No, not really. I just wanted something fun for the mouseover.
The Tea Party is largely sponsored/created by Fox News and a number of astroturfing organizations, and has gained a sizeable number of actual grass-roots members.
Ron Paul has … I have no idea. I know that his supporters are very similar to Lyndon LaRouche fans. Very dedicated, very vocal and very organized. Organized in ways LaRouche advocates could never have dreamed of. But he doesn’t have the sponsorship of Fox News, and I don’t know if he has anything similar to the teaparty’s corporate sponsorship.
Fox fluffery aside, they’re both relative minorities within the party (anyone remember when TP sponsors were claiming that it had no alignment with the GOP?), but through a loud and dedicated presence have had a considerable effect.
How do the two groups compare in size? It’s probably not possible to cut through all of Fox’s smoke and mirrors, but there must be some estimates of the differences between people who nominally align with each versus who is willing to stand in protest or attend meetings.
Which will have the greater effect at the convention? On the party overall? Will the teaparty wing recognize the benefit of small-scale attacks on state machineries and move to take them over? Will Paul’s camp be able to expand their influence over state parties–with or without competition from the tea party? And will Paul’s advocates continue in some coherent form after he passes?
Is there any space for them to collaborate? Or is it likely that Fox would block such a manoeuvre (two parties enter; one party leaves!)?
They only get along on a superficial level. Both can agree that the government should be reduced. They can even agree on many departments they’d like to cut. They can sort of agree on States’ Rights. After that it goes wrong.
First, there’s a big age difference. Tea Party members are typically 45+, many are retired. Paul’s strongest support is among 18-30 middle class college kids who like to think they’ve accomplished everything on their own without their parents’ help. Combining the two groups becomes a problem since it quickly degenerates to the “old, out of touch people” bickering with the “young punks.”
Second, for all I can’t stand Paul’s followers they are far less hypocritical than the Tea Party. When they say they want to cut government programs they include thinks like social security and medicare. You can argue this is because they’ve never used those services, but at least they’re consistent. Tea Partiers are rabid about keeping their social security checks and access to medicare. Major blow up there.
Religion is a third problem between the two. The Tea Party wants one nation the way Jesus intended. Paul’s followers are loyal devotees of St. Ayn, making them all godless heathens. No possible comprise on this one.
Even States’ Rights falls apart when they try to cooperate. Paul’s followers think secession is fine. Tea Party members usually twist this in to meaning states can just ignore things the Tea Party doesn’t like. However with the Tea Party they’re all for Constitutional Amendments for things they support. Paul’s group would just as soon see the US Constitution (a sacred document for the Tea Party) tossed out and returned to the Articles of Confederation.
Paul’s hit the wall on trying to get the two to both support him. See his recent comments about how Ayn Rand wasn’t that big an influence on him, despite you know, naming his son after her. Randites see this as betrayal while the Tea Party isn’t buying it.
Obviously his ideology won’t be shared by every member, nor may it match explicitly or exclusively to the foundations of the party. There is considerable overlap though.
I just realised, also, that if we apply Ron Paul’s logic about campaign contributions (if I take money from racist organisations that’s good, since they then lack that money), then the recipient of the most corporate contributions is the one furthering the anti-corporate movement to the greatest degree.
Edit: While I know an anarcho-capitalist atheist advocate of Ron Paul, don’t underestimate the emphasis Paul places on Christianity. I think he’s sponsored a bill attempting to get prayer into public schools pretty much each year he’s been in congress (look how successful it’s been in staving off secularism in England!). He also opposes abortion.
If they don’t coalesce, the state conventions will get interesting in a few years. The establishment/moderates/most likely sane wing, the teaparty, and Paulies will recognize this year’s success and all begin competing on the same level. Brutal?
Ron Paul can claim to be popular with the Tea Party and the Tea Party can claim he’s one of their most notable members, but it just isn’t true.
Paul was the only candidate who didn’t get a turn at being Not Romney, even when he was the only Not Romney left. Despite the kind words from both sides it’s clear the Tea Party would rather vote for someone who quotes Pokemon and doesn’t know what a Libya is than cast a vote for Ron Paul.
While Paul has done better this year than in 2008 much of that success seems to be the result of the Blue Republicans. But Blue Republicans won’t be involved with the RNC or have anything to do with Romney. Paul (for reasons I don’t pretend to understand) has more cross party appeal so without a real Democratic Primary he’s doing better. A similar thing was shown in 2008. Then Paul was placing behind people like Guiliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson when you only polled people who identified as Republican. If you included independents or Democratic voters he suddenly shot up to number one on several polls.
Most of Paul’s campaign will be ignored in Tampa. His use of delegates will be along lines where the Randites and the Tea Party agree: Deregulation and cutting Federal Departments like Education. Paul will boost the Tea Party’s profile, so I guess they’ll be happy there. But it’ll be because he’s sticking to things they want and not to the things his supporters would prioritize. I can see them claiming to have backed Paul all along even though the actual votes don’t provide evidence of that.
As for causing problems later on, it’ll still be between the Tea Party and the Moderates. Paul’s base will always be a non-factor. They’re the most tech savvy and so they do well in online polls but that’s about it. The Moderates will always have more money and the retired Tea Party has nothing but time in which to harass politicians. This election cycle will remain a struggle between the Moderates to find someone who can appeal to independents and the Tea Party’s Inquisition. In the future there’s always hope that with a loss the Moderates wise up and give the Tea Party the boot. But the Tea Party is a self-correcting problem in the long run. In 8 years enough of them will have died off that they can safely be ignored by the Republican party the same way the Randites are now.