ASU2003

It seems like the Republicans lost in 2008 based in part on the social agenda that the nation didn't agree with. But, now the Tea Party has found traction with the fiscal conservatives (I think that they have a valid concern), but is being used as a front by the strong social conservatives to get into power once again.

So, is it written anyplace where the tea party movement stands on the environment, guns, abortion, gay marriage, immigration (both legal and guest workers), drug policy, and other social issues? (A few of the basics are here About us :: TeaParty.org , but how will they deal with the consequences of less tax revenue and more guns. I fear it will look like Northern Mexico on their bad days)

Going by what the right-wing radio guys are talking about, it is pretty much an anti-Obama, anti-democrat, anti-liberal agenda. Yet, I can't find any central list of where their platform stands. And the Contract From America http://www.contractfromamerica.com/ only shows that they are against taxes on pollution, which I would rather see a cap policy (rations) and high gas taxes until we are 100% off imported oil. Getting foreign oil is causing too many problems, and those costs aren't being burden by the people using it.

I think a Green Tea Party with fiscal policies to reduce our debt by producing energy here rather than importing it (using a large percentage of renewable power), promoting abortion for couples who aren't ready (and it makes better financial sense), promoting a separation of church and state, you can keep your guns (but it doesn't make you special), getting and keeping people healthy to reduce costs, and a balanced budget at both the Federal, state, and local levels (without having the states undercut each other to promise lower taxes on corporations if they move their business there).

ratbastid

Yes. As far as I can tell, they're against things. There are general principles that inform that against-ness, but I can't really make out anything concrete that they're FOR.

Wes Mantooth

Truth be told I've been to busy over the last year or two to pay attention to politics like I should (really need to get back into it) so I'm not very well versed on the platform of the tea party. However living in a red state I do often run across people who affiliate with it and talking to them I find there seems to be a split on social issues. Keep in mind this is small sample size but from I've found some have the typical Republican stance on social issues while others seem to take a more Libertarian view.

Both just seem to be burned out on the Republican party and want something better/different. Yet the organization is so new it lacks any kind of real leadership it just hasn't been properly defined yet instead surviving more on disgruntled Republicans with a hodgepodge of different ideas ranging from the extreme to very moderate. From what I've gathered they seem a little like the Democrats who jumped ship for Ralph Nader back in the day, you wound up with a group consisting of hardcore Green Party members mixed with disillusioned Democrats who all had different ideas about what they wanted out of a third party.

Of course we all remember what happened there, the left wing votes were split and arguably helped Bush win the election....so will the same be true in 2012 for the right? Sorry, got off topic there.

Anyway I think I'm finding that its just a massive group full of varying ideas who happened to be united by simply being on the right of most issues. It will be interesting to see what they could do if they get their shit together, not that I'd necessarily support them (really depends on how they define themselves) but third parties always fascinate me.

__________________

FuglyStick

Which will, come November, prove to be the unraveling of the party.

I've said it before, but McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate in '08 killed the GOP as the voice of most conservatives. They've legitimized the fringe, and left the mainstream conservatives hanging out to dry. Now the GOP has no choice but to embrace the fringe, as they've put the Tea Party in the driving seat. And the Tea Party only has one plank in their platform, as Rat pointed out--oppose everything Obama does. That's not the same as offering up alternatives. All anyone running against a Tea Party candidate would have to do to ensure victory in November is challenge the Tea Party candidate to a debate. Rebutting with "nuh-uh" is not going to sway anyone but the most ignorant Tea Party acolytes (of which there are no shortages, in truth). But Tea Party candidates won't accept such a challenge; they'll claim that being asked to explain their position further than the Anti-Obama argument is an attempt by that wily Main Stream Media to orchestrate a "gotcha" moment, and their acolytes will marvel at how wise their candidate is for avoiding the trap, while still not having any idea what their candidate actually stands for.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Wes Mantooth

Yeah I can't believe people thought bringing Palin on board was an automatic clincher for president, the strategy behind that still mystifies me to this day. It was funny as fuck watching that train wreck occur amongst cries of "elections over!!!!" it was even funnier laughing about a month or two later.

