The Tea Party Thread

siryourbrains wrote:

This isn't about taxes. It's about racism...

It's principally about taxes and a concern about an intrusive central government.  The movement has a very strong libertarian streak to it.  And, it's largely composed of people occupying "the vast middle" in this country (neither left nor right ideologues).  They are the independents who put Obama in office and put Brown in the Senate.

Poll show that Democratic voters still back Obama with very high numbers.  It's the indpendents who are fleeing Obama (and, not, despite the hopes and fantasies of some, because he's "not left enough").

George Victor wrote:

So the get REAL honest in teapartiers fashion....YES you feel hard done by, not being able to go out and pick up that iPad (last year you bragged about the merits of kindle...'member? And snickered at this poster's likely inability to afford one.  You go from strength to strength, Sven.   But I must say you do reinforce my love for old Canuckistan.

What is up with your incessant focus on the Kindle?  Like I said, I don't even own one.  And, no, I don't recall "snickering" about your inability to afford one.

siryourbrains wrote:

Thank you, GV. And I guess since this is a Canadian-based board I should get out of the habit of referring to the U.S. as "this country."

Yep.  I have cousins in Michigan and Florida whom I love dearly, but they know enough to make the territorial distinction.  And is your perspective ever welcome!!!  

Please let us know what you would recommend for reading down thataway..  Thanks

George Victor wrote:

Please let us know what you would recommend for reading down thataway..  Thanks

But, whatever you do, siryourbrains, do not recommend anything for a Kindle...don't even mention the word "Kindle".  Otherwise, we'll soon have GV parrotting the word "Kindle" in every damned post he writes here!!

siryourbrains wrote:

Well, first of all, one can dismiss outright your claim of "libertarianism" (by which I assume you mean American-style free-market libertarianism), because the only "big government" programs these people oppose are the one's proposed by Obama. They don't oppose big government when it comes to war.

Sorry to break this to you, but most of the tea partiers don't identify with big government Republicans, either.

siryourbrains wrote:

You talk about "the vast middle" as if they're the sane people in this equation. If this band of lunatics is the sane middle, then America is in a lot more trouble than I thought.

I guess it's in more trouble than you thought.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American politics knows that the independents in the middle determine elections here.

Now, whether the middle is "sane" or not, I'll leave that conclusion to you.

Dickens would have dubbed this fella' the Artful Dodger, syb.  Never speaks to the core of your posting, very deft at devious detours to the picayune and irrelevant.  You know  the brand.

ElizaQ wrote:

...charactizing them as all  being in the middle of the spectrum  is just plain false...

Well, I never said that.

In my re-quote below, I've highlighted some key qualify language and added some bracketed edits.

Sven wrote:

It's principally [not "exclusively"] about taxes and a concern about an intrusive central government.  The movement has a very strong libertarian streak to it [it's not "wholly libertarian"].  And, it's largely [again, not "exclusively"] composed of people occupying "the vast middle" in this country (neither left nor right ideologues).  They are the independents who put Obama in office and put Brown in the Senate.

Again, it's the idependents who put Obama in office...and it's independents who largely compose the tea partiers.

[/quote]

Also, I didn't say independents are closet lefties (and from a lefty perspective, they are, of course, "right wing").  But, they definitely tend to occupy the middle of the American political spectrum.

siryourbrains wrote:

Just ask the unofficial head of the entire thing, Sarah Palin.

There is certainly a significant segment of the movement who love Sarah Palin, I'll grant you that.

They may all be warmongering plutocrats running the show, but they're not all exactly the same. Come on! I think some of the superrich instruct their servants to recycle empty caviar tins and fine wine bottles. I think pickled walnuts glass jars are number ones.

ElizaQ wrote:

Sven your logic here is incredibly faulty.

