Can a Political Movement Go Bad

[RNG]

This is all very much third party information. I have been regularly visiting a US based message board. Obviously, the rest of the world don`t count, baring Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and N.Korea. But the observations of posts related to the Tea Party have fascinated me. It started out as apparently a true grassroots rebellion against the Republican status quo. Then came all the racist accusations. But many on the board who I respect, and I`m not talking right-wing racist fundie dingbats, went to gatherings are were very supportive.

Fine so far but then Palin invaded, stole some (many) members. If some on that board are to believed parachuted in phony Tea Partiers like that silly O`Donnell woman, and basically, as far as the MSM is concerned stole the show.

Comments please.

[Michael Hardner]

RNG, it sounds to me that you were at least curious about the movement from the outset. As such, you probably want to hear from people other than me - who are openly dismissive of the Tea Party. I find the rhetoric stupid, and prone to easy thinking and slogans. There are problems out there, but yelling "Socialism" at every turn isn't the answer, IMO. Ideally, I would hope that leaders from both sides could step forward and start talking about reforming the system - primarily the systems of debate, and campaign funding. Too much of the system is about managing elections, in my opinion, and not managing services. This is true of Canada and the US both.

But...

The fact that there is outrage is, in itself, an issue - so I can't dismiss the Tea Party itself. There's a basic validity to human emotion, and there's no doubt that there are strong emotions behind this movement. I would hope that the emotion gets channeled into thought, at some point. When it doesn't get channeled that way, then it's directionless.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[bush_cheney2004]

....The fact that there is outrage is, in itself, an issue - so I can't dismiss the Tea Party itself. There's a basic validity to human emotion, and there's no doubt that there are strong emotions behind this movement. I would hope that the emotion gets channeled into thought, at some point. When it doesn't get channeled that way, then it's directionless.

But that is the essence of the Tea Party movement...leaders are not the priority....protest against existing policies and direction is the priority, not unlike the original intent against the British. The Tea Party is just the initial populist backlash that rejects present circumstances. Just the mere mention of a "leader" is inconsistent with the fundamental approach.

[Michael Hardner]

But that is the essence of the Tea Party movement...leaders are not the priority....protest against existing policies and direction is the priority, not unlike the original intent against the British. The Tea Party is just the initial populist backlash that rejects present circumstances. Just the mere mention of a "leader" is inconsistent with the fundamental approach.

Fair enough. We're still on the same page... except for that word "party"... that lends one to think that this is a nascent political party, or maybe a push to change another political party.

It could be called "The Emoting Tea Drinkers"...

The initial Tea Party was an emotional push, and reaction that eventually led to a revolution and the formation of government based on (French) philosophy around human rights. A great success in channeling emotions into force, then guiding it forward with intellect.

Maybe that will happen here, but who is going to do that ?

[eyeball]

The fact that there is outrage is, in itself, an issue - so I can't dismiss the Tea Party itself. There's a basic validity to human emotion, and there's no doubt that there are strong emotions behind this movement. I would hope that the emotion gets channeled into thought, at some point. When it doesn't get channeled that way, then it's directionless.

Channeled into thought? It looks to me like they're fed up with forever trying to get their heads around all the crap there is to be outraged at and now they're trying to channel that outrage into action. It's the action that seems most directionless to me. I don't see how that can go anywhere but bad.

[bush_cheney2004]

Fair enough. We're still on the same page... except for that word "party"... that lends one to think that this is a nascent political party, or maybe a push to change another political party.

No more than "Reagan Democrats" would be so considered. The Tea Party is another version of what we have seen before, manifested by calls for term limts, campaign finance reform, ends to pork barrel spending, etc.

The initial Tea Party was an emotional push, and reaction that eventually led to a revolution and the formation of government based on (French) philosophy around human rights. A great success in channeling emotions into force, then guiding it forward with intellect.

It was more a specific act of protest and defiance against the much hated Tea Act. Today's Tea Party has a much broader protest and context.

Maybe that will happen here, but who is going to do that ?

The who is less important than what.

[ToadBrother]

But that is the essence of the Tea Party movement...leaders are not the priority....protest against existing policies and direction is the priority, not unlike the original intent against the British. The Tea Party is just the initial populist backlash that rejects present circumstances. Just the mere mention of a "leader" is inconsistent with the fundamental approach.

And yet it's very clear that there are individuals; Palin and Beck to name two, who clearly are becoming leaders. The Tea Party itself is evolving from a populist protest into, well, the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet it's very clear that there are individuals; Palin and Beck to name two, who clearly are becoming leaders. The Tea Party itself is evolving from a populist protest into, well, the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

Nope...don't confuse political tactics with long term strategy. The Republican Party has a much larger base than the Tea Party faithful or ascending leaders. Palin is adopted for name recognition, not protest leadership at the grassroots level.

