There is No Tea Party Movement
November 3, 2010
Joe Carter
There was something wrong with Zhang’s dog. The Chinese man had bought the Pomeranian on a business trip, but after he brought it home he found the animal to be wild and difficult to train. The dog would bite his master, make strange noises, and had a tail that mysteriously continued to grow. And the smell. Even after giving the mutt a daily bath Zhang couldn’t bear the strong stink.
When he could take it no longer, Zhang sought help from his local zoo in Tunkou. They informed him that the dog was not a dog at all—it was an Arctic fox, a protected rare species.
The Tea Party movement is like Zhang’s dog. For the past eighteen months, pundits and politicians have been trying to identify this political animal. Everyone thinks they have political movement on their hands, but the Tea Party “movement” is not a movement at all. It’s a new title for something old the Republicans have ignored for a long time. A number of astute observers are beginning to recognize this fact.
“Having looked at the swelling of the Tea Party,” says Paul Gottfried of The American Conservative, “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not a uniform movement. There are at least three different movements trying to give the impression of being one.”
And as Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard has said:
There is no single Tea Party. The name is an umbrella that encompasses many different groups. Under this umbrella, you’ll find everyone from the woolly fringe to Ron Paul supporters, from Americans for Prosperity to religious conservatives, independents, and citizens who never have been active in politics before. The umbrella is gigantic.
Indeed, the main faction of the Tea Party is a subset of the religious right. A recent survey has shown that nearly half (47 percent) consider themselves to be part of the conservative Christian movement. And despite the perception of the movement being comprised of economically-oriented libertarians, the majority held social conservative views. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Tea Partiers say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and only eighteen percent support same-sex marriage.
However, despite being dominated by religious people, the Tea Party organizations don’t focus on social conservative issues. There is, in fact, little agreement on which issues are significant. When the Washington Post contacted 647 Tea Party groups, they found that less than half of the organizations considered spending and limiting the size of government to be a primary concern.
So if the Tea Party is not a movement, what is it? Mostly a marketing tactic, and an attempt at rebranding. The term Tea Party is mainly a label for very conservative Republicans and conservative independents who always vote for the GOP, even when they shun the Republican label. It’s a way to set themselves apart from those they deem insufficiently conservative, like RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) and ruling class elites.
During the presidency of George W. Bush the conservative brand became meaningless. Even the so-called conservative media used the label, completely unironically, to refer to politicians who supported increases in government spending (Bush), amnesty for illegal aliens (John McCain), government-sponsored universal health care (Mitt Romney), and abortion and gay marriage (Rudy Giuliani). When “conservatives” could embrace the core of the liberal agenda, what did the term mean?
The original Tea Party events in 2009 provided a way frustrated conservatives could answer that question, however vaguely, by declaring we are this and not that.
Eventually, the GOP establishment realized that tapping into the Tea Party’s energy would help them take back Congress, by doing what they wanted to do anyway (address fiscal issues while ignoring social concerns). The Democrats—who long ago stopped pretending to be for the common man—painted the Tea Partiers as uneducated racists.
For a group already disgruntled by being dismissed by snobbish elites, being told that they didn’t truly care about the bankrupting of the nation but only opposed Obama because they believed he was a secret Muslim from Kenya was the last straw. The election results from last night show what happens when the pent-up frustration boils over.
The media, of course, will credit the victory to the Tea Party “movement,” rather than to traditional Republican voters voting for Republican candidates. The Republican establishment and the Tea Party’s self-appointed “leaders” will agree. The result will be their treating the Tea Party as if it were merely another special interest to be pacified, rather than the a new label for the same conservatives who have always caucused with the GOP.
Indeed, we can expect to see the formation of a “Tea Party Caucus” within Congress as a substitute for what is really needed: every Republican supporting the full-spectrum of the conservative agenda. The last best hope is that Tea Partiers will recognize that they are part of a rebranding of the conservative label and not developing a distinct movement within conservatism.
By convincing the GOP that they are the core of the Republican Party and not a temporary faction, they will ensure that the interest of conservatism is truly represented by our Representatives. The GOP has no idea what it has in the Tea Party. It’s time they find out they have a fox and not a dog.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Paul Gottfried’s “Not One, But Three Tea Parties”
Matthew Continetti’s “The Two Faces of the Tea Party”
Michelle Boorstein’s “Tea party, religious right often overlap, poll shows”
Amy Gardner’s “Gauging the scope of the tea party movement in America”
Comments:
11.3.2010 | 9:42am
James says:
I respectfully disagree. The Tea Party are generally Libertarians. Which was easier? Getting Rand Paul elected Senator on the Libertarian ticket or getting him elected on the Republican ticket?
11.3.2010 | 10:38am
Joe Carter says:
James The Tea Party are generally Libertarians.
That's the popular perception painted by the media and by groups like Freedomworks who want to claim that the Tea Partiers are mostly libertarians. But every survey that has been taken on them reveals that isn't the case.
Getting Rand Paul elected Senator on the Libertarian ticket or getting him elected on the Republican ticket?
Rand Paul isn't really libertarian enough to get the approval of the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky sent out a press release saying: "Rand Paul is not a libertarian. There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which is it based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul."
Paul's position on gay marriage (he's against it) and abortion (he favors a Constitutional amendment banning it) make him anathema to many libertarians.
That's the popular perception painted by the media and by groups like Freedomworks who want to claim that the Tea Partiers are mostly libertarians. But every survey that has been taken on them reveals that isn't the case.
