You Gotta Fight, For Your Right, To Party!
A third of adults in the United States appear satisfied with the proposal to establish a third political party, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 32 per cent of respondents think the National Tea Party would be a good thing for the country.
Honestly, and I’m not liberal concern trolling here, I couldn’t think of a better thing for American politics right now. A third of Americans (and this was an online poll, so caveat emptor) isn’t a majority, but it’s also nothing to sneeze at.
Contra the liberal blogger to whom Andrew linked the other day that has sparked a whole “leaving the left” discussion at the Dish, I’m of the opinion that strong voiced progressives and conservatives should not only continue to voice their opinions in a vociferous fashion, but even crank it up a notch or two. There was a time when I was a strong supporter of the “tack to the centre” school of thought on politics where you try, as much as possible, to moderate the party lines towards the most middle of the road and “practical” place you could. That was the best way to steal as many voters from the other party as possible, pick up those always elusive independent voters, and generate bipartisan agreement.
I have, frankly, abandoned that view of politics. My shift is due in no small part to the fact that I think such maneuvering winds up doing far more harm than it does good. It creates much of the intra-party drama that fuels so many of our, to quote Charles Johnson, “nontroversies” and it stifles sincere and vehement debate that is the cornerstone of a vital and successful democracy. That Americans continue to labour under a two party system only really exacerbates and reinforces the worst of those tendencies. A National Tea Party would be more than just a breath of fresh, if not somewhat frenetic, air, but I think would go a long way in helping to break that archaic and dysfunctional dualistic mold. And unlike in Canada, I think you’d actually have some decent, helpful, and better defined debate that would fall out as a result.
So any movement towards creating a National Tea Party is a move I would support. My ultimate hope would be to see the Democratic Party split into versions of its neo-liberal/centrist/blue dog and progressive/Kennedyesque/Dean constituencies, along with a possible reclamation of the Republican Party by the more economic/political conservative class and see what happens. I actually think there would be a lot of grounding to each segment given that they woulnd’t feel any compulsion to rail against the other end of their current teams. That grounding would, I might suggest, tamp down on some of the crazy and could really flesh out some of the different perspectives in interesting ways and allow for a much greater degree of flexibility and mobility in American politics in general.
Thoughts?
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- on Ten BooksI disagree less than you ...
- Good call, Tim.
- I'm amazed that everyone ...
- To add on to North's poin...
- Well, perhaps not entirel...
- on Ten BooksI take it as a reminder t...
- The fallacy here is that ...
- That's not fair at all, M...
- On a battlefield, it's co...
- "so by the same logic it ...
-
62 comments
Scott -
I’m interested in getting more on your abandonment of the “tack to the center” view of politics. The harm you say comes from such an approach reads to me as mostly impacting the politics and debate. What about the policy outcomes? My belief is that the best policy comes out of the middle ground. I agree that the two party system is rife with dysfunction, but how do you see good policy coming out of a multi-party system? Coalitions?
North
December 10th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
An important thing to keep in mind 62across is that Scott’s from Canukistan, and the Canadians have an embarrassment of political parties. So perhaps he’s coming from distaste for the ur-centrist party of Canada, the Liberals?
But yes Scotty, I’d love to hear you expand on the point 62 touched on. Tell us a story of your wild centrist youth!
Bob
December 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Scott’s “wild centrist youth” is not so long past apparently. Scott had this to say in a post dated 9/17/2009 and titled “Against Bipartisanship,”
“And don’t get me wrong, I was all ears. The fact that this promise of post-partisanship formed the much of the foundation of Obama’s campaign was what drew me in and made me a fan from pretty early on.”
It would seem that Scott still harbored hopes for bipartisanship sometime after Obama began his run for president, 2007/08.
Scott H. Payne
December 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Heh, I’d say my shift happened fairly recently. It’s been a process, but the real abandonment only occurred in the past couple of months, really. In and around the time of the post you quote, maybe starting in earnest a month or so before. During the election I was all “tack to the centre”. I didn’t see it that way, of course, but forall intents and purposes, that’s how my politics wound up cashing out. That strikes me as a mistake now.
