

Baraka_Guru · 08-09-2010, 03:58 AM

It all sounds so medieval.

I mean that literally.

Such xenophobia is astounding, and the irony of it is painful to bear.

roachboy · 08-09-2010, 04:07 AM

yeah, see i don't really get all the harumph harumph we are not racists "outrage" from folk sympathetic to the tea party above. it is self-evident that the movement is open to the whole spectrum of rightwing-to-ultra rightwing groups and people and that anyone--at all--was welcome by the non-center when they were useful as bodies for tea party astroturf events. astroturf because there's also little doubt that the sweetheart coverage provided the ultra-right by those fine impresarios of reaction at fox news played a big role in creating the tea party.

anyway, it seems to me that folk simply want to have it both ways: when the mirror is held up to some nebulous "populist outrage" and the cameras are assumed not to be rolling, any noxious sloganeering is fine. but once folk who aren't interested in being part of the party start looking, so once focus changes to what these people are doing and what they say and what they might stand for or want based on that....then it's all WHADDYA MEAN?

as for the xenophobia--yeah. it's appalling. but it's the kind of mideval ignorance that gives the tea party traction.

dogzilla · 08-09-2010, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

yeah, see i don't really get all the harumph harumph we are not racists "outrage" from folk sympathetic to the tea party above. it is self-evident that the movement is open to the whole spectrum of rightwing-to-ultra rightwing groups and people and that anyone--at all--was welcome by the non-center when they were useful as bodies for tea party astroturf events. astroturf because there's also little doubt that the sweetheart coverage provided the ultra-right by those fine impresarios of reaction at fox news played a big role in creating the tea party.

The tea party is an organization with open membership like just about any other political group. So you get a few crazies from time to time.

Your claim that the tea party is racist, bigoted, or whatever makes no more sense than my claiming that the pro gay rights people are violent based on the couple links I posted earlier about some lunatics in the anti-proposition 8 group making death threats.

Denounce the lunatics for what they are but don't label the entire group because of a few wackos.

roachboy · 08-09-2010, 04:35 AM

my claim is that there is an underlying ideological commonality that links the tea party together. that commonality is reactive. it deploys as xenophobia in some contexts racism in others, paranoia in most. it leans on a very basic feature of conservative political language of the past 20 years or so which is the opposition between the "real american" and the Other.

and this is not a matter of "a few crazies"---its a function of the central statements that hold contemporary conservatism together. the "we" is always under assault, be it from a state that wants to redistribute wealth to the evil muslims who want to build mosques so they have a community center and space for worship. your statements, dogzilla, are consistently embedded in **exactly** this language---your Problem with taxes your Problem with "illegals"... look up poujadisme. it could be a photograph.

so i can understand why you'd want to minimize what i'm saying and chock it up to a bunch of "crazies"---but you can't do it unless you want to characterize yourself among the crazies or want to say that the tea party is some mystical social movement every statement about which is wrong, that it involves an immediate connection between the Movement and the People. but that's also a, um, problematic
idea in the history of the far right. think popular theories of the relation between the state and the volk in 30s germany. do some research. i can help if you like.

what i've learned from threads like this is that far right people have a much bigger problem with being told their ideological position is neo-fascist than they have with the reasons one might say that about them.

go figure. neo-fascism is ok so long as you don't say what it is.

filtherton · 08-09-2010, 05:01 AM

I can't wait until some charismatic ideologue comes along and harnesses the aimless fear of these folks. Should be a good time.

Baraka_Guru · 08-09-2010, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I can't wait until some charismatic ideologue comes along and harnesses the aimless fear of these folks. Should be a good time.

Palin 2012?

dogzilla · 08-09-2010, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Palin 2012?

Why not? The Democrats had Obama as a clueless ideologue in 2008.

Seriously, I think we can do better than that. I'm looking forward to a bunch of Democrats getting the boot in this fall's election (Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Waters, wish Dodd had the guts to stick around) and Obama being even more of a lame duck until 2012.

Cimarron29414 · 08-09-2010, 06:25 AM

I really don't know why I contribute here anymore.

willravel - I'm really disappointed you took this thread in this direction.

Derwood · 08-09-2010, 06:44 AM

YouTube - ‪Paladino TV: I'll Stop the Mosque‬&lrm;

this is a Tea Party endorsed candidate for NY Governor

you simply can't say that the xenophobes are the lunatic fringe when the candidates are the xenophobes

FuglyStick · 08-09-2010, 07:02 AM

And there's the crux, Derwood. There are Tea Party members who support the party purely on the basis of the party's stance on fiscal issues. But the candidates' agenda is different--to promote their reactionary social policy. You can't get one without the other. A vote for a Tea Party member IS a vote for reactionary social policy, whether you have any interest in social policy or not.

Derwood · 08-09-2010, 07:45 AM

sorry, couldn't resist

dogzilla · 08-09-2010, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

sorry, couldn't resist

While you're posting whackjob quotes, don't forget that it was FDR that locked up thousands of Japanese-Americans.

Don't forget that it was liberal groups like the Weathermen that committed acts of terrorism in the US.

So much for tolerance of others. I'm sure we can go on endlessly with references to liberals and conservatives that promote intolerance and bigotry. I thought this group was better than that.

FuglyStick · 08-09-2010, 08:06 AM

I don't think you'll find any liberals here who agree with FDR's internment camps, or radical terrorist groups. You're deflecting.

