# Is the Tea Party wing of the Republicans in fact a third party? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782 "2013-01-10T19:10:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/1 "2013-01-10T19:10:27Z")
More interested in hearing thoughts and opinions rather than trying to settle the matter, but since it is political GD seemed the right place for this. My thought is that the House of representatives is currently operating (ie. failing to) much like British Parliament when a coalition government is required. The Republicans are clearly split into mainstream (MS) and Tea Party (TP) factions. Without both on-board, the republicans have no majority. Speaker Boehner is trying to uphold the “Hastert rule” that nothing comes to a vote unless the majority of the majority is for it, and with a unified TP, and natural differences among the MS, it ends up being that the TP is running the show. No-brainer legislation like the Hurricane Sandy relief funds are getting stopped by a minority faction of the House. Because the Tea Party faction got elected as republicans, and got on the ballot via republican primaries (in some cases ousting MS republicans) this is something of a forced coalition. But in fact many cases the MS republicans are closer to the Democrats than to the TP. Speaker Boehner could ignore the Hastert rule, and accomplish almost anything MS republicans want with the help of a few Democrats, and there are plenty of blue-dogs available for that. Would Speaker Boehner be more effective if he treated the TP as a third party rather than a republican faction? How might he possibly do that and still retain the speakership? ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/2 "2013-01-10T19:23:07Z")
No. Despite the fact that many people both on the left and in the more Romneyite wings of the GOP want to pretend that the national political debate and the Tea Party in particular are all about a hardline free-market economics, any conversation with an actual Tea Partier or examination of the issues that one of their favorite-son candidates raises show that they are actually concerned about social-conservative issues. The rest of the Republicans don’t oppose the Tea Party conception of a land with no abortion, homosexuals, or Muslims, they just know how to be more diplomatic about it. The Tea Party has no fundamental disagreements with the large mass of Republican politicians or voters and is already ceasing to have influence as any kind of independent force. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/3 "2013-01-10T19:34:55Z")
The ideological makeup of the House and Senate is bimodal not a bell curve. Thus trying to govern from the center with a mixture of moderate democrats and republicans is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/4 "2013-01-10T19:56:22Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > The Republicans are clearly split into mainstream (MS) and Tea Party (TP) factions. Not really. There’s plenty of overlap. > [@](#): > > Without both on-board, the republicans have no majority. Speaker Boehner is trying to uphold the “Hastert rule” that nothing comes to a vote unless the majority of the majority is for it, and with a unified TP, and natural differences among the MS, it ends up being that the TP is running the show. No-brainer legislation like the Hurricane Sandy relief funds are getting stopped by a minority faction of the House. No, it didn’t. The bill allocating funds passed in the House. What didn’t pass was the bill that was also loaded with pork. > [@](#): > > Because the Tea Party faction got elected as republicans, and got on the ballot via republican primaries (in some cases ousting MS republicans) this is something of a forced coalition. But in fact many cases the MS republicans are closer to the Democrats than to the TP. Maybe in some cases, but not in most cases. The TP is 1st and foremost about lowering taxes and scaling back government. There is nothing non-mainstream Republican about that. > [@](#): > > Speaker Boehner could ignore the Hastert rule, and accomplish almost anything MS republicans want with the help of a few Democrats, and there are plenty of blue-dogs available for that. > > Would Speaker Boehner be more effective if he treated the TP as a third party rather than a republican faction? How might he possibly do that and still retain the speakership? No. Why on earth would you think he would create an advantage by cutting off part of his party? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/5 "2013-01-10T21:47:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it didn’t. The bill allocating funds passed in the House. What didn’t pass was the bill that was also loaded with pork. What was the pork? I hadn’t heard this claim until Jon Stewart mentioned it, and then pulled.out the… one page pork free bill, suggesting the pork claim was bullshit. So, is it bullshit or not? ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/6 "2013-01-10T22:06:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. Why on earth would you think he would create an advantage by cutting off part of his party? Because the current situation is a stalemate. Perhaps moderate republicans wouldn’t need to worry so much about being primaried from the right if the republican congress didn’t look so useless. When they accomplish zero anyway, then you might as well have someone who fires up the base with talking points, as someone who talks moderately yet still gets nothing done. By ceding control of the agenda to TP, which is basically insisting on no compromise ever, the Republican party is often ending up with far less control over what finally gets passed than if they were able or willing to work deals that involved give and take. Even in those cases when they do get their way, it is with grave consequences to their popularity. I give you the last debt limit fight as an example. Boehner repeatably had the rug pulled out from under him by TP, and ended up looking like an impotent fool with zero ability to speak for his caucus. The bimodality of congressional makeup may look symmetric, but is being driven from one side. Democrats are not the ones refusing to compromise ever…but they have zero reason to do so when it doesn’t move the republicans closer to center. If republicans were able to do deals, there are plenty of moderate democrats willing to meet them halfway…the President among them. By refusing to do so, they can’t pass anything that has any chance to ever become law. Over time people take them less and less seriously. ---
**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:** [January 10, 2013, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/7 "2013-01-10T22:24:46Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > **Is the Tea Party wing of the Republicans in fact a third party?** Arguably. I’ve heard the argument made that they are basically just the latest iteration of the Dixiecrats. The argument goes that America is basically a three party state with a two party system; the economically right wing party, the economically left wing party, and the xenophobic, socially conservative, highly religious “Dixiecrat” faction which exists as part of whichever main party serves its agenda best. Which for a long time was the Democrats, until the Civil Rights era and the Southern Strategy caused them to switch to the Republicans. So in effect yes, they are a third party in some ways and always have been; but they aren’t likely to split off formally since there’s no room in our system for a formal third party. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/8 "2013-01-10T22:29:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Arguably. I’ve heard the argument made that they are basically just the latest iteration of the Dixiecrats. The argument goes that America is basically a three party state with a two party system; the economically right wing party, the economically left wing party… There’s an economically left wing party? Really? All I see in the news is an economically hard-right party and an economically moderate-right party. An economically left wing party? Huh. News to me. What is it called? ETA: No, the Tea Party is the just the far-right wing of the GOP, with some significant overlap and/or sympathy with mainstream GOP. The small gov’t economic talk is all posturing from the GOP, to be sure, but the Tea Party has already morphed into mainly an anti-immigration, pro-gun, anti-progressive on social issues, anti-labor rights entity. It fits into the GOP just fine. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/9 "2013-01-10T22:31:33Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > The Republicans are clearly split into mainstream (MS) and Tea Party (TP) factions. Tea Party or [John-Bircher](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/04/1176367/-America-Now-Has-a-Three-Major-Political-Parties#)? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/10 "2013-01-10T22:33:03Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > There’s an economically left wing party? Really? All I see in the news is an economically hard-right party and an economically moderate-right party. > > An economically left wing party? Huh. News to me. What is it called? The [Working Families Party.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party) You won’t have heard much of it; may that soon change. ---
**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:** [January 10, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/11 "2013-01-10T22:41:48Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > There’s an economically left wing party? Relatively. Modern American politics is very, very narrow. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/12 "2013-01-10T23:46:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The TP is 1st and foremost about lowering taxes and scaling back government. [Not really.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tea_Party) > [@](#): > > **Conspiracy Theorists** > > The Tea Party has attracted many conspiracy theorists to its cause. Anyone who spends time on an active Tea Party forum will see a number of conspiracy-related threads pop up. More common conspiracies include: > > - The belief that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy America, or trying to create a socialist/communist totalitarian government. > - The belief that Obama’s presidency is part of a plot to institute the New World Order - often referring to George Soros or the UN. > - And, of course, Birtherism > > An eagle eyed viewer may also find: > \*9/11 truthers > \*Conspiracies about chemtrails > \*Abiotic oil > > \ > > **Conflict with Libertarians** > > Though the movement claims to be libertarian, many libertarians have come out against the movement[38] and its prominent figures.