The GOP Civil War: The Demise of a Party

[JAD_333]

In a long and well-documented article, these two authors argue that the GOP is in danger of self-destructing. The article goes deep into the conflicts tearing the party apart. It's not kind to the Tea Party movement. Exposes its philosophical weaknesses.

The question is, will the party survive the Tea Party onslaught?

A GOP Civil War: Who Benefits?
Michael Medved & John Podhoretz


If the Republican Party descends into civil war over the next two years, a luncheon in October of this year will count as its Fort Sumter. On the second day of the wildly controversial government shutdown, GOP senators gathered for a private midday meal to discuss their next steps. Kelly Ayotte, elected by New Hampshire voters in 2010 as a Tea Party darling, stood up and walked toward her Texas colleague Ted Cruz. She was waving the printout of a mass email sent by the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a group closely identified with Cruz. The email harshly denounced 25 GOP “traitors” who “betrayed their principles.”

How did they do such a terrible thing? By casting a procedural vote—a vote to end debate on a “continuing resolution” that would have kept the government open. Listing such conservative stalwarts as Ayotte, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Thune of South Dakota, and John Cornyn of Texas, the email condemned their insufficiently implacable opposition to ObamaCare and scolded them for “giving Democrats the power to implement this terrible law.” Declaring that “most Republicans promise to stand up for conservative principles during the campaign, but then let us down after they’re elected,” the SCF went on to “thank Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) for their extraordinary courage.”

A startled Cruz had to muster some of that extraordinary courage to answer an emotional Ayotte, who struck a third solon at the scene as “especially furious.” Ayotte demanded: “Will you disown this awful thing that’s aiming to hurt the majority of your colleagues?” Cruz replied: “I will not,” thus provoking a response that several of those present later described to the press as a “lynch mob.” Republican after Republican took turns blasting the golden boy of the right for his disrespect, divisiveness, immaturity, and utter failure to provide a strategy for achieving even minimal GOP gains through the deeply unpopular shutdown.

The crisis ended two weeks later with a more or less complete Republican humiliation. The government was reopened with not a single concession made to those who had engineered the crisis. Cruz then made a muted attempt to reconcile with the 44 other Republicans who had been elected to serve alongside him at least until the end of 2014. At another closed-door luncheon on October 30, Cruz attempted to reassure....

rest of article at « A GOP Civil War: Who Benefits? Commentary Magazine

[astralis]

this is quite similar to points i made earlier, but i think the real takeaways from the article are:

It is also peculiarly anachronistic. There was once an ideological divide in the GOP, when liberal Republicans like Clifford Case (alongside Jacob Javits of New York, Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, and the geographical outlier Mark Hatfield of Oregon) were genuinely hostile to conservatism and protective of their place in the mainstream “establishment.” They were, indeed, RINOs, if by Republican you mean someone who generally adheres to a right-of-center point of view. But demographic and geographic changes in the United States over the past 40 years have basically made those original RINOs an extinct species. Talking about manifestly conservative politicians of the early 21st century as though they are no different from liberals rightly creates cognitive dissonance in the minds of voters who do not follow the ins and outs of Republican politics day to day, and inclines many of them to back away in discomfort as one does when seeing a married couple squabble in public.

....

One of the reasons that “true conservatives” have regularly underperformed in nomination struggles in recent years is that the differences among Republicans have become far more stylistic than substantive. They have come to involve questions of strategy and tone far more than divisions over policy.

====

Once successful, however, angry messages get stale. New targets of opportunity must be found. And many of these Anger Entrepreneurs on the right mine their gold in the negative emotions of conservatives who are having grave difficulty making sense of a world in which almost everyone they know dislikes liberalism and despises Obama but in which liberals and Obama seem to have the upper hand. The answer seducing all too many of them is that their cause has been sabotaged from within and that the best route to greater success lies in removing the saboteurs.

finally,

it's funny, too, how the authors connect aspects of the Tea Party with the Confederacy:

The determination of some extremists on the right to tear apart the Republican Party has a disturbing historical echo—hearkening back to the enthusiastic “fire-eaters” in Charleston and Montgomery who forced cooler heads to go along with secession in 1861. They knew they had little chance of prevailing in an all-out military struggle against the far more populous and industrialized North, but they became intoxicated with the romance and excitement of their doomed “glorious cause.” One of us—Michael—recently received a long letter from a furious listener of his talk-radio show. He denounced me as a “traitor” and a “gutless wimp who won’t lift a finger to rescue wounded warriors from the field of battle,” thanks to my refusal to back Ted Cruz in his shutdown strategy. My correspondent concluded his diatribe with this warning: “If you and your neo-con buddies succeed in undermining the heroic last stand fight by true conservatives and the Tea Party then we will have no alternative but to fight a second civil war. And this time, I can assure you, we will win.” Actually, we always assumed “we” had won last time, too. Certainly, the Republican Party honored the successful War for the Union as a significant triumph that gave it unbreakable majorities for more than 60 years.

hm...:)

[JAD_333]

Asty:

Those paragraphs stood out for me as well.

Another take away is the corrosive effect the liberal campaign finance laws are having on the political landscape--the idea that well-heeled individuals can create or support organizations who operate independently of the party committees and often at cross-purposes.

[JAD_333]

Well, my thread is going nowhere. Admittedly internal party struggles is a dry subject, but this one is particularly serious, as the outcome will determine the future direction of national politics and shape of government for some time to come.

Since the key is the sustainability of the Tea Party, it might be good to clarify exactly what the Tea Party is, some misconceptions about it, and its concerns. This series of articles do a pretty good job of that.

What Is the Tea Party's Economic Platform?

Tea Party Myths & Misconceptions -- Myths & Misconceptions About the Tea Party Movement

Tea Party Myths -- Is the Tea Party a Racist Movement?

About.com: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303376904579135231053555194?mod=hp _opinion

Scattered in and among these articles are links to other articles.

Not only will they reveal what the Tea Party is, but who the tea party members are and why they're upset. Their economic ideas are somewhat simplistic, but their goals are pure Jacksonian America--live and let live and stay out of my life...sounds good to me.

[astralis]

looking at it from another POV, it's actually pretty funny to note that Republican negotiators have an easier time, apparently, of coming to agreement with their Democratic counterparts than persuading their own base.

look at the recent $85 billion budget deal. ink hasn't even dried, and boehner/ryan are out in force trying to persuade the Tea Party folks and organizations that it wasn't a sell-out. i was watching bloomberg this morning, and there was some Tea Party nut saying that Paul Ryan was getting way too liberal (!!!!) and needed to watch his back if he continued to betray conservative principles.

inmates running the asylum.

[Parihaka]

The Tea Party is the birth of a new political movement. Viewed from within the traditional 'middle of the road' two party system you currently have, everything about the Tea Party seems extremist. The problem with that view is, the Tea Party has a significant electoral base that doesn't view themselves as extremist at all, but rather views the current 'normal' as extremist, trying to impose old solutions on a new world.
Most 'Republicans', as evinced over the years on this board, have more in common with Democrats than they do with the Tea Party. It's an uncomfortable marriage, and one that won't last. Say hello to a three party system and all that it implies. Being from a multi party system I find myself approving.

[JAD_333]

The Tea Party is the birth of a new political movement. Viewed from within the traditional 'middle of the road' two party system you currently have, everything about the Tea Party seems extremist. The problem with that view is, the Tea Party has a significant electoral base that doesn't view themselves as extremist at all, but rather views the current 'normal' as extremist, trying to impose old solutions on a new world.

You hit it on the nail.

Most 'Republicans', as evinced over the years on this board, have more in common with Democrats than they do with the Tea Party. It's an uncomfortable marriage, and one that won't last. Say hello to a three party system and all that it implies. Being from a multi party system I find myself approving.

Here I have to disagree with you somewhat. Most Republicans have much in common with the Tea Party, but diverge greatly on tactics. The main problem--the Tea Party is much too much in a hurry to roll back decades of progressive gains. Over the years, Republicans have had a hand in the progressive movement, mostly to the extent that they had to participate to satisfy their electorate or lose elections. Also, they have sought to mellow progressive initiatives through compromise or quid pro quo's. This was the best conservatives could do in the past given the political spectrum was weighed against them and toward social progressives. The spectrum is now gradually moving toward them. Rather than take a gentle glide path, the Tea Party is impatient and thus more inclined to take drastic measures, e.g. government shutdowns, freezing debt ceilings and, most obvious, knocking off their fellow conservative member of Congress who don't share their belief in near instantaneous change.