Derwood · 08-09-2010, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

I don't think you'll find any liberals here who agree with FDR's internment camps, or radical terrorist groups. You're deflecting.

nor will you find any liberal candidates running on a platform of terrorism or internment

Seaver · 08-09-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Seriously, I think we can do better than that. I'm looking forward to a bunch of Democrats getting the boot in this fall's election (Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Waters, wish Dodd had the guts to stick around) and Obama being even more of a lame duck until 2012.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz0w8BAWg8x

Pelosi won't lose, Reid is currently ahead by 20 points, and Rangel's spot won't go to a Republican.

God I hate this situation where I keep having to point out that I'm a conservative.

The_Jazz · 08-09-2010, 09:44 AM

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+-
Enough is enough. This thread is an embarrassment between the threadjacks, personal attacks and half-assed jokes that fell flat. If you think I might be talking about you, let me remove any doubt - I am. And you're the problem here.

From this post on, if you do not discuss the topic AS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL POST, you'll earn points. No warning, no discussion. All staff are providing their personal opinions and are not using their staff positions to lend weight to those opinons or to detract from an opposing view. If you think that is the case from here on out, notify me personally.

I think that everyone on both ends of the spectrum knows that I care less about opinions than behavior. Either have a respectful discussion or be prepared to take a vacation from TFP. Err on the side of polite. If you can't do that, then hit your back button. If you can't do THAT, we'll discuss it when you get back.

filtherton · 08-09-2010, 09:44 AM

Nevermind

Willravel · 08-09-2010, 11:21 AM

Okay, calmed down and speaking dispassionately directly to the OP.

Quote:

Where is the Tea Party on social issues?

When you talk to people at the events themselves, they do tend to stick to fiscal concerns and I'd say the majority of homemade signs have to deal with the size of the Federal government, bailouts and taxes, but the social issues are there. When I was at the first protest in April of 2009 in Cesar Chavez Park, I took note there were signs specifically referencing life beginning at conception. I only remember noticing them because they didn't fit with, at the time, my understanding of the movement as libertarian (not that all libertarians are pro-choice, but all of the libertarians I know are and I know the official stance of the Libertarian party is abortion doesn't concern the state regardless of when life begins). Still, there were only a few signs. No one asked them to leave, but the protest wasn't a pro-life protest. I've seen those before and there's no mistaking them.

It wasn't until a counter-protest arrived that the social stances started becoming clear. San Jose has very active and vocal amnesty groups that routinely protest all over in support of our large undocumented immigrant population. When the amnesty protesters showed up at the Tea Party protest, the discussion quickly moved away from fiscal policy and moved to immigration. The Tea Party protesters all came down on the side against amnesty, obviously, but the general stance I could discern from the people shouting was that they want to close and significantly militarize the border, including the fence people often talk about, they want English to be the national language, they believe illegal immigrants are doing significant damage to the healthcare system and are a burden on our tax system (which I suppose is a combination of fiscal and social issues), they were against sanctuary cities, and of course the accusation that illegal immigrants take jobs away from American citizens. This was not just a few loud people, but the vast majority of the Tea Party protesters as well as the speaker, a host from a San Francisco conservative talk radio station.

After the amnesty protest moved away, people like myself who were not there to be a part of the Tea Party, but were just passing by or showed up to see what was going on started having discussions with the protesters. This is where the issues of abortion, homosexuality, unions, guns, etc. all came up.

The thing is, not all Tea Parties are on the same page as far as social issues.

Tea Party Patriots:

Quote:

Mission Statement

The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Core Values

Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Source
This is 100% fiscal.

Tea Party Nation:

Quote:

Who are we? Our members have joined us from all over the nation, from every state and even from foreign countries!

Tea Party Nation (or TPN) is a user-driven group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!

Source
This features some social issues, including free speech, the right to bear arms, and immigration, per my experience.

Finally, Tea Party.org:

Quote:

Non-negotiable core beliefs:
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

Source
Social issues include immigration, gun ownership, English as a national language, and 'traditional family values', which I take to mean marriage between a man and a woman though I could be wrong.

So, depending on which Tea Party you ask, there are social issues on the table. That matches my personal experience.

I hope this post has helped to put things back on track.

roachboy · 08-09-2010, 11:40 AM

personally, i think the tea party is mostly about this split inside the conservative movement:

American Crossroads, Karl Rove-Backed GOP Group, Predicts Stronger Fundraising After Disappointing Numbers

which i link to only because it's recent and short. there's quite a bit of information out there about these people and their nice new political gated community, american crossroads.

the tea party is a show of power.

during the popular front in france (1936) the communist party was able to move very quickly from being a small sectarian group to a mass political party because they were able to make a parallel show of force. at the renault factory at billancourt, they turned a sit-down strike on and off at will--they became a player because they forced their way in the door. to get there, they stepped all over alot of militants to the left of the pcf--and if you ever have occasion to read histories of the popular front, you'll get an introduction.

i think the same thing is going to happen to the tea partiers.

right now, it's more a matter of being alot of rightwing bodies that can be directed to turn out for this or that purposes at more or less this or that time. it matters much less why people turn out than it does that they turn out. given the sweetheart coverage the tea party still gets on faux news and other rightwing outlets, the more they turn out the more legit they look, the more they can become what they look like on tv.

so its an appearance of numbers game the idea of which is to become a numbers game.

rove's vile new conservative organization is not a political party, which means that they're not bound by the already quite weak campaign finance laws. so they also have another interest in not looking quite like a conventional political organization.
and these people have attracted alot of big money.
alot of the deep pockets who were funding the ultra-right before seem to think, from what i've read, that the republican party is in trouble because of the whole actual record of conservative power/bush administration thingy.

and if you look into what rove et al stand for, it's basically a corporate oligarchy. they have no use for democracy. they are what i've been saying the tea party is.

in their dreamiest scenario, i would expect they'd like to see themselves making enough gains alongside the republicans in the mid-terms to paralyze the obama administration altogether. i think they'd rather see a depression, a total collapse of the american economy, than allow obama's administration to govern effectively. because they like power that much.

i think the tea partiers are chumps. usefully incoherent footsoldiers the function of which is to help a very well-funded very right-wing very not-populist conservatism appear to be otherwise.

but we'll see.

