What is the Tea Party? Many have tried to answer that question ever since CNBC's Rick Santelli first launched the backlash with his trading-floor rant against the poor.
Democratic operatives, for instance, say the Tea Party is merely a Republican Party facade. As proof, they point to GOP-linked corporate groups' involvement in Tea Party events, and cite the absence of Tea Party deficit and bailout protests during George W. Bush's presidency.
Social scientists, meanwhile, suggest that the Tea Party is not the entire Republican apparatus, but specifically the extreme conservative edge of the GOP. The data add credence to that argument: As the Public Religion Research Institute and the University of Washington report, Tea Party followers are disproportionately part of the Christian right and are more racially resentful than the general public.
For their part, Tea Party activists brush off these pesky facts with nostalgic paeans about the Constitution and indignant bromides against partisanship.
"Although we are conservative in political philosophy, we are nonpartisan in approach," insisted a Tea Party leader in a typical platitude. "Both parties need to rededicate themselves to the principles of our Founding Fathers.'"
Thus, with both sides at loggerheads, the only way to objectively define the Tea Party is to find a test case. And as I say in my new newspaper column, thanks to Wisconsin's Senate race, we have exactly that.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
Sarah Palin is in GOP party leaders' bullseye if Republicans fall short in ...
NPR, Juan Williams: Did firing put network smack in tea party's crosshairs?
Despite tea party energy, outside groups funded by Swift Boaters, other old hands
Tea party and Christian conservatives alike — and different
Texas tea party candidate: Violent government uprising 'on the table'
is this supposed to be news?
When the southern strategy was enacted in late 60's, the unintended blow back was: whites got hurt too. For they elected politicians who were beholden to corporations which care only for the bottom line on their balance sheets. When companies merged or got acquired and people lost jobs, when jobs got outsourced minorities may have lost out first but then whites lost jobs too and still losing. (unintended consequence or was it?)
From 1935 - 1975 (40 yrs) corporations had social contracts w American people - retirement packages, health care, 40 hr wk week, overtime, paid vacations, provided avenues to excel on jobs, etc. That changed under the southern strategy concept when politicians got elected who believed in corporations while trying to pull minorities to the back of the bus again.
Today tea party operates under that Southern Strategy concept using libertarian principles of limited govt to rid govt of social contracts w American people, specifically getting rid of 'Dept of Education', privatizing Social Security, eliminating unemployment insurance, getting rid of medicaid, and cuts in medicare. All of these so called limited govt tenets affect poor people aiming at minorities. Unintended consequence is that it will hurt white people too. Corporations don't care, it's the bottom line for them.