But there will be no third party IMO, first, because by itself the Tea Party will die on the vine and, second, because saner heads in the Tea Party establishment now realize overnight change isn't possible and devouring older conservative lawmakers, who in reality share their fundamental political beliefs, is counterproductive. Check out this article in the Washington Post about how the Tea Party establishment is signaling a change in tactics.

Stockman steps forward as Republicans step back

By Dana Milbank, Published: December 10

Rep. Steve Stockman’s moment as a viable Senate candidate lasted exactly 13 hours 47 minutes.

At 7 p.m. Monday, the far-right Stockman (R-Toxicity) announced via the right-wing Web site WND that he would challenge incumbent John Cornyn in the Texas Republican Senate primary. And for a brief period, it appeared that Stockman could pose a credible threat; his decision was...

rest of article at http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ame...ise-party.html

[astralis]

pari,

allow me to answer this post slightly backwards.

The problem with that view is, the Tea Party has a significant electoral base that doesn't view themselves as extremist at all, but rather views the current 'normal' as extremist, trying to impose old solutions on a new world.

this isn't quite true. if you look at the Tea Party solutions, they don't want "new solutions for a new world". they want old solutions for an old world. there's a reason why Tea Partiers parade around in tricorn hats and stockings, and why they quote from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

their goal is to return to founding principles, with their IDEAL being, depending on the situation you talk about, a return to the 1950s (culturally), or pre-1913 (tax/welfare/representation/foreign policy). at its heart, the Tea Party is a conservative populist movement that espouses libertarianism at home and isolationism abroad. they're not so much interested in meeting the challenges of globalization and the new world so much as avoiding them. (case in point: when was the last time you heard a Tea Party person make a clear case of, say, what exactly the administration should do with Syria? or what they thought about free trade? or how to support science and technology development in the US?)

this is a reason why all the Tea Party-backed candidates for the Presidency were so, so very bad; once you move past the shibboleths of "Tax cuts good! Spending bad!" there's very little else that they offer. how many other Americans are interested in the repeal of the 17th Amendment? or back a gold standard? or, let's be brutally honest about it: how many Americans back the dissolution of Social Security and Medicare, or a flat tax?

in this sense, your statement here:

The Tea Party is the birth of a new political movement.

is not true. it is a re-emergence of a very distinct American political strain that has existed for a very, very long time. NONE of the Tea Party's principles would have been alien to a Republican opposing FDR in the 1930s for instance, except the populism. (for that matter, very few of the Tea Party's principles would have been alien to a Southern Democrat of the 1950s, either...complete with the talk of states' rights.)

after the political destruction of the GOP by FDR, their views went into hiding for decades. the populist version of this old vision emerged as part of the John Birch Society, which took the efforts of the National Journal and William F Buckley, to tamp down.

it's a peculiar strain of political thought that uses the language of victimhood and decline from former greatness; see JAD's opening blurb, especially the part about a Tea Partier identifying himself with the Confederacy.

however,

It's an uncomfortable marriage, and one that won't last. Say hello to a three party system and all that it implies.

i do agree with JAD that this will not happen. the US electoral system is simply designed for a two party system. absent a complete revolution or overhaul, this will not change.

the stated goal of the Tea Party is NOT to found its own third party. its libertarian founders know that trying to go for a third party is a good way to be stuck in the political wilderness-- see how the Libertarians have performed in elections the last 50 years.

instead, they have a very clear goal: to take over the GOP from the inside and remake it into its own image. in this they have been stunningly successful, far more so than even the religious conservatives back in the 80s-90s. in my personal view much of this came because the GOP establishment viewed the Tea Party as an useful populist tool to counter Dem charges that the GOP was merely a party of the elite wealthy...only to find out too late that as the Tea Party folks were not beholden in any way to the national GOP, their control over them was significantly less than they thought.