Not really...but let me explain:

ElizaQ wrote:

An 'independent' does not necessarily follow some sort of middle ground between Dem and GOP by  "Independents' comprise people from all over the politcal spectrum. Everywhere from the extreme left on the spectrum to the extreme right to people that just don't care about politics except at voting time.  So sure you can say that self identified 'independents' are major supporters of the tea party but that doesn't equal sitting in the middle of the political spectrum between liberal and conservative.   Tea party politics are not moderate or not 'in the middle' of the political spectrum.  They're right and pushing a more extreme right  version of conservatism then the GOP.  Many tea partiers are ex-gopers who left for 'independent' world because the GOP has gone too left in their eyes.

The problem with this analysis is that the bulk of independents sometimes vote for Democrats and at other times vote for Republicans.  If the bulk of them were right-wing zealots, how do you explain them switching votes?  If they were primarily right-wing idealogues, then they'd never vote for candidates like Obama.  Likewise, if they were primarily left-wing ideologues, they'd never vote for the likes of GWB.  But, because they do, in fact, vote shift, they must, by definition, tend to occupy the middle of the American political spectrum, no?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

...so I know that this low statistical possibility did not occur.

You "know" that, eh?

Cool.

I kept saying that the Big O should have chosen Condi as his running mate.  His message of hope had a very distinct odour of imperial power.

Sven go visit the sites of the tea bag orgs. and come back and tell us all about the mainstream views expressed there.  I know that the rallies with people carrying everything from assault rifles to Big O caricatures of him as a Nazi convinced me that these people are not the political middle.  What senses do you rely on to draw your conclusions about the external world?

Sven wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:

Sven your logic here is incredibly faulty.

Not really...but let me explain:

ElizaQ wrote:

An 'independent' does not necessarily follow some sort of middle ground between Dem and GOP by  "Independents' comprise people from all over the politcal spectrum. Everywhere from the extreme left on the spectrum to the extreme right to people that just don't care about politics except at voting time.  So sure you can say that self identified 'independents' are major supporters of the tea party but that doesn't equal sitting in the middle of the political spectrum between liberal and conservative.   Tea party politics are not moderate or not 'in the middle' of the political spectrum.  They're right and pushing a more extreme right  version of conservatism then the GOP.  Many tea partiers are ex-gopers who left for 'independent' world because the GOP has gone too left in their eyes.

The problem with this analysis is that the bulk of independents sometimes vote for Democrats and at other times vote for Republicans.  If the bulk of them were right-wing zealots, how do you explain them switching votes?  If they were primarily right-wing idealogues, then they'd never vote for candidates like Obama.  Likewise, if they were primarily left-wing ideologues, they'd never vote for the likes of GWB.  But, because they do, in fact, vote shift, they must, by definition, tend to occupy the middle of the American political spectrum, no?

 You analysis fails where you assume that support comes from the 'bulk of independents' that tend to sometimes vote Dem or sometimes vote Dem.  I'm not disagreeing at all about what the 'bulk of' tends to do.   Tea Partiers are not a bulk of middle road moderates in there political viewpoint.  Just look at it. The actual politics are not moderate and not sitting in some sort of middle ground in the left right spectrum.   If as you suggest that it's  is indeed a bulk of middle road independent supporting (which I think is false anyways as there are a heck of lot more GOPers of disaffected Gopers in it),  then those 'independent' don't automatically some how pull the ACTUAL politics into the middle ground.    The Tea Party movement is a right wing populist movement and it is causing strife on the right side of the spectrum.  It's serving to bring about divsions in the world of conservatism.  It's way more of threat to the right side as it's mostly contained within that smaller spectrum.  All you have to do is look at the arguments about what to do with and the pandering that's going on from GOP leaders both old and new as they attempt to maintain control of the base.

Also using Brown as example of what Tea Partiers did is demonstrably false.  Yes independents elected him.  Yes some Tea Part people took credit for it.  Claiming credit doesn't mean they actually did a whole lot though except bleep and blather about it.

The more I reflect on this:

siryourbrains wrote:

Whether or not a majority of "independents" (I'm taking your word for this) switch tickets sometimes has nothing to do with teapartiers.