Getting Rand Paul elected Senator on the Libertarian ticket or getting him elected on the Republican ticket?
Rand Paul isn't really libertarian enough to get the approval of the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky sent out a press release saying: "Rand Paul is not a libertarian. There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which is it based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul."
Paul's position on gay marriage (he's against it) and abortion (he favors a Constitutional amendment banning it) make him anathema to many libertarians.
11.3.2010 | 11:03am
Scott Wolfe says:
I agree that the Tea Partiers are not generally Libertarians. Rand Paul is not his father. He is more of a traditional, limited-government Republican.
But I disagree that the Tea Party is "the core of the Republican Party." It is the core of what the Republican Party was in 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, but not what it has been lately.
It seems to me that the Tea Party is a group of conservatives who, when the Republican Party is conservative, are willing to call themselves Republicans, but when the Republican Party is moderate-liberal, are unwilling to use the Republican label. They are what "the core of the Republican Party" should be, but not what it has been lately. If the Republican Party recognizes that, and permits the Tea Partiers to gain control of the Republican Party, both will thrive.
But I disagree that the Tea Party is "the core of the Republican Party." It is the core of what the Republican Party was in 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, but not what it has been lately.
It seems to me that the Tea Party is a group of conservatives who, when the Republican Party is conservative, are willing to call themselves Republicans, but when the Republican Party is moderate-liberal, are unwilling to use the Republican label. They are what "the core of the Republican Party" should be, but not what it has been lately. If the Republican Party recognizes that, and permits the Tea Partiers to gain control of the Republican Party, both will thrive.
11.3.2010 | 11:36am
Paul says:
Well, for that matter, Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. I have a colleague who is a good friend and a brother-in-law, both libertarians. They probably agree with Ron Paul more than they do with Democrats or most Republicans. But Ron Paul himself has at least one foot in the camp. While I think Ron Paul's account of monetary policy bewildering (especially when he speaks of the national bank--I confess I find Jefferson and Jackson bewildering here--though less so than Ron Paul), he is not merely pro-life, but adamantly and eloquently so. So most libertarians can't side even with Ron Paul on the social front.
11.3.2010 | 12:03pm
ahem says:
"So if the Tea Party is not a movement, what is it? Mostly a marketing tactic, and an attempt at rebranding."
That may be one of the most ignorant statements I have read today. A "marketing tactic"? (You seem to enjoy quotes.)
The Tea Party was a spontaneous eruption of disgust at the thuggish tactics used by the radical Left Obama administration to effect its ideological goals; i.e. not reading bills, strongarming bills into law, sweetheart deals, political retribution, legal theft, boldfaced lies, etc. It was not--like a "marketing tactic"--thought out beforehand, premeditated. It was a visceral response of self-preservation.
Of course it was rooted in certain eternal American values--values we have too long taken for granted: government restraint, freedom of speech, the rule of law, self reliance, etc This is why the main theme this year has been economic and personal freedom and a return to foundational values, and not anything primarily religious.
"Marketing tactic"? Feh.
That may be one of the most ignorant statements I have read today. A "marketing tactic"? (You seem to enjoy quotes.)
The Tea Party was a spontaneous eruption of disgust at the thuggish tactics used by the radical Left Obama administration to effect its ideological goals; i.e. not reading bills, strongarming bills into law, sweetheart deals, political retribution, legal theft, boldfaced lies, etc. It was not--like a "marketing tactic"--thought out beforehand, premeditated. It was a visceral response of self-preservation.
Of course it was rooted in certain eternal American values--values we have too long taken for granted: government restraint, freedom of speech, the rule of law, self reliance, etc This is why the main theme this year has been economic and personal freedom and a return to foundational values, and not anything primarily religious.
"Marketing tactic"? Feh.
11.3.2010 | 12:05pm
Joe the Human says:
Or maybe the Tea Party is a dog, and not a fox?
In any case, some remarks by Joe the Human might be relevant here, to understanding the Tea Party. It does to be sure, have a central principle: libertarianism, or a call to end "Big Government." But ... if so their embrace of the Republican Party is mistaken.
The 20th century historically showed that there are not one, but two forms of Big Government: not just 1) Communism, or creeping Socialism. But also the 2) Pro-Military/Police, "Law and Order" state. While the Republican Party leans strongly to this second form of Big Government.
Today, nearly all conservatives think that 1) only creeping, "New Deal" Democratic Socialism/Communism, is the form of Big Government that threatens us and freedom. But the twentieth century saw not one but two major threats to democratic freedom; not one but two major forms of big government and totalitarianism. One of them to be sure, was Communism, socialism; out of leftism. But the other one? The other form of Big Government comes out of ... Conservatism. And Patriotism, etc..
What Tea Party conservatives have fatally forgotten, is that one of TWO major forms of Big Government, the really major threat to freedom, historically began to appear c. 1934-45. When 2) patriotic/nationalistic, pro-troops pro-military, religious conservatives, joined love of the military, and nation, and religion, and big business, and support for the police - and created the regimes of ... Mussolini and Hitler. The classic model for Fascism.
Today American conservatives support the military, and the police, and enforcing our drug and other laws. Never realizing that Spiro Agnew's conservative dictum, "Law and Order," was literally borrowed from Mussolini. Never realizing that the major disaster of the 20th century, WWII, was caused by ... a) patriotic and b) conservative religious persons (in this case, in Germany). Patriotic persons c) supporting military action by the "troops," as a "solution" to social and international problems. Never realizing that conservative religion (in this case, the Vatican) was actually part of d) Mussolini's support base.
