The Koch Brothers and Murdoch did a lot to give a large number of disparate groups a common name (and a lot of money), but those groups have never coalesced into an actual movement except in the broad sense of the “anti-establishment” movement of the late 1960s that included absolutist pacifists along with the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers, hippie drop-outs and community organizers, among other groups whose goals were actually in conflict.
If there’s any conflict within the TP (beyond the ordinary ego-driven stuff you’ll find in any movement or organization), I’ve never seen it reported.
So?
Their “one voice” is the single rallying cry of a single goal that ignores their many differences to achieve that goal of extreme financial frugality on the part of government to the point of penuriousness.
The question is whether, given the demographic makeup of the movement, that focus might conceivably also land elsewhere, on issues the TP has not talked much about so far.
Where would you see it? There is no national party where they can fight it out on the convention floor. They are a large number of loosely organized groups who do not even interact except to vote against anyone who wants the government to spend any money.
And asking about these groups is proper if someone suggests that they exist alongside the the ones so far identified in this thread(and others). If the only cites people provide concerning those that say they are Tea Partiers go to the more extremist groups, then “extremist” is the label they are going to get slapped with. In the interest of balance, can anyone provide links to those that self-identify as Tea Party members that are concerned with only financial issues?
meh
If Murdoch or the Koch’s could find a competent demagogue to lead them, he might cobble together a platform, but it would pretty much disintegrate as soon as the “Tea Party” had to address more than one issue.
Yes, there is – the GOP, where the TPers sometimes do fight it out on the convention floor, just not with each other. The whole Tea Party movement is, more than anything else, a fight for control of the GOP. They have to stick together to win it, of course; but if there are any important internal conflicts in the movement, they ought to peek out at such times. Likewise with their caucus in Congress.
Nothing I have posted argues against extreme views in the group. The point is that it is not a monolith. The Religious Right has always been both socially and fiscally conservative and so the Tea Party will find an overwhelming number of recruits from within the Religious Right that will color various statements attributed to the Party. However, the OP’s claim seemed to say that the opposition to Brewer’s veto somehow “proved” that the Tea Party was congruent to the Religious Right and quoting one unelected dingbat simply fails as a proof.
No, I didn’t say that. I said the Tea Party nation is not “The Tea Party”. I don’t really care whether they are mostly socially conservative or not. As I said, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. But the OP takes one comment by one guy who is a leader of one faction and claims to prove some general rule about the whole movement. That should not even pass the smell test around here if people are being objective.
To be objective, shouldn’t there be another group that self-identifies as members of The Tea Party to compare them to?
Let me get my kilt and bagpipes first.
The guy with the megaphone is the leader until someone else in the group takes it away from him. When groups like this claim to represent the Tea Party, what other Tea Party groups stand up in public and say, “No! You do not represent us!” What other Tea Party groups rebuked this group for what they just said?
Really? Where is that written?
Not following that. All I’m saying is that one cannot characterize an entire movement by the actions or saying of one person, unless that person the recognized leader of the group. This guy is a leader of the Tea Party Nation. That is not the same as the entire Tea Party Movement. I don’t even know what % it represents, and the OP has made no effort to find out.
I don’t know if the question has been studied – the Wiki article on Tea Party Nation does not say. It does say, interestingly:
And much as to why. Also, that when Tea Party Nation hosted a National Tea Party Convention in 2010 (Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker), Tea Party Patriots advised members not to attend (whether because of political disagreements or the for-profit nature of the event is not clear). So there may be some rifts within the movement. It seems TPP is or may be a FreedomWorks project (Koch Bros.), therefore presumably all about the biz; TPN might represent the more social-conservative/right-populist wing.
:dubious:
How many groups, Right or Left, ever stand up and condemn one wayward group when it “speaks out” on an issue that is not core to the larger group’s beliefs? That sort of thing is rare in any case for any group on any issue and it is a red herring in this sort of discussion.
We see this sort of “Your guy did not condemn the actions of that group!” hysteria all the time and it really has no bearing on reality. That is the sort of nonsense we saw a lot of when various Right Wing groups were “scandalized” that Obama did not “condemn” some of the things that Reverend Wright had said. meh
I suspect that this thread is gong to go on interminably, based on how different posters view the word “mainly” in the above paragraph.
Here are the results of a Pew Research poll from a couple of years ago.
I look at numbers such as 87% of Tea Partiers claiming that government is nearly always wasteful contrasted against only 64% opposing Same Sex Marriage (with 26% supporting it) and I draw the conclusion that while the TeaParty is clearly heavily influenced by Religious Right values, it remains “mainly” a party interested in the fiscal aspects of government. Someone else is liable to decide that 64% opposing SSM makes it “mainly” a social conservative/Religious Right group.
With those sorts of numbers, however, the rantings of Judson Phillips do not persuade me that the OP is correct.
There was never anything libertarian about it.
Laissez-faire capitalism is about as anti-libertarian as it gets. In fact, it’s what libertarianism is expressly opposed to.
Seems to me that the hijacking was the other way around, and the tea party was responsible more than any other single factor for Republican extremism in recent years.
A lot of the social conservative wingnuttery admittedly comes from sectors like the Republican religious right, but the tea party movement isn’t short of core beliefs like “family values” (which tends to be code for a lot of nasty right-wing things opposing abortion and gay rights), anti-immigrant views, the overriding supremacy of English, guns and military strength, and other such ideas that are not necessarily libertarian and sometimes quite at odds with it.
How many do we need?