The rise and fall of the Tea Party
Image by Andrew Aliferis via Flickr
In what could prove to be the greatest gift to Democratic Party election politics since Herbert Hoover insisted the US economy was sound as the nation plunged into depression, the Tea Baggers are going mainstream.
Emboldened by their likely success in the New York 23rd District congressional race, right wing conservatives, in the mold of Sarah Palin and Dick Armey, are lining up to run against GOP candidates in next year’s congressional and senate races, hoping to steal nominations away from the Republican party.
This is nothing short of a nightmare for Republicans and just what the doctor ordered for rescuing Democrats from what had been looking to be a nasty election cycle.
Just as the GOP flushed the $1 million dollars they pumped into the NY 23rd race down the drain when GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava was forced to drop out , the party will face similar challenges to their finances in races all over America as they are forced to fight off those who were previously their ally.
The onslaught has already begun in Florida where right-wing conservative Marco Rubio is challenging popular GOP Governor Charlie Crist for the GOP Senate nomination. Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) is expected to get a hard challenge from the right in his bid for reelection. In Illinois, where Republicans rarely stand much of a chance for national elective office, the state’s tea party organization is targeting Rep. Mark Kirk, the leading GOP candidate for the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.
“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.” “What you’re going to see,” said Armey, “is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries.”
Via Politico
Armey may well be right. Many in the GOP, including their presumed leaders, have decided that it is in their best interest to destroy their own in the name of ideological purity. Tim Pawlenty, a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, spent his time on “Morning Joe” today trashing fellow Republicans, such as Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), for not measuring up to the ideological litmus test that he believes must be applied to determine who should –and who should not – be members of the Republican Party.
So much for the whole ‘big tent’ thing.
While the ‘split’ produced by Tea Baggers taking on GOP candidates will help insure victory for Democratic candidates in many of these races, what makes it all the more interesting is that the Tea Baggers are likely to win a few – and that will spell the end of their revolt.
The allure of ‘outsider’ movements- like the Tea Baggers- grows from the very fact that they are working outside the system. This is what gets the attention of the mainstream media. Covering a demonstration of frustrated and angry people is a whole lot more interesting than covering elected officials who are constrained by the very system they once revolted against. After all, it’s difficult to attack the system once you become a part of the system.
Like every other politician in the land, the winning Tea Baggers will discover a fondness for holding their elective offices and find themselves knee-deep in all the compromises that are necessary to hang onto power. GOP party leaders in Congress are going to want to ‘kiss up’ to these newly elected right-wingers by awarding them with choice committee assignments. That will anger mainstream GOP members who have played ball with their party, only to be pushed aside by this new wave of upstarts cashing in on the mood of the day.
The result will be discord within the GOP that will make the disagreements between Democratic progressives, moderates and conservatives look like child’s play.
To the Tea Party I say, enjoy your moment – because it won’t last. The decision to join the process virtually dooms a movement that draws it’s strength from being on the outside with the luxury of complaining without being held responsible.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
This is a funny title. The tea parties are picking up more and more momentum as people figure out just what is going on.
The whole federal reserve system is unconstitutional. This president is working for the enemy within. The purpose is to take down America with the biggest debt he can possibly incur. He is working for the elitists who use the UN and all their phony causes to deindustrialize and destroy us. They have so written it in many places.
Quote:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Programme, Opening Speech Rio Earth Summit 1992
teaparty – that was the point of the title. By joining the mainstream (and, as you so aptly make clear in your post, tea baggers are not mainstream), they will be killing the movement they seek to move forward.
Not for nothing, there is nothing in the constitution that indicates that the federal reserve is unconstitutional. There are many on all sides of the aisle who do not approve of how the Fed operates and there would be room for you to complain. But a wing-nut argument kind of takes the steam out of a rational beef.
As for whom Obama works for….I never know how to respond to such silliness. I know it isn’t silly to you and that you believe it. So what can I say? The funny thing is that when we move forward another 10 years and you see that Obama came and went in either 4 or 8 years, and the government still stands, you’ll forget all about these silly accusations as if they never entered your mind.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s the excessive compromises and “big tent” idea that has failed the Republican party. How can one vote for a conservative ideas when the representative ends up voting for liberal views when in congress. It has caused a complete lack of trust to the party.
They’re just finally waking up to this realization. Democrats have always had litmus tests to their views matching the Democratic party, yet for some reason the Republican party cannot have the same? They’re mocked if they don’t follow the “tent” idea. I’m starting to realize this may just be a method to marginalize the Republican Party.
I saw nothing in Scozzafava views that associated to Republican Party. How was she even allowed to be in?
What I see is the public that supports conservative federalist values trying to get that back as a litmus test to be part of the Republican Party. It’s pointless to have the Republican Party to be in a spectrum that includes liberal values. If one is for liberal values they will vote for a Democrat, not one that may support one of their views.
What this has done is not allow people to have a true choice. Now days your essentially voting for the same thing for either parties.
Be aware, the Democratic Party is going through the same division. I’m seeing the Democratic party splitting between those with a more focus on liberal rights, freedoms, and labor versus those on the extreme socialism, progressivism, Marxist-lite, and capitalism skeptics.