Scott H. Payne
December 10th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
62,
Quickly as I am at work: I agree that sometimes good policy is middle of the road, but not always. Being middle of the road does not make policy good, being good policy makes policy good. We would benefit, I’d suggest, from developing a more critical assessment of what is and is not good policy. Which will, of course, differ depending on your perspective. And so part of the debate I’m looking for is based on just those differences rather than a mushing to the middle.
But yes, I would be hopeful that the increased flexibility I talked about would result in a better ability for different coalitions. That might not wind up happening as some of the comments below raise some perfectly legitimate skepticism about the ultimate outcomes. But, as you note, I tend to come from the perspective that good policy follows good debate/discourse, not vice versa.
62across
December 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I share your perspective that good policy comes from good debate. When I say middle ground, I mean common ground not middle of the road – two very different places I’d argue. Finding common ground requires good, honest debate. It’s not merely splitting the difference between two extremes.
I don’t know if we’ll get added flexibility in the debate through a third party, though. It will take an extraordinary alignment of the stars for a third party to arise. The Republican Party will never allow a Tea Party to get anywhere. We’re going to have to find another route to reasoned discourse.
While I would like more other parties involved in our politics (especially the Libertarian’s and Green’s) America’s gov is not suited to having third parties. Our winner take all system lends itself to two parties unfortunately. One of the problems with third parties is don’t see them willing to spend years/decades winning and governing at a local level and then moving on up through state level politics. Only this way will they develop a true deep following, gain vital experience and prove they can do more then just be gadflies.
Setting aside the political viability of a third party I’m busy absolutely reeling at the thought of congressional and senatorial procedure. A third substantial party forming a caucus in the house or the Senate would really topple the applecart in terms of committees, leadership votes etc… Could we see the possibility of Democrat/Republican/Tea Party minority governments? What would they even look like in an American context. I honestly do not know, I was educated mainly on the Westminster parliamentary procedure so I honestly don’t have a clue how the American system works at that level.
Now, politically I just don’t see it. What is the natural constituency of this third party? Where is their base? Are we envisioning some kind of far right party splitting the republican base and pushing the libertarians and business conservatives into a sortof middle party status? As hard conservative economically but socially libertarian party? What would their foreign policy be? Isolationist?
Kyle
December 10th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
At the risk sounding like SNL’s Al Gore caricature on lockboxes, my suggested reforms for the committee system would absorb the rise and fall of third (or more) parties quite easily.
As for political constituencies, I think you nailed how the split would go. “RINO’s” and Cons. It would eliminate the intra-party tension. The viability issue I have is that the left would have to split or at least fall apart at the same time otherwise electoral pressures will force the GOP to fold into the Tea Party movement or vice-versa. FP is a wildcard but we’re so consumed with Afghanistan, it’d boil down to ambiguously defined victory with more of an effort to pay for it.
62across
December 10th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
These electoral pressures will keep a more hardline party from splitting off at either end of the political spectrum. The left would unify in the face of even a possibility of the right splitting and vice versa. The opportunity to dominate, even temporarily, would be too attractive. I think a viable third party could only come from the center and it could draw moderates from both parties.
North
December 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I disagree 62. Even if there were a split on the right with the new party being far right in inclination then the Republican Party, shorn of its right wing anchor, would be inclined to move to the center position leaving the new party as the new Right wing party. In some ways that seems even more viable to me. If a new party arose in the center our experience with Perot tells us that both of the establishment parties will nuzzle towards the middle and essentially nibble it to death from both sides. On the wings though the true believers of either variety could very easily make a dedicated party that might survive.
62across
December 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
10 years ago the Republican Party could have moved to the center with some credibility. The current failure of the Party leadership to distance themselves from the fringe has destroyed that credibility. Both sides would definitely nibble away at a new party at the center. But it takes a long time to eat something when you’re nibbling, which could give the centrist party time to gain some standing and survive.