Anyway I think the tea party is just too disjointed right now, its easy to hop on board when the whole theme is anti Obama/Democrats but once they truly have to begin defining themselves as a party they're either just going to be GOP light or hard line fringe and I don't think either will help them win an election. The GOP certainly isn't going to step aside for another party and I think when push comes to shove most tea party members will just go back to the Reps while the whole movement dies out... in other words I think this whole thing is just a political fad and something to unify around while the right is out of the picture.

__________________

Seaver

To have a unified stance, there must be leadership.

There is no leadership right now to the tea party movement, regardless of the media trying to find/install one. They want a leader because it's hard to report on an amalgam of viewpoints as opposed to one large message.

The problem is the Tea Party itself is not a group as much as a loose confederacy. Confederacies throughout history (Civil War not withstanding) only survive so long as there is an outside unifier (we all hate X, so lets stick together to defeat X). You have social liberal / fiscal conservatives, you have fiscal liberal / social conservatives (sneaking their way in, regardless of what they preach vs. enact), and all manners in between.

Asking this is like asking what any racial demographic wants... you'll never get an accurate answer.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Baraka_Guru

We can gloss the values of the Tea Party movement by saying "anything anti-Obama," and perhaps that will hit a swath of truths, however, if we attempt an objective look at the movement, we might get a better picture.

It's difficult to have any definitive list of values because there is no central leadership. However, if you consider the Contract from America, it represents a summary of concerns as surveyed by those involved in the movement. Below are the top ten concerns by popularity:
So basically, they want:

1. Every new law to pass a constitutional challenge
2. To stop cap-and-trade
3. A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and 2/3 majority for any changes in taxes
4. A streamlined single-rate tax system (a simplified flat tax)
5. A constitutional audit of all federal agencies, letting the functions of those that fail to fall to state or municipal responsibility
6. To limit the growth of federal spending to inflation + percent population growth
7. To repeal the health care legislation
8. To authorize energy exploration and reduce regulation regarding energy creation
9. A moratorium on all earmarks pending a balanced budget and a 2/3 majority
10. To repeal all tax increases and make permanent Bush's temporary tax reductions

I'm not sure if my list is that much more simplified, but there you go.

Generally, they are strict constitutionalists who want to cut/limit spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget.

I apologize if I've oversimplifed matters. I'm just trying to get a perspective.

__________________
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

ASU2003

Those 10 things are 80% fiscal/governmental policy and 20% social (except cap & trade & gov regulated health care). If you listen to conservative radio, they make it seem like tea party candidates have to pass the GOP purity test and be for lowering taxes for the rich and large companies. Some Conservatives Push a ‘Purity Test’ for GOP Candidates - Washington Wire - WSJ Or do they have the positions that Ron Paul has? Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (His ideas would reduce spending and subsidies although there would be effects from them)

Baraka_Guru

It's my understanding that the movement replicates much of the spirit of Ron Paul. The more I think about it the more I see the movement as generally a libertarian movement. Of course, you get your variances depending on people who participate based on their own self-interests. You're going to get conservative libertarians, who have problems with taxation and any spending beyond military and infrastructure, and you're going to get some left-leaning libertarians, who simply want less federal bureaucracy and would rather more power be diffused though state and municipal governments.

I'm speculating at this point, but I'm trying to get a grasp on things.

I suppose you're not going to get anything agreeable on topics such as abortion, the environment, same-sex marriage, and the like, because you're going to have a mix of people on social political issues. Some will say they're anti-abortion and oppose same-sex marriage because they're generally conservative; however, you're going to get those who say the government shouldn't have anything to do with regulating these things and should keep their noses the fuck out of people's lives.

Most would probably oppose government spending on the environment unless it was in the form of tax breaks and credits for businesses who want to optionally participate in certain programs. I'm not entirely sure about that. Just a hunch.

__________________
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

Wes Mantooth

I think you've got a good grasp of it BG, as best I can tell the one thing I've found that unifies the party is wanting to get back to the old ideals held by the GOP before the neocons took over. I've long suspected there is a part of the Republican party that's tired of the religious fundies and extremists that seem to dominate the landscape of the GOP and want to move back to simple ideas of small govt and such (think Barry Goldwater). The Tea Party seems to fill this void rather well or at least could.

