# The Tea Party is not socially conservative my ass **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 11, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760 "2010-10-11T06:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/321 "2010-10-15T14:20:54Z")
> [@Plan\_B](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > OK - so a libertarian web site says its not racist. Guess that ends any discussion. > > No actually, if you had taken the time to read beyond the heading you would see that the research was done by a grad student at UCLA, Emily Elkins. Then it was reported by the Washington Post. > > It is to WaPo’s credit that they are daring to depart from the liberal script about what the Tea Party is. > > And **Guinastasia** thanks for fixing the link Ohhhh - I read the article you linked to. I assumed if you were talking about the study you would have linked to the WaPo article, rather than the woowoo one. And yes, I agree with it. Every tea party rally I have seen has more “economic” signs than racist ones. So what? That there is even a significant minority of race based ones says a hell of a lot. And that the “small government” theme wasn’t considered relevant when it was a big white run government does as well. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/322 "2010-10-15T14:21:35Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > > > Exactly. If tax cuts are what will cause more people to get hired by more businesses, why didn’t we have a net job gain during the Bush administrations, when the tax cuts were in effect? It’s all a lie, is why. > > Go further back in time to Reagan and his Reaganomics trickle down theory - that the benefits of “corporate hand outs” would trickle down to everyone. It was a spectacular failure. Nothing trickled down. Well, except cocaine. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/323 "2010-10-15T14:33:54Z")
> [@Morella](#): > > > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > > > I would humbly suggest that poster **Morella** has misrepresented factual information in order to advance an agenda. > > I would humbly suggest that you be specific about what facts I have misrepresented, and what facts you have to refute them. I posted several links about the black tea party, and no one has refuted any of the material. You implied that tea Party membership in the south was representative of the population in that it includes a number of visible minorities. Or, to put it in your more colorful vernacular: [QUOTE=Morella] An unbiased opinion would be useful. I would suggest attending one of the Tea Party rallies, if you feel strongly about it; however, you might be the wrong color to attend one in Mississippi or Memphis. Dey ain’t nuttin’ but eyes and teeth in da night, baby! Dig? [/QUOTE] Well, **miss elizabeth** has given you a first hand account of a Tea Party rally in Memphis, and has reported that > [@](#): > > it is as white here as anywhere else in the country (99+%). This indicates that you are very, very wrong about the racial makeup of this group. Your agenda is that you want to convince us that the Tea Party are just a regular sample of the population whose only concern is the economy. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/324 "2010-10-15T14:57:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > Go further back in time to Reagan and his Reaganomics trickle down theory - that the benefits of “corporate hand outs” would trickle down to everyone. It was a spectacular failure. Nothing trickled down. > > Well, except cocaine. When your day is done and you wanna run on … ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/325 "2010-10-15T15:05:09Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > > [@emacknight](#): > > > > An interesting note: Steinhouser describes the movement starting in the fall of 2008 to protest TARP started by then Pres. Bush. But then admits no one gave a shit until the spring after Obama took office. > > > > Blames the government for the rise in house prices. > > There we go. No one cared until Obama. Then suddenly, on the day he “moved in” the world ended. Partisan bullshit. Bush was one of them, a :god told me what to do" rightist supposedly conservative Repub. But that was OK. It was only when Obama got in (he WAS elected) that suddenly it changed to “we gotta get the country back”. I call bullshit on the Tea Baggers. Well, sure. It’s not THEIR fault that a Democrat one-of-those-people got elected. They voted AGAINST him. Is it their fault everyone voted wrong? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/326 "2010-10-15T15:19:45Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@Plan\_B](#): > > > > No actually, if you had taken the time to read beyond the heading you would see that the research was done by a grad student at UCLA, Emily Elkins. Then it was reported by the Washington Post. > > > > It is to WaPo’s credit that they are daring to depart from the liberal script about what the Tea Party is. > > > > And **Guinastasia** thanks for fixing the link > > Ohhhh - I read the article you linked to. I assumed if you were talking about the study you would have linked to the WaPo article, rather than the woowoo one. > > And yes, I agree with it. Every tea party rally I have seen has more “economic” signs than racist ones. So what? That there is even a significant minority of race based ones says a hell of a lot. And that the “small government” theme wasn’t considered relevant when it was a big white run government does as well. Where is the evidence that there is a _significant minority_ of race based signs at Tea Parties? A sign that insults Obama is not race based any more than a sign insulting Cheney is race based. Cite please for that _significant minority._ About that second point, no I don’t think that small government , libertarian thinking started on January 20, 2009: [Old Libertarian Book](http://http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287155675&sr=1-3) [Reprint of Libertarian Book from 1944](http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents---Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287155774&sr=1-1) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/327 "2010-10-15T15:23:14Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > Not millions. No where near that. > > Oh, I don’t know. On average a million would be only 20,000 per state and I would imagine their numbers are considerably larger than that, especially when it comes to votership in major elections. I could be wrong, of course, but it looks like the Tea Party is wielding influence way out of proportion to its numbers if so. Does that surprise you? Vocal minorities can wield influence out of proportion to their numbers – that is the whole point of being a vocal minority, the whole point of rallies and demonstrations and organizing and media attention. It is not just to secure the votes of everyone who shows up at the rallies, they’ll all vote and all vote the same way anyway. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/328 "2010-10-15T15:57:31Z")