[Jack Weber]

And yet it's very clear that there are individuals; Palin and Beck to name two, who clearly are becoming leaders. The Tea Party itself is evolving from a populist protest into, well, the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

This is the scary thing that should frighten any sane person on the Right,Centre,or,Left...

It's one thing to have a protest movement that might provide the odd forum so people can vent there frustrations...It's quite another to have one that is being co-opted by the one of the two parties in the US,and allowing itself to be dragged farther to the Right,and becoming more insular on top of that!The demise of the Whig Party would be instructional in this case...

It's also one thing to claim that the Tea Party is about lower taxes and less government...That's the standard Con bumper sticker sloganeering...But what I find ids that it really does'nt have a strong focus on anything other than vacuous nationalistic phraseology and being really angry...At just about anything!And the fact that Palin,Beck,and,most of the rest of the Con carnival barkers seem to be the spokespeople for this movement,it shows it does'nt take alot to get these peope to follow something...anything,really...

Edited October 3, 2010 by Jack Weber

[ToadBrother]

Nope...don't confuse political tactics with long term strategy. The Republican Party has a much larger base than the Tea Party faithful or ascending leaders. Palin is adopted for name recognition, not protest leadership at the grassroots level.

I'm not confusing anything. It's very clear that people like Palin and Beck are taking positions of leadership. Grassroots movements either become mainstream (ie. gain a definitive structure and authority) or they croak. The Tea Party cannot survive long as just a bunch of pissed off people. It has two choices; either be subsumed into the larger and older GOP umbrella, or in this case, maybe consume that umbrella.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The Tea Party cannot survive long as just a bunch of pissed off people. It has two choices; either be subsumed into the larger and older GOP umbrella, or in this case, maybe consume that umbrella.

You're making an assumption, and discounting other possiblities. See Reform Party. Tea Party protesters come from both sides of the aisle, and won't easily be co-opted either way. They are not the same as single issues based groups like Log Cabin Republicans. Forcing them into the existing two-party system is anathema to the cause.

[ToadBrother]

You're making an assumption, and discounting other possiblities. See Reform Party. Tea Party protesters come from both sides of the aisle, and won't easily be co-opted either way. They are not the same as single issues based groups like Log Cabin Republicans. Forcing them into the existing two-party system is anathema to the cause.

I'm not forcing them into anything, it is they, or there strategists/leaders who are clearly making war on the GOP. The Tea Party candidates may end up defeating Democrat candidates, but you won't be seeing the Democrat's political organization assaulted like you're seeing the GOP political organization. The Tea Party won't be a third party, it will either be consumed by the Republican machine, or it will consume the Republican machine.

And what's the point of bringing up the Reform Party? They're big contribution to US politics was giving Dana Carvey a chance to do a wicked Ross Perot imitation and, well, Jesse Ventura.

[Michael Hardner]

The who is less important than what.

Hmmm... okay then... WHAT next ? WHAT are the policy implications ? A recent approach I read from the Republican side (sorry, but I can`t recall who - possibly the House leader) proposed cutting taxes in order to stimulate the economy, along with some cuts.

That`s a classic Republican approach, but what (I wonder) would the Tea Party change in that approach ? I only spoke to one (I think) Tea Partier in person and he seemed to think immigrants and welfare recipients were at the root of the problem.

[RNG]

The main complaint the Tea Party supporters on the board I visit make is that most Republicans in government are in fact "RINO's", Republican In Name Only. Yes, they keep taxes low, but spend just as much as the Dems, if anything making things worse. And the start of the Tea Party was a revolt against that. As I say, they think that Palin and Beck have come on the scene and the MSM cover them and their statements taking away from the actual position of the party holds.

[maple_leafs182]

Palin and Beck are not leaders, if they are considered leaders it is because the party is being distorted by the media and been hijacked from Ron Paul. He will be the Tea Party candidate for 2012, he is a republican but he ran for president as a libertarian in the past.

They are mad that the government thinks they can spend whatever it wants while skyrocketing the national debt. They want a smaller government that spends less and the benefits that come with that such as lower taxes. Many do want to end the Federal Reserve and the wars too.

I have been following the movement before it was the Tea Parties, it started around Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2008.

[ToadBrother]

Palin and Beck are not leaders, if they are considered leaders it is because the party is being distorted by the media and been hijacked from Ron Paul. He will be the Tea Party candidate for 2012, he is a republican but he ran for president as a libertarian in the past.

