What does the Tea Party movement mean for American politics?

myp · Jan 7, 2010

The Wall Street Journal recently conducted a poll (I'll try to find it again and post it later) asking people how they feel about the Democrats, Republicans, and the tea party movement. The tea party movement was by far the most favored among the three.

The movement certainly seems like it is here to stay, but what will that mean for American politics? The tea party certainly leans towards a small government, free market approach, but even within the movement, a lot of people have stayed away from or even left the GOP due to many Republican actions which have not actually being conducive to these ideals.

I find this a very interesting topic and it is certainly an exciting time in American political history. It will be interesting to see what happens. Anyone have any projections?

deanhills · Jan 7, 2010

I found an excellent article on the Tea Party Movement by David Brooks of the New York Times. Basically describing the Tea Party Movement as a protest voice of Americans, in absence of any others. That it showed passion, and served as a forum for demands for change.

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.

The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.

Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.

Dirk · Jan 8, 2010

From the article Dean quoted, they sound like the sensible ones.

David · Jan 9, 2010

This is my take the Tea Party (and as I understand it, some our organizing as if an actual political party). It is made up of 2 wings, the Reformist Wing which is made up of the original Tea Baggers and who's only goal is reform within the Republican Party and the Revolutionary Wing, made up of Rightist Populists who demand nothing short of a total restructuring of American politics and the redistribution of power from the Ruling Class to the American People.

If the Reformists win, things will continue much as they are now and the Tea Party will fade away as their Leftist equivalents did at the end of the '60s. If the Revolutionaries win, the Tea Party will become a real political party and being more popular then the Dems and Repubs combined, will be swept into power come the Midterms.

As for me, I may be a Leftist but change is needed so I hope that the Revolutionaries win.

deanhills · Jan 9, 2010

David said:
This is my take the Tea Party (and as I understand it, some our organizing as if an actual political party). It is made up of 2 wings, the Reformist Wing which is made up of the original Tea Baggers and who's only goal is reform within the Republican Party and the Revolutionary Wing, made up of Rightist Populists who demand nothing short of a total restructuring of American politics and the redistribution of power from the Ruling Class to the American People.

If the Reformists win, things will continue much as they are now and the Tea Party will fade away as their Leftist equivalents did at the end of the '60s. If the Revolutionaries win, the Tea Party will become a real political party and being more popular then the Dems and Repubs combined, will be swept into power come the Midterms.

As for me, I may be a Leftist but change is needed so I hope that the Revolutionaries win.

I agree, there are two versions of the tea baggers. The Rightwing and the true Reformers. The Rightwingers of course gave a really bad name to the Tea Parties, and made it into a joke. However, thank goodness for the Reformers, as there was lots of good that came out of the Tea Parties, at least people had the opportunity for telling the Government what they were unhappy with, and hopefully that will be taken further in the coming elections as well.

David · Jan 10, 2010

deanhills said:
I agree, there are two versions of the tea baggers. The Rightwing and the true Reformers. The Rightwingers of course gave a really bad name to the Tea Parties, and made it into a joke. However, thank goodness for the Reformers, as there was lots of good that came out of the Tea Parties, at least people had the opportunity for telling the Government what they were unhappy with, and hopefully that will be taken further in the coming elections as well.

By Rightwingers you mean Reformers and by Reformers you mean Revolutionaries (using my terms)? I just want to know so we're on the same page.

deanhills · Jan 11, 2010

David said:
By Rightwingers you mean Reformers and by Reformers you mean Revolutionaries (using my terms)? I just want to know so we're on the same page.

Good that we are defining these terms. For me rightwingers are revolutionaries and reformers probably liberals? Reformers to me are all those who are in favour of positive change. The rightwingers seem to be resisting change, and those to the very right have become like revolutionaries in moving backwards without being open to discuss this with all of the other political groupings in the United States?

David · Jan 11, 2010

deanhills said:
Good that we are defining these terms. For me rightwingers are revolutionaries and reformers probably liberals? Reformers to me are all those who are in favour of positive change. The rightwingers seem to be resisting change, and those to the very right have become like revolutionaries in moving backwards without being open to discuss this with all of the other political groupings in the United States?

That's not revolutionary, that's reactionary. And when I say revolutionary, I mean the populists, not the Republicans.

deanhills · Jan 12, 2010

David said:
That's not revolutionary, that's reactionary. And when I say revolutionary, I mean the populists, not the Republicans.

What is the difference in American politics between reactionary and revolutionary? And who are the populists?

David · Jan 12, 2010

deanhills said:
What is the difference in American politics between reactionary and revolutionary? And who are the populists?