Wes Mantooth · 08-09-2010, 03:17 PM

I think one thing to keep in mind when it comes to how the party defines itself (both socially and fiscally) is that, assuming they gain traction, they're still a very young party trying to figure out its own role in the world. I would imagine over the next few elections you'll see all sorts of policy swings as the water tries to find its own level. In the meantime people are coming out of the wood work for a number of reasons hoping the tea party is the alternative choice they're looking for and in turn assigning their own values and beliefs to what they think the tea party is or should be. One person is all about pro life and taking down illegal immigrants while another is concerned about making a living while having to pay such high taxes, are both are feeling let down by the GOP? I would think eventually their stance on social issues will slowly begin to reflect the average beliefs of the majority of supporters. Some independent polls of Tea Party supporters might go a long way in understanding what the evolution of their social stances will be as they settle in.

It reminds me a bit of the excitement about Ralph Nader in 2000, of course we were dealing with a much more organized party, but it amazed me how many disenfranchised democrats (and even republicans) latched on to the Green Party and just assumed it stood for whatever they happened to believe in almost like an alternative, generic left wing. Sometimes people just want something different I guess.

Anyway pardon my random thoughts, I've been learning a lot about the tea party in this thread (great post above Will) and just opining publicly along the way for the sake of discussion.

pan6467 · 08-09-2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

And there's the crux, Derwood. There are Tea Party members who support the party purely on the basis of the party's stance on fiscal issues. But the candidates' agenda is different--to promote their reactionary social policy. You can't get one without the other. A vote for a Tea Party member IS a vote for reactionary social policy, whether you have any interest in social policy or not.

And to some degree that is the problem. It's the Becks, Levines, and Hannitys that actually chase people away and work to make social policy in the Tea Party.

There truly is nothing wrong with the core beliefs:

Quote:

Non-negotiable core beliefs:
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

One can't say it is pro business due to the fact that "Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable." would mean bringing jobs back and increasing wages and benefits thus lowering the upper tier management income levels.

Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. This also affects the rich and upper echelons who got bailout and stimulus monies. Who were able to lower their tax debts 100,000's of dollars (just watch tv and see the commercials of the people), money they legitimately owed the government but obviously have not put back into the economy. Meanwhile, the people that owe a couple grand and live paycheck to paycheck are forced to pay plus interest.

The only thing as an old school liberal I have problems with and this is where the Hannity's Beck's and Levine's have destroyed the movement for me.. is "Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged."

Hannity and company, use this to hand pick who they will give air time to and support. That's all well and good, but traditional family values vary widely depending on religion, culture, beliefs, etc. My beliefs are I don't care if it is same sex or hetero parents, love and caring for the children and having them grow up as well adapted, productive members in society is all that matters and all that should. That in my belief comes from parents loving, interest and mentoring. The Tea Party wants to cut unnecessary spending and an intrusive government but then they allow talking heads "representing" them to use this to push forth their own policies which will lead to lawsuits, discriminations and more governmental regulations.

This one issue "core belief" is being so warped, IMHO, that it conflicts with a couple others.

I have long maintained that in this one issue it should be left to states, counties, townships/cities etc to decide what they want and the federal government by US Constitution have no right to dictate differently. Prop 8 is a good example... it's a state issue, the people voted federal court and our tax money have no business overturning or upholding a state issue. Period. If you like/dislike prop 8 work the state courts, get it back on the ballot, whatever... it is no not never a federal issue. Yet, for their own reasons both sides want to make it national.

You cannot nationally EVER legislate morals. it doesn't work and the framers of the Constitution knew this. You can't go to a heavy Catholic area and demand an abortion clinic... it's pushing your beliefs on someone else. Someone wants an abortion have them take a trip to where it is legal. If there is a portion of our country called "the Bible Belt" and they do not want to wish to have legalized same sex marriage and the majority vote that way, it's not for anyone in the federal government to go in and force same sex marriages. Get married in Mass, move to Ala. and live together it'll still work. Maybe have laws where the federal government forces businesses and insurance companies to recognize the union but don't "FORCE" a community to make it legal.

There in lies the biggest divider, everyone wants what they want and they want to demand everyone else no matter what state they are in must recognize and bow down to those wishes... and it is impossible to do without causing hatred, resentment and anger. You have to respect the voters, the communities and work on educating people not dictating to people.

But instead, we have both sides name calling, spewing hate and so ignorant in their own beliefs that they refuse to recognize there are other views and each has the same worth, to the person who has that view. When there can be common ground and respect had. Like I said forcing an abortion clinic in a heavily Catholic/Christian area is just forcing your will upon a group of people. Common sense dictates, if you want to go 3 counties over or to another state and have the abortion... cool. You're gay, you want to marry the community doesn't want to allow gay marriages to be performed , go to one that does and be done with it.

It's like dry counties, same principle. Every dry county, I know of, you can buy alcohol in another county and bring it into your home.

