# Could progressives make (some) alliance with (some) Tea Partiers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105 "2010-04-23T15:08:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/1 "2010-04-23T15:08:34Z")
[From _The Nation:_](http://live.thenation.com/doc/20100426/collins) Chuck Collins points out that the Tea Party movement is not monolithic. There are many in it – radical Libertarians, white supremacists, partisan Republicans – who are not interested in any dialogue with anyone to their left; but there are others who (1) are more open-minded and (2) actually share many of progressives’ concerns. He suggests talking to them and finding common ground: > [@](#): > > Here are a few conversation points I’ve found useful in talking with the open-minded participants at tea party activities: > > \*\*We Agree \*\* > > The middle class is overtaxed. After fifty years of major “tax reform” by both political parties, the middle class pays the same percent of income in taxes today as it did in 1960. The very rich (with incomes over $2 million) pay half as much as they did in 1960 and the richest 400 households pay two-thirds less. Big corporations like ExxonMobil and General Electric have gamed the system so that they pay zero or little taxes. > > We are borrowing recklessly from the future, from our children’s standard of living. We borrowed to give rich and global corporations tax breaks and fight two wars. In the last eight years, we borrowed $700 billion to give tax breaks to people with incomes over $250,000. > > The middle class standard of living is under attack. For thirty years real wages have been flat and our economic security has declined. This was masked by people working more hours and taking on unprecedented amounts of personal debt. The economic crisis unmasked how our security was built on a bubble of debt. A job is no longer a source of health insurance or retirement security. We’ve been told: you are on your own. > > Wall Street is squeezing us at every turn. In addition to the government, corporations are also “taxing” us, with their fees, charges and monopoly control over markets. We pay more and more to Visa, Verizon, AT&T, Blue CrossBlue Shield, ExxonMobil, US Airways, etc. These are forms of taxes paid to corporations. They won’t stop unless we organize to stop them. > > \*\*Where We May Disagree: \*\* > > President Obama is not the enemy. Both major parties have been hijacked by corporate overlords whose first priority is to protect Wall Street financiers and greedy corporations. President Obama is pushing back more than President Bush did, and he had an enormous mess to clean up (he inherited two wars, the Wall Street meltdown and a $10 trillion national debt). If we demand a government that protects Main Street and ordinary people against organized greed, he will respond. > > Scapegoating vulnerable people is a dead end. Our economic problems were not caused by immigrants or low-income people. Wall Street greed in high places is what drove the economy over a cliff. Powerful elites want to distract us by having us fight among ourselves, with racial divides and class wars. Let’s not be distracted. > > Weak government is not the answer. If we shrink government, who will defend us against Wall Street and the corporate looters? The parts of government that should protect us against Wall Street greed, speculation and the assaults on the middle class have been weakened under both political parties. > > \*\*Solutions \*\* > > A fair and accountable tax system. Wealthy people and corporations should pay their fair share and reduce the bite on middle-class taxpayers. We should eliminate tax dodges that create one tax system for the privileged and another for everyone else. > > Reduce national debt and make real investments. We need to pay down our national debt and make long overdue investments in public infrastructure that our small businesses and communities depend on. > > Oversight of Wall Street. The financial sector is incapable of policing itself. We need strong public institutions to oversee the financial markets so that the reckless, greedy and unregulated financial activities that wrecked our economy cannot happen again. > > Rein in big corporations. We need a constitutional amendment to limit the power of corporations to dominate our political process including elections, campaigns and lobbying. This is key to preserving our democracy and liberties. What do you think? Could such strange bedfellows\* join forces for such an agenda, or is he/am I dreaming? I know, I know . . . First thing, we’d need to pitch it in some way that does not smack of the “gay agenda” . . . ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/2 "2010-04-23T15:36:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [From _The Nation:_](http://live.thenation.com/doc/20100426/collins) Chuck Collins points out that the Tea Party movement is not monolithic. There are many in it – radical Libertarians, white supremacists, partisan Republicans – who are not interested in any dialogue with anyone to their left; but there are others who (1) are more open-minded and (2) actually share many of progressives’ concerns. He suggests talking to them and finding common ground: > > What do you think? Could such strange bedfellows\* join forces for such an agenda, or is he/am I dreaming? > > I know, I know . . . First thing, we’d need to pitch it in some way that does not smack of the “gay agenda” . . . Only going by what I hear on news reports and not digging any deeper, it appears that the Obama hating, Democrat hating, and liberal hating members outnumber those willing to work Democrats/liberals/progressives. I think, and I could be wrong, but I think that most congressmen and women are smart and reasonable individuals and so the fact the Republicans in congress, rather than picking and choosing their battles, are, for the most part, saying no to anything and everything liberal and everything Obama indicates that they feel that that is what the majority of their supporters want. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/3 "2010-04-23T15:39:44Z")
If someone goes to these Tea Party rallies and doesn’t try to stop the fringe element from being center stage, but instead stays silent just to keep the numbers high, how can you trust them? ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/4 "2010-04-23T15:40:05Z")
I’d see that as a good starting point to begin solving problems with anybody. And while I don’t wish to poison the well, I’d be surprised if a large proportion of the Tea Party folks would see it that way. I suspect they’d have problems with the items in the ‘solutions’ section in particular. Hopefully I’m wrong, though. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/5 "2010-04-23T15:47:52Z")
Simple answer - no. As has been observed about those on the right (forgive me for not excavating a link), one component of their value system is a “purity test”. They require their allies to adhere to some menu of beliefs in order to dialog with them (“you’re either with us, or against us”). According to the study, the left does not share this value (“hey, can’t we all just get along”). The result is a permanent statis of one side extending a hand accross the aisle, and the other side recoiling in disgust. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/6 "2010-04-23T17:57:53Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > I think, and I could be wrong, but I think that most congressmen and women are smart and reasonable individuals and so the fact the Republicans in congress, rather than picking and choosing their battles, are, for the most part, saying no to anything and everything liberal and everything Obama indicates that they feel that that is what the majority of their supporters want. Is **that** smart and reasonable behavior? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/7 "2010-04-23T18:23:16Z")
I consider myself a liberal/progressive and I don’t agree with that article. I don’t think the middle class is overtaxed. I do think that the upper class is under-taxed, but that’s not exactly the same. I also think we _should_ be “borrowing from the future” (i.e. deficit spending) because that’s what it takes to get out of this recession. Anyway, I think the most fundamental split is that liberals think the government can solve problems, and Tea Partiers think the government _is_ the problem. I don’t see how you can start from these premises and agree on what the government should do. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/8 "2010-04-23T18:26:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What do you think? Could such strange bedfellows\* join forces for such an agenda, or is he/am I dreaming? I don’t think there is any common ground whatsoever on budget matters. Most progressives believe that we have cut taxes too much on the wealthy and they ought to pay more. It sure seems that Teabaggers have zero tolerance for raising taxes, period. Regardless of who would pay those taxes, because it’s a slippery slope, don’t you know. On oversight of Wall Street: perhaps, but probably not. If Obama does anything with corporate America, I think the typical Teabagger will be untrusting and suspicious of socialism, government takeover of the private sector, and so forth. I think there is probably some room for cooperation on campaign finance reform, but my guess is that most conservatives would insistent on some type of reform that includes unions, so this is possibly difficult. As others have alluded to, I think most moderate elements of the Tea Parties either have or will shortly grow disillusioned with the group because of the whackadoodles who get all the attention, and the fact that the group has no actual proposals or solutions to anything. Once the moderates get done venting for a while, they will leave, and they’ll probably end up being mostly mainstream conservatives who probably aren’t that interested with compromise with liberals in any case. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/9 "2010-04-23T18:42:02Z")
