What exactly is the "tea party"?

[Charles Kozierok]

The meaning of the term seems to change depending on whom you ask, and has evolved over time. Some people see this group as being distinct from the Republican Party; some claim they are a libertarian-leaning subgroup; some say they are like the GOP but more focused on "fiscal conservatism"; and some say they are just the more strident wing of the conservative movement, a part of the GOP that has just taken on a new identity.

I tend to favor the last view of these. I simply don't see anything in the so-called "tea party" that I haven't seen in the far right fringe of the GOP for the last two decades. And as a libertarian myself, I can't really take the "tea party" seriously as a libertarian-based movement when so many of their viewpoints are more consistent with modern conservatism than with libertarianism.

An event now over two years ago sticks in my mind. I had just started a blog and I found a poll on gay marriage from Public Policy Polling that asked people in various political groups whether they supported gay marriage, civil unions or neither. The results, summarized, were as follows:

• Republicans: 11% marriage, 35% civil unions, 52% neither.
• Liberals: 78% marriage, 10% civil unions, 12% neither.
• Conservatives: 8% marriage, 32% civil unions, 57% neither.
• Tea Party: 17% marriage, 30% civil unions, 52% neither.

For me, this encapsulates my position on the "tea party" in a nutshell. They're conservative Republicans, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Agent11]

I wish the supreme court would rule in favor of gay marriage already so that everyone could stop using it as the be all end all political litmus test.

That is probably wishful thinking though, as it didn't seem to stop people from using abortion in the same way.

Your data shows that they are 6% less conservative than republicans on social issues... Btw.

 

[Jaskalas]

Coming out against Obamacare was a chance to strike new ground in supporting limited government. Something the GOP leadership has thrown away.

Tea Party is an attempt to answer the identity crisis between the Neocons of GWB and the Libertarians of Ron / Rand Paul. Yet our GOP Presidential nominees continue to reside firmly on the former side, which is rampant with government abuse and turns away many key Democrat voting Libertarians.

My only issue with the Tea Party is that they haven't gone far enough. Maybe they're just the old dogs learning a new bark. That would sadden me, but certainly explain their results. They need to support Libertarian Democrats if they want the mantle of legitimacy.

Railing against Obama was easy for them, now they need to target fellow Republicans equally. Until they do so our worst fears about the Tea Party will remain very close to the truth.

 

[Lithium381]

Libertarian Democrats?
I've voted libertarian party the past elections . . . who might be in that (L)(D) party that you're thinking of?

 

[Jaskalas]

Libertarian Democrats?
I've voted libertarian party the past elections . . . who might be in that (L)(D) party that you're thinking of?

Not a party, but a segment of the population who is supportive of limited government and detests Patriot Acts, warrant-less wiretapping, all the big government things President Bush and his fellow Republicans pushed on the American people. Not to mention anyone who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I don't expect they voted for Bush in 2004.

I believe there are various issues that force Libertarians to oppose the Republican Party, and in part that can mean voting for Democrats in order to realize this opposition. If the notion of limited government regained control of the Republican Party then it would be possible to bring those voters back into the fold.

No names that I can cite as an example come to mind. May be a few posters here who fit the bill. Socially liberal and economically conservative.

 

[Sonikku]

For a "party" that prides itself on working to get the government out of peoples lives they sure do try hard to get government involved in social issues.

 

[Craig234]

The tea party is a scam to try to keep the disaffected suckers who fell for Republican stories from leaving to the Democrats - and while they're at it provide a group of voters for wealthy interests to co-opt again.

While Biush was president, I predicted the tea party, without the name. I made the point that Republicans were winning elections in large part with wild promises to get elected and then screwing the country with their actual policies. This would need them to first champion a candidate like Bush and then to disown him. That's what happened.

Recall how the Republicans got many Americans to switch from Clinton/Gore to them in 2000.