Today Conservatives support the troops, the police. Never realizing that the fact that America's stress on the military, reflects the classic formula for disaster. Never realizing that its enforcement of "law" now jails a higher percentage of people than any other population in the world; and that as it increasingly encourages wire-tapping, this encourages ... the development of the classic Militaristic Police State. In America.
Conservatives seem alert to the danger in America, of only one form of Big Government; Communism. But they systematically turn a fatally blind eye to the other, worse form of Big Government: the Patriotic, Religious, Law and Order State.
To be sure, liberals sometimes over-criticize the West; our own country. But on the other hand, they are good at following Jesus' dictum: look for the "beam" in your own eye, before you criticize the "speck" in others'. At times the liberals' criticism of our own tradition seems excessive; but in fact it is the very willingness to look for and face our own sins - even those that are minor, compared to others - that has made the West capable of continually re-forming and improving itself.
In this case, the West needs to reconsider especially, its attachment to "conservative," traditional values. To see at last the problems with those values. And move on to something better.
In any case, some remarks by Joe the Human might be relevant here, to understanding the Tea Party. It does to be sure, have a central principle: libertarianism, or a call to end "Big Government." But ... if so their embrace of the Republican Party is mistaken.
The 20th century historically showed that there are not one, but two forms of Big Government: not just 1) Communism, or creeping Socialism. But also the 2) Pro-Military/Police, "Law and Order" state. While the Republican Party leans strongly to this second form of Big Government.
Today, nearly all conservatives think that 1) only creeping, "New Deal" Democratic Socialism/Communism, is the form of Big Government that threatens us and freedom. But the twentieth century saw not one but two major threats to democratic freedom; not one but two major forms of big government and totalitarianism. One of them to be sure, was Communism, socialism; out of leftism. But the other one? The other form of Big Government comes out of ... Conservatism. And Patriotism, etc..
What Tea Party conservatives have fatally forgotten, is that one of TWO major forms of Big Government, the really major threat to freedom, historically began to appear c. 1934-45. When 2) patriotic/nationalistic, pro-troops pro-military, religious conservatives, joined love of the military, and nation, and religion, and big business, and support for the police - and created the regimes of ... Mussolini and Hitler. The classic model for Fascism.
Today American conservatives support the military, and the police, and enforcing our drug and other laws. Never realizing that Spiro Agnew's conservative dictum, "Law and Order," was literally borrowed from Mussolini. Never realizing that the major disaster of the 20th century, WWII, was caused by ... a) patriotic and b) conservative religious persons (in this case, in Germany). Patriotic persons c) supporting military action by the "troops," as a "solution" to social and international problems. Never realizing that conservative religion (in this case, the Vatican) was actually part of d) Mussolini's support base.
Today Conservatives support the troops, the police. Never realizing that the fact that America's stress on the military, reflects the classic formula for disaster. Never realizing that its enforcement of "law" now jails a higher percentage of people than any other population in the world; and that as it increasingly encourages wire-tapping, this encourages ... the development of the classic Militaristic Police State. In America.
Conservatives seem alert to the danger in America, of only one form of Big Government; Communism. But they systematically turn a fatally blind eye to the other, worse form of Big Government: the Patriotic, Religious, Law and Order State.
To be sure, liberals sometimes over-criticize the West; our own country. But on the other hand, they are good at following Jesus' dictum: look for the "beam" in your own eye, before you criticize the "speck" in others'. At times the liberals' criticism of our own tradition seems excessive; but in fact it is the very willingness to look for and face our own sins - even those that are minor, compared to others - that has made the West capable of continually re-forming and improving itself.
In this case, the West needs to reconsider especially, its attachment to "conservative," traditional values. To see at last the problems with those values. And move on to something better.
11.3.2010 | 12:13pm
Paul says:
A corrected version of the above:
Well, for that matter, Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. I have a colleague who is a good friend and a brother-in-law, both libertarians. They probably agree with Ron Paul more than they do with Democrats or most Republicans. But Ron Paul himself has at least one foot in the social conservative camp. While I think Ron Paul's account of monetary policy bewildering (especially when he speaks of the national bank--I confess I find Jefferson and Jackson bewildering here--though less so than Ron Paul), he is not merely pro-life, but adamantly and eloquently so. So most libertarians can't side even with Ron Paul on the social front.
Well, for that matter, Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. I have a colleague who is a good friend and a brother-in-law, both libertarians. They probably agree with Ron Paul more than they do with Democrats or most Republicans. But Ron Paul himself has at least one foot in the social conservative camp. While I think Ron Paul's account of monetary policy bewildering (especially when he speaks of the national bank--I confess I find Jefferson and Jackson bewildering here--though less so than Ron Paul), he is not merely pro-life, but adamantly and eloquently so. So most libertarians can't side even with Ron Paul on the social front.
11.3.2010 | 12:26pm
Greg Sadler says:
I would throw out there for consideration the idea that the Tea Party movement (and I do think it qualifies as a "movement", albeit one largely within the RP) emerged not only because the Republican Party shifted leftwards, but also because as a party, it showed itself to be largely ineffective in leveraging its temporary majorities into significant structural and cultural gains during the Bush years.