Kyle
December 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The left, unify? Why I don’t think that’s happened since….ever. I think the pressure would be on D’s to stick together but they spectacularly fail to do that when winning, when losing, on the way up, and on the way down.
With all of the organizing, passion, and media attention given to the ideological edges, could a center party be viable?
62across
December 10th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Unify is perhaps the wrong word. You’re correct. That is not their history.
Stick together, though, is completely possible when there would be much to gain by a split opposition. And as I said, even with the right’s current schism, they would find a way hold together if it looked like their opposition might split.
North
December 10th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Good thoughts Kyle but if a RINO party formed off of the Republicans I think it is safe to assume that a lot of Blue dog democrats, Regan democrats and unaffiliated centrists would be drawn into its’ orbit thus siphoning strength from the Dems. Maybe we’d be looking at a Midwest/mountain state party with the Dems on the coasts and the Republicans in the South? Maybe not, the Midwest really loves their unions and I dunno if a new party would be able to compete with Dems for union love and still retain the RINO loyalty. Certainly I would agree that the dramatic change of having a third party entering into the power politics of Congress and the Senate would be a prime opportunity to enact reform in those houses.
62across
December 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
This is where I’m coming from. RINOs and DINOs as the foundation of a centrist party with a bunch of independents joining in. I find this possibility most likely because both the Republican and Democrats are branded as left and right parties that alternately tack to the middle.
However, I think this centrist party could only arise when the major parties are nearly equal in strength. Otherwise, the weaker party would fight like hell to hold together in the face of being dominated and the stronger party would fight like hell to hold together in order to gain dominance.
So, don’t hold your breath for a TP Party.
Art Deco
December 13th, 2009 at 6:57 am
I think if you look at the left side of the political spectrum, expressed opinion is generally fairly uniform, varying in gradations, like the weave of a piece of cloth. There are differences over questions of implementation. There are different roles assumed (consider the dialectic between pressure groups on a college campus and the college administration, parties who are not authentic antagonists). There are differences in outlook ‘twixt elected officials (who interact a great deal with the public and tend to act so as to avoid offending a critical mass of them), legislative staff, academics, and journalists. Between these groups and within the whole, there are differences on questions of war and diplomacy and on national-patriotic dispositions generally. You have a corps of Catholics and evangelicals who are not altogether on board with the social agenda of the Democratic Party, but these folk are largely a crew of capons and flunkies (John diIulio and David Carlin being notable exceptions). One can imagine that the main body of the Democratic Party would be intact, with small satellite parties composed of nationalists (Roger L. Simon, Jos. Lieberman, &c.), ethnic particularists (Al Sharpton, &c.), and the adversary culture (Stanley Aronowitz, &c.).
With regard to the right, there is considerable difference in priorities and emphasis between different subfractions, but this usually does not translate into actual antagonism. The antagonistic strands of thought are an academic and journalistic phenomena which have only weak echoes in electoral politics. So, you would likely have small and refractory parties composed of libertarians and isolationists, with the main body of the Republican Party intact.
On both the right and the left one can imagine a parties of the disgusted assembling around figures such as John Anderson or Ross Perot. Movements of this character do not seem to abide at all.
The percent of Americans favoring, in an online poll, the formation of a third party, and a conservative third party at that, is unremarkable. Gallup, see link, finds 40% of Americans self identifying as conservative. Is it any surprise that such Americans would support the formation of such a party given the blather spread by the wingnuts on the right?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
Plurality voting strongly favors two-party systems. The math is just too hard to overcome. Places where that hasn’t happened tend to involve more regional voting (see India and Quebec), where a third (or fourth, etc) party can gain a regional base and become part of a two-party system in that area, which leads to multiple parties at the national level.
But US elections are heavily nationalized by the media, and certainly any third party that tries to become a national movement without developing a localized base is going to have a very hard time.
Which is sad. IRV or something like it to better encompass a diversity of political interests would be nice.
EngineerScotty
December 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Well, we already have a major regional party (the Republicans).
