Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on November 8, 2010 at 8:35pm

Tea Party, the lasting effects?... Hm. Well, while I am tempted to assert they will likely disappear in the next two years, I'm not sure I could say that. What its starting to seem to me is that although the movement can be invalidated in a number of ways, the momentum and the emotions behind it are real. What I haven't seen in peoples responses to this question is the acceptance that nearly 40% of americans are or sympathize strongly with this movement.. and with numbers like that, the failure of such a movement could have much worse repercussions than its success. Consider that if it fails, it will end up leaving a large part of the American public feeling disenfranchised, a large part that is prone to activism, extremist views, and more recently violent rhetoric. They are the most fearful and emotional of active parties right now, easily wooed and incited. Now that they have been roped together under a banner, and have seen some "moderate" success (that amount of success is a matter of opinion~ While elections like last weeks do not happen often, I would not consider it monumental like some have) they now have a concrete agenda that, while it may be unformed as far as policy, comes with certain foggy expectations. Its my contention that the failure of the party might be more harmful to American politics if it doesn't happen through apathy (one of America's strong suits) or at least in some discrete manner. A defeat that would appeal to me (something large and public, like a total "facing" where each tenant of their credos is dispelled and destroyed) would be the worst thing possible, because the people that comprise this movement are emotional, and not particularly smart [in the sense of understanding political philosophy, and issues in general]. they are a ground movement, maybe in a way like the proletariat uprising~ influential in numbers, but not as informed as they should be (only referencing the communist revolution in the sense of the lower class uprising; not to compare policies or political intellect)... So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I personally hope the movement is over in two years, dead in the water, that could be one of the worst things to happen unless it is done in a cautious way, or in a way that isn't inciting. It is the last big bang, more than likely, for many in the "greatest generation" and the "baby boomers," which might be why so many have taken to it. In the next twenty years, I suspect there is going to be a large shift in American politics, as generation X and whatever generation I'm in start to surface as the dominant demographic. [thoughts?]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LarryL on November 8, 2010 at 9:17pm

The thing about emotions is that they are usually fleeting. It's hard to keep that level of intensity up for a 2 hour football game, how will they keep it up for over 2 years? Especially when they see members of their own "team" sitting on the bench while everyone else gets the glory.

I'm sure they'll get all riled up again in 2012, but I think they have hit their peak. Like any team, it's hard to win two big games in a row, especially when you don't have talent or a coherent strategy. Palin will embarrass herself time and time again once she is off Fox News and her true colors will shame many TP'rs. I'm not a particulaly "self-assured" type, so I reserve the right to be wrong.

Re the long term look, there have always been right wing fringe groups and they always fail over time. The progressive position always, always, wins. It might be slower than we would like, and it might seem like 1 step back for every two steps forward, but ultimately we always move forward, not backwards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on November 9, 2010 at 1:47am

It sure seems to me that the 2010 midterms were decided by the people who stayed home, not the Teabaggers who voted. The Dems wussed out like they usually do, so the fired-up progressives who elected Obama sat it out in 2010. And now Obama is actually taking the blame, saying he didn't compromise enough with the GOP on health insurance reform. Incredible, since the Dems pre-emptively caved in on almost every issue, and considering the GOP is incapable of compromise, doesn't want it, and disowns any member who attempts it.

When the GOP is in the minority, they pretty much get everything they want. When they're in the majority, they pretty much get everything they want. The Dems are so afraid of looking like liberals, they can't do anything without a supermajority in every branch.

Fortunately, the GOP will be incapable of governing over the next two years, thanks in large part to the insanity of the Teabaggers. If the Dems have any brains and spine, they'll do everything they can to make the Republican House look like THE problem. We could be in for a decade or two of being whipsawed between the two parties until the increasingly Democratic demographics begin to be felt more intensely or until we get a progressive in the White House who actually sticks to his guns.