Those two causes are not unconnected, of course. Preoccupation with reaching across the aisle, inability to maintain party discipline, the sheer haplessness displayed in the weekly picture of Republicans taking it on the chin from Democrats and left-leaning media -- that takes a toll on credibility with voters who put Republicans into office expecting to see them to get things accomplished rather than dithering about.
Various scandals and failures added to the picture of the Republican party as directionless, out of touch with genuinely conservative voters who they would nevertheless rely upon as the "base," more interested in reelection than in lasting accomplishments -- fair or not, this became a common perception. It's up to the Republicans to undo the damage done earlier and to productively assimilate the Tea Party movement -- and there's no inevitability to that process.
Those two causes are not unconnected, of course. Preoccupation with reaching across the aisle, inability to maintain party discipline, the sheer haplessness displayed in the weekly picture of Republicans taking it on the chin from Democrats and left-leaning media -- that takes a toll on credibility with voters who put Republicans into office expecting to see them to get things accomplished rather than dithering about.
Various scandals and failures added to the picture of the Republican party as directionless, out of touch with genuinely conservative voters who they would nevertheless rely upon as the "base," more interested in reelection than in lasting accomplishments -- fair or not, this became a common perception. It's up to the Republicans to undo the damage done earlier and to productively assimilate the Tea Party movement -- and there's no inevitability to that process.
11.3.2010 | 1:43pm
swisswiss says:
Going from a depiction of Tea Party groups as a chaotic conglomerate to a stalking horse for the Republicans is the most unfounded leap I've ever seen in a First Things article. This piece should be pulled.
11.3.2010 | 1:53pm
Joe Carter says:
swissmiss Going from a depiction of Tea Party groups as a chaotic conglomerate to a stalking horse for the Republicans is the most unfounded leap I've ever seen in a First Things article.
Where have I erred? I can provide survey data to back up all the claims I made in this article.
Where have I erred? I can provide survey data to back up all the claims I made in this article.
11.3.2010 | 2:00pm
Jordan says:
Joe C. gives some evidence to undercut the simple equation of the Tea Party and libertarianism (two rather difficult groups to make hard and fast conclusions about), but here are two other bits of data that are at least as relevant: 1) free trade and protectionism; and 2) immigration and borders. It seems to me that the main thrust of Tea Party sentiment on these two issues run counter to the standard libertarian line, and that these represent rather significant differences.
I think there's some evidence that evangelicals are a significant factor in the Tea Party phenomenon, but Roman Catholics are also quite well represented...
In any case, it's clear it is a variegated movement in many ways, if not ethnically (estimates put Tea Party supporters at ca. 90% white).
I think there's some evidence that evangelicals are a significant factor in the Tea Party phenomenon, but Roman Catholics are also quite well represented...
In any case, it's clear it is a variegated movement in many ways, if not ethnically (estimates put Tea Party supporters at ca. 90% white).
11.3.2010 | 2:08pm
Fred says:
"Today Conservatives support the troops, the police. Never realizing that the fact that America's stress on the military, reflects the classic formula for disaster. Never realizing that its enforcement of "law" now jails a higher percentage of people than any other population in the world; and that as it increasingly encourages wire-tapping, this encourages ... the development of the classic Militaristic Police State. In America."
So enforcing the law and supporting the troops and police develops a police state? I don't even have the patience for argument or snark on that one, Joe (Brettongarcia, whatever). That's just plain idiotic. Do you ever actually read what you write before you post?
So enforcing the law and supporting the troops and police develops a police state? I don't even have the patience for argument or snark on that one, Joe (Brettongarcia, whatever). That's just plain idiotic. Do you ever actually read what you write before you post?
11.3.2010 | 2:48pm
King says:
Mr. Carter has discovered that the "tea party" label is all things to all people. But this misuse of labeling does not discredit the force behind the electoral transformation that occurred yesterday. The tea party is not a "party" at all. It is an inchoate conservatism that spontaneously made itself relevant to politics because of the precarious state of our public finances (which, of course, is a reflection of something much deeper and not economic at all).
Anyone claiming to speak for this uncontrollable phenomenon is by definition disqualified from representing it. Like the original Boston Tea Party, it yields no leaders. Politicians must negotiate with an amorphous, faceless consternation in the general public rather than representatives who will claim to speak in its behalf. Those energized by the tea party phenomenon will not line up and salute, but they will join a chaotic raid to rebel against symbols of their perceived oppression, like the original tea-carrying ships in Boston Harbor.
It is a spontaneous check and balance, a negation, a preventer, a defender. It is not a positive agenda. It cannot yield candidates, it can only defeat aggressors. It is a shot across the bow, a message, a warning. It is not a political philosophy to rally around. It is a rejection of the excesses of political philosophizing.
To say "There is No Tea Party Movement" is provocative but patently inaccurate. There may not be a tea party movement as narrowly defined by any one person for purposes of discrediting it. The only people who care to zoom in on its precise taxonomy and provenance are those who are interested in neutralizing it by name. As if to say, "To kill this beast we must first understand what it is."
The tea party, for lack of a convenient poli-scientific label or official representation, is an unease that moves politics in sharp directions. It is a rallying cry, not a political party. It is an accent in people's voices, which speak very different preferences. To seek out Sarah Palin or Rick Santelli as authors is to already miss the mark. Tea partying eschews strategic guidance and will erupt in random places and make unlikely allies. None of this means it is not real. Misnaming a thing does not negate its existence.