Anyway, that is how I see it. It's not the Tea Party is filled with hate. It's filled with the same talking heads the other 2 parties are preaching the same thing. That is, "fear". Fear of the people, the individual communities and the states opposing what values they want to shove down everyone else's throats.

You get rid of dictating morals nationally and give those rights back to the people, I think you'll see a huge change in this country. I believe it will be more accepting of others and we'll see more compromise in issues such as fiscal responsibilities, foreign policy, worker's rights, and so on.

The people I personally KNOW in the Tea Party feel very similar to the way I do, but they also know that without some national media and voice hence, Hannity/Beck/Levine... it won't grow. They are willing to make some sacrifice (which I think is too big of one) to have that national media platform.

I can almost guarantee the Tea Party candidates that are close to saying what I just did will have far better showings in their elections than most of the hand picked Hannity/Beck/Levine hand picked candidates.

rahl · 08-09-2010, 07:10 PM

the problem with referendums pan, is that the public can't vote away civil rights. that's what takes the issue beyond the states.

/threadjack

Derwood · 08-09-2010, 07:55 PM

and that a state can't pass a law that is against the US Constitution

pan6467 · 08-10-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

the problem with referendums pan, is that the public can't vote away civil rights. that's what takes the issue beyond the states.

/threadjack

But we're not talking civil rights. We're not saying gay marriage won't be recognized, just not performed in some areas. Not saying abortion is illegal everywhere, just in some places, we're not saying anyone can be denied equal rights under the law... just why force an area to have an abortion clinic? Why force a bible belt state to perform gay marriage?

The only reason is to put forth someone's power over another... that's where the anger and hatred and no compromises begin.

It's not rocket science. Gay men and women have lived in Bible Belt states probably as long as they have been states and before. They want to get married go to Mass. get married the state recognizes it, the fed government protects it... but you are not shoving it in people's faces. Whereas, you demand that Alabama makes it legal to perform the marriage and give out the certificates and you FORCE the will of probably less than a .5% of the state's population (that may want to participate in a gay marriage) on the rest of the people, you are going to get hatred.

No one wants to have views forced upon them. It's the exact same thing as if all of a sudden Roe V Wade was overturned and abortion was made illegal everywhere. Some communities would be happy, some extremely hostile. Same with Homosexual marriages as we are seeing, some communities extremely happy some extremely pissed off and saying Hell no.

To say "referendums don't work." I believe is wrong. I think when you allow communities and states to determine MORAL laws that it is easier to keep the union whole and people willing to compromise.

I force my views on you and demand you accept them, you will be pissed and want to punch me in my nose and that dear friend is what the Federal government has been doing to the people. And they are tired of it.

---------- Post added at 04:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

and that a state can't pass a law that is against the US Constitution

And if Alabama passes a law stating no legal abortions in cities with a population under 100,000 how is that unconstitutional? You're not denying anyone the right to have an abortion, just they can only have it in certain areas of that state.

How is saying the state will recognize gay marriages performed in other states but shall not issue any marriage licenses for such unions, unconstitutional? You're not denying them equal protection under the law, you are not saying that the marriage if performed in another state is void, just this state does not wish to issue licenses for it. You are not saying "gay marriage is illegal", you are not saying gays will go to jail, cannot get a job, do not have any rights... you are simply saying the marriage being originated in that state is not permitted.

But to force the will of an extreme minority upon a majority that does not want it, is asking for problems. It leads to hatreds, resentments and prejudices more so than eliminating them.

It's like say you and 4 other people go into a bar and demand that the other 95 cannot drink because it violates your right to enjoy the evening without having to put up with alcohol and the "problems" it MAY create for you. You don't want to drink, go down the road to Starbuck's don't demand that 95 other people cannot drink. You're not even giving them a say in the matter. YOU ARE DICTATING YOUR WILL OVER OTHERS.

I love how people say, the minority have to be protected from the majority and it is true but in the end, what is the difference between >5% of a population dictating to the rest their will? There is no difference whatsoever. Both lead to hatred. Whereas, letting communities decide their own fates, allows for compromises that both sides can ultimately live with

What's better having gay marriage recognized everywhere but only performed in some areas, no gay marriages allowed at all or forcing areas to perform gay marriages through lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions upon millions and leading to hatred, prejudices and anger?

San Francisco let's say (and I think they did vote for something like this if memory serves) that no guns can be sold in their city limits. No one says you can't own a gun, carry a gun however the state allows, just that you cannot buy one in city limits. So what's the problem? One group wants to dictate to the majority that their "right" to buy a gun is being withheld. It isn't. You could still but one in Oakland and other areas and carry it to your home with no problems. You just cannot buy it in the city. That's not unconstitutional, that's not infringing on anyone's rights. And the Left fights it like that. The Right says... infringement. The Right is wrong the Left is right.... but we spend MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and try to load supreme court justices and politicians to legislate a moral decision that infringes no one's rights.

The exact same could be said for abortion, gay marriage and so on.

It's all about compromise, education and respect of each other. We work for that instead of against it, we can focus on the matters that truly affect our lives. The deficit, education, rebuilding a tax base and the infrastructure and so on.

