I'd like to try a little experiment

There actually is a right answer, but I'm interested in the input of everyone on this board. For what does the Tea Party stand? My contention is those that dislike the Tea Party in reality have no idea what it represents.

 

I'd be more interested in your words. I'm not going to bother watching something for eight minutes.

 

Aw, how cute. You do know there are only three principles that represent the Tea Party, don't you? Anything else is noise. That noise is amplified because there isn't a leader.

I contend the Tea Party is the most misunderstood political movement in recent history. I'm simply interested in what people think the Tea Party represents.

 

Because I want to see what people think. If you're not interested in participating, you can ignore this post.

 

Lower taxes, smaller government, and a more literal interpretation of the Constitution?

 

I think the tea party claim they stand for small government and lowering taxes.

 

The tea party doesn't actually exist as a genuine political party with an actual platform, leaders/direction, or even a common political goal.

It's a loosely gathered group of uninformed, easily-manipulated voters who feel their wishes are not being represented by either party. They are nothing more than a convenient club being wielded by the disintegrating republican party, and they vote for republican candidates 99% of the time.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

Is that what you believe their position is?

 

Partially true. It's not a political party as much as a philosophy. It is a loose confederation. It is most certainly not represented by any party, much like the communists or socialists are represented by the Democrats. The Republicans do try to play lip service to them, however, they're just trying to use them.

Isn't it interesting how the Democrats haven't made a play for them? Many are social conservatives, but there are plenty out there that agree with many Democrat social positions, from the viewpoint that it's no one's business how you live your life. As an aside, why haven't the Democrats gone after social libertarians? Individual freedom used to be a hallmark of the Democrats.

Where I disagree is that they don't have a common political goal. I think their goal is pretty direct. What they are not is savvy or experienced in the way of politics. It's a bunch of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington types who are naïve about the workings of Washington.

 

I think the problem is that when you don't have leadership, it's difficult to clearly define what an organization stands for. Maybe your interpretation of what the Tea Party stands for is different from someone else who belongs? How can there be a right answer?

 

Because all the groups have agreed upon three basic principles. Very fair point, however.

I'm really more interested for what you think the Tea Party stands. If you find any of those positions objectionable, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

 

I think there are many members of the Tea Party that espouse culturally conservative views. However, it's a like a subset in a Venn Diagram. Do you think being pro-life is a Tea Party position?

 

Sigh. There's a difference between being libertarian and a member of the Tea Party.

 

In the end, it really doesn't matter what the "party" stands for, it's what the "party" supporters will support and what they stand for. Because over time, the parties ideals will change to be in line with it's supporters. I look to the supporters and take cue from them. This applies to all large groups, not just the tea party. The Occupy movement is also not what is espoused by the groups involved, it becomes defined by the supporters. You have too many abortion activists at a tea party rally, or too many Che Guevara tee shirts at an occupy movement, and that becomes the party.

When I was in high school during the first gulf war, I was getting ready to go to a "No Blood For War" rally, my father told me to sit down so he could impart a bit of wisdom. He was around during the Vietnam protests and he realized that no matter how righteous the cause, the organizers are always self centered douchebags that are trying to steal the importance of the moment for their own spotlight. Now, some are better than others, and the cause may still justify going to the rally, but never be hoodwinked by the leaders of a cause. In retrospect, I have realized that is not always true, with leaders like MLK, but the vast majority of the time it is. And you have to realize, if its the leaders at a rally, or the supporters at a rally, once those individuals corrupt a cause, they become the face (or the voices) of the cause.