Every news outlet loves reporting about the activities of the Tea Party, the influence of the Tea Party, which candidate is most supported by the Tea Party.... Some talk about the Tea Party as being a great positive influence on American democracy and others mock the Tea Party and its shining lights -- either way, the media is talking. The fervent repeating of the phrase "Tea Party" has some people wondering why, when they went to the polls in 2010, they didn't see any candidates from this party on the ballot.
The answer is very simple: there is no Tea Party. If the key principles of the Contract from America, like low taxes, low debt, small federal government, repealing the Health Care reforms, etc. seem familiar, that is because these are core principles of the Republican Party.
Survey after survey has shown what everyone knows intuitively, that the vast majority of people who identify themselves as belonging to the Tea Party are registered Republicans.
So, why is the media going on and on as if this is a separate entity? Why are people in the streets repeating this phrase as if this is anything more than the passionate supporters of the Republican Party? Perhaps Americans have a basic need to convince themselves that they are not trapped in a 2-party system. Perhaps the media repeats this phrase because it succeeds at getting people's attention, which then helps sell advertising. Perhaps people feel the need to associate themselves with what they think is a new entity in order to arouse political passion.
Nobody expects that in 2012 there will be one presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, one from the Republican Party and a third candidate from the Tea Party.
If a separate political party called the "Tea Party" is formed, then I am happy to use that phrase but, until that day, I propose that we encourage the media to retire this phrase and, simply call this group of voters by their correct name, the Republican base.
Speech and behaviors can be changed one person at a time. You can start the momentum to retire this phrase in a very simple way -- the next time someone you are talking with mentions the "Tea Party," just cut them off immediately and say, "since it is not a third party, please call these voters by their accurate name, the Republican base." When you do this, you will notice that nearly every person will agree with you that it isn't a separate political party. Perhaps that speaker will start to ask themselves why they keep referring to a third-party that doesn't exist.
Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Bob Simpson
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
I guess I could use the nutcase, extreme fringe right wing segment of the Republican base...but tea party is just easier.
Know what I mean?
Sure, the Tea Partiers are all for guns and God and anti-gay, but their core interest less social and more economic. And less about the Republican's former perceived core strength, defense.
It's a pity that the current field is so pathetically devoid of ideas for economic growth. End Obamacare (yep, ending a program that isn't going to be in effect for another two years is a sure fire way to fix the economy now), End social security and let the states take care of their seniors, just like the great state of Texas helps those who can't afford health care. And of course, that wonderfully vague, but ever present promise to get the economy moving, as if a red-blooded, white-skinned Texan's exhortations will work so much better than blue-blooded, Harvard-educated Obama's pretty speeches.
For reasons well expressed by LSD above, the media's inflation of the Tea Party phenomenon is precisely designed to split the opposition to Obama. Divide and conquer and all that.
Obama is so incredibly vulnerable that I doubt if in the end it makes much difference whether the Tea Party designation survives or not, but I'd rather play it safe, acknowledge with thanks your strategic contribution to the right, and wish you well.
I for one don't call them either name, what they are is fascists. So, that is what I will use.
I assume you're either kidding or totally innocent of the statistical facts. Either way, it underscores the silliness of your political points.
The hard-core right of the Republican Party is espousing the same EXACT platform I heard espoused at that Libertarian convention.
Then, as now, however, there was a widespread acknowledgment that a strong campaign by a Libertarian candidate would split the Republican vote and guarantee a Democratic victory in 2004. The fact that there was a Republican incumbent, however, took much of the wind out of those sails.
We can, however, look back to the 2000 election, when Ralph Nader did split the Democratic vote in three key states, winning just enough votes to cost Al Gore his presidency, along with his truly stupid choice of vice presidents, which cost Gore his home state and probably Florida as well.
The American system of government cannot survive a third party movement because it is extremely susceptible to disruptions from a minority party that holds the balance of power between two larger parties.