[bonehead]

After years of mostly silence (publicly) Boehner finally had enough and threw down the gauntlet. I don't trust ABC to be fully objective but there might be some truth to this.



House Speaker John Boehner blasted outside groups for their criticism of the bipartisan budget deal, delivering an unusually sharp rebuke today to tea party and conservative activists while signaling he has had just about enough of their intransigence.
"They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals," Boehner said, his voice rising with anger during a news conference at the Capitol today. "This is ridiculous. Listen, if you are for more deficit reduction, you are for this agreement."
From Boehner, it was a rare and pointed public dressing-down of Club for Growth, Heritage Action, the Koch Brothers and other conservative groups that have urged Republicans to oppose the budget deal. Boehner openly questioned the motives of such groups, demonstrating a far more aggressive posture than he usually takes.
In response to Boehner's comments, Club for Growth President Chris Chocola said his group will still stand with lawmakers who oppose the deal.
"We stand with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, members of the Republican Study Committee and every other fiscal conservative who opposes the Ryan-Murray deal," Chocola said in a statement.
"We support pro-growth proposals when they are considered by Congress," he added. "In our evaluation, this isn't one of those."
RELATED: Congress Gets Job Done for Once and Strikes Budget Deal
Since taking over the House majority three years ago, tea party conservatives have regularly challenged Boehner to push for deeper spending cuts and to repeal the Obama health care law. But after emerging from the government shutdown emboldened in the eyes of his rank and file, the speaker seems to have steadied control of his base.
"American people expect us to come here, find common ground and do the best we can, stick to our principles, but govern," Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said. "That's what this has achieved."
Still, many tea party conservatives are expected to vote against the deal, including Rep. Tim Huelskamp, one of the House's most fiscally conservative members.
"It is the typical end of the year deal I've seen from my three years up here," Huelskamp, R-Kansas, said. "It's going to increase spending with promise of spending cuts sometime in the future. At the end of the day it's going to increase the deficit, it's going to raise taxes and fees and it's not going to address the long term overspending problem in Washington which is we need to reform entitlements."
FreedomWorks, a grassroots organization that advocates for individual liberty and constitutionally-limited government, said Boehner's real problem is "with millions of individual Americans who vote Republican because they were told the GOP was the party of small government and fiscal responsibility."
"Once again Republicans, led by John Boehner, are working with Democrats to increase spending yet again on the taxpayers' tab while promising 'savings' down the road," FreedomWorks president and CEO Matt Kibbe reacted in a statement. "We know how this movie ends. How can leadership credibly promise spending cuts later, after agreeing to a plan that rolls back the sequester savings promised two debt increases ago? There's a predictable pattern here."
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said conservatives like Huelskamp should support the agreement because it does not raise taxes, it reduces the deficit and eliminates the worry of government shutdowns next year.
"We've got to find a way to make divided government work," Ryan said. "We understand in divided government we're not going to get everything we want."
House Democrats also began to cautiously embrace the agreement, which Boehner indicated will likely come to the House floor for a vote Thursday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stressed that her caucus has not had the opportunity to fully review the deal, but indicated she could vote for it.
"We would have preferred something quite different, but we do recognize the value of coming to a decision so that we can go forward with some clarity on other legislation that we want to see," Pelosi, D-Calif., said, citing closing tax and immigration reform as two legislative priorities she would have preferred to include in the package.
The vote later this week will rely heavily on Democratic support, but some key members expressed a reluctance to support it.
Rep. Nita Lowey, the top Democrat on the Appropriations committee, criticized the agreement for cutting Medicare while also excluding an extension to unemployment benefits. Still, she admitted the deal could have been worse.
"It is absolutely outrageous that we should leave this Congress and go home for the holidays when too many people -- over a million people will not be getting their unemployment benefits," Lowey, D-N.Y., said. "But I think this is the best that we can do at this point."
The House of Representatives is expected to conclude its business for the year Friday.
ABC News' Alex Lazar contributed to this report

John Boehner Fed Up With 'Ridiculous' Tea Party Intransigence on Budget - Yahoo

[bonehead]

…..And the tea party swings back.