> [@Plan\_B](#): > > Where is the evidence that there is a _significant minority_ of race based signs at Tea Parties? A sign that insults Obama is not race based any more than a sign insulting Cheney is race based. Cite please for that _significant minority._ I consider any birther stuff or Obama is a Muslim stuff to be race based. > [@Plan\_B](#): > > About that second point, no I don’t think that small government , libertarian thinking started on January 20, 2009: > > [Old Libertarian Book](http://http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-Statement-Milton-Friedman/dp/0156334607/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287155675&sr=1-3) > > [Reprint of Libertarian Book from 1944](http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents---Definitive-Collected/dp/0226320553/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287155774&sr=1-1) Wow - thanks for the book recommendations. The point was that these Tea Partiers had not a single care about “small government” while Dubs was spending like a drunken sailor (incidently much of it on killing dusky people, the rest on lining the pockets of his cronies). It seems to only be an issue once someone got all uppity with ideas above his station and moved into the White House. Small government ‘thought’ didn’t start in January, 2009. But caring about it did for the majority of the teabaggers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/329 "2010-10-15T16:24:34Z")
Oh, I’m sure they did, because “small government” is a buzz word wrapped in a vacuum, it means precisely whatever you want it to. It means getting the government of your back, lowering taxes on all manner of needless stuff, “needless stuff” being another term of art that will be defined at some later date. “Small government” is the vaporware of politics, it is that thing that has never been but as soon as it is, it will be totally wonderful. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/330 "2010-10-15T16:26:24Z")
> [@Morella](#): > > If I did not have to send this money to the IRS, to be wasted, flushed down the toilet, I could hire more employees this year. Do you understand why a tax cut might help with the unemployment situation? Cut my taxes in half right now and I will give you a job. This would only be true if you are an employer who hires people simply out of a desire to see them have a job. If, on the other hand, you’re like most employers, and you hire the number of people you need to maximize your profit, then you’re spouting complete bullshit. If another employee would increase your company’s profitability, you would hire that person right now. And if the presence of another employee would not increase your company’s profitability, then you won’t hire someone, even if you do get a tax cut. I wouldn’t blame you for this. If i were a small business owner, and i got a tax cut, there’s no way i’d use it to hire someone just for the hell of it. I’d pocket the money. And if my business profitability would be improved by hiring a new employee, i’d do that whether or not there was a tax cut because more profit is good for the business and for me, even if it’s being taxed. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/331 "2010-10-15T16:32:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, I’m sure they did, because “small government” is a buzz word wrapped in a vacuum, it means precisely whatever you want it to. It means getting the government of your back, lowering taxes on all manner of needless stuff, “needless stuff” being another term of art that will be defined at some later date. > > “Small government” is the vaporware of politics, it is that thing that has never been but as soon as it is, it will be totally wonderful. I can’t define small government, but I will know what it is when I see it. Some examples of waste: A freeway in a part of the country I do not use A government program that I do not use Research funded by the government that I do not understand Offices for politicians I do not agree with Any government office or department that does not directly benefit me right now Regulations in any way shape or form that do not directly impact me right now Any government department whose function I do not understand Government payouts to anyone other than me or my family or my employer Simple, right? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/332 "2010-10-15T16:47:22Z")
King James has the right of it: **Ye shall know them by their candidates. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?** ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/333 "2010-10-15T17:02:32Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Since the Tea Party is a diverse movement with many nuanced beliefs, and not a socially conservative group who want to oppose the current Democratic administration without having to address how bad the last Republican administration was, can anyone point to any socially liberal candidates endorsed by any Tea Party group? And by socially liberal, I mean pro SSM, pro-choice, and for repealing DADT, since all three of those are things that reduce government reach into people’s private lives and do not increase government spending. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > Not millions. No where near that. > > Oh, I don’t know. On average a million would be only 20,000 per state and I would imagine their numbers are considerably larger than that, especially when it comes to votership in major elections. I could be wrong, of course, but it looks like the Tea Party is wielding influence way out of proportion to its numbers if so. I bumped my question for the second time to see if you or anyone else will answer it this time. If they Tea Party is not a socially conservative movement, why do they only endorse social conservatives? > [@BigT](#): > > I don’t think SA is wrong. The Tea Party is very loosely organized. There’s a lot that people seem to agree on, but there does not seem to be any true leaders, at least, none that are not operating in the shadows. > > But we’re making a mistake here. We don’t need a leader. We just need someone who is considered to be representative of the group’s views. And that by definition would be the people they are voting for to operate in our representational government. Figure out what they have in common, and those are the views. It works for all political groups. > > Don’t get me wrong, I do believe there are