Oh, I see, it's the media's fault...

They are mad that the government thinks they can spend whatever it wants while skyrocketing the national debt. They want a smaller government that spends less and the benefits that come with that such as lower taxes. Many do want to end the Federal Reserve and the wars too.

I have been following the movement before it was the Tea Parties, it started around Ron Paul's presidential campaign in 2008.

I do not buy for a single second that the Tea Party has any kind of evolutionary history in the Ron Paul legions.

Edited October 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

The main complaint the Tea Party supporters on the board I visit make is that most Republicans in government are in fact "RINO's", Republican In Name Only. Yes, they keep taxes low, but spend just as much as the Dems, if anything making things worse. And the start of the Tea Party was a revolt against that. As I say, they think that Palin and Beck have come on the scene and the MSM cover them and their statements taking away from the actual position of the party holds.

Ah, I get it! It's a Bolshevik-Menshavik sort of thing! So Palin and Beck are like Lenin and Trotsky? And if, as some are claiming, Ron Paul is the One True Leader, who is he? Martov?

[RNG]

Ah, I get it! It's a Bolshevik-Menshavik sort of thing! So Palin and Beck are like Lenin and Trotsky? And if, as some are claiming, Ron Paul is the One True Leader, who is he? Martov?

I don't think either Palin or Beck have any type of agenda, other that to make money. They are both just media whores wanting more bucks. That's all.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think either Palin or Beck have any type of agenda, other that to make money. They are both just media whores wanting more bucks. That's all.

And the Tea Party seems like an awfully good place to do it. There's no one so gullible as the righteously indignant.

[RNG]

And the Tea Party seems like an awfully good place to do it. There's no one so gullible as the righteously indignant.

I think the left leaning MSM are more influential in making the bucks for them than the Tea Partiers.

[bloodyminded]

I think the left leaning MSM are more influential in making the bucks for them than the Tea Partiers.

I don't consider the msm to be "left-leaning," particularly, but it's true that Palin and especially, Beck have a pretty clear-eyed understanding of how to work it to their advantage. Of course, it doesn't hurt that pointing out their self-evident idiocy only make their fan-boys more defensive and supportive.

[RNG]

I don't consider the msm to be "left-leaning," particularly, but it's true that Palin and especially, Beck have a pretty clear-eyed understanding of how to work it to their advantage. Of course, it doesn't hurt that pointing out their self-evident idiocy only make their fan-boys more defensive and supportive.

I do think, in general, MSM is left of center. Fox news, the famous "Fair and Balanced" channel which is a joke of course, is extreme right wing. But why is it the viewership leader? And I'm not being a smart-ass or defending them. It blows me away. I consider myself to be a, by Canadian standards fairly extreme right winger but they are on the loony fringe. Yet their ratings are sky high. It blows me away.

Edited October 5, 2010 by RNG

[ToadBrother]

I do think, in general, MSM is left of center. Fox news, the famous "Fair and Balanced" channel which is a joke of course, is extreme right wing. But why is it the viewership leader? And I'm not being a smart-ass or defending them. It blows me away. I consider myself to be a, by Canadian standards fairly extreme right winger but they are on the loony fringe. Yet their ratings are sky high. It blows me away.

Something like Fox News is going to have a combination of the choir in need of preaching to, but just as importantly angry opponents looking for the daily bit outrage, the sort of "Can you believe O'Reilly said that!!!" that we inevitably get around the water cooler the next day. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a quarter of the viewership of Fox News' more editorial content was made up of Democrats and other left-wingers who want to be mad. I'm sure the same applies to Limbaugh's broadcasts and Coulter's off-kilter diatribes.

Edited October 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

I do think, in general, MSM is left of center. Fox news, the famous "Fair and Balanced" channel which is a joke of course, is extreme right wing. But why is it the viewership leader? And I'm not being a smart-ass or defending them. It blows me away. I consider myself to be a, by Canadian standards fairly extreme right winger but they are on the loony fringe. Yet their ratings are sky high. It blows me away.

Fox News Channel's primary audience is in the United States, not Canada. A so called "right wing" Canadian doesn't mean much in the USA, where the Democrats would even give the CPC a run for its money to the right.

[bush_cheney2004]

Something like Fox News is going to have a combination of the choir in need of preaching to, but just as importantly angry opponents looking for the daily bit outrage, the sort of "Can you believe O'Reilly said that!!!" that we inevitably get around the water cooler the next day. It wouldn't surprise me at all...

Indeed, as FNC gets more action here than the CBC.