Tea Party Super PAC predicts a "bar room brawl" inside GOP in 2014
By Rick Klein, Olivier Knox, Richard Coolidge and Jordyn Phelps
17 hours ago
Power Players
.
Tea Party Super PAC Predicts a 'Bar Room Brawl' Inside GOP in 2014

Top Line

The political director of a prominent Tea Party Super PAC predicts that “big punches” will be thrown within the GOP as groups like his gear up for primary challenges in the 2014 midterm elections against Republicans whom they view as not conservative enough.

“I think the 2014 primary cycle is going to be unlike anything that we've seen,” said the Madison Project’s Drew Ryun. “This is going to be the equivalent of a bar room brawl.”

The Republican establishment, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is going head-to-head with the Madison Project in several of the races where the Super PAC is working to replace the incumbent. But Ryun told “Top Line” they were ready for the fight.

“I think it's going to come down to a battle of tactics,” Ryun said. “They're going to have more money; we're going to have more people. And, basically, who employs the best tactics is going to come out on top of these primaries.”

Ryun acknowledged that the Tea Party had fallen short in the past in choosing “viable candidates.” It’s for this reason, he said, that the Madison Project was selective in choosing which candidates to back and pointed to the their support of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as one example.

“Ted Cruz being a great example for us in the 2012 cycle where there's a five-way primary in that Texas primary race. We had the opportunity to meet with him, in a sense clarify for the Republican movement. This is our guy; he went on to win,” Ryun said.

The Madison Project is now considering getting involved in another Texas Senate race in 2014, following the announcement earlier this week that Texas Rep. Steve Stockman would challenge incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn.

Now that a bipartisan budget deal has been reached on Capitol Hill, Ryun said it would be a mistake for Republicans to negotiate away leverage over government spending levels in future fights.

“We are actually making the argument of hey, there's never been another time,” he said. “The dynamics have changed since September when Ted Cruz stood up and made the case against Obamacare. We've now seen the debacle of a roll-out. Millions of Americans kicked off. We've seen insurance costs go up.”

The cost of not fighting, Ryun said, makes the case for the Madison Project’s greater vision to “remake the Republican Party.”

“If you guys as Republicans are not going to fight when the stage is set, then it's time for us as Republicans to go back and gradually begin remaking the party,” he said.

For more of the interview with Ryun, including his explanation for why his group is backing the primary challenger to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, check out this episode of “Top Line.”

ABC News’ Betsy Klein, Alexandra Dukakis, Danny O’Shea, and John Knott contributed to this episode.

Tea Party Super PAC predicts a "bar room brawl" inside GOP in 2014

[bonehead]

At this point here are some possible outcomes from this civil war of ideologies within the GOP:

1) Total demise as the GOP breaks up. There are a lot of huge egos and a ton of money involved and both sides who are firmly entrenched. They may not be able to make nice when it is all over. That is often times what happens when you view your own members as "the enemy". Total chaos for conservatives.

2) The GOP could split into two completely separate parties. The far right and the moderate right. It really isn't difficult to see who would fall into each side.

3) The GOP simply kicks out the handful of tea party members and carries on. Leaving the tea party to do their own thing.

4) The tea party simply forces the GOP farther to the right.

5) The tea party rises and takes over the GOP.


In any of these scenarios the GOP is going to take a hit vs the democrats in the near future elections. However the democrats have been proven to follow stupidity, over play their hand, and give back seats to the GOP, or whomever the other party will be, and parity will be restored in time. The question is how much damage will be done by the democrats in the mean time and that is what those in the GOP should be thinking about. Is this fight really worth the cost? Frankly I doubt those clamoring to wage this battle are thinking of the consequences down the road.

[JAD_333]

pari,

allow me to answer this post slightly backwards.



this isn't quite true. if you look at the Tea Party solutions, they don't want "new solutions for a new world". they want old solutions for an old world. there's a reason why Tea Partiers parade around in tricorn hats and stockings, and why they quote from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

their goal is to return to founding principles, with their IDEAL being, depending on the situation you talk about, a return to the 1950s (culturally), or pre-1913 (tax/welfare/representation/foreign policy). at its heart, the Tea Party is a conservative populist movement that espouses libertarianism at home and isolationism abroad. they're not so much interested in meeting the challenges of globalization and the new world so much as avoiding them.

