“Member” is, of course, a euphemism in common usage and usually requiring no definition. 
To vote in most states you register as a party member–Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, whatever–or you register as “independent,” or “decline party affiliation.” Of course you are still free (at least in general elections, and sometimes in primaries as well) to vote for candidates of any affiliation. But there’s still an objective list of voters’ declared affiliations. It is a fact that I am officially (recorded by the state of Virginia) a member of no party.
But if I were to simply say that I was a “Tea Party member,” there would be no way for anyone to refute this. There is no list. There is no bona fide organization.
There weren’t any tea party protests until at least February of 2009, after ARRA was passed by the House and was obvious the Senate Dems were going to push it through to Obama.
It’s almost funny the tea party (“taxed enough already”) coalesced to protest a bill that allocated nearly $250 billion in individual tax cuts.
Yeah, but Glenn Beck showed goose-stepping soldiers on a bluescreen! And he cried. I imagine those things sway teabaggie opinion far more than facts. Now get yer gummint away from mah MeddyCare.
And trillions of additional debt. Who is paying for it? Every state got a big birthday present in the last spend-fest so which state is paying the bill? Is Los Angeles paying for the 10 new hybrid buses my city got? Is California paying for the high speed rail we’re getting?
Yeah, I mean, just focus your protest message, you know? Don’t protest something that isn’t happening. It wouldn’t sound as stupid if it was “absolutely stop spending”, and “ASS party” might get a better draw than “tea party”, too.
Its a mix. Obama is clearly not a socialist. Some elements of public policy for decades have been socialistic. He is a Corporatist of the first order. He favors subsidies, bailouts, and resists regulations on business.
I think the impulse is correct that many governmental policies that have been enacted over the past couple of years have been “radical” and even dangerous. Like the government takeover of our automobile industry, bailouts to banks with no strings attached, $3.8 trillion dollar budgets, to name only a few. Not to mention the continuation of Bush era wars and suspension of habeas corpus. People just like to throw words around to portray Obama as the “radical” they believe he is.
Yet, the word they should use is Corporatist. Or even Fascist. Mussolini described fascism as the merger of corporate and state power. That is what we are witnessing, privatized profits and socialized loses.
Its important to get these terms right.
Check out this video:
You make some good points. I think a lot of the new Tea Partiers are more partisan and less ideological. But I truly think we may be witnessing something larger and longer lasting. Trust me, its not just the far right who are pissed off.
If you are upset at our government and don’t want to join the Tea Party given that it has been co opted, join another protest. Don’t sit back. Join some of the liberal anti war rallies that are held around the country. Protest the bailouts and corporate subsidies. Let your voice be heard.
But most importantly, reach out to the Tea Party. There is much common ground to be explored. The Tea Party and similar grassroots movements can only be co opted if we let them.
Actually, you are wrong here:
The first modern Tea Party was organized in 2007 to support libertarian Ron Paul. It was a broad coalition that criticized the Republicans primarily. It was diverse and energetic.
This is the movement that I endorse. In fact, if you look around, Ron Paul is the most influential “Republican” in the country in 2010. This is a libertarian philosophy that has been consistent for many years.
Of course! Look at how badly the previous Democratic administration trashed the budget and the economy! Um, wait a second…
Good for them. Let’s see them throw out that multi-decade deadwood septuagenarian incumbent Republican Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), and get some fresh blood and fresh ideas in Congress for a change.
Seriously, the Tea Partiers are totally late to the party on this one. Plenty of us hanging out at Ralph Nader rallies all the way back in 2000 already recognized very clearly that there was too much convergence and collusion between the two major parties in terms of how they did business, and too much support in both of them for a privileged “Establishment” class of hybridized lobbyist/legislators often in direct opposition to the interests of most of their constituents. The only way this has changed in recent years is that the Republicans as a group have moved a bit farther into the crazy zone than the Democrats have.
But unlike the Tea Partiers, most of us back then had the sense to see that we were a consciousness-raising protest movement, not a realistic short-term reform agenda. The Tea Party groups who are egging on inexperienced radical-right primary candidates to outcompete one another in the extremism stakes are just going to find themselves when the dust clears pushed even further into the crazy zone.
Actually, I’m right:
The '07 “tea party” was concerned solely with earning donations for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. The current “tea party” protests took hold after TARP, and during ARRA’s passage. They’re different movements.
Yeah, shame on those damn Democrats for supporting it:
'Course, now that the world economy hasn’t collapsed and you’re not crapping your pants at the shock of confronting real-life consequences of libertarian fantasies anymore, you cheerfully go back to sticking your head in the sand and playing political games, as usual.
As I see it (and I do not know yet what the Tea Party plan is to change things) ,but with Sarah Palin being one of the biggest supporters I expect things to get a whole lot worse, and the freedoms people are shouting about will be less. It sounds to me like they are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
United we stand divided we fall. Our country is very divided at this time. It seems to me that if Obama was a white Republican with the same ideas he would be excepted. Now no matter how good an idea he would put forth there are some who will not accept it, and look for ways to criticize.
I meant the stimulus, not the various bailouts. I think this was already mentioned.
I think the stimulus is probably more justifiable from a libertarian perspective. In theory, you could just be accelerating legitimate government-run functions like infrastructure projects, and the benefits could be seen as being more evenly distributed through society. The bailout is pretty much pure lemon socialism - privatized profits, socialized losses, and a whole lot of moral hazard.
Wait, which one is “the stimulus” and which one is “the bailout”? I’ve got my euphemisms all atangle.
Is Rand Paul a Tea Party member?
Sigh, ask a suddenly uncomfortable question, and no one wants to answer.
Fox News May 19: Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul Wins Senate GOP Primary in Kentucky
NY Daily News May 20: New hero of Tea Party Rand Paul is so conservative he scares Dick Cheney
Time Magazine May 19: Rand Paul’s Tea Party Triumph in Kentucky
December 2009: Rand Paul’s Tea Party
And a related thread:Rand Paul’s interview on Rachel Maddow - A real Libertarian meets the real world
The time when teabaggers could hide behind their grassrootsy anarchism is drawing to an end. They’ll need to stand behind Rand Paul as a group now, or tell us they’re not behind him.
What does this even mean?
And here I’ve been the one saying that the tea party has a libertarian bent, rather than being just a bunch of old-school Republicans, and getting flack for it.
Now that an honest-to-God libertarian wins as a tea party candidate, suddenly I’m supposed to be horrified? You go, Rand.
And by the way, wasn’t Ron Paul a darling of the liberals - when he was defined by his opposition to the Iraq war? Rand Paul and Ron Paul have virtually identical positions, so why is Rand suddenly so terrifying?
And shame on the NY news for not knowing the difference between a libertarian and 'someone so conservative he scares Dick Cheney." When’s the last time you saw an arch-conservative oppose the Iraq war and favor drug legalization and more open borders?