But both sides want to say that won't work because they view it as being a loss of power for them.

filtherton · 08-10-2010, 03:50 AM

Pan, as far as I can tell, the constitution doesn't provide for the abridgement of rights anywhere. So if a particular behavior or is constitutionally protected, it's protected everywhere. In my opinion geographical exceptions are a horrible idea.

roachboy · 08-10-2010, 03:57 AM

if the tea partiers were to be consistent they'd have a similar attitude about gun control.
but they don't.

so the fact is that you, pan, are drawn to the tea party in part because you have a Problem with gay marriage.
well, i have a Problem with localities not having the prerogative to regulate gun ownership as they see fit.

and the issue of gay marriage is a matter of equal protection under the law. it's about not allowing the far right to use the language of "morality" to justify discrimination. back in the day, your predecessors on the far right in the southeast justified other forms of discrimination on similar grounds.

the bailout package is a meme the tea party is using to distance itself from the mainline republican party. its the wedge that allows them to argue on economic policy grounds that the republicans aren't conservative enough. i think the bailout package was classically american conservative. talk populist but save the financial sector. and the military contractors.

the positions about "government intrusion" in the platform you copy above make no sense. what they're about is the dismantling of the redistributive state. in a severe economic situation, pulling back the state will be a disaster.

and there'd be more funds and programs for job creation if the republicans weren't blocking them all. so all this stuff about domestic jobs from the right is bullshit. you can't have it both ways: you either support job creation or you don't. you don't get to only support it if it happens when the right is in power.

a stronger military? the united states already spends more on military procurements etc. than the next 5 or so nation-states on the list combined. increasing military spending is the LAST thing the us needs. the tea party likes the repressive state.

"special interests" eliminated? how is the military and/or the military-industrial complex not a collection of "special interests"? why you'd almost think that the tea party is really about throwing up a smoke screen to prevent the dismantling of the national security state.

because the tea party people have no way to speak coherently about the reorganization of capitalism---so they cannot explain why their jobs are gone---their handlers turn them on the Others--the "ILLEGALS" and non-english speakers. and with this we go back to all the "real american" nonsense outlined earlier.

yeah, there is absolutely nothing on that list that i think even coherent in 2010 much less desirable.

i think the tea party is dangerous. i go back and forth about its ambitions, though. i think the organization backbone is what i outlined above. whether they're after the republican party or trying to make a third reactionary way, we'll have to see.

Baraka_Guru · 08-10-2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pan6467

It's not rocket science. Gay men and women have lived in Bible Belt states probably as long as they have been states and before. They want to get married go to Mass. get married the state recognizes it, the fed government protects it... but you are not shoving it in people's faces. Whereas, you demand that Alabama makes it legal to perform the marriage and give out the certificates and you FORCE the will of probably less than a .5% of the state's population (that may want to participate in a gay marriage) on the rest of the people, you are going to get hatred.

No one wants to have views forced upon them. It's the exact same thing as if all of a sudden Roe V Wade was overturned and abortion was made illegal everywhere. Some communities would be happy, some extremely hostile. Same with Homosexual marriages as we are seeing, some communities extremely happy some extremely pissed off and saying Hell no.

If it is deemed that gay marriage is a human/civil right, then it isn't simply forcing the will of 1% of the population onto others; it's enforcing the same rights already afforded the rest of the population. That's how rights work.

Geographic exceptions are no better than class, race, or gender exceptions. Rights are rights. Hatred be damned.

Quote:

To say "referendums don't work." I believe is wrong. I think when you allow communities and states to determine MORAL laws that it is easier to keep the union whole and people willing to compromise.

Putting the question of moral law to referendums is a dangerous idea. Go ahead and ask the 100% population directly whether 1% of the population deserves something and you're going to get somewhat predictable results. And if the question is a question of human/civil rights, then a referendum is not the way to go. If they had put universal suffrage to a referendum (read: to men), then women would likely have never been able to vote.

Referendums only work on questions that affect/reflect the population relatively equally. You don't go to the majority to determine the outcome of minorities.

EDIT:

My thoughts on the core beliefs:

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. [Getting rid of them will eliminate a worker pool of low-wage earners and a sizable chunk of the tax base. The net effect would be upward pressure on inflation (average wages for low-paying jobs).]

Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. [With average wages increasing after deporting undocumented workers, domestic job creation may be further hindered. Incomes will fall.]

Stronger Military Is Essential. [Increases in military spending will only encourage further wastage and bloating. The U.S. needs to figure out the difference between "defense spending" and "meddling spending." It should consider cutting the budget in half.]

Special Interests Eliminated. [Does this include the NRA and the meat & dairy industry lobbies?]

Gun Ownership Is Sacred. [Silly wording. Nothing is sacred. Not sure what is implied here.]

Government Must Be Downsized. [Without specifics, this is meaningless. Downsized where? Let's start with the military.]

National Budget Must Be Balanced. [Generally this should be the case, but it isn't always practical, especially in 2008. Economic realities are a bitch, especially when you look at factors beyond your control as a nation.]

Deficit Spending Will End. [Generally desirable, see above re: national budget and military spending.]

Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. [I'm no lawyer, but I think this is debatable.]

Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. [Americans are already paying low taxes. And didn't Obama lower taxes for most Americans already? Lowering taxes during a period of deficit spending and high debt is generally poor money management.]

Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory. [I'm not sure where businesses are sitting right now, but my perception is that U.S. businesses aren't overtaxed.]

Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. [Is this not the case? The Internet is a wonderful thing.]

Intrusive Government Stopped. [Can we remove subsidies to the meat and dairy industry? The barring of gay marriage and abortion?]

English As Core Language Is Required. [The U.S. should have at least two official languages: English and Spanish. It would make a lot of sense if you actually took a look at geography and demographics.]

Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. [Gays marginalized. Women removed from the workforce. Anti-abortion. Religious compass. Abstinence over sex education. Against pre-marital sex and cohabitation/common law. I don't think this reflects enough of the population. It's going to marginalize too many people. But I don't get it. Does the Tea Party want the government to encourage this, or is this something they encourage themselves? Either way, both the government and the Tea Party should avoid being so intrusive on families despite their values and makeup.]

