Every news outlet loves reporting about the activities of the Tea Party, the influence of the Tea Party, which candidate is most supported by the Tea Party.... Some talk about the Tea Party as being a great positive influence on American democracy and others mock the Tea Party and its shining lights -- either way, the media is talking. The fervent repeating of the phrase "Tea Party" has some people wondering why, when they went to the polls in 2010, they didn't see any candidates from this party on the ballot.
The answer is very simple: there is no Tea Party. If the key principles of the Contract from America, like low taxes, low debt, small federal government, repealing the Health Care reforms, etc. seem familiar, that is because these are core principles of the Republican Party.
Survey after survey has shown what everyone knows intuitively, that the vast majority of people who identify themselves as belonging to the Tea Party are registered Republicans.
So, why is the media going on and on as if this is a separate entity? Why are people in the streets repeating this phrase as if this is anything more than the passionate supporters of the Republican Party? Perhaps Americans have a basic need to convince themselves that they are not trapped in a 2-party system. Perhaps the media repeats this phrase because it succeeds at getting people's attention, which then helps sell advertising. Perhaps people feel the need to associate themselves with what they think is a new entity in order to arouse political passion.
Nobody expects that in 2012 there will be one presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, one from the Republican Party and a third candidate from the Tea Party.
If a separate political party called the "Tea Party" is formed, then I am happy to use that phrase but, until that day, I propose that we encourage the media to retire this phrase and, simply call this group of voters by their correct name, the Republican base.
Speech and behaviors can be changed one person at a time. You can start the momentum to retire this phrase in a very simple way -- the next time someone you are talking with mentions the "Tea Party," just cut them off immediately and say, "since it is not a third party, please call these voters by their accurate name, the Republican base." When you do this, you will notice that nearly every person will agree with you that it isn't a separate political party. Perhaps that speaker will start to ask themselves why they keep referring to a third-party that doesn't exist.
Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman
My point in the article is simple, be accurate. It is not a political party yet using that phrase creates the illusion that it is. I prefer to operate in the world of facts, not fiction and media spin.
It's Tea Party country.
Mike
Nothing comes to mind for me. Given that, if people "from all political parties" are joining up and advocating Tea Party values, aren't they really just turning into Republicans? Or, at most, turning into Republicans, plus a little more?
The GOP loves big government just as much as the Dems, for one thing.
The Tea Party is libertarian in nature
GOP supports the religious right, which the Tea Party does not
The Tea Party certainly does have a stronger libertarian streak than the Republicans do, and it certainly comes up on certain issues (TSA screening comes to mind), but I could probably name an equal number of issues where TP preference is solidly authoritarian (immigration enforcement, the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy). And I see the Tea Party's newfound resistance to the social role of government as pretty untested. If more Tea Partiers were talking about balancing the budget with a drawdown in Afghanistan or relaxation of the Drug War, or if they'd actively opposed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, I'd be less skeptical, but the impression I get is that Republicans generally just use the libertarian arguments ascribed to the Tea Party as new, more honest-sounding grounds to oppose things they opposed already.
But here's my question: where were all these devout libertarians during the Bush years? Two wars and an enormous (and, by contemporary TP definition, socialist) medicare expansion all financed entirely with deficit spending, and huge leaps in federal control over civil liberties, law enforcement, and even education, raised barely a peep from the assembled Republican masses. Everyone discovered their love for personal freedom and balanced budgets around the time a President and Congress were elected that wanted to spend money on things Republicans don't like.
The one thing I disagree with you on is the immigration enforcement. I don't think it's authoritarian to insist that people from other countries respect our laws.
But there is a difference with the Tea Party as many of its supporters are already active in the Republican Party. The Tea Party is as much about simplifying ideology of the right to the anti-intellectual basics that give comfort to the rightist base.
The entryism in this case is of attitudes more than ideas or people. It is a mood not a movement.
1. First you say people wonder why there is no Tea Party candidate listed at the voting booth. Then you say Nobody expects a third candidate from the Tea Party. Choose one-you cannot have both.
2. A little history about the original Tea Party would straighten out many. They would understand still more by going to an actual Teaparty website. The original source is always the best. All journalists know that. (if their looking for the truth)
3. The foundational principles of the Teaparty hardly fall in line with either the country club Repubs. or the self-styled Intellectual Dems
4. If the right is courting them it is because it is the best fit. Will the Lefties do it? It's even a ridiculous question to ask.
5. To sum-up: the Teaparty is bringing about fundamental change in most camps. It may be in the form of action or reaction or, mostly by the left - attacks. Fear is indeed a great motivator. The Big-O and his crowd just wish they had a group this enthusiastic. Oh - wait - they did! Remember 2010? Just get-em to the polls and make it happen again-if you can. Just make sure you check for citizenship and a pulse first.
With that in mind, I'll reply point-for-point to the suggestions you have made (kudos for your sense of organization)
1. "some people wondering why, when they went to the polls in 2010, they didn't see any candidates from this party on the ballot." "Nobody expects that in 2012 there will be one presidential candidate from the Democratic Party, one from the Republican Party and a third candidate from the Tea Party." Those statements are not in the least bit contradictory. While some people may have been confused in 2010, today, in September 2011 people don't think that this is a 3rd party with a separate candidate
2. Reading websites is always informative and occasionally they contain accurate information. 3. Please identify which part is not a standard plank of the Republican platform
4. I thank you very much for completely proving the point of my article. QED.
5. These comments aren't related to the article.
They are just normal everyday people that do not like the idea of a nanny state. They want the government to return to limits of the actual real Constitution as the Founders intended. That is not evil it is the proper effort as Ben Franklin said to the lady - "WE GAVE YOU A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."