Asty:


Stuff like that makes me climb walls. It's begging questions left and right. What's wrong with ''returning to founding principles'? What's wrong with being reminiscent of a bygone era? Must the validity of a principle erode with age? Why is the alternative better? What founding principles bother you? All of them or just the ones that might get in the way of the progressive agenda? The Tricorn hats and Yankee Doodle Dandy? Surely the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party hasn't escaped you.

You're also wrong on where they stand. There is nothing in the Tea Party literature about going back to 1776, 1931 or the 1950s. The Tea Party is for free trade. They have spoken out on Syria (hand off). Science and technology spending has been declining for years from a high of 35% in the 1960s to 15% 10 years ago and to 8% today. Entitlements the dems spearheaded for years has crimped discretionary spending, not the Tea Party.

The Tea Party are reactionaries. They're people resisting the enormous growth of government and government spending. They are not sitting around nostalgic for the good old days. They have a vision of America for the modern age, and it's leaner and meaner than your version. It's fine to be against them, but you had better learn what they really think. Like the old saying goes: Know your enemy.

[bonehead]

Asty:


Stuff like that makes me climb walls. It's begging questions left and right. What's wrong with ''returning to founding principles'? What's wrong with being reminiscent of a bygone era? Must the validity of a principle erode with age? Why is the alternative better? What founding principles bother you? All of them or just the ones that might get in the way of the progressive agenda? The Tricorn hats and Yankee Doodle Dandy? Surely the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party hasn't escaped you.

You're also wrong on where they stand. There is nothing in the Tea Party literature about going back to 1776, 1931 or the 1950s. The Tea Party is for free trade. They have spoken out on Syria (hand off). Science and technology spending has been declining for years from a high of 35% in the 1960s to 15% 10 years ago and to 8% today. Entitlements the dems spearheaded for years has crimped discretionary spending, not the Tea Party.

The Tea Party are reactionaries. They're people resisting the enormous growth of government and government spending. They are not sitting around nostalgic for the good old days. They have a vision of America for the modern age, and it's leaner and meaner than your version. It's fine to be against them, but you had better learn what they really think. Like the old saying goes: Know your enemy.

JAD You are focusing on the economic part of the tea party platform and as we have agreed before how you achieve the goals is just as important as the goals themselves. There are social aspects as well and that comprises huge stumbling blocks for the tea party. Lastly they really need to put a muzzle on Palin and Bachmann. Every time they get their sound bites in the media those on the fence cringe and turn away.

[astralis]

JAD,

Stuff like that makes me climb walls. It's begging questions left and right. What's wrong with ''returning to founding principles'? What's wrong with being reminiscent of a bygone era? Must the validity of a principle erode with age? Why is the alternative better? What founding principles bother you? All of them or just the ones that might get in the way of the progressive agenda? The Tricorn hats and Yankee Doodle Dandy? Surely the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party hasn't escaped you.

note that i didn't assign any prejorative comments when i said "if you look at the Tea Party solutions, they don't want "new solutions for a new world". they want old solutions for an old world."

i'm not stating that all old solutions are wrong persay. i certainly don't believe just because an idea is new, it is necessarily better.

this is very strictly meant to be a factual statement. and what this means is that if there is an issue that cannot be clearly defined somewhere in the writings of (certain) Founders, then the Tea Party flounders. there's a reason why Herman Cain and Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and all the other Tea Party heroes couldn't hack it, and that they had to grumpily acquiese to Mitt Romney winning the nomination.

You're also wrong on where they stand. There is nothing in the Tea Party literature about going back to 1776, 1931 or the 1950s. The Tea Party is for free trade. They have spoken out on Syria (hand off). Science and technology spending has been declining for years from a high of 35% in the 1960s to 15% 10 years ago and to 8% today. Entitlements the dems spearheaded for years has crimped discretionary spending, not the Tea Party.

i don't think so. the Tea Party very clearly hates the income tax, and talks about undoing the Federal Reserve. they hate the 17th amendment. all of that is pre-1913. they don't like the modern welfare system; that's the 1930s. in some corners there's discussion about abolishing the minimum wage. state-wise, 1913 again; nationally, 1930s. their presidential hero is Calvin Coolidge.

a few of the Tea Party is for free trade; however, the overall zeitgist, though, is against it-- the Tea Party is both anti-labor AND anti-corporation. that is, when they touch upon it-- which is not much. haven't heard the Tea Party talk much either way about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or reviving the Doha Round, etc. to the extent that i've heard any discussion from the Tea Party corner about the WTO, they dislike it, much as they dislike any other international organization.