...and on this:

ElizaQ wrote:

You analysis fails where you assume that support comes from the 'bulk of independents' that tend to sometimes vote Dem or sometimes vote Dem.  I'm not disagreeing at all about what the 'bulk of' tends to do.   Tea Partiers are not a bulk of middle road moderates in there political viewpoint.  Just look at it. The actual politics are not moderate and not sitting in some sort of middle ground in the left right spectrum.   If as you suggest that it's  is indeed a bulk of middle road independent supporting (which I think is false anyways as there are a heck of lot more GOPers of disaffected Gopers in it),  then those 'independent' don't automatically some how pull the ACTUAL politics into the middle ground.    The Tea Party movement is a right wing populist movement and it is causing strife on the right side of the spectrum.  It's serving to bring about divsions in the world of conservatism.  It's way more of threat to the right side as it's mostly contained within that smaller spectrum.  All you have to do is look at the arguments about what to do with and the pandering that's going on from GOP leaders both old and new as they attempt to maintain control of the base.

[snip]

Also using Brown as example of what Tea Partiers did is demonstrably false.  Yes independents elected him.  Yes some Tea Part people took credit for it.  Claiming credit doesn't mean they actually did a whole lot though except bleep and blather about it.

I see your point about me conflating independent voters (which do, in fact, determine elections in America) with tea partiers.  Perhaps you're right about tea partiers not being principally independents.  I will have to look at the tea partiers more carefully.

What I am confident of is that independents are fleeing the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda as fast as their feet will take them...and if that condition lasts into November, the Republicans are going to give the Democrats a holy beat-down this fall.  My guess is that the Dems go from what was one a 60-vote majority in the Senate to a mere 53 to 47 majority in the Senate.  I think the House will also remain in Democrats' hands, but just barely.  With such thin margins, Obama will be all but forced to move towards the American center -- if he has any hope of winning re-election in 2012.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Actually, looking at everything more carefully before posting your half-baked opinions would be much appreciated by all.

Oh, you mean that if I just read everyones posts (including yours) "more carefully," then I would more likely agree with them?

~ yawn ~

Sorry for assuming you to be capable of real consideration, Sven. My mistake.

But the Democrats are upside-down socialists. And so is the other wing of the same war party of warmongering plutocrats. That's what makes it all so insane. No one in the states has actually believed in straight up laissez-faire capitalism since before the great swan dive in '29. Not even capitalists want a return to actual capitalism. One American described laissez-faire capitalism of the early 1930's USA as "duller and greyer than Soviet communism."

Oh, how far they've come! It's the unbelievably progressive Republican platform from 1956.

We don't get to speak directly in schools or news rooms anyway.

Thats the obstacle. The mincing language used there is a secondary effect. Not trivial.

But the essential point is that we do not speak directly there anyway. And you do not make a convincing case that mincing language is a directly compelling constraint where we can and have to speak directly.

I wouldn't have a clue how to deal with the tea party phenomena. But that said- once you have a clue, you don't necessarily engage the phenomena directly. In fact, its my hunch that in shifting the frame, engaging is the first wrong thing to do.

More importantly- we are not in the US. And implicit extrapolations from US tea party phenomena are a recipe for confusion and distracting angst.

Ken:

"More importantly- we are not in the US. And implicit extrapolations from US tea party phenomena are a recipe for confusion and distracting angst."

Seems more like the act of an ostrich to avoid discussion of Conservative tactics, Ken. I realize there is discomfort in "angst." It should not distract us from comparing notes and understanding how the bastards have risen to a dominant position in the age of Friedman.

This article is relevant to the discussion: http://salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/02/15/american_political_culture

"Anglo-American Protestants viewed Catholicism as the chief enemy of the 'true religion' of Protestant Christianity well into the 20th century, and some still do. But in the mythology of the reactionary right, the United Nations has long since replaced the Vatican as the center of global conspiracies, and the alleged Catholic threat to Protestantism has been replaced by the alleged 'secular humanist' threat to the 'Judeo-Christian tradition.'