The rise in popularity of Libertarian party over the last few elections would certainly support that to some degree, however Ron Paul seems to be a little to extreme for the average voter and the movement really hasn't caught fire. Most conservatives I know (the sane ones) don't really care about social issues all that much, abortion and gay marriage for example mean very little to them, they stick with the GOP because its the lesser of two evils...at least they'll leave me alone and wont tax me to death kind of thing...Perhaps that's the crowd the Tea party will attract if they manage to build any kind leadership or identity. Which I guess would place their stance on social issues as being up to the individual member...

Still trying to get a grasp on what they really are myself.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

Well, if my explorations here are any indication, it would seem to me that the Tea Party arose as a reaction to the perception of Obama's governance that would see higher taxes and spending priorities that would make most libertarians and conservatives cringe.

Basically, they're reacting against the government spending money on such initiatives as universal health care and the environment. It would seem that to give Tea Partiers what they want would be to lessen their tax load and balance the budget. But how the budget gets balanced is the big sticking point. It would require passing a series of constitutional audits.

In Canada, we can have higher taxes, higher spending on social programs, and still balance a budget (at least before 2008; however, the balancing of the budget is the goal currently).

It all comes down to values, perception of value, and whether you are willing to pay for things regardless on whether you take advantage directly or indirectly.

__________________
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

Wes Mantooth

Actually I think Canada does a pretty decent job of balancing taxes, social programs and budgeting but I also think Canada has a much more organized govt (at least that's what I gather from talking with my Canadian friends). I think the prevailing idea behind the tea party is that our govt is incapable of getting anything right, they'd just fuck it up beyond repair and leave us with a bigger mess then what we have now...I'm not sure that isn't entirely unfounded either looking at public education for example.

Which is why I think its roots are based in a movement to sort of resurrect the old GOP or better yet old fashioned conservative values of smaller government. Sticking to the point of the thread I'm not sure social issues really factor into that.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

Yeah, there's something about American politics that make it almost seem it's always in crisis mode. You don't really get that here. Sure, you get the political outcries (recently it was the decision to get rid of the census long form) here, but you don't tend to have leadership that fucks things up. There is too much accountability at stake.

Do you know what happens here when the government fucks up badly enough? It usually means we go to the polls to pick a new one.

__________________
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

Wes Mantooth

Exactly, you get to call for an election right? We're stuck with it for how ever many years are left on in the term. Bush is a great example of how a President (and his govt) can fuck up beyond reason and still be in pretty much no danger of losing power.

That's why I tend to sympathize with small govt movements here in the states, not because its better but because bad leadership here can potentially do a lot more damage. Think about that from the view of a conservative starring down 4 years of a President like Obama (or conversely a Dem looking at 4 more years of Bush) you can understand the fear that permeates the US sometimes when it comes to politics.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

Well, calling for an election depends, as there are restrictions on timing and conditions. As I mentioned, the budget is one such item. If it is unsatisfactory, opposition parties can vote against it and trigger a dissolution of parliament. There are other such items of government that have the same conditions attached to it.

But it's a serious issue, as you don't want an election only to have it blow up in your face. And it's bad policy to force Canadians to vote when it's not really necessary. We take dissolution seriously. Even the Prime Minister can trigger an election.

__________________
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

FuglyStick

Because the Tea Party has not addressed where they stand on social issues, we'll have to cobble together an assumption of where they stand. Judging from the attitudes of the de facto leadership of the Tea Party (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin et. al.), here's what I believe a platform of social issues by the Tea Party would look like:

1. Abortion. Forget it. A woman's right to choose dies with any policy made by the Tea Party. It's contrary to the bible thumping rhetoric the Tea Party invokes.

Which brings us to...

2. The separation of church and state. We're a Christian country. If you don't like it, get out.

3. Inner city programs. Won't get a dime if the Tea Party is holding the purse. I hope you like slums.

4. Gay marriage. If you don't think that the Tea Party would try to pass an amendment that says marriage consists of the union between a man and a woman only, you're delusional.

5. Education. If you want to go to college, you better hope you come from a well off family. Federal grants and loans will dry up like a raindrop in the desert.

6. Health care. It wasn't broke in the first place, am I right?

Just skimming the surface, off the top of my head. This is all wild speculation. But the Tea Party hasn't given us anything to go on when it comes to its stance on social issues; all we can do is make a guess based on the prevailing attitudes of the Tea Party talking heads. I don't think any of these assumptions is far off the mark, considering their rhetoric.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Wes Mantooth

I've always wondered exactly how that procedure works BG. So would it be considered bad form to call an election simply because a PM/party is unpopular? In other words is it viewed as a safety net or is that over simplifying everything?

