That’s fine as a slogan, but you really need to remember that it is simply not true of “conservatism” or even some majority of conservatives.
Boehner’s problem was not that he wanted to have the party lead the country to default, but that a minority of his party had sufficient votes to veto any compromise that the majority was willing to make.
Tea Baggers are not really “conservatives” but their own odd bunch of nut cases.
There are many different types of representation. Your particular theory is but one of them.
Yes, pretty much.
(I guess I was also making a slightly more nebulous point that is really mostly my personal opinion/belief and which roughly holds that in 1980 there was a point to the bill of goods that movement conservatism was a vehicle for: there was a need to slimline regulations; perhaps marginal tax rates were to high, etc. But in a situation where the top earners pay ~30% and we’ve had deregulation upon deregulation for thirty years applying movement conservative policy prescriptions yield dwindling results.
I won’t try to prove it though, but just leave it as my imho. It’s a hijack anyway 
)
If they are effective at getting what they want, then what’s the problem?
I don’t think it was a “slogan” at all. It was my opinion, and labeled as such.
Having gotten that out of the way, I have to say that I don’t really agree with anything of what you wrote.
Claiming that Teabaggers aren’t Conservatives doesn’t rise above No True Scotsman, unless you want to argue that Conservatism proper is some kind of Burkean conservatism. But by common understanding, in an american context, “Conservatism” is usually understood as Movement Conservatism, which gets us from Goldwater & Buckley, by the Reagan revolution and to what today makes up the base of the Republican party.
That constituency is for most intents and purposes more or less equal to the Tea Party. Sure, overlap may not be 100%. But I’d feel reasonably comfortable to peg it at 75%, perhaps.
The republican partys congressional leadership choose this hostage strategy; to use the debt ceiling as leverage to extort policy concessions from congressional democrats and the president. Not the Tea Party.
Tea Party congressmen then held passage of Boehners own plan hostage to extort further concessions, on the eve of default.
That’s what’s happened up until now, nothing else. What’s left to come until the ceiling is raised, remains to be seen.
The results.
The problem is that you don’t know what the future will hold, and how you’ll need to react. You may get what you want one time, but there is no telling whether you will the next time. They are also so broad as to defy common sense. For example, Republicans are deathly afraid of re-evaluating how income of hedge fund managers are treated.
Let me re-phrase my point. Tea baggers are not congruent with conservatives.
This is true on multiple levels.
In ideology, Tea Baggers want nothing more than lower taxes. End. There is a lot more to conservative fiscal responsibility than Grover Norquist.
In population, I have seen no evidence that the Tea Baggers make up as much as 19% of the population, which is far below the level of self-identified conservatives. Even within the members of Congress (or the House), they make up nothing more than a disruptive minority.
Equating a minority group with a limited set of goals with “conservatism” in order to claim that the movement is either dead or bankrupt is a false equation, regardless what one puts in one’s porridge.
Not really. TPer’s main goals are deficit reduction and less spending. They aren’t in favor of tax increases, but the primary issue is reduction in spending.
I think they fall well within the general category of “conservative”.
Are you serious? Tea Baggers only want lower taxes? That’s it?
Pretty sure you know better and these folks are distinctly “conservative”.
And as for percentages..well…they manage to get their way out of all proportion to their numbers. Hell, a respected British magazine published this cartoon. I do not think the cartoonist was just making it up. These cartoonists lampoon reality.
If the teabaggers are all about lower taxes, what’s with all the abortion laws being passed in the US? The teabaggers are the Republican base, with all that entails.
Well … thinking about it … Cheney got away with flushing Plame’s cover, but Bradley Manning is in Leavenworth. I think they are letting him wear clothes now. So I’d say Der Trihs kinda has a point.
This sounds extremely dubious to me. Here is the first paragraph of Wikipedias article on the Tea Party Movement:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]
[/QUOTE]
You seem to want to save Movement Conservatism from being tainted by the excesses of the Tea Party movement by pretending that Grover Norquists anti-tax pledge is somehow the raison-d’etre of the Teapartiers. But ATR has sponsored the Taxpayer Protection Pledge since 1986 (no Tea Party to blame back then) and 172 House members have signed it. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement, apart from the Tea Party usually supporting the same policies as Movement Conservatism, and therefore usually supporting it.
Crucially, the key ringleader of the Tea Party movement, Erick Eriksson of RedState.com - the guy who organized the opposition to the Boehner plan - self identifies as a Movement Conservative and comes down on the issues in all the usual ways: on social issues (he’s a - rabid imho - christian conservative), on NatSec, and on fiscal matters.
I read his blog on a weekly basis, so I have a fair grasp of where he, and his minions are at, politically.
