The Tea Party Movement
 

I'm sure those of you who are Americans have heard of them. So, what do you guys think of them?

I'm pretty sure whatever credibility they're trying to establish for themselves now was destroyed indefinitely by the racism they sponsored from the beginning.

It's weird man it's like...it's just tea...but it's MORE than tea, it's all stupid sitting around drinking tea and eating scones but if you earn the break it's like...man...we earnt this break. it's like downtime...and you can do whatever the hell you want so have some tea cos tea is good but like...you've gotta get your priorities in order, it's still only tea

I'll play the devil's advocate here... Do you think it's possible that the media took the racism that was exhibited by a few Tea Party members and blew it out of proportion? After all, the media tends to have a liberal slant (although to a lesser extent with CNN and BBC).


Huh?

Oh right lol I thought we was talking about actual tea parties I see now you're talking about politics or something

I'm going to play a little bit of Devil's Advocate here:

(Disclaimer: I did not vote for Rand Paul in the Senate race, nor do I claim to support his ideology.)

When Rand Paul, the main figurehead of the Tea Party Movement commonly cited as being racist, made his racist comments, they were taken out of context.

Really, he should have explained himself better, but he wasn't attempting to imply that he, himself, is a racist. What was meant that as a Libertarian ideal (which was the original group behind the Tea Party this time around) you would never vote for anything with which the GOVERNMENT would place restrictions on what business owners and the like can or cannot do with their business. His issue wasn't that the Civil Rights Act was aiding African Americans; his issue was that the Government was doing it.

I'm personally not a fan of the movement, (clarification: Tea Party, not Civil Rights) but I don't think Rand Paul is a racist, either. He would have said the same thing if it was an act for a group he personally belonged to.

Ok, the Tea Party's point is that there's too much government restriction on business. Which makes them a bunch of morons for the fact that we have a weak government which has basically sold itself out to all these businesses. If anything, our country is ****ed because our government is weak, and less government just means more power to business which means a bigger wealth gap.

Basically, the Tea Party is just a way for the most fascist pinko-paranoid section of the Right wing to stir up trouble for attention, and if they had their way, we'd be pulled into the stone age. Our economy would crumble, and China would basically just step in with their infinitely more powerful government, economy, and equally powerful military might.

I'm independent, and I love tea.

Oh for sure, I won't even argue that. But to me, when the majority (or at least a large sum) of a political movement's supporters are... questionable, on a race relations level - there's just damage there that's beyond repair. I don't think anybody will look at the Tea Party movement without those images of racism and cringe worthy "AMERICA!!" ignorant slogans.

They should haul the party over and make it racially friendly

"You can have your tea with milk. You can have your tea without milk. White tea...black tea...

We're all tea."

Haha this made melaugh because it is so true.

QFT.

Hahahaha! This is awesome. :D

Honestly, I would never say a large majority of the tea party is racist. Definitely an obvious minority, though.

And I really don't think that the tea party means much in the long term. They're just one more sign that The American populace is generally dissatisfied with their government, for whatever their reasons, and is getting angrier, quickly. They are just one of many groups that will pop up to oppose politics as it is right now.

And in a way, I agree with them. But I don't think the problem can be fixed by putting the "right person" in office. There is no "right person." Left wing, righ wing, liberal, conservative, elephant, donkey, crab, unicorn. It doesn't really matter. No matter who's in charge, we're screwed.

:laughing:

That is actually pretty creative.

American politics are a bit complex for me.

I'm apolitical, with a tendency to swing from Libertarianism to the Far Right wherever my mood takes me.

(Libertarianism is far right).

And I somewhat agree with you. I'm one of those idiots who hates politics but pays close attention to it.

^^oh okay

Far Left or completely liberal, then?

That would make more sense.

The Tea Party is a joke. It's just Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's audience that have been brainwashed. Recently they've gotten pissed off enough that the Republican Party actually started pandering to them and we get the Tea Party. Where were all these Tea Party candidates before the Tea Party? They were regular vanilla neo-cons just like everyone else, but now they are pandering to the Emperor's New Clothes and all of a sudden they're Constitutionalists. **** off!

and anyway, my idea of the Far Right is Fascism or police states

I don't know much about the Tea Party but I did see this video and I enjoyed it. It's probably extremely biased, but eehhhh whatever

RVCA that **** made me laugh hard.