We just need a national right-of-center party to occupy the niche which the GOP appears to be ceding.
I agree with your post!
A TP party would place a great deal of pressure on the RINO/Neocon Republicans and the ultra-radical commie dems, split the vote all over the place, and confuse the hell outta of the MSM!
Brilliant stuff,…I’m in, dude!
Of course, we’re assuming there’s a country left when the Obamaconians get through!
PresbyterArius
December 11th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
The last thing we need is another right of center party. Thirty years of progressive destruction of the middle class and erosion of civil liberties – and the right wing is responsible. And who do you think hiked our deficit from under 1 trillion to 3 trillion? I’ll give you a clue – starts with R.
The only viable three-party scenario for the US would be left, center, and right: the left wing of the Democratic Party plus the majority of blacks, a Blue Dog / RINO / protectionist coalition, and the right wing of the Republican Party. But who would make the first move? One of the groups would have to separate itself from the two-party system.
The Democratic Left may be angry with President Obama, but they’re not going to walk away from the Democratic Party. A black party could have been viable if Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, and could still happen if she should somehow get the 2012 Democratic nomination, but otherwise I don’t see it happening. And the moderate Republicans consider the party to be their domain: they might try to kick other people out of it, but they won’t abandon it.
The unions and Ron Paul supporters would have to be feeling really, REALLY alienated to join together. The Paul crowd might be at that point. But the structures holding the blue-collar and white-collar unions together aren’t going to dissolve.
The religious Right isn’t ready to give up on the Republican Party, and isn’t big enough to create a party of its own. The libertarians have too much in common with them to split.
So how else could a third party evolve? One big issue? It would have to be bigger than the Iraq War and abortion combined, because the two-party system has survived those two issues. A national leader running for president? Perot was the best chance of that, and his followers were unable to sustain a movement without him. A regional split? Parts of Georgia, Oregon, and Michigan have more in common with each other than with their fellow state citizens. I just can’t see the impetus for a third party.
historystudent
December 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
One whopping issue that could unite ordinarily diverse sectors of the political spectrum in at least a temporary third party effort would be excessive federal spending and the resulting devaluation (or possible ruination) of the dollar. This is a very important issue for most Tea Party people, and it also is often of serious concern to many who aren’t T. P. goers. This, coupled with a prevailing “throw all the bums in Congress out!” attitude, could add impetus to a serious third party.
Pinky
December 10th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
That’s an awfully tough scenario for a third party, to be born from outside either dominant party. I think the politicians would be like the occasional Independent candidates you see. They’d caucus with one of the parties (presumably the party out of power), and be absorbed into the system within a couple of terms.
As someone whose current political party came in 16th last Presidential Election, I just have to tell these people that we don’t need a third party, we need a twenty-fifth.
I remain unconvinced we have a two party system — it would be intesting to see how the voting would go for healthcare reform and energy policy if the Democrats weren’t assured victory with unity and it took 4 or 5 Republican votes to get the bills passed. I suspect there would be just enough Republican suppport to get them passed. No matter which party is in power, the State grows in power — now is just a quick growth period because of the cover of a financial crisis and recession and what the State players think of as the right timing to push it through. The Republicans have the leisure to appear resistant, but it would get passed even if congress was a different ration of Rs to Ds. There’s some compromising and stonewalling going on to protect some representatives who need to get reelected, but the general push from both parties is for a more powerful State.
Something seems off about the methodology. The sample is supposed to be “representative of the national population,” but a little over a quarter of American adults do not use the internet. People in this group are more likely to be poor and less likely to be white. They also, presumably, have less access to information – a variable on which I doubt the sample was matched to the population. Therefore, I suspect that the support for a third party is inflated by this poll’s choice of methodology. I would have preferred to see a telephone poll that asked the same questions.
I remember hearing someone say in 1989 when the Communist Bloc imploded that this would destroy the Republican conservatives. I didn’t agree at the time, but over the years since, I have understood why that was prohetic.