Promises that they would not elimitnate the defict in 10 years (it was already gone) - they would eliminate the national DEBT in 10 years (it's in Bush's first state of the union as well).

Actual policy: turning a sueplus into massive deficts again.

Promises they were'compassionate conservatives' who would lower poverty and help the poor and middle classes.

Actual policy: poverty increased, massive wealth transfers to the most wealthy.

Promises that he would have a "humble" foreign policy and that the idea of nation building was an arrogant mistake.

Actual policy: relentlessly pursue war with Iraq to boost his political power and make a disastrous attempt at nation building with a foreign policy widely called incredibly arrogant.

Promises as the 'first MBA President' to make the banking sector work better for the country and the economy thrive.

Actual policy: reckless deregulation helping the banking sector cause the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, 40% losses of wealth for the middle class, while the rich skyrocketed.

I could go on but you get the idea.

Some of those Bush voters were bound to notice the difference between promise and what they did.

Now a natural response might be to say 'you know, the Democrats sure do a lot better' and switch back to them.

Republicans can't just keep saying 'trust us again' but they can have a 'new' group who can channel the anger and keep voters from going to Democrats. Enter the tea party.

Now they created a bit of a monster for themselves, but for the Republicans, it's a lot better than a return to the time of our country's greatness - Democratic super-majorities.

For the country, not so good.

Bottom line, big corporations and the most wealthy are quite powerful, moreso all the time with the changes to let them buy our political system, so they keep on getting enough votes to at least block.

 

[fskimospy]

I wish the supreme court would rule in favor of gay marriage already so that everyone could stop using it as the be all end all political litmus test.

That is probably wishful thinking though, as it didn't seem to stop people from using abortion in the same way.

Your data shows that they are 6% less conservative than republicans on social issues... Btw.

I'm going to guess that with his sample sizes those two are indistinguishable from one another.

I agree with Charles, there is basically nothing I've seen from the tea party that is substantially different than the right wing Republican base. There is very little ideological coherence in terms of getting government out of peoples lives, it is just another form of decreasing governments role in economic affairs while increasing government intervention in private ones.

I have nearly the same contempt for libertarians as I do for more traditional conservatives, but for different reasons and they are easy to tell apart. The tea party aren't libertarians, no matter how they want to be.

 

[Lithium381]

I think this is a good wakeup call for the (R) team. They're no longer representing what this generation of Americans think. They either need to realign themselves with the country or be phased out. I already see that happening. It's sad because I don't particularly like what the Liberal Democrats are doing.

The Republicans are digging this hole themselves. I'd much rather see less government in ALL areas. As eskimo says trading economic for private regulation . . not my cup of tea.

Socially Liberal
Fiscally Conservative

Sorry GOP, you're neither of those. At least the TP is trying to be fiscally conservative so it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Craig234]

The term 'fiscally conservative' is very misleading. It falls into that 'starve the beast' policy to lie to people to transfer the wealth to the top then say 'we're broke, cut spending'.

If policies had not shifted all the growth in productivity to the top 1%, average wages would be nearly double what they are. The minimum wage would be $22.

The money isn't gone, it's stolen. But we better cut back on the spending that's for the rest of America, so the American people can be impoverished to help the wealthy more.

It's not 'fiscally conservative', it's bad economic policy that's nothing but a transfer of wealth and increase in the concentration of wealth. It's anti-growth.

It reduces the wealth of most, it increases unemployment, it's not 'responsible'.

Funny thing, the progressive caucus budget balances the budget faster than any other budget, including the Ryan fantasy. Were's the backing?

 

[werepossum]

I think this is a good wakeup call for the (R) team. They're no longer representing what this generation of Americans think. They either need to realign themselves with the country or be phased out. I already see that happening. It's sad because I don't particularly like what the Liberal Democrats are doing.

The Republicans are digging this hole themselves. I'd much rather see less government in ALL areas. As eskimo says trading economic for private regulation . . not my cup of tea.

