Is the Tea Party the seed of a new third party?

[96Qowner]

Back in the summer of 2008, I was counting on what Nixon termed "The Silent Majority" to elect a President who had some previous experience in Government, and some power within that Government. I thought at the time, that we needed a old hand like McCain, particularly since we were in some scary economic times. As it turned out, we didn't even know then how scary the economy was. But after September 15th, those people failed us. (Here's a good article on September 15th).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 07164.html

But now the Tea Party has emerged and the polls say that 20% of the electorate supports its principles, as poorly defined as they are. 20% support is nearly as much as either of the two parties currently enjoys. Independents have reversed their support of the Democrats, and have a higher % support of the Tea Party than the Democrats.

I wonder if we aren't seeing a third Party emerge. For many years, I've thought that most Americans are basically Libertarian - most want conservative spending and taxing, and are socially moderate. But the problem in creating a new Party is that there isn't room for three Parties in our government; it simply isn't structured that way. Our congressional system is either/or. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. A new Party can only be created as a substitute for one of the two, or else the new Party will just dilute one of the current parties and split the vote, putting their mutual opposition in power.

I watch the RCP poll averages daily, and it's frightening to me that this Congress and Administration is strongly supported by 25% of my countrymen. But it's only 25%. I think there's a chance to remold the Republican Party into something stronger - something more libertarian. Frank Luntz has a book out called "What Americans Really Want ... Really" I haven't read it, but I heard him talk about it when it first came out and the phrase resonated with me. He basically says we're tired of being conned. We just want the straight scoop. That's what "we" want now. And this book was written before the emergence of the Tea Party. We're tired of the con job, of the talking points, of the "misstatements", of the back door deals, of the "Special" Interests.

Whaddy think? Could we get a new Party out of this?

[heliochrome85]

if the tea party has an actual manifesto. a list of goals, positions, rather than just the angry musings of millions of people, maybe then it will amoount to something. As it stands now, all tea party backed candidates are still on the ticket as the GOP nominee.

[AZhitman]

The angry musings of a bunch of people, at one time, was all that was needed to birth a new country.

We're just talking about a political party.

But you're right - most folks, including some insiders, have no clue what the TP stands for.

[audtatious]

The Tea party is all about the following: Less taxes, smaller Gov, less Gov spending. Period. Pressing "members" to answer questions about abortion, God, conspiracies, etc, and trying to distort the main viewpoint of the "party" is crap and exactly what the media and others are doing. Without any proof you hear how the Tea party is nothing but a bunch of religious rednecks who are violent gun lovers, bigoted and racist. Ask for proof and there is none but the Democrat sheeple are swallowing it hook line and sinker.

[AZhitman]

It makes me wonder, though... does there have to be a "party line" on other topics?

Or can there be a party that says, "Listen, we're negotiable on religion, guns and abortion, AS LONG AS we get smaller government and lower taxes."

[heliochrome85]

dont ever change matt.

[IBCoupe]

No offense intended for Aud, but I refuse to buy into any statement that begins, "The Tea Party is" and ends with anything except "probably a decentralized arrangement of Americans with vaguely Conservative leanings, and more enthusiasm than cohesiveness."

I really don't see the Tea Party as much more than a temporary rise in the anger of mostly libertarian (and some loud wingnut) Republicans. If it lasts beyond this election cycle, I'll be surprised. If it comes back before the 2012 election, I won't be. If it sticks around after that, I will be.

[srellim234]

Interesting this comes up now. This from one of the sites I like:

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/09/15 ... party-2012

[IBCoupe]

The tea party as a third party would split the Republican vote - wouldn't bode well for either in 2012 because it's a bit early to be saying President Obama's going to be weak two years from now. Rahm Emmanuel is all but gone, Obama's replacing advisors, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a different tune post-Midterms.

And that's why you're seeing Republicans shift to encompass the Tea Party; if they don't, they drown.