Without the pressure of Communism to weld them together, the various factions of the conservative movement drifted apart.
The liberal base isn’t in any better shape- the New Deal coalition hasn’t been rebuilt into anything that can govern securely.
So I would agree, that there is a realignment happening, even now, whether we like it or not. My personal feeling is that the lessons of the savings and loan bailouts, the 2008 crash, is that the dreams of free market capitalists are fantasys- the business community depends upon the very government that the Tea Party despises, and knows it.
My hope is that the defense deficits and war-weariness of the public will force a reexamination of our war-based foreign policy, and lead to a more modest foreign policy.
Finally- as long as we are dreaming- is for the social conservatives to be marginalized, and a consensus formed of socially tolerant polices.
Pinky
December 11th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Defense deficits?
Jaybird
December 11th, 2009 at 9:51 am
As opposed to non-means-tested Social Security/Medicare deficits, I suppose.
Kyle
December 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
New thought, could we means test defence?
Jaybird
December 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Oh my god I am in love with this idea
Reason60
December 11th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Sorry- I meant defense-driven budget deficits.
Jaybird
December 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
We have 100 bucks in the checkbook… and they wrote a 40 dollar check for X, a 40 dollar check for Y, a 40 dollar check for Z, and a 40 dollar check for Aleph, it would be fairly disingenuous to call this a “Z-driven budget deficit.”
Pinky
December 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
We got paid $100. We paid $30 to our security company, put $30 to retirement and $34 to health care, spent $30 on fixed costs, and spent $30 shopping. We the minimum $7 on our credit card which now has a balance over $500. And let’s not even talk about the $42 of our last paycheck that we poured into a slot machine.
Reason60
December 11th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Fair enough; we do spend as much on SS and Medicare each as we spend on Defense; I wouldn’t single out Defense for the blame except that this last 8 years of spending has been largely optional, on a war that seems to have had no real purpose; at least SS and Medicare keep people healthy. And SS (so far) pays its own way.
But you are correct- from an accounting standpoint, a cut anywhere is as good as a cut anywhere else.
Katherine
December 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Frankly, I don’t see this happening. The same Tea Partiers who are furious about the bank bailout are also predominantly untranationalist, supportive of the security state (when it isn’t directed at them) and socially conservative.
Reason60
December 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Matt Yglesias had a good comment abou thow the Tea Partys feature prominent Libertarian sentiments- “Don’t Tread on Me”, Thomas Paine quotes, etc.; and yet they are overwhelmingly supportive of the Security State enlargement;
Matt’s quote was to the effect that somehow, warrantless wiretapping is benign, yet smoking restrictions represent Liberal Fascism.
mike farmer
December 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
This is an assumption. I don’t know of any approval established by the Tea Party movement which supports warrantless wire-tapping. Most of this type of criticism coming from the left and moderates is based on their prejudiced view of Tea Party participants — it’s not based on any evidence. If it is based on evidence, I’d like to see it. It’s a mistake to take the media-manufactured “Tea Party” image, apply all the cartoon descriptions, and believe it represents progressive opposition. This is a good way to marginalize opposition, but anyone interested in openly listening to opposition as a way to examine and correct flaws in their own thinking will not use these defensive political tactics.
historystudent
December 11th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The idea that Tea Party participants are “overwhelmingly supportive of the Security State enlargement” is a misunderstanding. Some goers certainly are, but many are supporters of a smaller government, and that includes Big Brother surveillance, intrusion, etc. Quite often Tea Party platforms or mission statements will not even mention state security as one of the main concerns (the top ones are generally: limited government, responsible fiscal policy, free markets).
Katherine
December 12th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Name me a tea party group that supports closing Guantanamo. Or that pushed for the release of torture photos. Or one that has opposed Obama’s extensions of state secrets powers.
Katherine
December 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am
For that matter, I’d also like to hear about any that incorporate significant cuts to defense spending as part of a “resposible fiscal policy”.
mike farmer
December 12th, 2009 at 7:39 am
You are accusing them of what they haven’t supported? The Tea Party movement seems to have limited objectives which apply to the debt, government intervention and taxes — they aren’t a political party with a platform. This is an evasion of the accusation that they support warrantless wiretaps — good try.