Either way, the Tea Party will flame out over the next two years, particularly when Palin makes her next disastrously inept run for the White House.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david perry on November 9, 2010 at 6:31am

Anybody remember the "reform" party?
The only differences I can see is that Perot wasn't as charismatic as Palin or as colorful as the other characters, and his main point turned out to be correct. He was seen by the media as "nuts" as well.
This time, as the tea party wasn't "private property" so to speak, the GOP was able to co-opt it from the beginning. I seem to remember the GOP blaming Perot for the loss of Bush I, and now that I think about it more, there are a lot of parallels that I'm a bit surprised nobody in the media has said much about.
It's now known as "United We Stand".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Riomarcos on November 8, 2010 at 11:18pm

Meanwhile in crazy conservative America...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/08/michigan.asst.attorney.general/ind...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maia Rodriguez on November 10, 2010 at 1:57pm

"Dear Tea Party, you will now get YOURS"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LarryL on November 10, 2010 at 5:20pm

wow, good one Maia.

Love this paragraph:

"But if you are a lower to middle-class Republican, Tea Partier or flip-flopping indie voter, you are now in the most delightfully ironic position of all -- you think you just voted yourself more voice, when in fact you voted for far less. You think yourself a lion; you're actually the meat. You actually just voted yourself an even lower position on the food chain. Congratulations."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maia Rodriguez on November 10, 2010 at 5:31pm

I know! I loved that part, too! It's going to be SO interesting to follow this group of people and see where they go, what happens to their policies, and whether or not they simply fade away. Thought this article expressed my feelings pretty well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on November 11, 2010 at 8:39am

What is REALLY going to be interesting is the infighting that a 'third' party is going to create in a two party system~ Might we see dems and repubs coming together to crush the tea partiers? i sure hope so, that will make some excellent entertainment!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david perry on November 11, 2010 at 10:15am

I still feel this will wind up being a "tempest in a teapot" so to speak.
It's outlived it's usefulness. What began as a serious question about the role of gov't in the financial markets was quickly suborned in to a propaganda tool by the GOP, a.k.a- Karl Rove & co.
The tea baggers that don't get the message will get kicked around by the establishment for a while and then be forgotten. They already gave Bachmann a slap and it seems they're getting ready to give Palin one.(With her, all they have to do is turn off the money spigot) They've already consumed Rand Paul, and the most severe loonies lost. The ones that did get in will learn to tow the party line soon enough.
It never became more than a sideshow.
Which worked to an extent. The could have won the Senate if they would have routed out the crazies from the outset. I think they even tried, but didn't want to risk coming off as too cannibalistic.
What I fear is what they might dream up next.
In a weird wonkish way, this election was good for the left in terms of the long game. Most of the dems that lost were of the "blue dog" variety. They formed a bloc that was very difficult for the establishment democrats to work with. Which, if they play it right, could strengthen their hand for the big election in two years.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on November 11, 2010 at 10:23am

What about the fear of the left moving more center/right now? Its starting to sound like the Pres, and some others, are conceding and might shift more conservative~ exactly the opposite of what is needed. If that happens, we may all be completely fucked. what I can't see is how this election was, to most, a huge victory for republicans~ they didn't capture the senate, and didn't achieve a super majority in congress like the dems did in 08 if I'm not mistaken~ so where is the huge victory? comparatively, they didn't do much but ride the wave of "lets blame who's in power for things largely out of their control," which happens every 2-6 years anyways

It seems like the one thing most in this thread will agree on is the Democrats have been, and likely will continue to be, total pussies. Their ideals, at least obama's, I agree with in principle, if not in actuality, but how are they going to get anything done, ever, if they don't get in peoples faces... and from an article I read today, thats exactly what sets them apart from republicans too~ Individual thought is valued more than rhetoric and leadership~ which is why they are losing... eesh, their best value is their worst asset, how ironic?
Does anyone see any way of this trend changing? Is there anything that can be done? I'm not a democrat by any means, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least that works in this case)


[edited for content]

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 35
• 36
• 37
• Next ›
• Page