Anyone claiming to speak for this uncontrollable phenomenon is by definition disqualified from representing it. Like the original Boston Tea Party, it yields no leaders. Politicians must negotiate with an amorphous, faceless consternation in the general public rather than representatives who will claim to speak in its behalf. Those energized by the tea party phenomenon will not line up and salute, but they will join a chaotic raid to rebel against symbols of their perceived oppression, like the original tea-carrying ships in Boston Harbor.
It is a spontaneous check and balance, a negation, a preventer, a defender. It is not a positive agenda. It cannot yield candidates, it can only defeat aggressors. It is a shot across the bow, a message, a warning. It is not a political philosophy to rally around. It is a rejection of the excesses of political philosophizing.
To say "There is No Tea Party Movement" is provocative but patently inaccurate. There may not be a tea party movement as narrowly defined by any one person for purposes of discrediting it. The only people who care to zoom in on its precise taxonomy and provenance are those who are interested in neutralizing it by name. As if to say, "To kill this beast we must first understand what it is."
The tea party, for lack of a convenient poli-scientific label or official representation, is an unease that moves politics in sharp directions. It is a rallying cry, not a political party. It is an accent in people's voices, which speak very different preferences. To seek out Sarah Palin or Rick Santelli as authors is to already miss the mark. Tea partying eschews strategic guidance and will erupt in random places and make unlikely allies. None of this means it is not real. Misnaming a thing does not negate its existence.
11.3.2010 | 3:07pm
Joe Carter says:
@King ***To say "There is No Tea Party Movement" is provocative but patently inaccurate.***
But by your own claims the TP is not a movement. You say that is an amorphous, leaderless, uncontrollable phenomenon, that has no political philosophy. I disagree with your assessment because it does not line up with what the majority of Tea Partiers say about themselves. Buy by our own accounting it does not fit the definition of a movement (i.e., large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues.)
But by your own claims the TP is not a movement. You say that is an amorphous, leaderless, uncontrollable phenomenon, that has no political philosophy. I disagree with your assessment because it does not line up with what the majority of Tea Partiers say about themselves. Buy by our own accounting it does not fit the definition of a movement (i.e., large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues.)
11.3.2010 | 5:04pm
firstHat says:
This sounds very much as though someone is trying to consume the tea party movement. It smacks of an early attempt to spin things so the tea party can be co-opted Eyes are open. We are vigilant. We will not let it happen! We will not be "Roved" into the Republican beltway boys. As one of the Gateway commenters is wont to say, powder is dry.
11.3.2010 | 5:31pm
Scott Wolfe says:
firstHat:
I don't think any writer on this page (so far) wants to "Rove" the Tea Party "into the Republican beltway boys." In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of the writers here would be very happy if the Tea Party's philisophy became the dominent philosophy of the Republican Party. If you can't accept that kind of takeover, then you're just afraid of success.
I don't think any writer on this page (so far) wants to "Rove" the Tea Party "into the Republican beltway boys." In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of the writers here would be very happy if the Tea Party's philisophy became the dominent philosophy of the Republican Party. If you can't accept that kind of takeover, then you're just afraid of success.
11.3.2010 | 8:38pm
Charles Lewis says:
I honestly still don't know what the Tea Party is and nor am I sure what Mr. Carter is saying it is. My impression is that they are all angry and they revel in their anger. At the start of the movement it was going to be non-partisan but that was never true. Bobby Bright, a conservative Democrat in Alabama, lost his seat. So the Tea Party is Republican -- but other than that I don't know what they are. The one thing I do know is that there are also a lot whiners in the Tea Party. Everything is always the government's fault. So many Americans racked up huge amounts of personal debt and now they are behind the eight ball. I'm still waiting to hear from American conservatives to say what is clear: Americans have to stop being obsessed with consumer goods and start living fiscally responsible lives. They have to learn to take true satisfaction in things other than cars and big screen televisions. Even if America elected 435 Tea Party reps and 100 Tea Party Senators it will take years before the country digs itself out of the mountain of debt that began accumulating long before Obama. In the meantime, should all of us get our own houses in order and stop waiting for the government to do it for us?
11.3.2010 | 9:48pm
Marc says:
Thank you, Joe. Every since this so-called movement started last year, I said, as a former PR person, that this was a cleverly devised deception. Libertarian? Oh please. Surveys have shown these alleged "against big government" types were little more than realigned conservatives in sheep's clothing. The fact that they - and, shock! - the Republicans can't offer up a single plan for how to reduce the deficit, government, etc. should have given someone pause that this was all smoke and mirrors.
The fact they aren't running on "social issues"also isn't an accident. Repubs know their stances on gay marriage, abortion, etc. could annoy independents - whom this group was hoping to court really - and that's why they stuck with the "deficit bad" mantra.
Rebranding or not, it worked brilliantly. Enough people bought the BS. Let's just see how long they can feign this outrage in the House before we notice the Emperor has no clothes.
The fact they aren't running on "social issues"also isn't an accident. Repubs know their stances on gay marriage, abortion, etc. could annoy independents - whom this group was hoping to court really - and that's why they stuck with the "deficit bad" mantra.
Rebranding or not, it worked brilliantly. Enough people bought the BS. Let's just see how long they can feign this outrage in the House before we notice the Emperor has no clothes.
11.3.2010 | 11:27pm
david says:
I only could stomach to read half way. Joe Carter, you have no answers. The
Tea Party has been mostly "for the common good" for the social justice,
no-answer Catholic brethren of mine. Real social justice and virtues are done
by individuals, not groups.