If you want to start the process of finding common ground with the Tea Party, a good place to start would be to stop calling them racist homophobic ‘tea baggers’. I think the big sticking point is going to be the size of government. You’re never going to get people in the Tea Party to agree to more government and more regulations as the solution to the problem. I think the biggest problem today is that the left has been hijacked by special interests - the right too, but the left is really incoherent. Let me ask you - what does someone on the left really stand for? Is it protection of the weak and the poor? Or is it more comfort and security for the middle class? Or is it the maintenance of unions even if Union people are in the upper income strata and their support comes at the expense of the poor and the rest of the middle class? The thing is, you can’t have it all. If you want to throw benefits at the middle class and lower their taxes, you’re very soon going to run out of other people’s money. In fact, you already have, which is why the deficit is out of control. If you want to support $100,000 union jobs with taxpayer money, you’re going to have to eventually raise taxes on the middle class and the poor to pay for it. Is that really what progressives want? Are you shooting for a more equal society, or are you just happy if the wealthy gatekeepers are union bosses instead of company bosses? If you would recognize the danger that big government, big public unions, and universal entitlements pose to the poor and lower middle classes, you could find a lot of common ground with the tea party movement. And they’re receptive - they just endorsed a Democrat over a Republican in Idaho. The Tea Party people aren’t looking for lower taxes for themselves. They’re looking to reign in the excesses of big government. That invariably leads to entitlement reform. And the only meaningful entitlement reform will involve real cuts in benefits. The easiest and most progressive way to do that is to start means-testing them, and to move the retirement age up. The tea parties are also upset at the outrageous growth in size and pay for public sector unions. And progressives should be too. Public sector unions now pay significantly more in salary and benefits than their private sector equivalents. Given that they are paid with taxpayer money, that means they are enjoying a wealth transfer from the poor to them (or they will be once taxes are raised to close the deficit). How is it progressive to tax someone who makes $40,000 per year, in order to pay more benefits to someone making $70,000 per year? The key to changing your thinking is to realize that you can’t just go to ‘the rich’ and get it all from them. They just don’t have enough money. You could tax the top 10% of society 100% of all their income, and you couldn’t close the budget deficit. And entitlement spending is growing every year now. Just for the sake of argument, let’s say there’s no more revenue to be had from the rich. How does that change your thinking about the kinds of benefits government should be providing? If the money to run government comes from the poor and middle class, how does that change your thinking about paying $100,000 per year to a bus driver and allowing him to retire at 55 with higher pay than what he enjoyed for most of his working life, while private sector people have to work until 67 and retire on less than half the benefits the public union guy gets? How does someone who purports to care for the poor possibly justify that? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/10 "2010-04-23T18:48:55Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If you want to start the process of finding common ground with the Tea Party, a good place to start would be to stop calling them racist homophobic ‘tea baggers’. If you want to start the process of finding common ground with Progressives, stop tolerating the racist homophobic “Tea baggers” that show up at the Tea Parties. Shout them down and don’t give them the mike-show a good faith effort that you are not with them, instead of using them to inflate the numbers for the purpose of public relations. if you want me to shake your hand, you might want to wipe the crap off of it first. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/11 "2010-04-23T18:55:06Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If you want to start the process of finding common ground with the Tea Party, a good place to start would be to stop calling them racist homophobic ‘tea baggers’. I’m the only one in the thread who called them Teabaggers, and I’m just sick and tired of the conservative PC word police telling me what I can say and what I can’t. What happened to freedom of speech? Just because I use the term doesn’t mean it is insulting, and I really wish the right-wing thought police would move on to bigger matters. (All that said with tongue in cheek, of course!) But seriously, I just explained why I don’t think there’s much common ground at all, and I’m not advocating any serious effort to find common ground with a movement identified with nuts. As I said, the more mainstream conservatives will probably leave and isolate the movement to being the conservative/anti-government equivalents of Lyndon LaRouche supporters. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/12 "2010-04-23T18:57:07Z")