:laughing: Slowly picked apart your average tea-partiers perception of politics until it's an extreme characteristic of an ignorant activist. For some random video on YouTube, it was satrical genius.

It is. I would like to just make a news show, and then have one democrat and one republican on when there's a conflict. If the republicans did something to anger the democrats, I would ask the republican what they did. I would then ask the democrat why he was upset, and then that would be it. And vice versa. I just hate bias. It's like there's NO gray area. FOX NEWS IS STUPID AND IGNORANT. YEAH? WELL MSNBC WOULD TEAR BUSH APART IF HE SAID WHAT THIS LIBERAL GUY SAID. DER IS DOOWBLE STANDADS! Blah. Blah. Blah. I'm a very strict independent. I hate both sides immensely. Immensely.

As a person that used to claim Libertarian ideals this whole movement just makes me want to go back in time and smack myself.

Yes, indubitably. *Sips tea, adjusts monocle*

Neapolitan is epic.

Tea Party blows, it's just dumping fuel on the fire that is partisanship in American politics. If we expect to see anything this decade beside another back and forth nowhere match between Dem and GOP, then we're ****ed.

The American right-wing hates big government except for when it's being used to stamp out anything that makes them uncomfortable.

This poem comes to mind when I think of the Tea Party.

God of our fathers, known of old --
Lord of our far-flung battle line --
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine --
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies --
The Captains and the Kings depart --
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

Far-called our navies melt away --
On dune and headland sinks the fire --
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe --
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law --
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget -- lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard --
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard.
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
Amen.

What is amusing about this thread is that, thus far, criticism of the Tea Party has been:

1) It's racist (overtly or otherwise), thus any and all ideas being promoted by its membership are invalid.

2) It's hypocritical, thus any and all ideas being promoted by its membership are invalid.

Anyways, let's be real here. While I'd agree it's racially homogenous (although certainly less so ethnically & religiously), it is genuinelly politically heteregenous. Its members range from paleoconservative to CCC members to ex-shachtmanite neo-cons to libertarians and everyone in between. Hell, even Thom Hartman has exhorted his fans to go to these events.

Secondly, what seperated the Tea Party from the Republican Party is the fact that it origniated under Bush 2. Yes, the first (large scale) protests occured under Obama, but the legislation that prompted the outrage and organizing was T.A.R.P., which was drafted by a Democratic congress, signed into law by a Republican president, and was supported by both major party presidential candidates.

Anyways, my personal thoughts are that protesting is an ineffectual method of action preferred by those who prefer showing how much they care about an issue instead of actually doing something about it. My only interaction with these groups has been during some proper political events, and then I usually just try to get them to adopt nouvelle droit positions.

I don't see that as being very "heterogeneous."

I don't think you can see too much variety (in terms of political ideology) in a movement such as this, which is largely considered to be right-of-center.

J. Pat, the term right-of-center is misleading. There is little benefit in lumping nativist protestants such as Tom Tancredo in with hispanic Catholics, as their visions for America contrast greatly. Similarly, it denies the reality of Paleoconservatives & Libertarians vehement disagreement with NeoCons over Iraq 2, or these groups likewise disagreement over T.A.R.P., or Libertarians & Paleoconservatives differeing views on immigration.

Wayfarer; Mubarak fell because he was a western puppet, who ruled at the behest of the West; as such, his regime relied on external support from nations who would've pulled the rug out from under him if he committed a tiananmen. Contrast this with Iran, where the rulers aren't propped up by external support.

I'm pretty sure the Civil Rights Movement was pretty successful, and it involved a series of protests. Didn't it?

And who can forget what Gandhi did in India? He protested as well.

Also, you can assign labels all you want... A libertarian is just a more politically conservative Republican. All of those you just listed are on the same side of the political spectrum.