Derwood · 08-10-2010, 05:33 AM

pan, I don't even know where to start. I found your entire post disgusting

Wes Mantooth · 08-10-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Non-negotiable core beliefs:
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

The more I read this list and think about it the more it just comes across as vague and confusing, a net to reel in anybody who is right of center.

I don't have time to go through this list with a fine tooth comb, some of it I agree with in theory, some of its ridiculous (in my opinion) but at this point it reads more like a right wing recruitment list then anything else. As though they are just trying to get their fingers in as many right wing pies as possible. If I'm looking for a right wing candidate and was presented with that list I'd be asking why I should throw away my vote on the Tea Party instead of supporting the Republican candidate who would have a better chance of winning and would support most if not all of whats listed above.

I'd be interested in hearing how they plan to set themselves apart from the GOP in any substantial way. The social issues they seem to be interested in are really no different then Republican stance and perhaps the answer to the OP is that they have a generic right wing stance on social issue and just leave it at that. The fiscal conservatives involved don't seem all that interested in social issues and are leaving them up to those who are. Certainly weather or not they will continue down the same road it would be hard to fathom them going in the other direction and taking a left wing (or even center) stance on ANYTHING without alienating those they've already recruited. It may be guess work, for the time being I just don't see them saying or doing anything at a national level that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Time will tell I suppose but if it doesn't change I don't see how they could survive as anything more then a political fad without defining themselves as a real alternative.

pan6467 · 08-10-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Pan, as far as I can tell, the constitution doesn't provide for the abridgement of rights anywhere. So if a particular behavior or is constitutionally protected, it's protected everywhere. In my opinion geographical exceptions are a horrible idea.

Where am I saying it isn't protected? Please, show me how you get I am saying people somehow someway are having civil rights infringed upon. Because I went to great lengths to show compromise can be had, without the infringement of anyones rights.

Quote:

If it is deemed that gay marriage is a human/civil right, then it isn't simply forcing the will of 1% of the population onto others; it's enforcing the same rights already afforded the rest of the population. That's how rights work.

Geographic exceptions are no better than class, race, or gender exceptions. Rights are rights. Hatred be damned.

Where did I say gay marriage wasn't protected, where? I said a state or a community should have the right to decide if they want to issue the license for it. I stated the state would recognize and protect their rights as a married couple, but the state doesn't have to issue the license. How is that hatred? How is that anything except compromise.

So, the Second Amendment allows me the right to bear arms. I want to carry 2 M-16's, 5 glock 9's and a grenade launcher in downtown San Francisco. I, constitutionally have that right. I'm not hurting anyone and if I am the excuse for inciting anything, not my fault. See I have the right to bear arms, people trying to stop me or showing fear and what not, well then they have the problem. Not me.

Willravel · 08-10-2010, 10:42 AM

So Tea Party social issues...

08-08-2010, 05:46 PM	#121 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think we've seen enough posts that use variations of "you are full of shit." there are other ways to disagree. use some imagination. sheesh. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2010, 05:49 PM	#122 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	Yeah guys, 'fascist' is the new 'anti-american'. Get with the times. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

08-08-2010, 06:01 PM	#123 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i love one-dimensional little drive-by posts o so much. no really. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2010, 06:54 PM	#124 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	I still think without firm leadership or a proper public platform its too difficult to truly define exactly what they stand for, there are too many people involved with it who carry too many different ideas about what direction the party should take. Its easy to point at toothless rednecks carrying misspelled hate signs to rallies as the face of a movement but three years ago they were carrying the same signs to Joe the Plumber rallies and acting all hot and bothered about McCain/Palin. They want to bitch and will latch on to any movement or party that even slightly tolerates their presence, without leadership to condemn the practice on a national level what can anybody really do about it? On the flip side I'm not sure if you can point to any of the high profile members as an example either. How many of them are usurping the movement to stay relevant in the press? How many of them will scurry back to the GOP the minute the next Presidential election rolls around? In other words we don't know if somebody like Sarah Palin is either a real representative of the movement or somebody that's going to stick around and help define it when an opportunity arises in the GOP come the next election. Can we look find any numbers to see how many self identified members across the US support any of the people trying to emerge as the face of the party (that's an honest question, have there been any polls that would give us an idea)? I think we can all read the writing on the wall about the direction this movement is taking if things don't change. However I'm not sure its fair to paint everybody involved right now in the Tea Party with the same broad brush until a platform is outlined behind popular leadership. Without a point of reference subscribed to by the majority of its constituency its all guess work based on personal experiences and whatever we can gather from the press. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

08-08-2010, 07:02 PM	#125 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, the maddening thing about all of it is just that: there is no centre. It's all a reaction to a generic disdain for taxes and spending, and beyond that is a mish-mash of variables that fits under that umbrella. Bear in mind that the whole feel to the movement is that it is a reaction against something, rather than a movement supporting something. It's a negation that way. The movement is named after a high-profile piece of American history that involved sabotage and vandalism, an event that was one of several leading up to a revolutionary war. That's the background context we're dealing with: a reactionary outrage against order based on the perception that people are being treated unfairly and unjustly. Except this time around, it's debatable as to whether that's true. Regardless, I don't think the Tea Partiers of today can declare they're being taxed without representation. I think they're just tired of the way the American Dream is crumbling before their very eyes. The world's last remaining superpower is going broke, and this is what it sounds like. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-08-2010, 07:15 PM	#126 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	I'm not really sure if the name is supposed to be that specific though BG, it might very well be because it sounded "patriotic" while vaguely referencing a coming revolution from a pissed off population. But that's just a guess. Anyway I think being tired of watching the American dream crumble or we're being treated unfairly is why its so hard to pinpoint them with any real accuracy. There are so many theories on why things are going wrong and why from "minorities and immigrants are messing everything up" to "I'm being taxed to death and can't afford it" to "social programs are too costly" to what the fuck ever. But its hard to say if Mr taxed to death is on the same page as Mr illegal immigrants need to die. I don't know, again just kind of thinking out loud. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