Katherine
December 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
It’s not an evasion. If they opposed the security state and extension of government powers, these things would concern them as examples of excessive “government intervention”.
mike farmer
December 12th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
But you don’t know that they aren’t concerned about the security state and the extension of government powers — you made this assumption, then attacked.
mike farmer
December 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The real issue is that those who are promoting statism (government-run healthcare, cap and trade, compensation management, etc.) are consequently promoting government over-reach in all areas, including security. Those who promote a limited government are in effect limiting even their own impulses to use government in the wrong way.
It’s not so much the State is evil (this State is us, some with power over others), it’s that people want many things — security, competitive advantage, enforcement of morals, coercion of politically correct behavior, etc. — the State is always eager to comply, and by doing so the State grows in power until we get far more than we wanted. Limited government is as much about protecting us from each other as it is protecting us from the State.
historystudent
December 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Well said.
Oh, and your post got me thinking of this by Frederic Bastiat: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html.
Kyle
December 12th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
My understanding is that some of them are Ron Paul supporters who – last I checked – made slashing defense spending one of his lone wolf positions.
As much as progressives (ie leftists) do hate seeing their priorities watered down at this moment of Democratic dominance by the centrists (corporate Democrats) with whom they are in alliance, the fact is that the formation of a successful centrist party would essentially assure that progressives would not get another chance to move their agenda in any form whatsoever as long as that arrangement held. The type of large-scale social welfare reform that is now being undertaken is precisely the kind of liberal impulse that a centrist party would form in order to blunt. Being as such things are largely the raison d’etre OF the left, that (the loss of an institutional centrist alliance) would be a catastrophic development for the cause of social democracy in America. My own fear is that we would end up in that scenario with a long-term if not permanent corporatist/social-conservative alliance rule inflected at moments of fear by militaristic foreign policy. I for one am happy to stick with my uncomfortable marriage between leftist social democrats and rational corporatists willing to let the welfare state advance just far enough to preserve demand and protect markets.
Kyle
December 11th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
That’s actually a really good point that structurally, it would make reform much harder. However, it could be that your analysis underestimates the potent force of populism.
Both America and France have a history of popular reactions to corporate excess that become politically powerful when marrying the disaffections of the masses with the ambitions of the bourgeois.
That said, I think your read of the Democrats is a little off. The party, itself, and in both chambers is controlled by progressives, which are a majority of the majority. However, the Democratic majority is made possible by
viewers like youmoderates and conservatives who then wield clout because a.) their elective fortunes are tied directly to those of the party at large and b.) Das Filibuster.If progressives could gerrymander or elect a proper majority on their own, centrists wouldn’t be a problem. Welcome to America, land of the unsatisfying compromise…and hot dog.
“And unlike in Canada, I think you’d actually have some decent, helpful, and better defined debate..”
“The grass is always greener”, except it never actually is.
“I for one am happy to stick with my uncomfortable marriage between leftist social democrats and rational corporatists willing to let the welfare state advance just far enough to preserve demand and protect markets.”
Don’t you mean kill demand and destroy markets?
Well, I agree about Canadian politics – while there are big issues (the Conservatives recently cut funding for KAIROS, a major Christian charitable group that’s been working overseas for human rights and sustainability with funding from CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) for 35 years, for no stated reason and probably because it supported a stronger stance at Copenhagen; and then there’s the fact of detainees being transferred to Afghan forces that tortured them) a lot of the things Liberals have hammered at previously are “nontroversies” because there’s virtually no difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
However, if a Tea Party is formed, it would probably make it impossible for the Republicans to win while shifting the political discourse right, so that the political consequences wouldn’t be original ideas but even more conservative governance by the Democrats. In addition – I can understand populist anger, but a lot of the tea party folks are frankly nuts. A larger political role for people comparing Obama to the Nazis, thinking he’s a secret Muslim out to destroy America, or just plain hating him out of racism – which, from all I’ve seen of the tea parties, makes up a fairly substantial component of their supporters – is not a good thing for the United States.
historystudent
December 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The “Nazi” thing gets flung around unwisely by all sides of the political spectrum. It isn’t just a “Tea Party” trait.