The whole Tea Party Movement thing is annoying right from the get go. Why do Americans think that leaving the British Empire because of taxes is some symbol of their divine awesomeness? It was pretty lame actually...

It's supposed to symbolize their succession from from an oppressive monarchy to create a democratic-republican government. It was the first "rebellion" that helped lead to the development of the U.S. as an independent country. In my opinion, I think that's pretty important.

It's not so much about what they did, but more so on what the act represents in the country's history.

It's over glorified, and I don't see how it's applicable to what this particular movement is trying to do. I think the name of the movement is a strong indication of the movements quality.

I don't really see it as over-glorified. It's supposed to be a symbol.

As for the movement... while I disagree with its political standing, it has some legitimacy.

So, you're saying that White America decided to radically alter its society because... it felt guilty? I'd ascribe any and all moves done in this direction to realpolitik. To be brief:

1) The Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed because international pressure, particularly following The Year of Africa, made it politically unviable. The USA could not hope to maintain positive diplomatic relations with the resource-rich Subsaharan when its domestic policies humiliatied African diplomats, scholars and visiting statesmen. That this provided a strong recruitment tool for Communist parties and a great rhetorical tool for African Socialists can not be overstated.

2) It was made domestically palatable by the difficulty in enforcing the law; it's no accident that desegregation was followed by White Flight and massive privatization of public spaces and institutions. It has been often repeated that the Southern Strategy was made possible due to Dixiecrat resentment against the DNC. This is true, but what it fails to recognize the fact that Republican support for privatization dovetailed with Dixiecrat desire to maintain de facto segregation, as it is much more difficult to prove discrimination in regards to a private institution than a similar public institution. This is why Reagan announced his bid for election in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

3) Last, but most important, is the role violence played in actually ensuring black legal rights were respected. There's been a bunch of academic work on this lately, but "Blood Done Signed My Name" by Tyson is the most widely available I can think of. If you want source material, read "Seize the Time" by Bobby Seale.

Gee, here I thought Britain got out of India because the situation was spiralling out of control as the colony was rocked by spasms of ethnic and religious strife on a level thats truly hard to imagine, and that Britain - still reeling from the shock of WW2 - had little ability to suppress a popular revolt and lacked the will to do so.s

...but, no, I guess it's far more plausible they decided it wasn't a nice thing to do.

You dont' see support for open-border immigration policy, supporting legalization of all drugs, and a decidedly anti-Keynesian approach to economics as at all important or distinguishing?

Civil rights in the south came to national attention due to the constant protests of African Americans during the 50's and 60's. Do I think that international pressure played apart? Maybe. But if you look at America's history, we really don't always give into international pressure very often (i.e. Congress's rejection of the U.S. entry into the U.N. during it's original formation and our "brilliant" Containment foreign policy during middle to later half of the 20th century). I always thought that it was the national pressure that was cultivated by the negative media attention towards the racism in the south. After all, while international influence can somewhat play a part in our foreign policy, I find that our own nation's influence plays a larger role in our domestic policy.

As for the peace demonstrations by Ghandi, it's ridiculous to discredit the amount of leverage that he held at that time and his influence over India's overall outcome. Do you honestly think that Great Britain would've lost their colonies in India if nobody stood up to them? Sure, there were ethnic/religious issues not only between the Britons and the Indians, but also amongst the Indians themselves (Hindu-Muslim collisions); and I certainly won't dismiss its impact on Great Britain's decision, but how is it even possible to say that Gandhi had little to no effect on his nation's future? Do you think you are in the position to discredit countless historians and scholars on this issue?

Lastly, those that you mentioned are still on the same side of the political spectrum (i.e. right-of- center). Libertarians just take the laissez faire approach to government to a much higher level than those of the Republican party. Also, the legalization of certain drugs is more of a social issue than a political/economic one (which is what I spoke about when I mentioned political ideology). Also, I always thought that the Republicans were "anti-Keynesian"? Especially now with this so-called conservative revolution. Again, you can assign labels and get in depth into philosophical differences, but they are still on the same side of the political spectrum.