[heliochrome85]

And that's why you're seeing Republicans shift to encompass the Tea Party; if they don't, they drown.

the case could easily be made that they already have

[IBCoupe]

I'm not so sure. Republicans have been scrambling to jump to the (left? right? libertarian? whatever they are?) Tea Party, but I don't see that as being cause to lose their base. Whereas were the Tea Party to become a real third party, Republicans would lose a large chunk of their constituency... which, at the moment, is their most enthusiastic chunk (don't know if it will be in two years, if it will be anything at all).

[IBCoupe]

On the other hand, the more "wacko" dirt can be dug up on the new batch of Republican nominees and the more Republicans quibble about it, the better Democrats look (assuming they succeed in the strategy of keeping their campaigns local).

Watch for Democratic candidates to raise an eyebrow in disbelief in the debates against Republicans. The more crazy they look, the less appealing they look as representatives to those who don't share that particular brand of crazy.

[96Qowner]

I think a Libertarian/Republican Party is doable. I did some checking, and found an article that says the religious right is about 10% of the population.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 1uddvk.asp

It also says 7% self-identify as religious left.

The sentiment that Luntz talks about is significant, too. I see it all around me. People are tired of the crap, just weary. I wonder if it even registers with people anymore - the talking points and the crafted phrases. We're thinking more about our own realities now, and s*** doesn't help much. I'll make a prediction that negative ads will prove to be pretty ineffective this year. We all could recite the ridiculous scripts from memory. Yeah, yeah, uh huh, "BAD for <insert State here>".

Here's an interview with Luntz:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/1 ... ally-.html

I've been a bit of a politico most of my life, and I have NO illusions about the so-called value or electability of third party candidates, but ... dunno, this one feels different than any election I've been through. Honestly, how could we possibly continue these politics as usual? It's all ridiculous, and everyone knows it. A LOT of people think something has to change. A LOT. And they seem extremely eager to vote.

[C-Kwik]

Pressing "members" to answer questions about abortion, God, conspiracies, etc, and trying to distort the main viewpoint of the "party" is crap and exactly what the media and others are doing. Without any proof you hear how the Tea party is nothing but a bunch of religious rednecks who are violent gun lovers, bigoted and racist.

Problem is, there are some topics outside of the size of government that are important to Americans. In particular, the polarizing issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. I do believe that it would be prudent for people to ask each candidate for their individual positions on the matter (that goes for any party though). Any serious candidate can not avoid such questions. Those that are concerned about such issues (either way) will want to know how such a candidate will vote on it should it come up. Part of the problem is that there has been a tendency for members of each party to generally share similar views on major topics. As such, whether through party self-promotion or by the associations made by voters, voters have become conditioned to expect these topics to be addressed generally by each party. One might speculate that there are a large number of party candidates that share such views because it is the best compromise reached within each respective party through voting.

It makes me wonder, though... does there have to be a "party line" on other topics?

Or can there be a party that says, "Listen, we're negotiable on religion, guns and abortion, AS LONG AS we get smaller government and lower taxes."

Perhaps how you worded this is not exactly what you intended, but why would the negotiability of an issue have to be contingent on the firm stance of another? I might be more receptive as a party statement that the party does not hold their candidates to a firm stance on "other" issues. But as I said above, I would require a candidate to address those "other" issues as individuals so that I can decide whether to vote for them or not. As different people will place different levels of importance and priorities on different issues, they will want to know where such a candidate stands on many of those issues. Or to emphasize my point more simply, one can easily rewrite the statement to read:

"Listen, we're negotiable on size of government and taxes, AS LONG AS we get [insert position on any topic here]."

Would you feel as good about such a candidate if your primary concern was size of government and taxes if there was another candidate that was much more firmly aligned with your views on the size of government and taxes. Probably not. The same is true of other issues for other people.

[AZhitman]

These are indeed unique political times.

ALL partisanship aside (yes, I'm capable), and not to be "bumper-stickery" (damn you IBC), but aside from the ill-advised actions in Iraq, a GWB isn't looking as bad as The Blessed Messiah made him out to be.

[AZhitman]

Chano, you're right, I didn't word it how I meant. I meant, it seems that there's a few non-negotiables, and people are pretty accepting of divergent (non-radical) positions on other things, with each occupying varying levels of importance.

[IBCoupe]

I don't know that it's the meaning you were going for when you wrote "ill-advised," Greg, but there's this public perception that a President's judgment failings are okay because he's presumably going to be surrounded by tons of smart people.

I'm reminded of a piece I heard about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Over the years, there have been a few perceptions of how President Kennedy acted at that time. Each of the public perceptions was crafted by the media, intentionally or otherwise. Shortly after the event, an authorized recount of it was given by an established journalist, who got his information from White House aides. It was a depiction of high tension, lunatic hawks and even crazier doves, and then Kennedy and McNamara in the middle. Then Schlesinger and Sorensen, "palace guards," wrote their memoirs, which filled out more details that the journalist didn't have access to.

Then, in 1971, a new wave of revisionism came through, and where Sorensen had dismissed Kruschev's offer of compromise (Cuban missiles removed for Turkish missiles removed) as propaganda, the new writers saw it as a sign that Kennedy was an unhinged hawk.

Then we hear Kennedy's secret tapes, which recorded him taking Kruschev's offer seriously. He proposes to his advisors they use the offer to resolve the issue after they've made Kruschev sufficiently embarrassed for going out on a limb, but nobody listens. Then when they sit down with Kruschev, and Kruschev offers it again, Kennedy leaps at the opportunity to take it. So where we before had a depiction of clowns to the left and jokers to the right of Kennedy, towards the end of the crisis, it was actually Kennedy versus everybody.

The moral of the story? Often, as the guy with the power, you need to be the smartest man in the room.

The story I got this all from:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/07/03/06

[stebo0728]

The moral of the story? Often, as the guy with the power, you need to be the smartest man in the room.

^^^^ This, and its plagued the oval office for several administrations now. Leading is delegating sure, but how can you expect to keep your gang in line if they speak above your knowledgeability level on an hourly basis.

Knowledgeability - I love making up word

[stebo0728]

I dont see the Tea Party as contingent for being another Political Party, primarily because of what IB points out, there is no cohesive message. Instead I view the individuals of the Tea Party as behaving more in a way that our founding fathers intended the voting populous to behave. I wish all people, regardless of their stances on issues, could learn a lesson from the Tea Party. It may be that the "tea-baggers" are primarily conservative, but they are starting to get the point that its more about the person being elected than it is what party he adheres to. Theres a handful of primaries where the GOP considered the person backed by the Tea Party to be unelectable in the general election. Thats crap, and the PEOPLE proved it, because regardless of what the GOP moonbats had to say, the PEOPLE voted for who they thought best represented their values. Our founding fathers abhored the notion of political parties, and I am starting to feel like perhaps people are starting to understand why, even if they dont realize just yet that the PARTIES are the problem, they are getting there. Liberals could learn a good lesson from the Tea Party as to how to move forward. Both Republican and Democrat parties have been full of self serving, career politicians for a generation now. Its time for that to end. Liberals, start a Coffee Party, and get your own unelectable candidates on the ticket and lets "Git dis pawdy stawded!"

[audtatious]

No offense intended for Aud, but I refuse to buy into any statement that begins, "The Tea Party is" and ends with anything except "probably a decentralized arrangement of Americans with vaguely Conservative leanings, and more enthusiasm than cohesiveness."

I really don't see the Tea Party as much more than a temporary rise in the anger of mostly libertarian (and some loud wingnut) Republicans. If it lasts beyond this election cycle, I'll be surprised. If it comes back before the 2012 election, I won't be. If it sticks around after that, I will be.

Maybe I should have started by saying "The Tea Party was initially about ...." before the media and dems immediately started slanting race and religion into it. Guess I just have to resign myself to the fact that whites can't get together to protest the gov without the color of the President being brought in, abortion, gun rights, etc. being the "hidden agenda".

[audtatious]

there is no cohesive message.

Get a bunch Nissan guys together who are promoting the product. The topic is "Nissan is great as sales have grown by "X"". Then, randomly approach individuals and ask him questions as to his feelings about Nissan and tell me if they will be a "cohesive message".

The Tea Party message is smaller Gov, less taxes and lower/fiscal spending. The rest is just "white noise" being injected around it.

No, I'm not a Tea Partier.

[stebo0728]

Aud, I follow what your saying, and if I were to point at something as being the Tea Party's message, smaller gov, less taxes, less spending would be it. I think the break down between you and IB, is that while the Tea Party may have the underlying theme you describe, which is awesome, im completely on board with that. However I think what IB is looking for is more of a clear message containing precise plans of action to achieve the generalized goal that they esteem.

[IBCoupe]

That and a cohesive plan for everything else, beyond just shrinking government. Great, the tea party's been elected and we've got a smaller government. What do we do in the second month?

Looks something like this:

[audtatious]

So, to have a valid point they need to already have a financial breakdown of what to cut and what to change? No, they need to get people elected that have the same viewpoint so they can get in office and push through to make appropriate decisions on what to change. I saw plenty of demonstrations by Dem groups pushing for UHC and they were not dismissed simply because they didn't have a specific plan in place to meet their goals.

Instead, the focus via news and such is the Tea BAGGERS (a nice slam that is constantly repeated by MSM and others) are generally white which makes them racist, generally believe in God which means they are anti-abortion and all for forcing religion down everyone's throats, generally against gay marriage which makes them homophobes, etc etc etc. This seems to be a common practice today to dismiss the real message and make it about something else by repeating the same misinformation over and over and over.

[heliochrome85]

if you are so mad about how the "Main Stream Media " portrays the Tea Party, where do you suggest we get our news then? Although already established SEVERAL times, most of us get our news from multiple sites. If all portrayals of the Tea Party are similar in that they have significant number of kooks, then how can i take the party seriously? Ill admit that some places have no benefit to promoting the Tea party, but you can not sit there and say the entire media does that. Sounds eerily like a consipiracy theory to me. I don't put that much value on arguments based on conjecture.

[audtatious]

Who's mad? I'm stating my opinion on the subject. There are kooks in everything, hell, look at events put on with Dem groups that always end in storefront windows busted or some form of violence. Judging by that percentage of kooks associated with the Dem party I can simply associate the whole party as one that is for violence if they don't get their way.

[heliochrome85]

Who's mad? I'm stating my opinion on the subject. There are kooks in everything, hell, look at events put on with Dem groups that always end in storefront windows busted or some form of violence. Judging by that percentage of kooks associated with the Dem party I can simply associate the whole party as one that is for violence if they don't get their way.

evidence?

[audtatious]

1ev·i·dence
noun \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1
: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2
: as evidence

[heliochrome85]

the magic carpet i rode to come to this country did infact have a dictionary.

a lack of evidence does not a point make.

[IBCoupe]

So, to have a valid point they need to already have a financial breakdown of what to cut and what to change? No, they need to get people elected that have the same viewpoint so they can get in office and push through to make appropriate decisions on what to change. I saw plenty of demonstrations by Dem groups pushing for UHC and they were not dismissed simply because they didn't have a specific plan in place to meet their goals.

So I'm going to ignore the anti-Media rant and focus on the bits pertinent to what I wrote.

The difference between those "Dem groups" and the Tea Party is that nobody's supposing that those Dem Groups will be a third party in two years. The Democratic Party had more than one specific plan to meet that goal.

And it wasn't even specifically about having a plan to shrink the government upon which I based all of my criticism. Suppose they have a plan and they institute it in the first month. Congratulations, you've just shrunk the size of government and saved the US economy! What are you gonna do next? The problem I see with supposing that the Tea Party will become a real third party is that the response "We're gonna go to Disneyworld" seems like it would fit just as well as anything - as others have pointed out, they don't have any other coherent platform.

What about stem cell research? What about North Korea's upcoming new leader? What about the Pakistani floods? So, maybe you don't have a step-by-step plan. That's forgivable. But not even having a coherent message about the principles upon which you want to stand? That's not. You can't have a real third party without a whole worldview.

If the Tea Party doesn't come up with a cohesive platform that extends beyond a single issue, they'll never become any more prominent than the Green Party.