The 'Tea Party' vying to be third political party in US 163 replies

Please wait...

eezstreet

Lord of the .DCC files

50 XP

16th June 2008

0 Uploads

2,662 Posts

0 Threads

#1 8 years ago
The Tea Party movement is a populist political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally-coordinated protests.[1][2][3] The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[4] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[5][6] and a series of health care reform bills.[7] The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party of 1773—a protest by American colonists against various acts by the British Government which, among other things, attempted to establish a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies by giving a cut on re-importation tax imposed on the East India Company.[8] Tea Party protests have invoked themes, images, and slogans similar to those used during the pre-revolutionary period in American history.

Normally I would be against sharing Wikipedia blurbs, but given that this is a fairly accurate definition, I'll go with it.

In case you don't know, the Tea Party movement is a political movement within the United States. The Tea Party is founded upon the basic idea of less government. The main figure within the movement is, without a doubt, Sarah Palin. Tea Party candidates have sprung up and have been voted for in past elections, the most famous example being Christine O'Donnell, who is now trying to fight back rumors that she practiced witchcraft.

The Tea Party seems to be a branch of the Republicans, however with a bit of an odd direction to their campaign strategy. They appear to be picking candidates that have little to no prior involvement in politics. They are powered by the will of the people alone. This is actually a pretty effective campaign when you consider that 58% of Americans want a third political party. I suppose this makes sense since that we've had two decent presidents lately, Bush and Obama. However, I wonder if the Tea Party is damning themselves by electing people with no experience?

What do you think? Is the Tea Party fit to be a third political party within the United States?




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,808 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,762 Posts

1,754 Threads

#2 8 years ago

eezstreet;5398417I suppose this makes sense since that we've had two decent presidents lately, Bush and Obama.[/QUOTE]

That depends on one's definition of the word: 'decent.'

[QUOTE=eezstreet;5398417]What do you think? Is the Tea Party fit to be a third political party within the United States?

The polls in my head say 70% no and 30% yes.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#3 8 years ago

sad thing is the "tea party" is the same thing as the republican party, only difference is, they are trying to have a new fresh look, but hey anything that splits republican votes more and more is a good thing for the US.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#4 8 years ago

The Tea Party is not different from what populism has been in the US for the past few decades. It tends to show itself most strongly when there is a Democratic administration and fades to irrelevancy during a Republican one.

Typically the messages of the Tea Party and right-populism in America tends to revolve around these things

-Taxes -Blasting "big government" -American exceptionalism -A focus on "middle-class" being the engine of the American economy -Extolling the virtues of small business -Keeping jobs in America -Their idea of what a "free-market" is

These people have genuine concerns. It's easy to write them off as nutties, but their anxieties didn't come out of no where. Taxes are a concern for everyone, and I think much of it ties back into the issue that many of them feel that their income is diminished after taxes and they see no impact of them paying taxes. They dislike "big government" because they think it doesn't do anything for them but take their money and give it back to people they say are leeching off welfare services.

Obviously, they don't focus this onto abuses committed by the big businesses beyond a handful token statements (i.e. no bailouts!!11!).

Toss in social anxieties- perceived degradation of society's morals (homosexuals, drugs, teenagers, etc), feeling that people are not proud of their country enough, and insecurity about immigrants and you get the usual mindset. They'll sugar coat this in the framework of Americans trying to go back to founding ideals, liberties, "common sense", and making government answerable to them.

However this does not mean they hold consistent views. One can see them despising NAFTA while extolling the virtues of the free market system. They can be heard proclaiming they want to preserve liberties from an overreaching government, yet they'll be opposed to extending this notion of liberty to a woman's choice or LGBT rights because this is not compatible with their social views. Or the infringements on liberty committed by the police and other security forces.

It's not surprising for a populist-right group to hold contradictory statements. This is why looking at it you'll get a gambit of strange views and ideologies within their movements because when we see them doing this it is generally them letting out steam against the issues of our government, not carrying out their political function.

In some ways we can compare the Tea Party to the "independent" movement that rose up in the 1990s after Ross Perot's 1992 presidential bid. Following that there was a break out of various third-parties that like the tea party styled themselves as "independent" but more often than not acted as a pressure in the Republican Party (though they did get a governor elected on their ticket in Minnesota- Jesse Ventura). In someways a lot of what those people were advancing wasn't different from what the Tea Party is doing today. They were fed up with taxes, with big government and bureaucracy, they were angry about perceived social degradation, "common sense", and that they were going to make government answerable to them again.

Yet as the tea party will be directed to as well, it functioned more as a pressure in American politics, most directly on the Republicans and indirectly on the Democrats. We saw the so-called "Republican Revolution" take place and Newt Gingrich's lofty "Contract with America". The same rhetoric is being used here again by political pundits going behind the Tea Party.