Socially Liberal
Fiscally Conservative

Sorry GOP, you're neither of those. At least the TP is trying to be fiscally conservative so it's a step in the right direction.

I'd say the Tea Party started by being fiscally conservative, but the GOP has done an excellent job in uniting them around the socially conservative positions most held. It's a kind of Pyrrhic victory though; the GOP did manage to recapture a significant portion of its voters, but it did so using positions that are increasingly less popular with unaffiliated voters. At this point I no longer see much difference between the Tea Party and the GOP, with socially liberal Tea Partiers moving back toward independent or Libertarian.

Equally unfortunately, I see increasing Republican influence on the Libertarian Party, or perhaps my perception of it is altering. I've always been somewhat at odds with the Libertarian Party over the extent to which small government and deregulation is practical and desirable, but it seems to me that the Libertarian Party lately is moving more toward the Ron Paul positions of too little government except where delivering too little individual liberty.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Equally unfortunately, I see increasing Republican influence on the Libertarian Party, or perhaps my perception of it is altering.

This is a good point I hadn't really thought about, and ties into a discussion in a P&N thread about the tactics used by Rand Paul and his followers. I think they are trying to blur the line, which helps the GOP in terms of philosophical positioning, while some libertarians are open to it because they see in this an opportunity to widen their appeal and increase the chance of actually getting some power.

The tea party is a scam to try to keep the disaffected suckers who fell for Republican stories from leaving to the Democrats - and while they're at it provide a group of voters for wealthy interests to co-opt again.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The tea party contains the members of the Republican party least likely to have any interest in the Democrats. If the idea behind the movement was to get people to switch, they'd have moved in the opposite direction to the way they did.

 

[Agent11]

The real issue is Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism in my opinion.

Although the Democrats may get feelgood points on some issues such as abortion and gay rights, they prove just as bad as the republicans on economic policy, domestic spying, drug policy, foreign interventionism and manage to be much worse than Republicans on gun owners rights.

Personally I hate that the teaparty is the only vehicle for a message that has some merit. (the libertarian party does not count)

 

[Jaskalas]

I stand with Rand was an interesting look at what the Tea Party should represent.
Americans encroached on by government drones? We see a problem - the old dogs of the GOP do not.
I guess they were too busy war mongering.

 

[fskimospy]

This is a good point I hadn't really thought about, and ties into a discussion in a P&N thread about the tactics used by Rand Paul and his followers. I think they are trying to blur the line, which helps the GOP in terms of philosophical positioning, while some libertarians are open to it because they see in this an opportunity to widen their appeal and increase the chance of actually getting some power.



This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The tea party contains the members of the Republican party least likely to have any interest in the Democrats. If the idea behind the movement was to get people to switch, they'd have moved in the opposite direction to the way they did.

I find that to be a dubious goal. Libertarian social policies are more and more popular the younger you go, but libertarian economic policies are more and more unpopular. Seems like a tough way to really change the conversation.

It is perhaps possible that young people hate social conservatism more than they hate economic conservatism, and so dropping the social while retaining the economic may lead to some gains, but it still seems like a tough road.

Hey, at least someone is trying to steer the GOP in a new direction.

 

[Lithium381]

The term 'fiscally conservative' is very misleading. It falls into that 'starve the beast' policy to lie to people to transfer the wealth to the top then say 'we're broke, cut spending'.

If policies had not shifted all the growth in productivity to the top 1%, average wages would be nearly double what they are. The minimum wage would be $22.

The money isn't gone, it's stolen. But we better cut back on the spending that's for the rest of America, so the American people can be impoverished to help the wealthy more.

It's not 'fiscally conservative', it's bad economic policy that's nothing but a transfer of wealth and increase in the concentration of wealth. It's anti-growth.

It reduces the wealth of most, it increases unemployment, it's not 'responsible'.

Funny thing, the progressive caucus budget balances the budget faster than any other budget, including the Ryan fantasy. Were's the backing?

