Is it a reactionary movement as Christopher S. Parker maintains, or a reform movement as adaher insists in this thread, or both at once (which would be unprecedented)?
Is it a true grassroots movement or an astroturf movement or something of each (which would not be unprecedented)?
What is it really all about more than anything else – fiscal conservatism, or decentralization/states’-rights, or paleoconservative social values?
Why is it that the rally-signs of what is clearly a RW-populist movement never seem to mention immigration, and neither does the Contract from America?
And what do the answers to the above questions portend for its role in 2014?
I don’t buy the fiscal conservatism argument since the deficit under Bush’s final year was also a trillion, and there were irresponsible acts under him too (a poorly designed medicare D, wars, etc).
I think its just reactionary views to the fact that a charismatic democratic president and a democratic supermajority controlled congress in early 2009.
I don’t think it’ll matter in 2014. The tea party may have started as a movement that had broad support, but it is whittled down to the right wing base. Something like 90% of them are conservative republicans, maybe 10-15% of the electorate. It is mostly the same people (libertarians, social conservatives and anti-government types) operating under a new umbrella.
I don’t think it is purely astroturf. The wealthy and powerful use the tea party to service their own economic interests, but the tea party goes along willingly with that. Its arguably not different than labor unions funding progressive political movement, trying to get people who serve their interests involved in politics.
What is it really about? A mix of reactionary beliefs (which I think have died down since the supermajority is over, the house is GOP and the senate may go GOP in 2014) and upset over health care and trillion dollar deficits.
My personal opinion is it’s a mostly manufactured coalition who are mad about politics. They don’t have a specific issue; it’s more a sense that there’s something wrong in American politics. The manufactured part is because there are specific groups which organized these people - who have a spectrum of different political gripes - into a roughly unitary movement. Because it’s more or less a coalition of diverse interests, it’s tough to keep the movement organized and moving in a single direction. And because it’s founded on dissatisfaction with the political system, it could end up turning against its creators - who are themselves part of that system.
I think it’s the same cast of reactionaries that have been around since the McCarthy days. They were just the flavor of the month for lazy talking heads.
Aren’t reactionary movements inherently reformist? By definition, they’re upset with the status quo and want to reform society (in that case, to get towards a reconstruction of an older conception of the society).
Not really, no. Reactionaries just know what they don’t like, and it’s all this change. No constructive suggestions ever came out of the Klan or the JBS, only barely-coherent demands.
That was indeed a movement that blended reactionary and revolutionary elements, in both its Italian and German iterations (the Spanish, not so much) – but, neither are reformist elements. The aims of reform are always humbler than those of revolution. And usually more thoroughly thought out. The Tea Party’s agenda, if we go by the Contract from America, is not very thoroughly thought out. If we go by the rally-signs, it is not thought, period. The Symbionese Liberation Army had more solid intellectual content.
The original Tea Party protests were a reaction to the economic “bailout” (the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) and the “stimulus” bill (which became the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) and the healthcare reform bills. The first few were organized locally, and included some local issues as well, but the organizers contacted conservative bloggers, journalists, and Fox News personalities, who rapidly seized upon the events and promoted them as the beginning of a national movement. Within weeks, Fox News and other organizations were promoting national rallies, culminating in the Independence Day rallies of 2009.
The underlying issue driving the Tea Party movement is high taxes, though government spending and the deficit are frequently mentioned. Tea party members often claim that they have no voice in government. The movement did start with a few grassroots efforts, but was quickly taken over by professional organizers, media figures, and big-time financial backers, so that as it exists today I’d call it “Astroturf.” I think it can still be fairly characterized as a populist movement, though. I would not call it “reformist,” as no real call has been made to change the way government is run - the Tea Parties simply want different people elected, and different choices made. Nor would I call it reactionary, since the policies the Tea Parties endorse are not a return to any former policy that I know of, though there is a passing resemblance between their ideals and the Coolidge administration.
One of the flaws in that book Glutton is citing is that unlike the Klan and Birch Society, the author has to find out what the Tea party is “really” about.
Why can’t they be about what they say they are about? that was good enough for the author with the two organizations he compares the Tea Party to.
Another flaw in his argument is that the Tea party is a reaction to the Obama Presidency. Problem is, a left-wing fringe movement that actually had similar beefs to the Tea Party, also rose up during Obama’s Presidency.
And that is a problem why? It only means that Obama is not nearly so LW as the TP thinks he is, which reflects badly on him, for being unethical, but even worse on them, for being delusional.
The book is based on a series of surveys of Tea Party members and supporters, so the authors have ‘found out’ about the Tea Party from the Tea Party itself.
If you took surveys of average Democrats, you’d find that the Democratic Party is not really about what it says it’s about.
What happened is that he found what he wanted to find, and tailored his methodology to guarantee that he’d find what he wanted. Using similar methods, I could discover that what Occupy really wanted is a Communist dictatorship.