IS THE "TEA PARTY" REALLY A POPULIST MOVEMENT?

A college classmate wanted to be a member of the John Birch Society, as her mother was, but the mother advised against it as the girl was going into the service and her mother feared her daughter would be denied her commission.

This student drifted around campus, eavesdropping on conversations. When the talk included anything political, she would pipe up, "You've been duped by the Communists."

In honor of her peskiness, I have often told people (or thought to myself), "You've been duped by the Capitalists."

I'm sitting here with my jaw nearly broken from dropping because of your post about the Tea Totalitarians objecting to the removal of phosphates from dish washing detergents.

I have felt from the first time I heard of these people that were they to gain power, they would destroy the planet.

But (if we're too take that Guardian article as an accurate appraisal of the situation & not all here do), yes, they might just destroy the planet. But would they actually comprehend how & why they did it?

You feel exactly the way I do.

While this squib does not mention the Tea Party nor does it identify the attackers, the story supports a concern my daughter and I have: that the extreme right-wing will resort to violence:

Rand Paul supporter stomps on woman's head
BY STEVE KORNACKI

A little while ago, I posted my analysis of Monday night's final debate between Rand Paul and Jack Conway, concluding that the GOP nominee had evaded tough questions and avoided making any costly gaffes.

What I didn't know at the time was what happened outside the debate just before it started. It was there that a female activist from MoveOn, who was attempting to deliver a facetious award to Paul for his corporate-friendly views, was set upon by Paul supporters and knocked to the ground -- at which point one of the Paul backers stomped her head. The whole scene was captured on video by a local Fox station, with the footage leading its late newscast. So while Paul probably avoided generating any damaging headlines during the debate, his supporters, it seems, did the job beforehand.

David Crockett was one of history's greatest stump speakers. He was elected to the Tennessee legislature and then Congress twice entirely based on his ability to speak ex tempore, whipping up the crowd by expressing their resentments.

In the Tennessee legislature, having been elected on the ticket which would soon become the Democratic Party, he immediately proposed land sale legislation which was not only contrary to the agenda of the party, but not even in the interest of those who elected him. He twice managed to get elected to the Congress, by the expedient of campaigning in two different districts. By the time he ran for a third term, he had run out of Tennessee--even those in the far western counties knew better by then. He said if not elected the voters could go to Hell and he would go to Texas. We all know with what result when he arrived in Texas.

He was a complete disaster in Congress, for his constituents, and for the party of which he was a part. I see the tea party candidates as likely to repeat that performance. I doubt the tea party have the numbers to elect anyone, so such candidate need to get support from other voters. i doubt that they will keep that support for very long.

Comprehension seems a lot to ask from them!

If Tea Partiers want to be taken seriously as a political group, they probably should avoid stomping on people's heads.

Cycloptichorn

I had no idea that Crockett served more than one term in Congress. Stumping in two districts was certainly an original move on his part.

Well, there was a whole culture of frontier drifters who would clear land, build a cabin and then sell the land and move west. Crockett was one of them, but the ploy was not unique to him. By the time he ran for Congress in 1834, he had run out of room in Tennessee, and voters of the western counties were all too familiar with his political uselessness--and, of course, he did not have the support of the Democratic Party.

Among those promoted by the tea party clowns, the only ones who will survive politically are those who can work with the Republican Party and not publicly embarrass them. Crockett could not work with the Democrats, and he eventually became a public embarrassmet to just about everyone, being the only one who didn't realize it.

I 'm sure glad that u never accused ME of that!!!

O, the ignominy!





David

I am bemused by the several posts here, pasting articles from a foreign newspaper, well-known for a very strong left wing bias (The UK Guardian) including, among other things, an article bemoaning the fact that certain "foreign" corporations are attempting to influence domestic U.S. elections - while it does, and persistently continues to do, exactly the same thing.

This is merely propaganda from an external source, beating its own familiar drum and which that has more urgent tasks at home, where its political positions have been largely rejected by voters in their recent elections.

I am also bemused by the persistent interest of foreigners in our domnestic affairs. Their lives at home evidently lack sufficient local color or content.