I guess conversely we here in the states do have mid term elections which can help strike some balance, the Republicans could take back Congress this year which would severely limit the power Obama has, cutting 4 years of "damage" down to 2. (I actually don't mind Obama though so its okay from my perspective)

EDIT: Its still hard to say though Fugly. I've met a lot of people who are VERY much into the Tea Party thing who couldn't careless one way or the other about abortion, Christianity or gay marriage. I do think you've nailed it for a lot of them when it comes to Inner city programs, education and health care though.

__________________

FuglyStick

Ah, but here's the thing. There may be a lot of Tea Party folk who don't care about issues like gay marriage and abortion, but can the Tea Party lose the "God and Country" crowd and still maintain enough members to be viable? Because the Tea Party doesn't hold "rallies", they hold "revivals".

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

roachboy

i think i've told this little anecdote here before, but maybe not.
and i wouldn't say this is representative of anything but i found myself on a guest list more than once for parties hosted by the main movers in the tea party movement in this area. i talked to quite a few of them some of whom are running for office, others of whom are learning about grassroots (or astroturf depending on how things pan out) organizing...i was surprised by the diversity of positions. there was no agreement about philosophical or practical matters. what seemed to unite them was an idea that something Very Bad is Happening Out There and while they can't quite tell you what that Bad Thing is they know that Whatever We Are Doing is Part of that Bad Thing. so being against things seemed to follow. another things they had in common (which is different from being united by) is that these are the first political actions for all these people.

i didn't particularly feel like hearing the obama=communism stuff i suspected was coming so made an outline of my politics known. it likely shut things down.

based on this and what i've read though, i don't think there is a particular ideological center....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Wes Mantooth

Indeed they do (despite what I'm saying here, some of the stuff I've seen around me lately is boarderline scary), but seperating from the "God and Country" crowd could be what gives them an identity amongst more grounded conservatives and thrusts them from side show to mainstream. But it really depends on which ideology wins out in the end, will they reject the Palins and Becks or turn into GOP part II?

But again as long as they center their identity around "Obama sucks" its really hard to tell what direction the whole thing moves.

__________________

FoolThemAll

For what it's worth - and I know, not a whole lot... about as much as the other anecdotal appraisals in this thread - every tea partier I've met in my area has been at least apathetic about religion, if not hostile.

(Which is not to say that they've been pro-choice. If that confuses you, then you don't have a very good handle on the issue.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

FuglyStick

IF the Tea Party separated itself from the doomsday fundamentalists, racist elements, and xenophobes, I would welcome the Tea Party, or GOP II, or whatever it became known as. (I feel I have to interject--I don't believe being a Tea Party member makes you a fundamentalist, racist or xenophobe; if you ARE a fundamentalist, racist, or xenophobe, though, chances are you are a Tea Party member.) There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism; I consider myself a shade to the left of the line, but I can respect the conservative's pragmatism. But if the Tea Party TRULY hopes to make some noise in the elections in November, they have to show WHERE THEY STAND. As you say, "Obama sucks" doesn't cut it. When they define their politics better than that, though, they're going to find a lot of people jumping off the ship, I believe. It's easy to rally people around "I'm pissed"--that's very generic and fits nicely on a sign. It's harder to keep them when you start getting into specifics. And specifics are what is going to be required from the Tea Party come the elections.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------

The picture is much, much different here on the buckle of the Bible belt, trust me. A fine example of the discrepancies in the Tea Party's message.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

FoolThemAll

So, uh, wait a second... you guys are telling me that the tea partiers are about as unified and well-defined as... republicans and democrats?

Maybe it looks like a less organized ideology, but I wonder if it only looks that way because they've chosen a less conventional group of core issues. Might their lack of detail/unity on social issues just indicate something about the priority they place on social issues?

Hell, as someone who frequently votes for people on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue, I find it refreshing that the issue doesn't get much play in that arena.

edit: Let's just add, for fun, that every tea partier I've ever met here hates Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, et. al. OR, ALTERNATE ROUTE! Republicans are a party of closeted gay drug users and Democrats support involuntary manslaughter and tax evasion.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Wes Mantooth

It is different here, I grew up in New England and the difference between right and left in both places is staggering...Dems are conservative, Reps are liberal, its like watching CNN on shrooms.