"This is the key to understanding the otherwise inexplicable accusations by the populist right that Barack Obama is a socialist or fascist or whatever, as well as fantasies about a global secular humanist conspiracy. We are dealing with a mythological mentality, based on simple and powerful archetypes. Contemporary figures and current events are plugged into a framework that never changes. 'King Charles (or King George) is threatening the rights of Englishmen' becomes 'Barack Obama is promoting socialism' - or fascism, or monarchism, or daylight saving time."

 George I see some of what you suggest and what Micheal posted to be very connected.  To go really meta with my albeit unformed thoughts (I'll just babble a bit of a stream of consciousnous) I do see a connection with what I will describe as a generalized culture of the 'individual' and how it's pushed or is present through all areas of our present culture.  One can go into theorizing of where it comes from whether stemming from the meta economic philosphy, consumerism, psychology till the cows come home.   Of course the social construct of the individual in dynamic with the collective is not something new to these times but I would suggest that we are presently in a hyper form of it and if I was to try to say why this is I would put on lot of emphasis on the generalized consumer culture that surrounds us.  Consumerism is very much about the individual and not so much about the we though it's couched in we like terms, 'our economy' etc etc.    Consumerism has also been very much connected with a generalized concept of 'freedom' and 'liberty' as well.   Couple that with a generalized cultural mythos around the power and fortitude of the individual that is found particularly in a place like the US you have a juggernaut of 'me' culture. 

 I know I'm generalizing a lot here but I'm trying to keep it short. 

 Of course in reality a society isn't about a bunch of individual 'mes' and whether consciously or unconsciously most understand to a point that it can't function without some sort of collective 'we'.   Politics occurs very much on the 'we' level of course.  In order for it to work you have to get some sort of 'we' consenus.  What I see has happened in the US especially is that 'conservatives' have been very, very good a using messages directed at individuals fears and desires in order to create that consensus and in doing so the political culture has developed into a hyper form of 'us' vs 'them'.  It's a form thats been taken to an extreme.   Once you have a 'them' it's very easy to follow a course of using the nebulous 'them' as a political trigger point, regardless if it's based in reality or is rife with cognative dissonance.  It doesn't have to make rational sense what matters is some sort of aggrement on who the 'thems', that the 'thems' are bad and that anything they do or say is bad.

  If I was to charactize the overall mythos of the Tea Party movement it's very much based on a hyper 'They are out to get you and take everything away mentality'  that extends out to a more extreme version of the types of messaging that have pervaded the righter wing for a very long time.     The messages around taxes while supposedly based on economic theory about a good functioning economy blah blah are drilled down to 'taxes are evil because the government is taking/stealing your money',  cries of 'socialism' are not based on some sort of deep analysis of what socialism really is but connected with concepts of 'government taking your money, taking your freedom, taking your liberty, taking your choices away'  and though couched in talk about destroying the country and bringing America down the underlying message is very much an individual one.  Cries of Nazism and Hitler aren't really based on sound reasoning just more viscreal equating something that historically is accepted as horrible of horrible ergo what I think is going on now is really horrible so it's the same.   Then of course we have all the 'others',  immigrants illegal or not - taking your jobs, taking over your communities,  gays - taking your children, taking your marriages, taking some perception of morality,  poor people - taking your hard earned money through welfare, taking the safety of you communities away,  non-Christians or secularism = taking your religion, taking your babies,  urbanites/elites = taking just about anything.  We have health care - taking your choice, taking your money and yes even taking your very lives away through evilness of things like 'Death Panels', gun regulations - taking your rights to security,  a generalized perception that regulation is by nature bad because it takes something way from you and yours.   Due the economic woes of the past year or so there's a new addition to the them mix which is used quite carefully because it can't go to far, but is very good at getting the ire going if necessary 'wall street - taking your money and of course it's the bad government fault. 