George, I may be quite wrong, but this appears to be your first post on this thread. I can't recall reading any contributions from you before now. So I find it a little odd that you haven't addressed the thread topic: Is the Tea Party Really a Populist Movement? I would personally have been interested to hear your views on that subject. What do you have to say?



I won't deny that the Guardian is a left -leaning newspaper. And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with a counter to Fox News for some balance? I find it a very informative publication, actually, on all sorts of material & refer to it often. (I have no recollection of you objecting to Guardian articles in the "whales" thread, which you participated in. But apparently this newspaper's material regarding the Tea Party is an issue for you now)
Yes, the Guardian is based in the UK, but it's US correspondents are based in the US. Do you believe they are somehow out of line when they publish articles & opinion pieces on political developments in the US, or any other country for that matter? Are US newspapers & the US media the only acceptable sources of information & opinion for you about Tea Party developments? Would you find Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper's reporting on Tea Party developments more acceptable that the Guardian's articles? They would definitely not be left-leaning.



The 2 Guardian articles I've posted here recently are not all that much different in content & tone than quite a number of US-based articles & videos that I've come across on various US political threads on A2K, for quite some time now. Are such views "propaganda" only when then come from a non-US source? (And might I remind you that the outcome of the last British election was hardly some sort of ringing endorsement of conservative politics in the UK. It was a cliff-hanger, won by the tip of a nose .. if you were paying attention at the time.)



And I am bemused by your statement, George!
The only "foreigner" I've seen recently (if at all) on this thread is me.
I gather you are saying that you are "bemused" by my participation?
I gather you are saying that the subject of this thread should be out of bounds to me, because I'm not American?
You know, I think that's a pretty narrow, unfortunate & excluding view ... not just about this thread, but to any A2K discussion. It is very unusual for any A2K member to advocate the exclusion of other members from any discussion. That is not what this board is about, I would have thought.

Let me tell you why I am involved in this discussion, George.
It's because I am very, very interested. As simple as that.
I'm sorry you have a problem with my interest & participation, but too bad.
Further, I have found my discussions with US a2Kers on this thread just about my only opportunity to discuss the Tea Party & it's activities directly with people in which these political developments are occurring. I've valued that enormously. The internet is really a wonderful thing.



By which you mean that Australia is so boring that I must seek excitement via US political threads, George?
You are so wrong.
As I said to you before, during our recent exchange on another thread, I'm very interested in my own country. I am a prolific poster about Oz culture & Oz politics on this board! There are not too many of us here, but we matter. Whether you think so or not.
Maybe the problem is that you've never bothered to look beyond your own narrow interests on A2K?

Anyway .. a long response.
I'm thinking maybe you were looking for a fight, George?
Sorry to disappoint you.
I am not so much angry with you as dismayed by your pettiness.
Sad.

That's either willfully disingenuous, or very poorly thought out. What happens here can and often does affect everyone on the planet. I consider such a statement as akin to a Roman complaining about an undue interest that Palmyra might have had in internal Roman affairs.

Speaking of being bemused. I am beyond bemused of why Palin has so much influence given the words she uses in her speeches. (I know I don't have any room to talk but I am not any kind of political leader.)



source

I mean really, "mavericky" is that even a word?

Are you refudiating that???

Well Palmyra and the rest of Syria had a Roman Governor (post Trajan) and therefore a critical self interest in the affairs of the imperial government in Rome. I don't think your analogy quite fits the supposed populist authenticity of a domestic political movement ostensibly focused on limiting the cost and intrusiveness of our government in our domestic policies. Perhaps if you placed the event earlier and involving (say) the conflict between the Populares and the Patricians led by the Gracchi brothers, the analogy might be apt, and the Palmyran interest would likely have bemused and annoyed the Romans as well.

Palmyra was an independent city from the mid-4th centurry BCE until the mid-first century CE. In the period before they were overrrun by the Romans, it ought to be pretty obvious why they would take a narrow interest in what happened in Rome's internal affairs.

The point, about which you are being obtuse, is that the same applies to modern nations, who look with an understandable trepidation at the intenal affairs of the United States.

You are partly right and I am indeed , knowingly, being a bit obtuse about the analogy. However, there are two distinct but legitamate perspectives on the matter, and my heart is pure.

Goddamned Jesuits . . . look what they did to the boy . . .