08-08-2010, 07:20 PM	#127 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Yeah, I'm just spouting thoughts at the moment, myself. When it comes to "tea party," I'm assuming they're not referencing afternoon tea on the terrace, or perhaps at Mildred's. They took the name knowingly, so now it's stuck. I didn't know they were trying to be non-specific about it. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-08-2010, 07:33 PM	#128 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	Thats funny, I guess you never know. Perhaps the whole movement is an afternoon tea party gone VERY wrong. No I know what mean and the name does carry with it a certain image giving us clues to whats goin' down. The tea party does get thrown around a lot here by groups needing an identity against the powers that be and its meaning tends to get watered down to the point of sometimes just being a pointless slogan that sounds neat. Along the lines of "remember the Alamo" and slapping the rebel flag on a truck bumper the person or group using it may have no idea the real historical connotation behind it, again I have no idea why they choose it, just making conversation. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!” Last edited by Wes Mantooth; 08-08-2010 at 07:35 PM..

08-09-2010, 03:58 AM	#130 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It all sounds so medieval. I mean that literally. Such xenophobia is astounding, and the irony of it is painful to bear. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-09-2010, 04:07 AM	#131 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yeah, see i don't really get all the harumph harumph we are not racists "outrage" from folk sympathetic to the tea party above. it is self-evident that the movement is open to the whole spectrum of rightwing-to-ultra rightwing groups and people and that anyone--at all--was welcome by the non-center when they were useful as bodies for tea party astroturf events. astroturf because there's also little doubt that the sweetheart coverage provided the ultra-right by those fine impresarios of reaction at fox news played a big role in creating the tea party. anyway, it seems to me that folk simply want to have it both ways: when the mirror is held up to some nebulous "populist outrage" and the cameras are assumed not to be rolling, any noxious sloganeering is fine. but once folk who aren't interested in being part of the party start looking, so once focus changes to what these people are doing and what they say and what they might stand for or want based on that....then it's all WHADDYA MEAN? as for the xenophobia--yeah. it's appalling. but it's the kind of mideval ignorance that gives the tea party traction. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-09-2010, 04:35 AM	#133 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	my claim is that there is an underlying ideological commonality that links the tea party together. that commonality is reactive. it deploys as xenophobia in some contexts racism in others, paranoia in most. it leans on a very basic feature of conservative political language of the past 20 years or so which is the opposition between the "real american" and the Other. and this is not a matter of "a few crazies"---its a function of the central statements that hold contemporary conservatism together. the "we" is always under assault, be it from a state that wants to redistribute wealth to the evil muslims who want to build mosques so they have a community center and space for worship. your statements, dogzilla, are consistently embedded in exactly this language---your Problem with taxes your Problem with "illegals"... look up poujadisme. it could be a photograph. so i can understand why you'd want to minimize what i'm saying and chock it up to a bunch of "crazies"---but you can't do it unless you want to characterize yourself among the crazies or want to say that the tea party is some mystical social movement every statement about which is wrong, that it involves an immediate connection between the Movement and the People. but that's also a, um, problematic idea in the history of the far right. think popular theories of the relation between the state and the volk in 30s germany. do some research. i can help if you like. what i've learned from threads like this is that far right people have a much bigger problem with being told their ideological position is neo-fascist than they have with the reasons one might say that about them. go figure. neo-fascism is ok so long as you don't say what it is. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-09-2010 at 04:57 AM..

08-09-2010, 05:01 AM	#134 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I can't wait until some charismatic ideologue comes along and harnesses the aimless fear of these folks. Should be a good time.

08-09-2010, 06:25 AM	#137 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I really don't know why I contribute here anymore. willravel - I'm really disappointed you took this thread in this direction. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

08-09-2010, 07:02 AM	#139 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	And there's the crux, Derwood. There are Tea Party members who support the party purely on the basis of the party's stance on fiscal issues. But the candidates' agenda is different--to promote their reactionary social policy. You can't get one without the other. A vote for a Tea Party member IS a vote for reactionary social policy, whether you have any interest in social policy or not. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

08-09-2010, 07:45 AM	#140 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	sorry, couldn't resist __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

08-09-2010, 08:06 AM	#142 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	I don't think you'll find any liberals here who agree with FDR's internment camps, or radical terrorist groups. You're deflecting. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

08-09-2010, 09:44 AM	#146 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Nevermind