The most important part of the "Tea Party" is not so much the followers but who is supporting them and to what end. The Tea Party is supported by figures who want to use the Tea Party as a way to readjust the Republican Party. Where the RNC refuses to change or adjust, they run candidates to oppose weak Republicans in those primaries and replace them with someone more able to carry out the functions of the state.

As a whole the Tea Party's size and influence is not really inline with the entirety of America as it may appear to seem. A lot of the Tea Party's strength is helped by the media showing their rallies- Their Tennessee convention and high-profile protests in Washington DC- and how they were able to affect the outcome of primary elections- anyone who has looked at American politics knows that primaries have really, really low turnouts that can be affected by a sufficiently dedicated enough group, like the Tea Party. All-in-all they are the back bone of American conservative principles to restore equilibrium to a movement that got a black-eye after GW Bush.

Movements like the Tea Party are breeding grounds for far-right movements, and indeed they have a presence in them. But that doesn't mean the movements in themselves are "fascist" or "nazi". Most of the people in the Tea Party can't be described as such. While it can transform into such a movement, the powers that support the Tea Party do not want it to go in that direction. Local tea party chapters that have gone outside of the approved standards have had a tendency to see their movements split and go into infighting, as their funding and support gets cut from the national organization. Those who are backing it are fairly confident it can affect change as an interest-group within the political process, and with ensuring it gets the media and political clout it needs, will be able to keep American politicians in line with the demands of those big businessmen, insurance groups, and other corporations moving the Tea Party.

They'll be discarded once they serve their purpose, like their predecessors.




Keyser_Soze

Loves Lamp

50 XP

3rd May 2009

0 Uploads

949 Posts

0 Threads

#5 8 years ago
Mihail;5398422sad thing is the "tea party" is the same thing as the republican party, only difference is, they are trying to have a new fresh look, but hey anything that splits republican votes more and more is a good thing for the US.

hey, go back to 1912, the closest there's ever been to a third party in the USA, the Progressive Party. it was essentially the same as Republicans at the time, except Progressive was loyal to Teddy Roosevelt, and Republican was loyal to Taft. Roosevelt actually got more votes than Taft. however, since the party was merely a splinter party of the Republican Party, by the 20s, it was gone, and any members it had returned to the Republicans. then, there's independents like George Wallace, John Anderson and Ross Perot, they all did very well for independents.

If the Tea party became a party, then it would be around for a term or 2, but it'd eventually be absorbed by the Republican party, as it would likely make a shift even further to the right to encapsulate the tea party.

as the 2 parties occupy the entirety of non-extreme ideology (with perhaps a few extreme members on each party, left and right respectively.). there isn't ideological room for an electorably viable party. there's the right wing nut parties like Constitution Party, Third Way, and also the Libertarian, but they occupy too small a position and its members typically return to whichever party best represents them.

the point i'm trying to make is that while the USA can have a third party, it won't last for long as it'll be absorbed by one of the other 2 parties in their quest to hold dominance over ideology.




wjlaslo

I've defected to the Pies

50 XP

13th August 2004

0 Uploads

2,762 Posts

0 Threads

#6 8 years ago

That's the problem with a two party system...as much as I would like to have a no-party system, that's not going to happen, and having three isn't any better.

There's a saying among the big chain conglomerates: "No matter how much we rivals compete, the customer is always the enemy." It's in the best interests of both parties to keep third parties unelected and unnoticed. From that, I'm guessing the tea party will simply wither in politics and fade into the background, or pull the Republicans further to the right. Given the way the winds are shifting now I feel the latter is more likely in the 2010 House and Senate elections.




SeinfeldisKindaOk

5.56 smoke Haji every day

55 XP

18th July 2008

0 Uploads

8,397 Posts

0 Threads

#7 8 years ago

If the tea party puts up a presidential candidate in the next election it's going to siphon off a lot of republican votes and give a good chance of winning to the democrats aka the DEMONcrats aka the people I usually vote for.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#8 8 years ago

Commissar MercZ;5398428The Tea Party is not different from what populism has been in the US for the past few decades. It tends to show itself most strongly when there is a Democratic administration and fades to irrelevancy during a Republican one.

Typically the messages of the Tea Party and right-populism in America tends to revolve around these things

-Taxes -Blasting "big government" -American exceptionalism -A focus on "middle-class" being the engine of the American economy -Extolling the virtues of small business -Keeping jobs in America -Their idea of what a "free-market" is

These people have genuine concerns. It's easy to write them off as nutties, but their anxieties didn't come out of no where. Taxes are a concern for everyone, and I think much of it ties back into the issue that many of them feel that their income is diminished after taxes and they see no impact of them paying taxes. They dislike "big government" because they think it doesn't do anything for them but take their money and give it back to people they say are leeching off welfare services.