1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.
2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?
3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.
4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.
Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.
In response to another comment. See in context »1. In my impression that gap is still from way left to center left. Just debating exactly how to tax and spend. I don’t feel the abortion view alone should determine a political affiliation. But I would hope a conservative would believe that decision should be made at the state level for either view of abortion. Whereas a liberal would support subsidization of the child if against abortion.
2. I briefly recall that. I’ll have to look into that.
3. Well said, I generally agree.
4. I do believe there needs to be room; it just should not conflict with the ideals you noted in #3. People like Scozzafava and Snow just make me angry and lead me to a 3rd party. They’re like a virus in a reasonable spectrum of conservative views.
In response to another comment. See in context »1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.
2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?
3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.
4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.
Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.
In response to another comment. See in context »1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.
2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?
3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.
4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.
Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.
In response to another comment. See in context »1. You need only look at the health care debate in Congress to understand that the Democrats certainly do not have such a litmus test. There’s a wide gap between Ben Nelson and Barbara Boxer. There are Democrats that are threatening to tank health care reform in support of their strong belief against abortion. That doesn’t mean they can’t all be Democrats. To argue there is ideological purity or even consensus in the Democratic Party is a pretty funny concept.
2. The ‘big tent’ idea belongs to none other than Ronald Reagan. Are you suggesting that Reagan didn’t know what a ‘Republican’ should be?
3. The Republican party was based on the notion that state’s rights should take precedence over federal interests. Would you believe that there was a time in my own life where I was Republican because I held – and continue to hold- this view? However, this most basic premise for the party of Lincoln has been deeply perverted by those who have hijacked the Republican party and turned it from a party that believed that the closer government is to the people, the better government will be. Today the Republican party. requires an ideological purity that so limits the party that it is going to become a minority party in perpetuity. While I may not be a Republican, healthy government requires more than one strong political party.
4. To believe that there is no room for varying points of view bars membership is not only a dangerous road to travel, it is anything but practical. Richard Nixon found himself in a position where one seat would determine control of the Senate. In those days, it was about getting 51 rather than the 60 required to get anything done today. When asked if Nixon would support a particular candidate, he is said to have responded that he would support a Marxist if it would give his party the majority in the Senate.
Yet, you and Tim Pawlenty seem to feel that you know something that Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first did not know. No offense intended, but I think it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to assume that these people knew a little something about winning politics.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The result will be discord within the GOP that will make the disagreements between Democratic progressives, moderates and conservatives look like child’s play.”
I hope you are right…and if so, this will be wonderful to watch.
http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com
Saying “it won’t last” doesn’t preclude the possibility that it won’t win. Gingrich swept his Republican revolution into power in ‘94 and it held on until ‘06. I don’t think that the tea party is going to purge the GOP of all of its moderates at once, or win every election; but I’m not certain it’s going to cause the GOP to lose a lot of the elections it otherwise might have won, and NY-23 is going to suggest to many that picking a hardline conservative yields effective turnout and organization. Whether or not that pays off in other contests remains to be seen; the Dems ran a milquetoast candidate in NY-23 probably because they didn’t think they’d have a real shot at winning, and Deeds in Virginia turned out to be a really crappy candidate. But in more contests where there is a significant conservative Republican base, Democrats may find that the GOP gets better at picking candidates who speak to it in ‘10, ‘12, and beyond.
Possibly. But I think the targets for tea party candidates are going to be incumbents or those already in public office trying to move up who the tea baggers don’t like. It will be difficult, I think, for state parties to pick candidates that they know are not likely to win based on their knowledge of their own state. take, for instance, Sen. Bennett in Utah. Not exactly what I would have called a moderate Republican – just as Utah is not what I would consider a moderate state. Bennett is going to run as the GOP candidate next year and the tea party is going to run someone against him.
In response to another comment. See in context »The result is that a lot more money is going to be required from the national and state GOP organizations to finance primary races. This is a problem for them and only strengthens Democratic candidates in the general elections. .
Can someone tell me exactly what the conservatives, Gingrich or the neo-conservatives have achieved?
Or can anyone tell me what the tea baggers want? The end of the federal banking system and the return of the gold standard?
What the hell are conservative federalist values?
Perhaps a return to state rights where a state could decide how to interpret the bill of rights? No separation of church and state? An end of FDR regulations? Ending social security and welfare? Putting two chickens in every pot? No federal spending for jobs in States?
All I hear from tea baggers is anger that is focused on Obama and the UN. So if we get rid of Obama and get out of the United Nations all will be well in America?
I am pretty sure Ronald Reagan would have been a charter member of the Tea Party movement. The liberals called him extreme, too conservative, out of the mainstream, can’t win, blah, blah, blah and, as I recall, that guy ended up doing okay.
The liberals and the press always tell Republicans to run moderates like John McCain, and funnily enough, when we do, they always seem to lose.
Sorry, wrong link for Reagan. Should have been this one.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, I don’t think Reagan wouldhave been a tea bagger at all. While Reagan held strong beliefs as to what he thought was right and wrong, he was, at the end of the day, a reasonable guy who could work with people. I think his fascinating relationship with Tip O’Neal speaks to that fact.
