Tea Party: Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

rugcat said:

A new Pew poll reveals the strong connection between Tea Party supporters and the religious right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-p-jones-phd/tea-party-redux-socially-_b_827474.html

This is old news, and no surprise to many of us, but it's a useful reminder for those who still believe the Tea Party is a new, fresh movement of libertarian leaning patriots.



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/the-tea-partys-religious-inspiration/71679

Click to expand...

...and the irony is that you would think some of the religious teaching they supposedly adhere to would moderate their stance on issues like guns, abortion, death penalties, and tolerance of gays, blacks, latino's, jews, Muslims, etc...... But nope, it hardens them on these issues, which always beckons the question for me, "What exactly do these people believe in?"

What do they believe in?

In my opinion: Power. They want power, and they're willing to appeal to the most atavistic parts of our culture to get it.

The way I read that poll, less than half (42%) of people that claim to agree with the tea party stuff also claim to agree with the "conservative Christian Movement," as opposed to much more than half (69%) of the latter that claim to agree with tea party stuff.

So, the poll isn't much of a surprise. The tea party remains nebulous, but other groups with an agenda are willing to latch on, in hopes of gaining power.

Stunning.

Am I the only one who sick of the term "religious right"? I doubt most of these people spend much time in a church unless there's a camera rolling.

Those who claim to agree with the "conservative Christian Movement" may only be 42%, but when you look at issues like same-sex marriage (oppose 64%) and abortion (oppose 59%), it seems there are a lot who may not agree with the movement, but certainly agree with the goals of the movement.

Those two figures in particular convince me that whatever the teaparty is about, it's not about civil liberty, and is, indeed, inimical to it.

Don said:

Those who claim to agree with the "conservative Christian Movement" may only be 42%, but when you look at issues like same-sex marriage (oppose 64%) and abortion (oppose 59%), it seems there are a lot who may not agree with the movement, but certainly agree with the goals of the movement.

Those two figures in particular convince me that whatever the teaparty is about, it's not about civil liberty, and is, indeed, inimical to it.

Click to expand...

Dammit, Don, we have to stop lockstep agreement with stuff here.

I'd like to nominate this thread for "Best use of SAT Words." We're only 8 posts in and Zoombie and Don have already busted out "atavistic" and "inimical."

Opty said:

I'd like to nominate this thread for "Best use of SAT Words." We're only 8 posts in and Zoombie and Don have already busted out "atavistic" and "inimical."

Click to expand...

Quotha!

cethklein said:

Am I the only one who sick of the term "religious right"? I doubt most of these people spend much time in a church unless there's a camera rolling.

Click to expand...

Well, imo the phrase is generally meant to be derogatory and has been touted as such. I guess the idea behind equating the "religious right" with a political platform is to imply some kind of fanaticism. Essentially, it's propaganda. Personally, I don't give it much credence. Political issues to me are pretty cut and dry, and what's "behind them" is utter speculation and completely immaterial unless people are trying to drum up emotion and/or bigotry of some fashion. . . .

Bird of Prey said:

Well, imo the phrase is generally meant to be derogatory and has been touted as such. I guess the idea behind equating the "religious right" with a political platform is to imply some kind of fanaticism. Essentially, it's propaganda. Personally, I don't give it much credence. Political issues to me are pretty cut and dry, and what's "behind them" is utter speculation and completely immaterial unless people are trying to drum up emotion and/or bigotry of some fashion. . . .

Click to expand...

I agree with you on this semantic device. It lends a pejorative tinge to "religious". As though being religious is a liability, and as though religious = myopic and dogmatic. It's a case where a euphemism may be more provocative than the more straightforward term.

I don't like the term "religious right" any more than I like the term "white trash" (hey, if they weren't white, this'd be the expected condition, hey?).

Well, except the more accurate term "Christian right" has been fairly well embraced by the . . . Christian right. As has "Christian Conservative". So let's go with that latter one, shall we? There has been a significant explicit politico-religious connection of this kind ever since Jerry Falwell established his "Moral Majority" three decades-plus ago. And a politically effective one.

Which Tea Party did they poll? There are literally thousands of Tea Parties. You can't make a judgment off of one or two which is hardly representative of the whole movement. Another prolific case of substandard, deficient, and erroneous reporting.

rugcat said:

So when laws restricting or even banning abortion are proposed, by politicians who proclaim abortion murder and against the laws of God, their religious beliefs are immaterial and attributing their political stance to their religious beliefs is utter speculation?

Click to expand...