The Reactionaries would oppose reform at all costs (case in point, healthcare). They would restore archaic traditions, mostly religious, and would otherwise have us go backwards.*The Revolutionaries on the other hand wish to give power to the people over the politicians and states over the Fed. As they enjoy popular support they are, by definition, populist. They are to the Right what the Hippies were to the Left in the '60s.

And as I said before, despite being a Leftist and thus opposed to the Tea Party, I do agree that change is needed and while I may disagree with the economics of the Revolutionaries, I still feel that I should root for them, if for no other reason then their victory will cause a Leftist backlash and reinvigorate the Revolutionary Left. That and I'm somewhat conservative past economic issues. :smug:

deanhills · Jan 12, 2010

David said:
The Reactionaries would oppose reform at all costs (case in point, healthcare). They would restore archaic traditions, mostly religious, and would otherwise have us go backwards.*The Revolutionaries on the other hand wish to give power to the people over the politicians and states over the Fed. As they enjoy popular support they are, by definition, populist. They are to the Right what the Hippies were to the Left in the '60s.

And as I said before, despite being a Leftist and thus opposed to the Tea Party, I do agree that change is needed and while I may disagree with the economics of the Revolutionaries, I still feel that I should root for them, if for no other reason then their victory will cause a Leftist backlash and reinvigorate the Revolutionary Left. That and I'm somewhat conservative past economic issues. :smug:

OK, thanks for the explanation, I have a much better understanding now as well as have learned something too. Except, I would have thought those to the left would also stand for lots of meaningful change? I.e. the Libertarians? And some of the really nutty Rightwingers are wanting to go back to a few decades ago, their changes are to get things to be the same as they have been before?

David · Jan 13, 2010

deanhills said:
OK, thanks for the explanation, I have a much better understanding now as well as have learned something too. Except, I would have thought those to the left would also stand for lots of meaningful change? I.e. the Libertarians? And some of the really nutty Rightwingers are wanting to go back to a few decades ago, their changes are to get things to be the same as they have been before?

Like I said, I oppose the Tea Party but it's still a better option (assuming the Revolutionaries win and make real political progress) then the Dems and Repubs.

Regardless of my views, the midterms are going to be fun.

Dirk · Jan 14, 2010

deanhills said:
And some of the really nutty Rightwingers are wanting to go back to a few decades ago, their changes are to get things to be the same as they have been before?

You could tease conservatives by saying "go back to when? The thirties seem as good a place as any, don't you think?"

Haha, the irony of a thirties set up. So not what they wanted!

deanhills · Jan 15, 2010

Dirk said:
You could tease conservatives by saying "go back to when? The thirties seem as good a place as any, don't you think?"

Haha, the irony of a thirties set up. So not what they wanted!

I would want to go back completely to the beginning of time, from scratch, times of the "founding fathers" to rewrite the consitution, give the States their power back and trim the Federal Government to its bare bones, as it was intended to be. So what time period would one call that? :unsure:

David · Jan 16, 2010

deanhills said:
I would want to go back completely to the beginning of time, from scratch, times of the "founding fathers" to rewrite the consitution, give the States their power back and trim the Federal Government to its bare bones, as it was intended to be. So what time period would one call that? :unsure:

The 'Founding Fathers' were a bunch of tax evaders and traitors.

Now I'm not some Founder hater, like most Americans I view them as living-gods, but the facts are the facts.

deanhills · Jan 17, 2010

David said:
The 'Founding Fathers' were a bunch of tax evaders and traitors.

Now I'm not some Founder hater, like most Americans I view them as living-gods, but the facts are the facts.

Why traitors? Tax evasion I can understand, but traitor I can't?

David · Jan 17, 2010

deanhills said:
Why traitors? Tax evasion I can understand, but traitor I can't?

1 dose not take up arms against their gov't and still get to be considered loyal.

deanhills · Jan 17, 2010

David said:
1 dose not take up arms against their gov't and still get to be considered loyal.

OK, sorry, I don't get it. Maybe you need to do some explaining.

Dirk · Jan 17, 2010

deanhills said:
I would want to go back completely to the beginning of time, from scratch, times of the "founding fathers" to rewrite the consitution, give the States their power back and trim the Federal Government to its bare bones, as it was intended to be. So what time period would one call that? :unsure:

The Revolutionary Period?

Or after you do that, the First Revolutionary Period?

David · Jan 17, 2010

deanhills said:
OK, sorry, I don't get it. Maybe you need to do some explaining.

The rebelled against the British Gov't. They were British subjects/citizens. Thus they are traitors.

What does the Tea Party movement mean for American politics?

Similar threads