 Messaging about 'Real Americans' and those 'Liberals' and 'Muslims' and numerous other 'them' groups are based on a generalized demonization of the 'other'.   I think that Palins appeal is that she's is very much considered and 'us'  and much of her rhetoric and image is very much based on demonizing and fighting  the big bad other.  It's gotten to the point where it doesn't even matter what policies or whether she really knows the issues. What matters is that she is out to save me from the 'other'.  As ignorant as she might be about many things she plays this part perfectly.

I guess my point is that I see the generalized right as being quite successful in drilling down the messaging to a very individual level thats very appealing in a hyper culture that puts so much emphsis on the individual.

 This hyperization of them and us in many quarters is polarized so much that it's not even matter what is being talked about.  It's taken to a point that's demonizing by nature.  It's visceral. It's emotional.   Liberals aren't just people to defeat through policy and ideas they're to be destroyed because their whole nature is evil (both religious and non-religious sense) and vice versa you can find that same sort of thing on the lefter side of things though I have not seen it as much or to the same intensity as it is on the righter side of things nor is it as mainstream where now you can find this blatent demonization, from elected leaders,  on the radio airwaves and places like Fox News.  Folks like Beck in particular come to mind. 

 To bring in what Micheal posted I see that as a more macro level version of similar patterns which that article does lay out.  It's pattern that has been around for centuries it's just that we're seeing more extreme and hyper version of it now. 

 George I do agree with your points about Tommy Douglas and the establishment of more collective type policy that helps keep things at bay.  I do however think that there is more to it then that.  Going back to cultural mythos Canada though the patterns of colonization and the establishment of the state have their similarities there are differences in the generalized mythos that pervades the two countries.  We haven't a don't tend to have as much emphasis on the 'rugged frontier being settled by the strong individual John Wayne type archetypes, a sense of exceptionalism that the US has tended to have, we don't have the 'revolution' and the founders who fought for 'freedom and liberty' against the unjust other.  I know I'm generaliztion a lot here but hopefully there's a sense to what I'm trying to get at.

 I also have to say that I can't get totally behind the idea that it's a issue with the 'great unread' and groups that are just being played upon in a cynical manner by 'great read' folks who are duping them.  I understand what your getting at and that element is definately there.  However in my travels I found that that sort of characterization fails because it appears that very many 'great read' people look at the world or look at politics in the same way it's not just a matter of people being undereducated or not 'read'.   While it would be nice and perhaps more comfortable to think that say the speaker at the recent convention who called for literacy tests was just using it as a cynical ploy to get the 'unread' on side I think he really does think that.  The same goes for many politicans that are currently elected or vying for election.     I also think that one runs the risk of taking such characterizations to far to the point in creating this 'other' and delving into the murky waters of excerting a sense of superiority of thought, which plays exactly into the whole 'liberal elite' meme which has been fostered for many years with a lot of success.   Bit of a Catch 22 I know but there has to be some other way to discuss or frame it that doesn't play into the very framing thats already being pushed.

Anyways I've babbled enough.  These are just some thoughts.