Anyway I agree. Whats always turned me off about the GOP is the fundies, extremists, racists, bigots and everything else. Its like voting for a fiscally conservative govt means you have to sign up for being pro-life, anti-gay, hardcore christian...well you get the picture. I looked long and hard at Ron Paul (like he was going to win anyway) last elections but you know, for all the good ideas he has so much of his platform is just impractical and too outside of the mainstream. I don't think it would really work. There is a lot to be said for a streamlined, well managed, fiscally conservative govt but for god sakes can we leave the BS out of it for once?


EDIT: FoolThemAll, thats what I was wondering earlier in the thread. I think for a lot of people involved with the Tea Party they just don't place a high value on those issues and would rather leave them vague. I agree it would be refreshing.

__________________

FuglyStick

Social policy trumps fiscal policy in my book. If you balance the books at the expense of the best interests of your citizens, I'm not interested. So, yeah, I've got no interest in the Tea Party if they have no interest in social issues.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

FoolThemAll

I'm sure your fiscally irresponsible government will survive with no major issues and accomplish all your social dreams so long as your playlist consists of "Let's Get Together" on continuous loop.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

FuglyStick

Easy, sunshine; I'm no fucking hippie. If you'd read any of my posts you'd know that.

You just made the ignore list, dumbass.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

FoolThemAll

I grieve for my loss.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Wes Mantooth

I know where you're coming, but it sometimes I do think important fiscal issues get glossed over for social issues that while are very important don't always have a real impact on all of our daily lives. Almost like one suffers for the sake of the other (usually fiscal issues as social issues tend to be hot button media circus things), while both should have a time and place. It would be refreshing to shift the national debate away from gay marriage/abortion type issues to how to fund the repair of our crumbling infrastructure/stabilize the cost of living type issues.

__________________

FuglyStick

That's true, Wes--as long as you aren't a gay person who isn't allowed to get married. Then it IS a priority.

I know what you're saying--these issues seem to suck the life and productivity out of legislature and government. But that's why we have legislature and government, to protect and preserve the rights of those citizens.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

FoolThemAll

I'm aware you can't see this - already the loss is manifest - but kindly keep that oversized brush to yourself.

It's not intrinsic in homosexuality that you have to be short-sighted. Which top-ten issues, exactly, should gay people place gay marriage above?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

FuglyStick

I'll humor you, Huckleberry, just this once.

Their happiness--as in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--that one--should be at the top of the list, especially since it in no way infringes on anyone else.

Back in the hole with you.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Wes Mantooth

Absolutely, and I hope we always give the issue and others time to be debated (or better yet resolved). I just think some very important issues get lost in the din and worse dominate our elections because soulless politicians want to exploit social issues to grab votes (with really no intention of doing anything). Anyway its a balance thing more then anything else for me.

__________________

FoolThemAll

Bad humor, bad.

Should my smoking friends who used to frequent smoking establishments housed entirely by smoke-friendly staff and customers then value an end to private property smoking bans over, for instance, an end to the war in Afghanistan? Liberty that infringes on no one else and all that jazz.

I'll reiterate: you can be homosexual and still have a half-decent sense of perspective. Put away your brush.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

ASU2003

This is my view on them as well (at least in Ohio). But you forgot :

7. The Environment. The Earth is big, man and corporations can not effect it. And companies will do the right thing... But it is fine to not conserve oil, the reason it costs so much is it is taxed too much.

Is this really what they wanted to be, or did the original anti-tax movement get hijacked by the talking heads on TV & radio to become their movement?

FuglyStick

Wait--did you just equate a person's "right" to light a cigarette in a public place (an inconvenience at worst), to a person's right to have their union with their partner recognized by the government?

Oh, you sad man. I don't even have to reply to you anymore. It's late on a Sunday night, but when the rational folk of TFP get hold of your post tomorrow, they're gonna beat you around like a Fool pinata.

I'd wear pads. Have fun dodging the broomsticks!

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

FoolThemAll

You never did. And if you have nothing to say, I'd prefer you didn't.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Martian

You couldn't pay me to touch the main topic of this thread, but I can at least answer these questions.