S&T, similarly...what has the Tea Party to say about it? other than federal spending is bad?

The Tea Party are reactionaries. They're people resisting the enormous growth of government and government spending. They are not sitting around nostalgic for the good old days. They have a vision of America for the modern age, and it's leaner and meaner than your version. It's fine to be against them, but you had better learn what they really think. Like the old saying goes: Know your enemy. .

you're completely correct that they're reactionaries. they're people resisting WHAT THEY BELIEVE to be an enormous growth of government and government spending, although their main focus of ire is railing against the government assisting the "undeserving". (re-read/watch Rick Santelli's CNBC rant that STARTED the whole Tea Party if you don't believe me.)

their vision of america is Gilded Age America, and we've seen how that movie goes. of COURSE they're nostalgic for the good old days; that's one of the definitions of a reactionary. at its heart the Tea Party is a libertarian, populist movement, extremely suspicious about concentration of power.

[JAD_333]

JAD,


note that i didn't assign any prejorative comments when i said "if you look at the Tea Party solutions, they don't want "new solutions for a new world". they want old solutions for an old world. i'm not stating that all old solutions are wrong persay. i certainly don't believe just because an idea is new, it is necessarily better.

Then it would seem that critiquing Tea Party principles in the context of the present world would be more enlightening than merely assuming they are unworkable, undesirable, or what have you.

this is very strictly meant to be a factual statement. and what this means is that if there is an issue that cannot be clearly defined somewhere in the writings of (certain) Founders, then the Tea Party flounders.

But it was factual only from the POV of their opponents. (The second sentence?)

i don't think so. the Tea Party very clearly hates the income tax, and talks about undoing the Federal Reserve. they hate the 17th amendment. all of that is pre-1913. they don't like the modern welfare system; that's the 1930s. in some corners there's discussion about abolishing the minimum wage. state-wise, 1913 again; nationally, 1930s. their presidential hero is Calvin Coolidge.

You're going to paint the entire Tea Party with everything every member believes. Come on. Would you define the Democratic party by what its zaniest members say?

a few of the Tea Party is for free trade; however, the overall zeitgist, though, is against it-- the Tea Party is both anti-labor AND anti-corporation. that is, when they touch upon it-- which is not much. haven't heard the Tea Party talk much either way about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or reviving the Doha Round, etc. to the extent that i've heard any discussion from the Tea Party corner about the WTO, they dislike it, much as they dislike any other international organization.

Well, under your rules if a few are for free trade, then they all are.:) Sure they hate the income tax--we all do--but in fact most of them are not against income taxes, just for lowering them. The rest? You'll have to ask a Tea Party member of Congress.

S&T, similarly...what has the Tea Party to say about it? other than federal spending is bad?

The average Tea Party person is not against S&T; they are critical of idiotic and wasteful S&T, as we all are. And I've never read where the Tea Party says all spending is bad.

you're completely correct that they're reactionaries. they're people resisting WHAT THEY BELIEVE to be an enormous growth of government and government spending, although their main focus of ire is railing against the government assisting the "undeserving". (re-read/watch Rick Santelli's CNBC rant that STARTED the whole Tea Party if you don't believe me.)

lol...yes; he's a work of art. We could trot out all the Huey Long types and the far left who support the entitlement apparatus and make even you dislike Democrats. :)0 "We oppose the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization as instruments of capitalist oppression throughout the world.." [/quote]

their vision of america is Gilded Age America, and we've seen how that movie goes. of COURSE they're nostalgic for the good old days; that's one of the definitions of a reactionary. at its heart the Tea Party is a libertarian, populist movement, extremely suspicious about concentration of power.

A reactionary reacts to existing conditions. Conservative or liberal, it doesn't matter.