Well, it's one thing to "starve the beast" and another to cut spending. It's like the debt ceiling the (R)'s were playing games with. They already passed that spending via bills that they voted on.

I'm saying don't pass those spending bills in the first place. Starving the beast would be passing all of these spending bills and then refusing to raise/allocate revenue to pay for it...

 

[Lithium381]

I'd say the Tea Party started by being fiscally conservative, but the GOP has done an excellent job in uniting them around the socially conservative positions most held. It's a kind of Pyrrhic victory though; the GOP did manage to recapture a significant portion of its voters, but it did so using positions that are increasingly less popular with unaffiliated voters. At this point I no longer see much difference between the Tea Party and the GOP, with socially liberal Tea Partiers moving back toward independent or Libertarian.

Equally unfortunately, I see increasing Republican influence on the Libertarian Party, or perhaps my perception of it is altering. I've always been somewhat at odds with the Libertarian Party over the extent to which small government and deregulation is practical and desirable, but it seems to me that the Libertarian Party lately is moving more toward the Ron Paul positions of too little government except where delivering too little individual liberty.

I agree with your latter points. The TRUE libertarian platform is borderline anarchism which I think would be a bad thing. My thinking in trying to get libertarian representation elected is to push us in that direction, not necessarily get there if that makes sense.

 

[Lithium381]

I find that to be a dubious goal. Libertarian social policies are more and more popular the younger you go, but libertarian economic policies are more and more unpopular. Seems like a tough way to really change the conversation.

It is perhaps possible that young people hate social conservatism more than they hate economic conservatism, and so dropping the social while retaining the economic may lead to some gains, but it still seems like a tough road.

Hey, at least someone is trying to steer the GOP in a new direction.

I think it's a better direction. Libertarian social policies line up not TOO far away from Liberal/(D) social policies. Which platform planks are you talking about when refering to the unpopular economic policies?

Tea Party infiltration into the GOP is going to be a proccess. You can't turn a 200 ton boat on a dime, but over time you can get it going the direction you want it to go.

 

[Craig234]

The real issue is Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism in my opinion.

Although the Democrats may get feelgood points on some issues such as abortion and gay rights, they prove just as bad as the republicans on economic policy, domestic spying, drug policy, foreign interventionism and manage to be much worse than Republicans on gun owners rights.

Personally I hate that the teaparty is the only vehicle for a message that has some merit. (the libertarian party does not count)

No, they don't, though you need to distinguish 'Democrats' and the Progressive Caucus.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's a better direction. Libertarian social policies line up not TOO far away from Liberal/(D) social policies. Which platform planks are you talking about when refering to the unpopular economic policies?

Tea Party infiltration into the GOP is going to be a proccess. You can't turn a 200 ton boat on a dime, but over time you can get it going the direction you want it to go.

Most young people support expanding the social safety net, the increase of government involvement in the economy, support for more progressive taxation, etc, etc.

This chart doesn't address all that, but it addresses enough:

 

[Fern]

What exactly is the "tea party"?

I don't think it's really possible to say.

And I think it's an attempt to generalize and categorize.

I know two TEA Party members, or at least they attended a rally in Washington. I don't know that they actually consider themselves members. They're small business owners who want to see less fed govt spending and don't want taxes raised. I see these as the rank and file types, and they are grassroots.

Then I see those like Palin etc who I believe have usurped the TEA Party ideals to gain exposure for personal benefit. (While I haven't asked them, I strongly suspect the two I mentioned above are no real fans of Palin.)

I guess I don't believe the TEA Party has any specific identity.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Fern, of course it's an attempt to generalize and categorize. Isn't that what a party is? A grouping of people with a shared identity, vision, goals, philosophies?

In fact, this seems so fundamental to me that I'd have to wonder what the point is of a party that doesn't have an identity. And maybe that really does underscore the primary issue with the "tea party" -- it really isn't a party, it's just a nebulous term used for very conservative people who don't want to call themselves Republicans (even though a huge majority of them vote that way).