First of all, there's a distinction to be made -- Canada has a multi-party system, with typically 4-5 different parties holding enough seats to be influential at any given time. The two big names are the Liberal party and the Conservative party, but there's also currently the NDP and Bloq Quebecois. Parties occasionally merge, split, or otherwise change, meaning the exact number of parties holding seats can change from one parliament to the next. Because of this, it's possible for a party to have enough support to gain a plurality without holding a majority of the seats in the house (currently 308 total, so 154 for a majority). This is in contrast to the US system where (as I understand it) congress can belong to one or the other of the two parties, but tends not to be divvied up further than that.

Minority governments are inherently unstable -- to my knowledge, there has never been one to successfully complete a 4 year term. The problem is that whole non-confidence thing; a non-confidence motion can be introduced at any time, and if passed will force the government party out of power (this also happens if a budget fails, though that's technically known as a supply failure instead of a non-confidence motion).

If this occurs, there are one of two ways for things to go. The governer general (who represents the queen in Canada) may ask the opposition party to form a new government, if they have enough support. Since the opposition by definition does not hold a plurality, this would require them to form a coalition with another party in order to boost the number of seats they hold. There was recently talk of this happening if the current minority had been defeated, but due to other political maneuvering that we won't get into it didn't. If it had, it would've been the second time in Canada's history. In the vast majority of cases, the entire government is dissolved and reformed through a general election.

Dissolving the government is a big deal. Elections take a lot of time and resources and nothing can be accomplished until they're done. Because of this, non-confidence votes are generally considered to be something of a political checkmate. If it works, the opposition might be able to gain some seats or even take over the government, but if it backfires the government party might gain more power, even shifting into a majority. It's the end game to the political maneuvering.

The result of all of this is that it works out that the Canadian system has a different set of checks and balances. It's notable also that in practical terms we don't have a separate executive branch. Technically the queen is the head of state here (and is represented by the GG for everyday affairs) but in practice the prime minster holds the power. This means that a majority government is a powerful mandate. However, since we don't have term limits either, it's not exactly a carte blanche either -- if a party pisses off the electorate too much, they may wind up out of power for a very long time. Jean Chretien, for example, was prime minister over a majority government for 10 years straight, and retired before being voted out (although there's more to that story that I won't get into here). This period followed Brian Mulroney, who is perhaps one of the least popular PM's in Canada's history and was a conservative. After Chretien retired the Conservatives managed to regain power, but Stephen Harper hasn't been able to secure a majority to date, meaning things have been unstable for the last decade or so.

I'm not really sure what aspect of this causes Canadian politics to be so much more sober than the American equivalent, though I've made the same observation. I suspect it's just a cultural thing, really, and that pointing to one specific aspect of the system isn't going to be accurate.

But that's how it works, anyway.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Wes Mantooth

Interesting, thanks Martian. Its funny, I've spent a lot of time in Canada, have a lot of Canadian friends, a bunch of family in Atlantic Canada and yet the finer points of the political system were always lost on me. Every time I've ever thought to ask about it (how often does it really come up between pals having a beer?) I always gotten very vague and superficial answers so yeah...

...feeling kinda dumb... Anyway thanks again, maybe next time I wont be a dumb ass and pick up a book.

I agree it could be cultural although I do wonder if some our somewhat bipolar political swings aren't to blame. In my lifetime its been Carter --> Reagan/Bush ---> Clinton --> W Bush ---> Obama. Not exactly a smooth slide into new leadership. The swing from right to left is often so extreme it leaves the other party feeling alienated, angry for having lost power (or creates a deep chasm between executive and legislative the Clinton years were especially tense in that regard) and voters are left resentful of the other side who lets face it is going to everything they can to ruin what his predecessor had accomplished. But you're right trying to point to one aspect is probably futile.

__________________

Derwood

I'm not so much bothered by the variety of backgrounds/ideas within the movement (as others have said, it's not like ALL Republicans are bible thumpers or ALL Democrats are pro-choice), but it's the lack of leadership and direction. The Tea Party has been around for, what, over a year now? Without a de facto leader or central organizing body, you're now seeing a variety of semi-powerful people rushing in to fill the void (with attempts to bend the party to their personal views). Michelle Bachmann, etc. don't stand for the same things the Tea Party does, but they are pragmatic enough to see that assuming leadership within the new party is politically advantageous for their own careers.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel