28
   

IS THE "TEA PARTY" REALLY A POPULIST MOVEMENT?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 01:44 pm
@georgeob1,
Georgeob1 wrote:
I think Milton would have argued that the laws in question came only after the supply of labor became more nearly equal to demand, and in effect made legal requirements of conditions the labor market was also demanding.

That's not my recollection from reading Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose. My recollection of Friedman's narrative is that child labor laws came after economic growth had made them affordable, and that this growth was largely generated by economic freedom.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 08:02 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I wonder if those here whining about the Koch brothers and Robert Murdoch would be content applying the same "logic" to the motives of George Soros and the owners/managers of the liberal press.

It depends on what you are calling "the liberal press". A press that reports the news and appears to do so with little bias isn't the liberal press. It is the press working the way it is supposed to work.

In my view there isn't much of that left in the country. What we get from almost all quarters is highly partisan. This is particularly true of the most effective voices on Blogs and the TV.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 08:03 pm
@Thomas,
I think we are saying the same thing.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 09:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I disagree. We're both making assertions about hypothetical situations. You are asserting we would stil have child labor, unsafe working conditions and unsafe products, presumably at the same levels of incidence without the Federal laws & regulations to which you refer; I am asserting that even without these laws, sy=uch things would be far less frequent now.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 10:20 pm
@PUNKEY,
I understand your sentiments, but when they are seen carrying signs proclaiming socialism and comparing our president to Hitler it's hard not to use those type of words.

I understand the anger. I'm not entirely happy either, but I don't understand the misdirection. "They" seem to believe just about anything that gives them something to be angry about.

There are countless examples where statements are made about losing our constitutional rights that are completely unfounded.

0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 10:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Nail

Head


You have a way of getting to the point.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 10:33 pm
@EmperorNero,
Wow

A tea party mantra

Unfortunately, complete BS.

How well did repealing Glass Steagal work out?

I read Milton Friedman too and it sounds good, except it is based on a utopian world, which will never exist. It also depends upon a well informed and good decision making consumer, which will never exist. What effect does the advertising of pharmaceuticals have on the market? Why is that advertising necessary and why does it work?

Our recent economic collapse is a fine example of the results.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 27 Aug, 2010 11:17 pm
@Thomas,
Two books that significantly shaped the lives of thousands of young American women were partially set during the Civil War: Little Women and Gone with the Wind. Both novels depicted women struggling against poverty.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 12:14 am
Yes, it certainly is.

It's quite pathetic that those who oppose the positions that the movement generally extolls, feel the need to undermine it by asserting all sorts of nonsense borrowed from Frank Rich.

Spend your time arguing against these positions, rather than creating fanciful conspiracy theories that hope to undermine them.

I'm a member of the movement and I assure you that no big shot Republican has paid me to attend a rallly.

Spend your time focusing on such silly charges because it will enable you all to be swept away.
msolga
 
  2  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 02:29 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I'm a member of the movement....


Could I ask you what membership of the Tea Party involves, Finn?
Apart from attending organized rallies & events, do rank & file members in your local community (& all the other communities) attend regular local meetings, formulate resolutions, endorse broad party policy, etc?
How does the party actually work? I think you're the first member I've come across here.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 06:27 am
A local blogger spends their Saturday with the Lynchburg Tea Party

Quote:

The Tea Party Experience: In the crowd at the Glenn Beck rally
http://images.tbd.com/politics/scene-hess-ap_606.jpg
Today, I'll be embedded with the Lynchburg Tea Party at "Restoring Honor," Glenn Beck's "non-political" rally for "integrity, truth and honor" on the National Mall. Stay with us all day for an inside look at the event, from the perspective of Virginia's most dedicated tea partiers.


Full article here

I'm particularly interested with the local aspect of the Tea Party's interaction with Washington, DC. Part of the article asks who is more hostile to who: The Tea Party to DC or DC to the Tea Party? When asked about this topic, many TP members provide replies about the central government, but rarely appreciate the local community/city itself for it's own culture.

The District of Columbia is overwhelmingly a liberal city, and the conflict (perhaps "animosity") between locals and TP rally members is inflated to a degree.

I have no doubt that TP members are resented when they visit DC. They complain about wanting more public transit options while making the daily commute for locals much harder. Meanwhile, they complain about taxation, in a place that doesn't have representation. It's hard to see how they hope to get sympathy.

From Overheard in DC:
Quote:
At Safeway:

A couple, both wearing "Palin for President AND Vice President 2008" shirts, are buying a 12 pack of Budweiser.

The clerk tells them it's $9.50. The couple then starts complaining that they're gouging people in town for the rallies, demands to speak to the manager, and that it's un-American.

Cashier: "No sir, that is capitalism."

I can kind of jive with the whole the "government works for me" vibe. That's cool, but when you reduce Washington to nothing more than the Feds, and then treat local businesses as if you own them too, you're not going to be a welcome guest. The cashier at Safeway is not a fed, and enthusiastic TP'ers need to remember this.

Perhaps the TP should remember that marches are nothing special in this city. Marches are something you plan your daily commute around. They aren't going to be greeted with some sort of awe and privilege.

A
R
T
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 05:49 pm
@failures art,
Will read this later. I think the blogger is very brave. I wouldn't want to be among people as crazy as the Tea Totalitarians.
Pemerson
 
  1  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 06:51 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

I'd have to dig it up but there was numerous reports on who funds the Tea Party. This information came out early last year when they were trying to sell themselves as "grassroots."

Lots of corporate money.


Have you heard of the Koch brothers, Charles and David? They are both billionaires, who are libertarians and have given more than $100 billion to right wing causes? Just recently I read (newspaper) that they are supporting the Tea Party
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 08:32 pm
@plainoldme,
Disappointed in the blog. There was no there there.
failures art
 
  1  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 08:46 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Disappointed in the blog. There was no there there.

What was disappointing? I think that they did a good job putting their views aside and simply interacted with the people themselves. Exercises in empathy are great ways to make breakthroughs and bridge gaps.

A
R
T
msolga
 
  3  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 08:48 pm
You have no idea how bewildering it is to someone trying to comprehend this "movement" from the other side of the planet. Yes, I'm fully aware of what many here (& in the media) have been saying about the about the political motivations for this movement, the powerful forces behind it ..
.. but what really intrigues me is what is actually motivating the Tea Party (& co.) participants in events like yesterday's rally in Washington. (That's why I asked Finn my question above, I honestly don't "get" it. )

Generally speaking, if there's such a large movement of ordinary people behind some powerfully unifying idea, then they have genuine grievances & clear goals they wish to achieve as a result of their engagement. In this case, I'm genuinely bewildered. I really wish that some of the Tea Party supporters here would enlighten me.

From the NYT report on the rally :

Quote:
... in an interview aired Sunday, Mr. Beck denied any political motivation — or political aspiration — and shrugged off conservatives’ suggestions that his ability to mobilize so large a crowd made him presidential material.

“There’s nothing we can do that will solve the problems that we have and keep the peace unless we solve it through God,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”..

...Mr. Beck imbued his remarks with references to God, and he urged a religious revival.

....While Tea Party groups have said they want to focus on fiscal conservatism, not religion or social issues, the rally was overtly religious.


What exactly are the USA's "problems" that Glenn Beck speaks of & how can they be "solved" through God? If this isn't a politically motivated movement, but a religious one, why was this huge crowd addressed by a prominent talk show host & a former Republican vice presidential candidate (yes, I know about their political positions)& not by prominent religious leaders ?


I don't know what to make of Glenn Beck's comments about Obama & “liberation theology,” at all. Does this mean that his followers are opposed to social justice in the US? That it somehow works against their own interests & beliefs? How?

Quote:
He said he had come to see Mr. Obama not as a racist but as an advocate of “liberation theology,” which he said pitted victims against oppressors. Liberation theology has generally been used in reference to a movement, begun in the Roman Catholic Church in poor parts of Latin America in reaction to social injustice, that some critics say has been taken over by leftists.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/politics/29beck.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

It is also very interesting to me, the appropriation of powerful American symbolic events like the Boston Tea Party & the anniversary Martin Luther King's civil rights rally this broad movement.
Do the participants of this movement really believe their grievances (what ever exactly they might be) are of the same nature & scale as those first seeking independence from the British, or those African-Americans who fought for their civil rights in the 1960s?
If so, what do they perceive to be the nature of their own oppression? (Paying too much tax? Feeling disfranchised or ignored by their own government? Religious motivations? The decline of the US economy? A combination of all of these & more?)

It's interesting that (according to the NYT article) that the Republican party has attempted to "distance" itself from yesterday's rally.

I hope this post doesn't sound naive & disingenuous ...
I do follow political events in the US fairly closely I am aware of various attempts, by various organizations' consistent efforts, to destabilize Obama's administration ... but I am genuinely intrigued about why so many are clearly involved in this broad "movement". Are we to believe that they are mindlessly being led by the nose by powerful forces, that they have no minds of their own? What's in it for them? What do they actually want?






plainoldme
 
  1  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 08:50 pm
@failures art,
No content. Empathy? Bland, bland, bland! Skimmed the surface.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 09:07 pm
@msolga,
Excellent post msolga. These questions you're having from abroad are the same as they are here at point blank.

Setting aside the large corporate investment in the Tea Party, and speaking to the people who identify with the the group, my main observation is this.

If there is any grievance to be had in the USA it would be for all of us. The fact that the Tea Party seems to believe they have a grievance is one thing, but somehow a grievance that seems to almost uniformly motivate white Christians exclusively is not something I believe.

I think this isn't anything new, it's just a very successful brand on reactionary politics. Those definitely aren't new.

A
R
T
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 09:21 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
Setting aside the large corporate investment in the Tea Party
Documentation please.. Who says that the Corporate class is funding the Tea Party??? What is their basis for this assessment??

Quote:

By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 8/9/10 4:38 AM EDT

Some leading tea party activists are concerned that their efforts to reshape American politics, starting with the 2010 elections, are being undermined by a shortage of cash that’s partly the result of a deep ambivalence within the movement’s grass roots over the very idea of fundraising and partly attributable to an inability to win over the wealthy donors who fund the conservative establishment.

Many tea party organizations have shied away from the heavy-handed solicitations that flood the e-mail boxes of political activists. And the handful of tea party groups that have raised substantial amounts, either by embracing aggressive fundraising or through pre-existing connections to wealthy donors, are viewed suspiciously within the movement.

Local groups have been left to literally pass hats seeking donations at their meetings or rely on their organizers’ bank accounts, while some national groups have failed to live up to their bold fundraising predictions.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40800.html#ixzz0y3VlKPKr
Rockhead
 
  2  
Sun 29 Aug, 2010 09:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
bet...
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/20/2024 at 11:15:44