Well, the polling I’ve seen is pretty inconclusive insofar as the Tea Party is not a political party proper and you can usually not vote for it. All the Tea Party endorsed politicians in congress come with an (R) to their name, and all of them claims to be conservatives. So you’ll see polling where the Tea Party at times have enjoyed 30-40% approval but otoh 10-20% describing themselves as part of the Tea Party movement. Presumably the latter entails going to actual Tea Party meetings which constitutes a level of participation in the political process that goes beyond your average passive supporter.
Perhaps a good measure of core Tea Party support at about the time of the midterms is this USAToday/Gallup poll from 22/11 2010:
[QUOTE=USAToday]
In a survey taken Friday through Sunday, 28% say Obama should have the most influence on government policy next year while 27% say the Tea Party standard-bearers should. GOP congressional leaders are chosen by 23%, Democratic congressional leaders by 16%.
[/QUOTE]
But still if you allow me, I think I’ll backtrack slightly from my most strongly worded claim which was that “[The base of the republican party/Movement conservatism] is for most intents and purposes more or less equal to the Tea Party”. On second thought I concede that that was probably a slight over-reach (even if it was qualified with the 75% overlap guestimate).
I’ll put it this way instead: the Tea Party movement is for all intents and purposes the offspring of Movement Conservatism; there is substantial overlap in policy and support; and crucially there is no part - that I know - of the Tea Party promoted policy agenda that isn’t also promoted by Movement Conservatism.
They make up most of the seventy new members of the House of Representatives that the republican caucus gained in the 2010 midterms. That’s a consequence of incumbency and the fact that new republican candidates for congress branded themselves as “Tea Party” in 2010.
But the only meaningful difference between them and the rest of the republican caucus is branding, fervor, and conception of feasible strategy. They don’t differ more on policy and ideology from their caucus than any other republican congressman, picked at random.
Well, once again I havent “claimed” that the movement is dead: I’ve expressed my imho that, in my view, “movement conservatism is by now a bankrupt ideology that lacks solutions to real world problems and is solely chugging along on faith, good messaging and powerful institutions”. I don’t think that’s provable. I think that’s something you believe, or don’t. And I was careful to label it my opinion both here and here, and further re-iterating it to you here, for perfect clarity. Getting that wrong two times is starting to bordering on having the appearance of willfulness, and is most definitely irritating. You don’t agree, fine. If you consider yourself a conservative - a Movement Conservative even - I don’t see why you should want to; and even if you’re not there’s no imperative for you to share my belief. But trying to pretend that I’ve made any factual claims that I need to support when I’ve offered my opinion - take it or leave it - is neither here nor there.
In summary, you’re conflating two issues here: To what extent Movement Conservatism overlaps with the Tea Party and whether the Tax Pledge is a sign of “the bankruptcy of movement conservatism”.
The former question is arguable and I made a tentative case for substantial overlap. But it’s really only tentatively related to the latter question (if for no other reason, because the Tax Pledge doesn’t really have very much to do with the Tea Party).
And the later proposition I offered as a imho and I’m not really interested in trying to prove it. Take it or leave it. I say it’s hard or impossible to prove; all you can do is make a case based on circumstantial evidence, and I’m not interested in doing that here and now. If you want to disagree - with or without a supporting argument - that’s your prerogative.
Also, tomndebb, I don’t think it’s very useful that you consistently fail to make a distinction between “conservatism”, “conservative” on the one hand and “movement conservatism” and “movement conservative” on the other. I’ve consistently talked about the latter, as it is a distinct, fairly well-defined political constituency in a US context, while the former typically isn’t and is sure to cause confusion.
E.g. “this is a sign of the bankruptcy of movement conservatism”, well that’s arguable; “this is a sign of the bankruptcy of conservatism”, depending on the meaning of “conservatism”, arguably prima facie nonsense.
The results they aforementionedly want, and are aforementionedly effective at getting? That’s not a problem; that’s just elections having consequences.
They’ve done what they set out to do – ensured that the recession will continue, knowing that the electorate will blame Obama.
So, even after the investigation you peddle this? The person who shared Plame’s status was Richard Armitage. You could look it up. Really. Look it up.
Neanderthal man was shorter than Homo Sapiens, but more powerfully built. They also had a larger brain case, which would tend to indicate higher intelligence. And yet, by all accounts, the Neanderthals survive only as a footnote on the HS DNA chain.
I’m beginning to understand how this might have occurred.
And now they’re going to party like it’s 1799
Or 1499, before the House of Fugger was lending governments money so they could explore the Americas and ensure that today Germans wouldn’t be sweeping Tukish streets instead of vice versa.
::nods sagely:: You’re saying that Homo Sapiens could sensibly work together, using teamwork and cooperation to solve problems, and that Democrats are like Neanderthals in being doomed to footnote status.