No more Joe Carter on First Things; he stinks up a good publication worse than
Zhang's dog!
Tea Party has been mostly "for the common good" for the social justice,
no-answer Catholic brethren of mine. Real social justice and virtues are done
by individuals, not groups.
No more Joe Carter on First Things; he stinks up a good publication worse than
Zhang's dog!
11.3.2010 | 11:33pm
david says:
To be "against" the Tea Party is to be against the will of the people of recent.
The Founding Fathers set up something totally unique in history to be governed by the will of the people, at least according to John Courtney
Murray in his (which every Catholic American should read). Mr. Carter your
article stunk up First Things worse than the fox ever could.
The Founding Fathers set up something totally unique in history to be governed by the will of the people, at least according to John Courtney
Murray in his (which every Catholic American should read). Mr. Carter your
article stunk up First Things worse than the fox ever could.
11.3.2010 | 11:34pm
Joe Carter says:
david I only could stomach to read half way. Joe Carter, you have no answers.
Hmm. . . if you only made it halfway through the article, how do you know I don't have any answers?
Hmm. . . if you only made it halfway through the article, how do you know I don't have any answers?
11.3.2010 | 11:35pm
David says:
We Hold These Truths, The American Propostition
By John Courtney Murray S.J.
By John Courtney Murray S.J.
11.3.2010 | 11:39pm
Joe Carter says:
@david ***To be "against" the Tea Party is to be against the will of the people of recent.***
Perhaps if you had bothered to read it all the way through, you would have discovered that I am not "against" the Tea Party.
(I have to give you credit at least for admitting that you started commenting before knowing what you were talking about.)
Perhaps if you had bothered to read it all the way through, you would have discovered that I am not "against" the Tea Party.
(I have to give you credit at least for admitting that you started commenting before knowing what you were talking about.)
11.4.2010 | 8:06am
Sinner says:
This article is completely misguided - and misses out the real message of this election: a large-scale realignment taking place in US politics.
The old-style (communist) Democrat party is failing, it no longer exists in Texas, and is almost non-existent in many Southern or Midwestern states. Eventually it will cease to be a national force, or even a statewide force in California or New England.
With the hard-left Dems wiped out, the two parties in the system will then consist of a centre-left party - the RINO wing of the GOP, and a few moderate Dems - and a centre-right party - basically the Tea Party. The Tea Party will caucus separately from the RINOs in this congress - and we will see RINOs working with rump Dems both in the house and senate to implement Osama's "agenda" with the only effective opposition from the Tea Party.
And then over the next few elections, the Dems will be replaced by RINOs, and the RINOs by the Tea Party! And the US will then be able to begin again to repair the mess caused by a century of socialism, repeal Osamacare, medicare, medicaid, and move into a stable and prosperous future!
The old-style (communist) Democrat party is failing, it no longer exists in Texas, and is almost non-existent in many Southern or Midwestern states. Eventually it will cease to be a national force, or even a statewide force in California or New England.
With the hard-left Dems wiped out, the two parties in the system will then consist of a centre-left party - the RINO wing of the GOP, and a few moderate Dems - and a centre-right party - basically the Tea Party. The Tea Party will caucus separately from the RINOs in this congress - and we will see RINOs working with rump Dems both in the house and senate to implement Osama's "agenda" with the only effective opposition from the Tea Party.
And then over the next few elections, the Dems will be replaced by RINOs, and the RINOs by the Tea Party! And the US will then be able to begin again to repair the mess caused by a century of socialism, repeal Osamacare, medicare, medicaid, and move into a stable and prosperous future!
11.4.2010 | 1:46pm
david says:
Joe, I did read the whole artilce, as I always do...but did not really have the
time, being a working guy to make too many points. You may not be as
overly intellectual or righteouse as you seem...so we'll give you the benefit of
the down and discipline ourselves not to get into these time consuming
"thought dialogues" any more.
Still believe, even more so....you did not measure close the Nehaus' spirit!
time, being a working guy to make too many points. You may not be as
overly intellectual or righteouse as you seem...so we'll give you the benefit of
the down and discipline ourselves not to get into these time consuming
"thought dialogues" any more.
Still believe, even more so....you did not measure close the Nehaus' spirit!
11.4.2010 | 3:17pm
Russell says:
One can be a social conservative. Or a libertarian. But not both. O'Donnell's and Angle's stance on separation of church and state highlights how quickly social conservatism moves to oppose individual liberty.
11.4.2010 | 3:28pm
Joe the Human says:
Fred:
Of course, MODERATE use of the law, police, jails, military, does not in itself constitute a Fascist regime. The problem happens, when we use these things EXCESSIVELY.
The problem happens, Fascism develops out of patriotism, love of the military,a and law, when we 1) pass too many, 2) too-strict laws; which 3) unnecessarily restrict our freedoms. And when we then 4) use the police, 4) stricter courts, 5) more empowered police, and 6) lots more prisions, to enforce this too-strict, too-intrusive state; to enforce this big right-wing, totalitarian government. And especially conservatisim becomes Fascism, when superpatriots 7) start relying too much not on intelligent, free, open debate and persuasion, but on the simple physical bullying of the police and the military, to try to "persuade" others to follow our rules.