[39] A Libertarian Party poll has also shown that Libertarians see the Teabaggers as too “Republican-flavored.”[40] Some of their possible “problems” with the Tea Party could be: > > - The Teabaggers’ closeness to neoconservatives, such as Dick Cheney. > - The Teabaggers’ reactionary social policies and support for immigration law. > - The Teabaggers’ “national security” policies - which are “un-libertarian”. > - Glenn Beck’s previous entanglement with a Libertarian candidate. > - The Teabaggers’ failure in oppose legislated deprivations of liberty of those who do not match their own demographic. > > **It’s about taxes and spending, really!** > > Libertarians (as well as most everyone else) don’t buy this line. A number of polls have shown considerable overlap between the Tea Party and the religious right (though you didn’t really need polls to tell you that considering some of their favorite candidates). > > - A poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that almost half of Teabaggers openly identify as part of the “religious right,” a majority favored declaring abortion illegal, and less than one in five in favor of legalizing gay marriage.[41] > - A Pew poll found similar results, in addition to finding a majority in favor of securing the border and Second Amendment rights.[42] > - A University of Washington poll found that a majority of Teabaggers thought gays and lesbians had “too much political power” and that immigration was “changing the country for the worse.”[43] > - According to a CBS poll, Teabaggers are more likely to be birthers.[44] ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/13 "2013-01-11T00:44:06Z")
Smaller government was supposedly part of the TP agenda when it formed – although one immediately wonders, if that was so important to them, where they all were hiding during the W. years – but the most heated rhetoric from most TPers nowadays as far as I can tell is mainly anti-immigration, anti-Obama (regardless of policy), and extreme conservatism on social issues (opposition to gay marriage, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-tea-party-wing-of-the-republicans-in-fact-a-third-party/646782/14 "2013-01-11T00:51:42Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Smaller government was supposedly part of the TP agenda when it formed – [You mean, when it **was** formed.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tea_Party) Passive voice. > [@](#): > > The **Tea Party movement** (affectionately known as the “Teabagging Movement”) is a loosely organized, and even more loosely platformed group of mostly middle-aged, white tax protesters, inspired by a complete misinterpretation of the Boston Tea Party, and managed, reported on, and supported by Fox News and their various loony anchors (ironically, the Tea Party was actually started on CNBC, and not Fox News, by Rick Santelli). It was seen as a unique, corporate-maintained phenomenon spawned in February 2009, for the purposes of protesting on April 15th, 2009, the day income tax forms were due in the United States. On this day, millions hundreds of people gathered at various locations around the country to throw teabags into some handy body of water to protest [taxes] [government debt] [Obama] [Hitler] [health care reform] [big government] [tea] taxes, presumably _with_ representation.[1] > > Since that time, teabaggers (which they came up with before they realized what else it meant) have protested many other issues, such as the attempt to provide many of them with affordable health care. > > \ > > The teabagging movement represents a great achievement of the corporate propaganda system. Using people’s anger towards the system and their deep-rooted racism to get them to actively root against their own self-interest is simply a milestone. By also getting this self-inflected gunshot wound repeatedly broadcast at their news outlets takes a lot of… well… _balls._ > > \ > > **Astroturf organisation** > > Despite claims that it is a “grassroots” organisation, the Tea Party has merely become another patsy for the US’s health care insurance companies to fight healthcare reform. The “Tea Party Caucus” received donations of $2.7 million from the health care sector, which also contributed towards a $25 million “war chest” to be used by the Tea Party to fight the elections.[17][18] > > One insurer has gone as far as to urge employees to attend anti-healthcare Tea Party rallies.[19][20] > > The two main 'Bagger astroturf groups are FreedomWorks headed by Dick Armey and Americans for Prosperity. Both were spun off from the Koch-bankrolled Citizens for a Sound Economy. The Kochs denied any connection to the Tea Parties. A few months after that statement, a video leaked of Teabag state chapter leaders reporting directly to David Koch himself at the Americans for Prosperity mothership.[21] (But they’re grassroots, honest!) > > Sadly, most Tea Party members are too full of righteous indignation and are too stupid to realise they are merely pawns in a gambit by their corporate backers to ensure they retain their profits… at the cost of the very people who are cheering them on.