Obviously, they don't focus this onto abuses committed by the big businesses beyond a handful token statements (i.e. no bailouts!!11!).

Toss in social anxieties- perceived degradation of society's morals (homosexuals, drugs, teenagers, etc), feeling that people are not proud of their country enough, and insecurity about immigrants and you get the usual mindset. They'll sugar coat this in the framework of Americans trying to go back to founding ideals, liberties, "common sense", and making government answerable to them.

However this does not mean they hold consistent views. One can see them despising NAFTA while extolling the virtues of the free market system. They can be heard proclaiming they want to preserve liberties from an overreaching government, yet they'll be opposed to extending this notion of liberty to a woman's choice or LGBT rights because this is not compatible with their social views. Or the infringements on liberty committed by the police and other security forces.

It's not surprising for a populist-right group to hold contradictory statements. This is why looking at it you'll get a gambit of strange views and ideologies within their movements because when we see them doing this it is generally them letting out steam against the issues of our government, not carrying out their political function.

In some ways we can compare the Tea Party to the "independent" movement that rose up in the 1990s after Ross Perot's 1992 presidential bid. Following that there was a break out of various third-parties that like the tea party styled themselves as "independent" but more often than not acted as a pressure in the Republican Party (though they did get a governor elected on their ticket in Minnesota- Jesse Ventura). In someways a lot of what those people were advancing wasn't different from what the Tea Party is doing today. They were fed up with taxes, with big government and bureaucracy, they were angry about perceived social degradation, "common sense", and that they were going to make government answerable to them again.

Yet as the tea party will be directed to as well, it functioned more as a pressure in American politics, most directly on the Republicans and indirectly on the Democrats. We saw the so-called "Republican Revolution" take place and Newt Gingrich's lofty "Contract with America". The same rhetoric is being used here again by political pundits going behind the Tea Party.

The most important part of the "Tea Party" is not so much the followers but who is supporting them and to what end. The Tea Party is supported by figures who want to use the Tea Party as a way to readjust the Republican Party. Where the RNC refuses to change or adjust, they run candidates to oppose weak Republicans in those primaries and replace them with someone more able to carry out the functions of the state.

As a whole the Tea Party's size and influence is not really inline with the entirety of America as it may appear to seem. A lot of the Tea Party's strength is helped by the media showing their rallies- Their Tennessee convention and high-profile protests in Washington DC- and how they were able to affect the outcome of primary elections- anyone who has looked at American politics knows that primaries have really, really low turnouts that can be affected by a sufficiently dedicated enough group, like the Tea Party. All-in-all they are the back bone of American conservative principles to restore equilibrium to a movement that got a black-eye after GW Bush.

Movements like the Tea Party are breeding grounds for far-right movements, and indeed they have a presence in them. But that doesn't mean the movements in themselves are "fascist" or "nazi". Most of the people in the Tea Party can't be described as such. While it can transform into such a movement, the powers that support the Tea Party do not want it to go in that direction. Local tea party chapters that have gone outside of the approved standards have had a tendency to see their movements split and go into infighting, as their funding and support gets cut from the national organization. Those who are backing it are fairly confident it can affect change as an interest-group within the political process, and with ensuring it gets the media and political clout it needs, will be able to keep American politicians in line with the demands of those big businessmen, insurance groups, and other corporations moving the Tea Party.

They'll be discarded once they serve their purpose, like their predecessors.

I concur, I don't forsee any real shifts in politics happening any time soon. Political reform might help (to make it easier for unestablished parties/figures to gain a vote/power) but I doubt either the Republicans or Democrats would be genuinly interested in such a thing. I'd be very pleased for the US if it had a more democratic, multi party system though that would do a better job at representing the complex and wide range of political views of te general public. While at it, bringing an end to the Supreme Court being some what of a tool to whatever party is running the White House would be nice too...




Keyser_Soze

Loves Lamp

50 XP

3rd May 2009

0 Uploads

949 Posts

0 Threads

#9 8 years ago
Professor Dr. Scientist;5398572If the tea party puts up a presidential candidate in the next election it's going to siphon off a lot of republican votes and give a good chance of winning to the democrats aka the DEMONcrats aka the people I usually vote for.

Hadn't thought about that, but you're right, splitting the republican vote will do to the republicans what nader did to Gore's chances of election.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago

The Tea Party started off as the 'Ron Paul Revolution'. It is unfortunate that it has been hijacked by the neocons (and demagogues) Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.