08-09-2010, 11:40 AM	#148 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	personally, i think the tea party is mostly about this split inside the conservative movement: American Crossroads, Karl Rove-Backed GOP Group, Predicts Stronger Fundraising After Disappointing Numbers which i link to only because it's recent and short. there's quite a bit of information out there about these people and their nice new political gated community, american crossroads. the tea party is a show of power. during the popular front in france (1936) the communist party was able to move very quickly from being a small sectarian group to a mass political party because they were able to make a parallel show of force. at the renault factory at billancourt, they turned a sit-down strike on and off at will--they became a player because they forced their way in the door. to get there, they stepped all over alot of militants to the left of the pcf--and if you ever have occasion to read histories of the popular front, you'll get an introduction. i think the same thing is going to happen to the tea partiers. right now, it's more a matter of being alot of rightwing bodies that can be directed to turn out for this or that purposes at more or less this or that time. it matters much less why people turn out than it does that they turn out. given the sweetheart coverage the tea party still gets on faux news and other rightwing outlets, the more they turn out the more legit they look, the more they can become what they look like on tv. so its an appearance of numbers game the idea of which is to become a numbers game. rove's vile new conservative organization is not a political party, which means that they're not bound by the already quite weak campaign finance laws. so they also have another interest in not looking quite like a conventional political organization. and these people have attracted alot of big money. alot of the deep pockets who were funding the ultra-right before seem to think, from what i've read, that the republican party is in trouble because of the whole actual record of conservative power/bush administration thingy. and if you look into what rove et al stand for, it's basically a corporate oligarchy. they have no use for democracy. they are what i've been saying the tea party is. in their dreamiest scenario, i would expect they'd like to see themselves making enough gains alongside the republicans in the mid-terms to paralyze the obama administration altogether. i think they'd rather see a depression, a total collapse of the american economy, than allow obama's administration to govern effectively. because they like power that much. i think the tea partiers are chumps. usefully incoherent footsoldiers the function of which is to help a very well-funded very right-wing very not-populist conservatism appear to be otherwise. but we'll see. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-09-2010, 03:17 PM	#149 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	I think one thing to keep in mind when it comes to how the party defines itself (both socially and fiscally) is that, assuming they gain traction, they're still a very young party trying to figure out its own role in the world. I would imagine over the next few elections you'll see all sorts of policy swings as the water tries to find its own level. In the meantime people are coming out of the wood work for a number of reasons hoping the tea party is the alternative choice they're looking for and in turn assigning their own values and beliefs to what they think the tea party is or should be. One person is all about pro life and taking down illegal immigrants while another is concerned about making a living while having to pay such high taxes, are both are feeling let down by the GOP? I would think eventually their stance on social issues will slowly begin to reflect the average beliefs of the majority of supporters. Some independent polls of Tea Party supporters might go a long way in understanding what the evolution of their social stances will be as they settle in. It reminds me a bit of the excitement about Ralph Nader in 2000, of course we were dealing with a much more organized party, but it amazed me how many disenfranchised democrats (and even republicans) latched on to the Green Party and just assumed it stood for whatever they happened to believe in almost like an alternative, generic left wing. Sometimes people just want something different I guess. Anyway pardon my random thoughts, I've been learning a lot about the tea party in this thread (great post above Will) and just opining publicly along the way for the sake of discussion. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

08-09-2010, 07:10 PM	#151 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	the problem with referendums pan, is that the public can't vote away civil rights. that's what takes the issue beyond the states. /threadjack __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

08-09-2010, 07:55 PM	#152 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	and that a state can't pass a law that is against the US Constitution __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

08-10-2010, 03:50 AM	#154 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Pan, as far as I can tell, the constitution doesn't provide for the abridgement of rights anywhere. So if a particular behavior or is constitutionally protected, it's protected everywhere. In my opinion geographical exceptions are a horrible idea.

08-10-2010, 03:57 AM	#155 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if the tea partiers were to be consistent they'd have a similar attitude about gun control. but they don't. so the fact is that you, pan, are drawn to the tea party in part because you have a Problem with gay marriage. well, i have a Problem with localities not having the prerogative to regulate gun ownership as they see fit. and the issue of gay marriage is a matter of equal protection under the law. it's about not allowing the far right to use the language of "morality" to justify discrimination. back in the day, your predecessors on the far right in the southeast justified other forms of discrimination on similar grounds. the bailout package is a meme the tea party is using to distance itself from the mainline republican party. its the wedge that allows them to argue on economic policy grounds that the republicans aren't conservative enough. i think the bailout package was classically american conservative. talk populist but save the financial sector. and the military contractors. the positions about "government intrusion" in the platform you copy above make no sense. what they're about is the dismantling of the redistributive state. in a severe economic situation, pulling back the state will be a disaster. and there'd be more funds and programs for job creation if the republicans weren't blocking them all. so all this stuff about domestic jobs from the right is bullshit. you can't have it both ways: you either support job creation or you don't. you don't get to only support it if it happens when the right is in power. a stronger military? the united states already spends more on military procurements etc. than the next 5 or so nation-states on the list combined. increasing military spending is the LAST thing the us needs. the tea party likes the repressive state. "special interests" eliminated? how is the military and/or the military-industrial complex not a collection of "special interests"? why you'd almost think that the tea party is really about throwing up a smoke screen to prevent the dismantling of the national security state. because the tea party people have no way to speak coherently about the reorganization of capitalism---so they cannot explain why their jobs are gone---their handlers turn them on the Others--the "ILLEGALS" and non-english speakers. and with this we go back to all the "real american" nonsense outlined earlier. yeah, there is absolutely nothing on that list that i think even coherent in 2010 much less desirable. i think the tea party is dangerous. i go back and forth about its ambitions, though. i think the organization backbone is what i outlined above. whether they're after the republican party or trying to make a third reactionary way, we'll have to see. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-10-2010 at 04:00 AM..

08-10-2010, 05:33 AM	#157 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	pan, I don't even know where to start. I found your entire post disgusting __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

08-10-2010, 10:42 AM	#160 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So Tea Party social issues...