many times that SA has engaged in less than well-formed arguments, and would likely benefit from a difference in style. But that does make everything he says inherently wrong. In fact, there usually is some point, even if it is not argued well. I am not sure what you are arguing against. The contention put forth by me is that we **should** judge them by the people they endorse. If the candidates they endorsed were all fiscally conservative, but only 75% where socially conservative, I would accept that they are only a fiscal movement. But, so far as I have seen Rand Paul is the most socially liberal Tea Party endorsement. And that indicates that these separate, supposedly diverse, groups are just as united on social issues as fiscal ones. > [@Morella](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Since the Tea Party is a diverse movement with many nuanced beliefs, and not a socially conservative group who want to oppose the current Democratic administration without having to address how bad the last Republican administration was, can anyone point to any socially liberal candidates endorsed by any Tea Party group? > > Do you ever engage the brain? The Tea Party is a diverse movement, yes, but it does have one central focus, which is getting rid of big government and waste. That is not a partisan issue. Can you read for comprehension? I am asking, if its only focus is getting rid of government waste, why are all the candidates it endorses socially conservative? Is everyone who is fiscally conservative also socially conservative? Is gay marriage government waste? Since when did abortion laws have an effect on the deficit? DADT seems to cost the government money, shouldn’t they support repealing it? Or has this purportedly fiscal movement been taken over by social conservatives? If this movement is based solely on fiscal issues, where are the socially tolerant candidates? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/334 "2010-10-15T17:03:43Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > King James has the right of it: > **Ye shall know them by their candidates. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?** Deep. Does anyone else remember when Obama was accused of “palling around with terrorists”? Who was it that said that? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/335 "2010-10-15T17:06:52Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > I bumped my question for the second time to see if you or anyone else will answer it this time. If they Tea Party is not a socially conservative movement, why do they only endorse social conservatives? You keep asking, but seriously, who else are they going to endorse, liberals? According to **Starving Artist** , liberals can’t be trusted. They make the country worse, and have been for 80 years now. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/336 "2010-10-15T17:17:39Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > > [@Strassia](#): > > > > I bumped my question for the second time to see if you or anyone else will answer it this time. If they Tea Party is not a socially conservative movement, why do they only endorse social conservatives? > > You keep asking, but seriously, who else are they going to endorse, liberals? > > According to **Starving Artist** , liberals can’t be trusted. They make the country worse, and have been for 80 years now. And we know that the liberals make the country worse because: They are liberals. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/337 "2010-10-15T17:25:00Z")
> [@Morella](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Since the Tea Party is a diverse movement with many nuanced beliefs, and not a socially conservative group who want to oppose the current Democratic administration without having to address how bad the last Republican administration was, can anyone point to any socially liberal candidates endorsed by any Tea Party group? > > Do you ever engage the brain? The Tea Party is a diverse movement, yes, but it does have one central focus, which is getting rid of big government and waste. That is not a partisan issue. **Of course** it’s a partisan issue. Has not the GOP consistently pretended to be all about that ever since Reagan? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/338 "2010-10-15T17:27:48Z")
I blame the deficit on Obama for getting the country embroiled in an un-winnable war in Iraq in the first place. (What? You KNOW that it’s going to be said eventually, and a significant proportion of right-wingers will come to accept it as the gospel truth.) ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/339 "2010-10-15T17:54:15Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > > [@Strassia](#): > > > > I bumped my question for the second time to see if you or anyone else will answer it this time. If they Tea Party is not a socially conservative movement, why do they only endorse social conservatives? > > You keep asking, but seriously, who else are they going to endorse, liberals? > > According to **Starving Artist** , liberals can’t be trusted. They make the country worse, and have been for 80 years now. Then just admit that the tea party is a standard, hard right, conservative back lash to a Democratic administration and Congress, rather than a ground swell of anger at the fiscal irresponsibility of the last ten years. My contention is the whole point of the current tea party movement, on a large scale is to get Republicans in office without having to address what happened the last time they were in Congress. Even the main Republicans are doing it. Eric Canto was on [the Daily Show](http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-12-2010/eric-cantor) this week and, while I enjoyed a lot of the discussion they had, his pitch to put Republicans back in charge came down to “We screwed up last time, but we learned our lesson and will do better next time.” The tea party goes one better and says “that wasn’t us, we are different group, and if we appear exactly the same an push the same policies, well that is just a weird coincidence.” ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760/340 "2010-10-15T19:02:11Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > My contention is the whole point of the current tea party movement, on a large scale is to get Republicans in office without having to address what happened the last time they were in Congress. To say _nothing_ of dodging responsibility for that near trillion dollar debacle they fomented in in Iraq, and SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS! They wouldn’t want to have to take responsibility for that, now would they? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-tea-party-is-not-socially-conservative-my-ass/556760.md?page=18)