Oh yeah, and how is “teabagger” racist? Is it some kind of slur against the Englishmen who are holding up the “OBAMA = SOCALIZM” signs? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/13 "2010-04-23T19:08:19Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If you want to start the process of finding common ground with the Tea Party, a good place to start would be to stop calling them racist homophobic ‘tea baggers’. Come on, even you have to acknowledge there are a whole lot of those in the movement. At least Chuck Collins acknowledges they’re not quite the whole of it. As for “Teabaggers,” well, dammit, it’s **just too good not to use!** 😃 (And it makes **at least** as much sense as when RWs call liberals “Communists” or “socialists” or “looters” or “unpatriotic.”) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/14 "2010-04-23T19:16:37Z")
I have no interest in finding common ground with them, nor do I believe there is any to be found. I can’t think of a single thing they bitch about that has any truth in it. Even sertting aside the pervasive nuttery, the racism, the birther crap, the religionism, etc. all you’re left with is pseudo-economic issues like “big government” which is a meaningless, retard phrase, or beliefs in imaginary things like “government takeovers of health care.” They don’t actually care about spending, no matter what they say now, because they didn’t give a shit when Bush spent the country into near bankruptcy and called people traitors if the criticized the expense of the completely gratuitous invasion and occupation of Iraq, or if they criticized Bush at all (and by the way, what happened to their assertion that no one should ever criticize a President during a time of war? I guess that only applies to white Presidents, huh?). There’s also no way in hell you’ll get these people to agree that Obama is not their enemy. That’s their entire _raison d’être_. It starts with hating Obama, the justifications come second. No, I have no common ground with those morons, and I’m glad that I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/15 "2010-04-23T19:21:30Z")
The whining about being called “teabaggers” is an exquisite hypocrisy. Aside from the fact that they called themselves teabaggers before anybody else did, their entire movement is based on almost nothing BUT hyperbolic _ad hominems_ and namecalling. They call Obama a “socialist,” a “nazi,” and a “nigger,” but they want to cry like little bitches and say they’re being repressed if people call them teabaggers. Well, I’m not going to stop. Teabaggers, teabaggers, teabaggers. If they don’t like it, they can move to a different country. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/16 "2010-04-23T19:23:37Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Come on, even you have to acknowledge there are a whole lot of those in the movement. At least Chuck Collins acknowledges they’re not quite the whole of it. > > As for “Teabaggers,” well, dammit, it’s **just too good not to use!** 😃 (And it makes **at least** as much sense as when RWs call liberals “Communists” or “socialists” or “looters” or “unpatriotic.”) Yeah… And when you hear that, how receptive are YOU to finding common ground with the person who just threw that label at you? You either want to fight the enemy or you want to attempt to find common ground with them. At least Diogenes is honest about what he wants to do. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/17 "2010-04-23T19:25:20Z")
I don’t actually want to physically fight them. They’d end up breaking their hips. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/18 "2010-04-23T19:32:15Z")
I can’t recall the last time that trying to find common ground with the American Right actually worked. You can’t successfully compromise with people who aren’t interested in compromise, and it’s foolish to try with people who are evil, irrational and stupid. And “evil, irrational and stupid” pretty much sums up the Right. I’ve watched the Democrats try over and over try to be bipartisan with the Republicans; it doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/19 "2010-04-23T19:45:37Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > As for “Teabaggers,” well, dammit, it’s **just too good not to use!** 😃 But the main thing is to note: [the teabaggers themselves originated the moniker](http://www.politicususa.com/en/olbermann-teabagger). In fairness, it’s (sort of) [contested](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/olbermann-celebrates-teabagger-word-year-finalist)…although I don’t actually see any disproof, just complaint about Olbermann popularizing the term they themselves picked… ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105/20 "2010-04-23T19:54:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is **that** smart and reasonable behavior? For reelection? Maybe. For the long term good of the country and long term credibility of the party? No. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-progressives-make-some-alliance-with-some-tea-partiers/537105.md?page=2)