Additionally, it was Ronald Reagan who established the rule that Republicans do not speak ill of other Republicans. That was certainly not in play this morning when Tim Pawlenty trashed other Republicans because he didn’t believe they belonged in his party.
So much of the Reagan legend does not match the reality of the man. Conservatives have used Reagan as a touchstone to validate their own point of view when, so often, what they are saying wasn’t at all what Reagan believed.
It’s no secret that I don’t tend to fall on the conservative side of the fence- yet I have a great deal of respect for Reagan. Despite Reagan’s beliefs about taxes, he did not hesitate to raise them when he determined it was necessary to do so. That couldn’t have been easy. I don’t think Reagan would have been against a stimulus package because I think he was more about doing what he believed was right rather than doing what was politically popular. It was Reagan who put Paul Volker – an Obama supporter and stimulus advocate – at the head of the Fed. While i don’t believe Reagan’s economic policies worked out, it was a very interesting experiment in its time and, in my opinion, well intentioned. It just didn’t work.
In response to another comment. See in context »What is important is that he tried something. There’s a great lesson in that for today’s conservatives. Take the health care package. I would be shocked if everything that we are going to get is going to work. Some hopefully will – some certainly will not. But you have to start to solve a problem if that problem is going to be solved. You can’t just pretend the problem is not there so you can just say no. There will be elements of health care that will need to be changed as we move along. But the problem is real – and the solutions touch real lives, It exists in reality beyond a political football. I think conservatives had a point of view to bring to the conservation. I think conservatives would have made the final result better. But they didn’t want to participate. They offered up only weak, ideological ideas to pretend they are putting some effort into it when they are not. It’s too bad. We would have no doubt been better off it they had really wanted to participate. But that doesn’t change the fact that we have to do something. Reagan would have understood that.
The President of the United States would have been a charter member of an anti-federal-government movement? The gymnastics my mind must do to follow modern American “conservative” logic, it’s just…headache-inducing. It’s pretty funny, too, though, so there is that.
Maybe we’re just reaching the logical end of such a nonsense political pseudo-philosophy; the dominant party of the last thirty years consistently held onto power by railing against the very levers of power that they controlled, and that never made the slightest bit of sense anyway.
The difference between then and now seems to be that Reagan knew it was mostly a political strategy, and carefully doled it out on the stump every four years (he hardly gave up federal power once elected – in fact, he greatly expanded the government in many meaningful ways). But now we’re seeing a generation of “conservatives” who grew up thinking Reagan actually believed the things he said. And how exactly can you run a government by loudly invalidating that very government? Oh yeah: you can’t.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Continue reading here: Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – The rise and fall of the Tea Party … [...]
Having several friends who helped organize some of the original tea parties, it strikes me as a bit of a sham to call the tea party folks “right wing conservatives.” At least here in Boston and greater new england, the Tea Parties are actually organized by people with primarily libertarian sentiments, who happen to attract conservatives sharing a dim view of the administration. It might be more appropriate to call the tea party folks “anti liberals” or something of the sort. Trying to brand them all as conservatives if fairly myopic and far too conveniently selective. A bit like the conservative attempt to brand all anti-Iraq war protesters as communists and socialists.
Sorry but the performance of the Republicans in Congress nowadays seems to prove the equivalence of “anti-liberal” and conservative. The conservatives have done nothing but oppose positive action. It’s no wonder that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck seemed to take over the Republican Party earlier this year – they are the loudest “anti-liberals” out there, but they have no actual brief to accomplish anything.
Rick is right; Reagan stood for things as well as against things. I will never forgive RR for saying, “a tree is a tree, how many more do you need to look at?”, but he did start out as an FDR supporter.
In response to another comment. See in context »Damon-
You know what – I think, to a large extent, you’re right. I don’t know that I would refer to them simply as “anti-liberal’ as I think there is something else at work. And while I appreciate that the movement is largely based on libertarianism, I think they take it too far by a very large – and possibly dangerous – measure.
Still, my characterization of tea party folks as all right wing conservatives is just as wrong. Point is taken and I’ll be a bit more expansive when referring to them when writing an the topic in the future.
In response to another comment. See in context »We may be on different sides of the philosophical divide on this one, but I share some similar thoughts on a few of the groups that do tag along with the Tea Party groups. I actually tend to agree with some of the fundamental positions of the “original” protest planners, but agree that those positions are often hijacked or, to be charitable, “dynamically evolved” into other viewpoints by hangers-on who are more angry than thoughtful. I like that the Tea Parties happen, from a civic involvement point of view, and I like that people seem to still have the capacity for outrage. What they do with that outrage (either channeling it towards positive change or spinning it into yet more anger) is certainly something that produces an unpredictable fruit.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cindy Strout, Michael Guerriero, Ron Paul, Tweets Tube, Tea Leaf Times and others. Tea Leaf Times said: Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – The rise and fall of the Tea Party … http://bit.ly/2WisXE #tea [...]