In the same vein as this other question, I’ve kind of flipped it around to imagine what the Founders (yes, I know, not a monolith, kind of my point) might decry when casting an eye on the groups that call themselves Tea Parties.
The same disclaimer stands for this question.
I’m guessing a group of philosophers and general Renaissance men aren’t going to be too impressed with the systemic anti-intellectualism of the Tea Party supporters.
Given that the Founders were opposed to a standing army, they might be surprised:
(1) At the level of expenditure on the military by the Federal Government, and
(2) That cutting this expenditure is off limits for a group of people who say that they want a balanced budget.
And as many of them were Deists or Unitarians or otherwise not-strictly-Christian, they would be nonplussed by the Tea Partiers’ religiosity.
Probably the Teabaggers failure to be sufficiently trenchant on the enslavement of Negros. Their unwillingness to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment would be anathema to many of the Founding Fathers.
They also might not be too happy with the number of politically active women in the organization, particularly in leadership and candidate positions.
The very idea of a popular mass movement trying to control the government. The founders felt that the government should be run by the “better elements” of society not the mob.
They would generally decry the existence of a “party”.
And, of course, as soon as the Constitutional Convention adjourned, parties emerged and most of the Founders joined one or the other.