The Tea Party movement isn’t always easy to define because there are so many individualists in it, I’ll admit, but I think here are some better statements of what many who participate believe:
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php#statement
http://www.unitedamericanteaparty.com/AboutUsInsert.html#Mission%20Statement
Katherine
December 12th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Don’t think much of the first group, with a lack of proposals and the Joker picture (they appear not to have figured out that the Joker was an anarchist, which is pretty much the complete opposite of the state socialism they think exists). The Campaign for Liberty seem more like folks that can be respected – at least they acknowledge the role of defense sending in overspending and support non-interventionism. And the idea of Congressional term limits is not a bad one. The other one I’m skeptical of because they date their existence from Mar. 2009, after the massive deficits and after the bank bailouts of the Bush years. That doesn’t indicate anything other than unthinking partisan hostility to me.
And I’ve seen these people’s rallies. I’ve heard their statements and seen their signs. And a lot of them are just plain messed up. One of them’s a picture of Obama in African paint with a bone through his nose, and if there’s a message in that other than “we’re a bunch of damn racists” I don’t see it.
Kyle
December 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Yeah, but let’s not forget the tea party crowd hated the bailouts and opposed then President Bush on the matter. The bailouts were a Dem-Bush alliance, and the organization certainly improved in 2009 but the anger didn’t magically materialize post Inauguration.
That said, I think you’re cherrypicking here, Katherine. The same way war boosters saw people carrying signs saying “9/11 was an inside job” or “Blood for Oil” and thought well clearly this means all anti-war people are truthers/crazies.
Nobody here thinks the tea party crowd consists of all lovely, sensible protesters. Some are loons, some aren’t. Let’s face it, if they were protesting for gov intervention in their health care, they’d be sainted for their civic activism, because they’re not, they’re called dangerous racists. I don’t like defending them but I also don’t like their being blithely dismissed because some people showed up with uncivil signs and slogans. Average people aren’t skilled at expressing their anger and outrage in unoffensive ways, shocker.
historystudent
December 12th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I’m glad you checked out the links. Of those three, I liked the Campaign for Liberty the most also. There are plenty more, of course.
As for the signs, are you speaking of what you saw on television, or did you actually see a Tea Party up close and personal yourself? The media tends to look for the most controversial signs when covering such events, as I’m sure you know. Don’t judge everyone at a Tea Party by the exceptional attention-getters.
As matters stand, reform is impossible because of the pitiably inadequate structure of the Senate and cloture requirements. Would more parties really help? Or would we see a massive realignment to a dominant centrist party, much as we have now, but on a bigger scale – big enough to govern and simply ignore the right-wing ignorami and their illiterate screeching?
Given the demographic changes occurring in the U.S., the U.S. will soon be a one party state. Does anyone really believe that a revamped Republican Party or a green party to the left of the current Democrats would be any better at appealing to non-whites as the current Republican Party.
Considering that the children in first grade are less than half white, the idea that any party other than the current Democratic can remain relevant is laughable. The Democratic primary will be the only relevant party in the future.
Kyle
December 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Ghost of Matoko Future?
Among the many improvements we might make to our constitutional order would be to replace first-past-the-post contests in single-member districts with Hare-Clark ordinal balloting in multimember districts. This would allow considerably more space for minority representation and limit the utility of gerrymandering. One needs recall, however, that Canada and Britain make use of the same electoral system as do we and yet retain a multiplicity of political parties. An aspect of our political culture is how strongly different vectors which make up public opinion co-vary. We would likely continue to retain a near duopoloy, just with small delegations of libertarians, isolationists, and goofies (and folk like Ron Paul who fit in all three categories).