Law, police, the army, used moderately, are acceptable; the problem is when they become the center of your "values," and you build them up too much. And unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in America. When Middle Class Republicans and tea-partiers begin to try to pass their own personal "values" into laws, that represents a major intrusion into the freedom of personal choice that is/was the foundation of American Democracy.
What's the matter Fred, the Tea Party, and Right-Wing "Conservative" Republicans? Don't you ever read anything besides your own opinionated tracts? Read a little History. Read about the different types of Big Government; read especially about Fascism. Read how Fascism developed out of the very same "values" that Republians now try to force on everyone else.
That's the trouble with conservative brown shirts; they never did well in school, because they just don't read very much. Instead of effite intellectual arguments, they prefer just to pass laws outlawing any opinion other than their own; and using simple physical force - the police, the troops - to enforce all that.
Of course, MODERATE use of the law, police, jails, military, does not in itself constitute a Fascist regime. The problem happens, when we use these things EXCESSIVELY.
The problem happens, Fascism develops out of patriotism, love of the military,a and law, when we 1) pass too many, 2) too-strict laws; which 3) unnecessarily restrict our freedoms. And when we then 4) use the police, 4) stricter courts, 5) more empowered police, and 6) lots more prisions, to enforce this too-strict, too-intrusive state; to enforce this big right-wing, totalitarian government. And especially conservatisim becomes Fascism, when superpatriots 7) start relying too much not on intelligent, free, open debate and persuasion, but on the simple physical bullying of the police and the military, to try to "persuade" others to follow our rules.
Law, police, the army, used moderately, are acceptable; the problem is when they become the center of your "values," and you build them up too much. And unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened in America. When Middle Class Republicans and tea-partiers begin to try to pass their own personal "values" into laws, that represents a major intrusion into the freedom of personal choice that is/was the foundation of American Democracy.
What's the matter Fred, the Tea Party, and Right-Wing "Conservative" Republicans? Don't you ever read anything besides your own opinionated tracts? Read a little History. Read about the different types of Big Government; read especially about Fascism. Read how Fascism developed out of the very same "values" that Republians now try to force on everyone else.
That's the trouble with conservative brown shirts; they never did well in school, because they just don't read very much. Instead of effite intellectual arguments, they prefer just to pass laws outlawing any opinion other than their own; and using simple physical force - the police, the troops - to enforce all that.
11.4.2010 | 5:14pm
PA Blue says:
This is one of the few pieces I've read that provides true insight into the Tea Party movement. It explains why Tea Party members have so much trouble describing what they are for and against. It's an awkward exercise in re-branding and not wanting to say what they really mean. The current batch of candidates they supported have some significant differences, but at the core the main requirement seems to be traditional far-religious-right values and goals. Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, plus of course Palin. It's about wanting their version of a Christian America.
Also, a core reason why they are angry: They became used to having someone who shared their religious values as president for eight years in Bush, and then lost all of that. This explains the "take America back" rhetoric. That's code for "get religious-right leaders back in power."
Also, a core reason why they are angry: They became used to having someone who shared their religious values as president for eight years in Bush, and then lost all of that. This explains the "take America back" rhetoric. That's code for "get religious-right leaders back in power."
11.4.2010 | 6:18pm
ice9 says:
He said:
So enforcing the law and supporting the troops and police develops a police state?
Exactly.
It's just plain dishonest to say so, unless you take steps to align that statement (noble, noble!) with what's actually happening. "enforcing the law" in practice means:
Advance happily into a 'best of times/worst of times' mentality in which crime is an inflexible concept; reject any statistical curiosities (such as the prevalence of minorities in prison or the total population in prison relative to other nations) as 'softness' or some such; enforce racism de facto while decrying it otherwise; paralyze the judiciary by waging culture war where crime wars should be fought; and otherwise politicize for short term political benefit any aspect of crime that you can get away with.
'support the troops' actually means:
indulge the bloodthirsty chicken-hawks; turn viciously on any 'troops' who dare to contradict the national standard (John Kerry and Max Cleland come to mind); Send said troops into harm's way on a political whim; Torture people--Torture people!!--and otherwise ignore the inconvenient places where "enforce the law" collides with "support the troops"--I could go on.
In other words, you can't align that statement with what's going on on the ground. It's an infantile perspective, disconnected from all the troubling facts and specifics, and so worthless in any conversation among grownups. In other other words, it's a perfect embodiment of the tea party's central philosophy: Ideas are us, no matter how empty and shallow.
ice9
So enforcing the law and supporting the troops and police develops a police state?
Exactly.
It's just plain dishonest to say so, unless you take steps to align that statement (noble, noble!) with what's actually happening. "enforcing the law" in practice means:
Advance happily into a 'best of times/worst of times' mentality in which crime is an inflexible concept; reject any statistical curiosities (such as the prevalence of minorities in prison or the total population in prison relative to other nations) as 'softness' or some such; enforce racism de facto while decrying it otherwise; paralyze the judiciary by waging culture war where crime wars should be fought; and otherwise politicize for short term political benefit any aspect of crime that you can get away with.
'support the troops' actually means:
indulge the bloodthirsty chicken-hawks; turn viciously on any 'troops' who dare to contradict the national standard (John Kerry and Max Cleland come to mind); Send said troops into harm's way on a political whim; Torture people--Torture people!!--and otherwise ignore the inconvenient places where "enforce the law" collides with "support the troops"--I could go on.