 EQ:
"I also have to say that I can't get totally behind the idea that it's a issue with the 'great unread' and groups that are just being played upon in a cynical manner by 'great read' folks who are duping them.  I understand what your getting at and that element is definately there.  However in my travels I found that that sort of characterization fails because it appears that very many 'great read' people look at the world or look at politics in the same way it's not just a matter of people being undereducated or not 'read'.   While it would be nice and perhaps more comfortable to think that say the speaker at the recent convention who called for literacy tests was just using it as a cynical ploy to get the 'unread' on side I think he really does think that.  The same goes for many politicans that are currently elected or vying for election.     I also think that one runs the risk of taking such characterizations to far to the point in creating this 'other' and delving into the murky waters of excerting a sense of superiority of thought, which plays exactly into the whole 'liberal elite' meme which has been fostered for many years with a lot of success.   Bit of a Catch 22 I know but there has to be some other way to discuss or frame it that doesn't play into the very framing thats already being pushed."
Yep, it's not just a new phenom, EQ, and we see the same devices used by the forces of reaction to regain the upper hand. That move by teabaggers to instate literacy testing...that was a major vehicle to keep the voting populating white, throughout the south (another hidden "concern" of these folks, part of their
racist "heart", so to speak). I'm embarassed to keep harping back to Bageant, but he puts the situation of the vulnerable uneducated and under-educated "rednecks" of his home area in very clear light. We don't want to talk about that vulnerability hereabouts, but I will not defer to a requirement to "think nice". When I described the political consciousness of my old tool and die maker chum (and one in that trade has to be familiar with fairly advanced math and logic and machining skills) I was not putting him down, just explaining the dilemma for the left in the political economy of "Friedman", which has revolutionized opportunities for the concervative...the "neocon" was born. You speak of the danger of engaging in "superiority of thought" ( that's elitist thought) but you see, that's retreating from a level of discourse by which the real dynamics can be discussed. You saw that from the get-go in this thread. It's more than a Catch 22, EQ. I don't even want to take part in a kind of "vanguard" action (the traditional position of the Left in pre-revolutionary discussion...google it up). Bageant says improvement in educational opportunity would help mightily (but offers no way to bring that about). And we, here, are not solving the problem for the U.S.progressive. I'm trying to draw parallels to the U.S. situation, however, to show how our homegrown Cons are chipping away with the same goddam tools.
Geoffrey Stevens, author of a bio on the late Dalton Camp (who recognized the emerging neo-con threat out of the West) said in his Waterloo Region Record column today that indeed, Harper's play for the ear of Canada's Great Unread, unfolded as I had described, above.
"Last week, the PMO launched a scathing attack on Ed Clark, CEO of TD Bank and a member of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Clark's sin? He had the temerity to suggest the nation's best-compensated business leaders would be prepared to pay higher taxes to help reduce the deficit. Barack Obama would have seized on such an offer with glad cries. He would surely have invited the rulers of Wall Street to the White House to receive his personal thanks. Not Harper. Tax increases are not part of his recalibrated economic agenda, not even if they would be paid by rich executives who aer able and willing to pay them. His office sent out an email that hung a Liberal label on Ed Clark. The evidence: he had been one of a group of financial experts who had dinner with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff last spring. The PMO email ended with these words: "Michael Ignatieff's Bay Street buddy Ed Clark earned $11 million in 2009 . He can affordhigher taxes. Can you?"
My tool and die buddy will be eating up Steve's take (it will appear in the next Con mailing to his riding). Waddya think of chances that the truth will come to the Great Unread?

Okay.  I'll take a crack at the question...it was rhetorical anyhoo.  My tool and die buddy will vote for cuts to federal services, not realizing that Steve is probably going to opt for what the C.D.Howe Institute is advocating ..."simply returning real per-person spending to its 2008 level which be itself can ( without raising taxes federally, like upping the GST again, that Conseervative vote-getter when they came to power)  end deficits before 2015. 

Then my friend is going to go all toxic on the provincial  HST again...while wondering why hospitals are cutting electives again, and Time Hudak will demonstrate again how a Conservative can handle it in Ontario...and so it goes in the age of manipulated ignorance.  

An interesting opinion on Tea Party conservatism from a conservative who decided not to go to CPAC this year:

Stop at CPAC today and you will find rooms full of ardent, zealous, fervent young men and women who believe the government should be allowed to torture (we condemned people at Nuremberg for doing that), who believe the government should be able to lock people up without charges and hold them indefinitely (something Henry VIII agreed was a proper exercise of government authority). Who believe the government should be able to read a citizen's mail and listen in on a citizen's phone calls, all without a warrant (the Constitution of course prohibits searches without a warrant, but nobody cares less about the Constitution than some of today's ersatz conservatives).