During the budget debate, we saw precisely how an entrenched and obdurate minority can take control over the government and, in that sense, I think you might want to re-think your position. The Tea Party is a stupid name but, regardless of what you call them, these people are operating outside the two party system and have effectively taken control of the government from the two major parties, both of which have to dance to whatever tune they choose to play.
From your lips to god's ears.
Give it a moment's thought.
My guess: It's because they are, in fact, very dissatisfied with the Republican Party, and don't want to label themselves as "Republican" any more that I want to label myself "Democrat."
And (heading further out on the limb) many of the things that turn them off about the Republican Party establishment are the same things that turn us off about both parties: Decisions made behind closed doors before public debate even starts; politicians using code words, jargon, and focus-group-tested phrases when they talk to us instead of being straight about what they are really trying to do, and for whom. The individuals who identify with the Tea Party have the same BS detectors that you and I do, and many (not all) of the same things set them off.
My sense is that it's not an organized political party because the intent of its founders/funders was not to expand the Republican Party or to compete with it, but to pull it farther right without having to work with the Republican Party establishment. My sense is that the individuals who join or support the tea party movement dislike the idea of joining any nuts-and-bolts working political party (with all the practicalities and hard realities that entails.)
I am still confused as to why anybody would think a Democrat would like Ron Paul! He is anathema to just all that Democrats believe in. The Libertarians are Rethuglicans taken to one extreme. The Tea Party is the same group taken a step further into absurdity!
Why are you living in Brazil anyway? Could it be, because you have it better down there, than you would at home? Just curious why "God" chooses to live outside the country he seems so proud of.
I think calling Tea Party part of the Republican party, right on the money. Calling the Republican party the Tea Party, not quite.
Wonderful name. It so aptly describes all those Republican union members that were trashing property in Washington State.
I tell you, when the Democrat collectivists get it wrong, they REALLY get it wrong.
It means (OK, cue the clueless) that TV news is decayed to near death as all the smart folks are on OS (I mean online ... ;) and the online news game is, in a word, CLICKS, das hows dey gets PAID!
Ask a Republican- and don't pay attention to any who lump poor Hayek in with this crowd- a real Buckley Republican (has to be pre-Civil Rights Act: since then Repubs are simply former Dixiecrat haters, more on that in next paragraph) who the Tea Bagged are and they will tell you, as William the Great once did when holding court over the Goldwater types, that these folks are THE VULGARIANS and those are Buckley's words, not mine, so Gordo, read em and weep!
But, that was coming from just Mr. Buckley who had only the goal of keeping haters and lunatics out of his blessed Party- if you want the actual and unvarnished truth, then listen to Amelia Boynton Robinson, who, at 100 years young and still sharp as a tack and filled with actual knowledge and experience as opposed to rhetoric and Koch-bought propaganda, when she says, and I quote, "The Tea Party is just the Klan."
Disagree? Then ask yourself, who would you listen to if your life depended on it- a bought and paid for Koch/Astroturf flunky like Mr. Armey of Dicks? Or, a 100 year old woman who was born during the nadir? The answer to this question tells all, eh Sao Paolo? No fo-get Gordo, us Hawaiians going be in your town again for the next round of Tidal Bore Surfing on that old black River, and not the Mississippi where the Klan still run the Governor, but the basin where me, and all your mixed race social medicined neighbors hang out and surf!
Linguiça and Malasadas for everyone! Even Gordo tho it may break the old Tennis diet ;)
The "Tea Party" came to Madison in April, and it was a bizarre scene. They were met with a crowd of Madison counterprotesters, who managed to make enough noice to drown out the guest speaker Sarah Palin (http://whilewestillhavetime.blogspot.com/2011/04/sarah-palin-speaks-to-tea-party-rally.html). I mingled among the Tea Partiers, and found them to be a goofy bunch of disgruntled xenophobes. Their vibe was diseased, and I became nauseated, and had to get away from them.
Maybe this is a beginning. If enough pressure and reproach can be brought against the news media, they might be shamed into changing their hype of the "Tea Party."
Oh, yes. I went through my Ayn Rand phase, but I was 13 at the time. Then I grew up and put away childish things.