In other words, you can't align that statement with what's going on on the ground. It's an infantile perspective, disconnected from all the troubling facts and specifics, and so worthless in any conversation among grownups. In other other words, it's a perfect embodiment of the tea party's central philosophy: Ideas are us, no matter how empty and shallow.
ice9
11.7.2010 | 1:36am
Erie Joe says:
The remarks about fascism and yearning for a return to a
religious conservative branded government are telling. The only things missing from
the Fascist model of the Great Depression are State founded and owned
corporations, which we have due to bailout measures, and the other necessary
element - compulsory participation - already in the Healthcare measures. Healthcare
by People's Car, anyone? As was pointed out, it was all done legal-like. Anger from
the Tea Party may indeed push us toward the edge
religious conservative branded government are telling. The only things missing from
the Fascist model of the Great Depression are State founded and owned
corporations, which we have due to bailout measures, and the other necessary
element - compulsory participation - already in the Healthcare measures. Healthcare
by People's Car, anyone? As was pointed out, it was all done legal-like. Anger from
the Tea Party may indeed push us toward the edge
11.7.2010 | 8:07am
roger says:
“What is the Tea Party” is a fair question, to answer that it is a marketing ploy is, quite frankly, stupid.
What the Tea Party “movement” is, is quite simply an expression of mass frustration and anxiety. It is perfectly clear to anyone who bothers to look that the Washington DC political and bureaucratic establishment, what we might call the “political elite”, that they are completely disconnected from the reality of normal life in the US outside the beltway. They don’t give a damn what the voters think, in fact they are contemptuous of ordinary Americans. To give some examples:
The overwhelming majority of US citizens want strict controls at the Mexican border, the political elite want an open border, so the border is open.
The majority of US citizens want the Federal Govt. to control spending but the political elite want to fund any number of nonsensical projects, so taxpayer’s money and credit is expended for a variety of schemes so ridiculous as to make one wonder at the sanity of the proponents.
The majority of US citizens don’t feel the need to intercede into the internal political issues of states all over the World, but the political elite are so full of hubris that they feel the need to poke their unwanted fingers into all sorts of problems that do not affect Americans at all.
The majority of US citizens want to expand energy production in the US, particularly hydrocarbon and nuclear, but the elites want to push worthless schemes such as windmills and solar, and to add insult, use taxpayer’s money to pay for them.
I could go on, affirmative action whereby unqualified blacks like Michelle (and Barack) Obama are admitted to ivy league schools do not take places from the political elite, they take away opportunities for deserving whites from the middle and working classes. Anti discrimination laws make a mockery of property rights. We are subject to masses of laws and regulations enforced by petty bureaucracy; “land of the free, home of the brave”, what a joke. Our military is bloated beyond any reasonable defensive necessity, while our police forces themselves are becoming more militarized and more like an occupying Gestapo.
Joe the human is right on with his analysis of what fascism is and how it rises, we have a fascist state now, the question is, how to return to a state based on individual liberty and personal freedom.
What the Tea Party “movement” is, is quite simply an expression of mass frustration and anxiety. It is perfectly clear to anyone who bothers to look that the Washington DC political and bureaucratic establishment, what we might call the “political elite”, that they are completely disconnected from the reality of normal life in the US outside the beltway. They don’t give a damn what the voters think, in fact they are contemptuous of ordinary Americans. To give some examples:
The overwhelming majority of US citizens want strict controls at the Mexican border, the political elite want an open border, so the border is open.
The majority of US citizens want the Federal Govt. to control spending but the political elite want to fund any number of nonsensical projects, so taxpayer’s money and credit is expended for a variety of schemes so ridiculous as to make one wonder at the sanity of the proponents.
The majority of US citizens don’t feel the need to intercede into the internal political issues of states all over the World, but the political elite are so full of hubris that they feel the need to poke their unwanted fingers into all sorts of problems that do not affect Americans at all.
The majority of US citizens want to expand energy production in the US, particularly hydrocarbon and nuclear, but the elites want to push worthless schemes such as windmills and solar, and to add insult, use taxpayer’s money to pay for them.
I could go on, affirmative action whereby unqualified blacks like Michelle (and Barack) Obama are admitted to ivy league schools do not take places from the political elite, they take away opportunities for deserving whites from the middle and working classes. Anti discrimination laws make a mockery of property rights. We are subject to masses of laws and regulations enforced by petty bureaucracy; “land of the free, home of the brave”, what a joke. Our military is bloated beyond any reasonable defensive necessity, while our police forces themselves are becoming more militarized and more like an occupying Gestapo.
Joe the human is right on with his analysis of what fascism is and how it rises, we have a fascist state now, the question is, how to return to a state based on individual liberty and personal freedom.
11.7.2010 | 9:26am
Joe The Human says:
The Tea Party is real enough, I think. Though it amounts to just another avatar of "Conservatism." Which in turn, is just yet another avatar of classic, pro-military/police state Fascism.
Conservatives (and LIberals too) should read the history of early Fascism a little more closely; from the rise of Mussolini, to the Spanish Civil Wa in 1936. W hen right-wing religionists used the militar,y to overthrow the democrtically-elected leftist government; installing a conservative, religious/military dictator, Franco, instead.
Conservatives (and LIberals too) should read the history of early Fascism a little more closely; from the rise of Mussolini, to the Spanish Civil Wa in 1936. W hen right-wing religionists used the militar,y to overthrow the democrtically-elected leftist government; installing a conservative, religious/military dictator, Franco, instead.