It is both immaterial and speculation. There are a lot of reasons that people object to abortion, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is supported by the Supreme Court in terms of an adult - any adult - having control over his/her own body/destiny. He/she does. It essentially implies equality between men and women, as women bear the biological burden of an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't give a crap what anybody thinks of the religious implications. I don't argue or debate on that basis. I believe it's not relevant to the issue. . . .

Wow. Well, maybe renters could get, y'know...

...three-fifths of a vote?

The poll, as reflected in the results linked in the OP, simply asked about the "Tea Party" as an overall movement, not about specific groups that might have a claim staked to some aspect of the trendy name. It also asked people if they identified with Republican or Democratic Parties. Seems pretty straightforward and nonprejudicial to me. Nor is it surprising. Go look at the results if you're curious.

MacAllister said:

While we roll back the entire last century of progress, Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation thinks it totally makes sense that only property owners should have a vote. The quote, from Tea Party Nation Radio:


Cuz renters really shouldn't have a voice in government in the first place, right? Any more than black people or women - we gave them the vote, and just look what a mess it's made.

Click to expand...

You know, how bout , we do dueling fringe-people?? I don't assume for a minute that Judson Phillips - president of something next to nothing even if you include a vested interest in a radio station - has any legit leadership in the Tea Party other than his assertion as such. Nobody has a handle on the Tea Party; it's too new and it's in a state of confusion and flux. There are all kinds of interpretations and components. . . .

blacbird said:

The poll, as reflected in the results linked in the OP, simply asked about the "Tea Party" as an overall movement, not about specific groups that might have a claim staked to some aspect of the trendy name. It also asked people if they identified with Republican or Democratic Parties. Seems pretty straightforward and nonprejudicial to me. Nor is it surprising. Go look at the results if you're curious.

Click to expand...

You have to understand, there are thousands of Tea party organizations. Look it up if you don't believe me. Each of them are indeed different in many aspects. In fact, there are as many differences as their are similarities due to their make-up, states they are in, etc.

There is only one basic premise that the Tea Party movement follows. That is less taxes and less government. Beyond that, the diversity of opinions is greater than that of the Republicans when compared to Democrats.

Blue236 said:

There is only one basic premise that the Tea Party movement follows. That is less taxes and less government. Beyond that, the diversity of opinions is greater than that of the Republicans when compared to Democrats.

Click to expand...

What is it, then, that unites the Tea Party movement and distinguishes it from Libertarians or Republicans?

I'm not sure who has more taxes and more government as an explicit premise - as something to be desired. So, really, that sort of jargon doesn't really indicate much to me in the way of mission statements or values. It sounds like basic sales technique - using generalisations that, really, anyone would subscribe to:

- "In these hard times..."
- "Who wouldn't like to have more free time in their busy schedule?"
- "tough on crime"
- "let's make the trains run on time"

that are irrefutable, but don't really say anything definitive.

I'm sure the difference is in what measures they'd advocate to achieve lower taxes and less government. But then the language gets more controversial and/or provocative.

poetinahat said:

What is it, then, that unites the Tea Party movement and distinguishes it from Libertarians or Republicans?

Click to expand...

I think the uniting factor of the Tea Party is the desire for a dramatic reduction of government intrusion: economically, physically, socially. . . .

Whatever the Tea Party might have been...it has been hijacked by other interests. Some conservative, some racial, some evangelical. A potential third party? Sneak some loonies in to divide it, then coopt the rest. It's a strategy that has worked for sometime. It worked this time.

poetinahat said:

What is it, then, that unites the Tea Party movement and distinguishes it from Libertarians or Republicans?

Click to expand...

I don't know that it's all that distinguishable from Libertarians, in a core-issue sense.

I'm not sure who has more taxes and more government as an explicit premise - as something to be desired.

Click to expand...

No one has to have those as explicit premises, Poet. It's enough for them to be implicit, or even non-existent but wrongly assumed.

However, in the current political climate, wanting to increase tax revenues must be about more taxes, right? And wanting to have greater government control over things like healthcare and carbon emissions (and the institution of marriage) must require more government.

Bird of Prey said:

I think the uniting factor of the Tea Party is the desire for a dramatic reduction of government intrusion: economically, physically, socially. . . .

Click to expand...

I think the original idea behind the Tea Party was exactly what you state, and I'd really like to believe that's still the uniting factor.

OTOH, when the tea party events have speakers that talk about the importance of the empire, protecting the sanctity of marriage, and life beginning at conception, I just don't see how those things align with less government intrusion.

Military bases, wars, legal barriers to equal rights, and pregnancy policing are not unobtrusive activities, nor are they inexpensive.

It's no more possible to be socially conservative, pro-empire, and seriously for smaller government than it is to lose weight while consuming 5000 calories a day.