 

[Fern]

Fern, of course it's an attempt to generalize and categorize. Isn't that what a party is? A grouping of people with a shared identity, vision, goals, philosophies?

In fact, this seems so fundamental to me that I'd have to wonder what the point is of a party that doesn't have an identity. And maybe that really does underscore the primary issue with the "tea party" -- it really isn't a party, it's just a nebulous term used for very conservative people who don't want to call themselves Republicans (even though a huge majority of them vote that way).

Well, I suppose I don't see them as a single organized party like the Repubs and Dems; it appears you may.

I have noticed that there are many groups calling themselves TEA Party, but they are not united or related except in using the name TEA Party. Some seem to fight and oppose each other. The Dems and Repubs have a national platform. These various (splinter) groups calling themselves TEA Party do not.

They seem more organized than the Occupy movement, but far less so than the Repubs & Dems. So, I don't see them rising to level of a political party in the classic sense.

I don't pay much attention to them, perhaps they've coalesced more than I'm aware. (Quick google search indicates not.)

Maybe they're more in the nature of a 'movement'. The 'taxed enough already' movement.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Well, I suppose I don't see them as a single organized party like the Repubs and Dems; it appears you may.

I have noticed that there are many groups calling themselves TEA Party, but they are not united or related except in using the name TEA Party. Some seem to fight and oppose each other. The Dems and Repubs have a national platform. These various (splinter) groups calling themselves TEA Party do not.

They seem more organized than the Occupy movement, but far less so than the Repubs & Dems. So, I don't see them rising to level of a political party in the classic sense.

I don't pay much attention to them, perhaps they've coalesced more than I'm aware. (Quick google search indicates not.)

Maybe they're more in the nature of a 'movement'. The 'taxed enough already' movement.

Fern

Right, because Michael Bloomberg and Ted Cruz are identical members of the "single organized" Republican Party, that always follows its platform and has no internal fights.

Or progressive Democrats and blue dog Democrats. With 1/3 of the Democrats voting for Bush's war authorization and 2/3 against. No internal fights, they're peas in a pod.

Ya, they're not as organized, but if anything thanks to their corporate backers they seem to have an even more consistent agenda, however misguided it is.

Like I said, I'd suggest they're mostly a home for 'right-wingers unhappy with the Republican Party for the time being', for its not doing what it tells them it would.

 

[werepossum]

This is a good point I hadn't really thought about, and ties into a discussion in a P&N thread about the tactics used by Rand Paul and his followers. I think they are trying to blur the line, which helps the GOP in terms of philosophical positioning, while some libertarians are open to it because they see in this an opportunity to widen their appeal and increase the chance of actually getting some power.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The tea party contains the members of the Republican party least likely to have any interest in the Democrats. If the idea behind the movement was to get people to switch, they'd have moved in the opposite direction to the way they did.

I think the Tea Party (to the degree it was ever a truly monolithic, coherent movement) contains a lot of people who would never be Democrats but were also disillusioned by the GOP. They appear to have deserted the GOP in 2012 (going by vote totals), and it's tempting to say that they were once again disillusioned by the GOP. But it may be even more likely that those who did not show up to vote GOP were disillusioned more specifically by Romney, in which case one suspects that their underlying disillusionment is because they want the GOP to take more socially conservative action at least as much as they want more fiscally conservative action.

I agree with your latter points. The TRUE libertarian platform is borderline anarchism which I think would be a bad thing. My thinking in trying to get libertarian representation elected is to push us in that direction, not necessarily get there if that makes sense.

Makes perfect sense, with the exception that Gary Johnson is in my opinion the best Presidential candidate in my half century. Other than that I too am perfectly happy moving America in the direction of limited, Constitutional government and maximum personal liberty without actually putting the Libertarian Party in power.