Tea Party Movement Dead

[Mael]

I'm actually really sad about this. The worst part being Palin's line (I guess it was a joke) about the speech being on CSPAN when the health care debate wasn't. Which coincidentally Obama addressed (in my estimation well) at his Q&A session with Republican members of congress.

Anyways - if you watched the speech, you saw it for what it was, as discussed in this interesting link. Something fishy to begin with about a meeting that costs several hundred dollars for a ticket that is supposed to be about grass-roots regular Joes who want fiscal conservative-ism. Where you come up with the $500 bucks Joe?

Please actually read the text. Don't pre-judge the subject, I think the author makes some really savvy and well explained judgments and points overall.


http://politics.nashvillepost.com/20...arty-movement/


Beginning Of The End: Sarah Palin Hijacks The Tea Party Movement

The tea party movement is dead. The one I was familiar with anyway. Judson Phillips held it down and Sarah Palin drove a stake right through its heart live last night on C-Span in front of an unsuspecting audience.

Sarah Palin didn’t give a tea party speech last night. She gave a partisan Republican address. It was a purely political speech designed to position her for a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. Period. She wasn’t there to celebrate the organic nature of a movement she had nothing to do with creating. She was there to co-opt the name and claim the brand as hers. And she did.

The movement, that came to be officially recognized almost a year ago but whose roots go back further than that, has been snuffed out and replaced in the public mind. The movement that began as a people’s movement of angry independent, libertarians and conservatives will now be thought as the movement of people like Palin, **** Armey, Judson Phillips, Mark Skoda, etc. Essentially, a wholly owned subsidiary of the “Official Conservative Movement” and the Republican Party.

This new tea party bears no resemblance to the one that began a year ago as a reaction to the collapse of our financial system and the subsequent bailout. That movement of ragtag and unorganized libertarians, independents and conservatives was something new and unique. An authentic protest movement angered not just by the new President, Barack Obama, who had presided over the bailouts but the president who started the ball rolling and whose incompetence had led to the crisis in the first place, George W. Bush.

The people we saw on the steps of Legislative Plaza and county courthouses across the state last year weren’t “movement conservatives.” Certainly the movement conservatives were there at those protests but the tea parties were much bigger in size, scope and concept than just traditional modern conservatism reheated. Last night, the professional conservatives fixed that for good.

For over a year the media has struggled to try and define just what exactly the movement was. Now they have a definition.

Sarah Palin.

Palin, while explicitly saying the movement had no leader, implicitly offered herself up as one. After this speech, which was widely covered on the internet and carried on television, the tea party movement and Sarah Palin will be inextricably intertwined.

So with the spotlight on her and the attention of the curious media surrounding her what did she present as a tea party agenda? What did she discuss?

Ronald Reagan, national defense and superficial deficiencies of the current democratic occupant of the White House. Wow. In all honesty, the speech could have just as easily been given in 1994 as in 2010 which, of course, was the last time Republican operatives and professional conservatives sought to exploit an authentic populist movement of the center-right.

Ronald Reagan? Are you serious? Three times the name was invoked during the speech. Sure, it was his birthday but it serves to remind us what kind of crowd this was in front of those C-Span cameras.

These weren’t the people who were out protesting. This weren’t regular folks. This was the same old network of conservative hacks, flacks, publicists and hangers-on. This was Conservative Inc.

Ronald Reagan has nothing to do with the tea party movement. Nothing. Ronald Reagan is the past. The GOP’s past, no less. The tea party movement was supposed to be the future.

The fact that Palin even has the temerity to position herself as a leader in the movement (and despite her protests that’s exactly what she was doing) is offensive to any student of very, very recent political history. Palin, as mavericky and rogue as she likes to paint herself, was the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party in 2008. She ran with John McCain and defended the Bush legacy. A project she continued last night in front of a faux-tea party audience.

In her remarks, Palin praised the Senator from Arizona and chastised the current President for blaming the past one for his problems. Now, I don’t know every tea partier out there but I do know a few and I don’t remember any of them having a whole lot of good to say about President Bush or John McCain. While they don’t have much positive to say about Barack Obama there no love for George Bush either.

And when did the tea party movement get a foreign policy? I didn’t put a clock on it but the first portion of Palin’s speech seemed very heavy on the neoconservatism.

Palin expressed dismay about the fact that President Obama spent only “9 percent” of the State of the Union on foreign policy and stated that Americans “deserve to know the truth about the threats we face and what the administration is or isn’t doing about them.”

She talked about “homicide” Bombers and the slammed the administration of its handling of the man who plotted to take down a Detroit airliner on Christmas Day.

“Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this,” she told the assembled at Opryland. “They know we’re at war. And to win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”

Judson Phillips and Sarah Palin

Palin talked about standing up to Iran, defending Israel and making the world safe for Democracy. All noble goals, I suppose, but what was she doing justifying and perpetuating the foreign policy of George Bush at a tea party convention?

The tea party I’m familiar with was concerned more about the collusion of big business and big government than the War in Iraq. The tea party I’m familiar with was more concerned about rejecting the bailout of Wall Street while looking for ways reinvigorate the economy of Main Street than looking for Al-Qaeda. The tea party I’m familiar with seemed more concerned about restoring the Republic at home than Democracy abroad.

Almost from start finish, Sarah Palin outlined an agenda that either ignored or de-emphasized the issues and the spirit that the tea parties were founded on.

Sure, there was some of the old school tea party rhetoric in there for flavor but, for a keynote address to a movement that at its inception was very radical, there was nothing radical about Sarah Palin’s speech. It was derivative circa 2004 neoconservatism as far as I could tell.

But the media now have their definition of what it means to be Tea Party. This convention gave them simplistic nativism, birtherism, media bashing, homophobia, and a heavy does of neoconservative foreign policy.

That is the image of tea partydom that Judson Phillips poured out to the eager media this weekend and is now percolating through the many channels of mass and new media.

By Monday afternoon, it will begin to harden and the tea party movement will be Sarah Palin’s movement.

And that is no tea party at all.

[RainCloud]

Haven't read the article yet but this caught my eye:

Anyways - if you watched the speech, and didn't drink too much kool-aid, you saw it for what it was

Sooo.... Were their cookies with this kool-aid? And I hope you left before you finished the kool-aid because we all knows what happens if you finish the kool-aid :P

[Dinwar]

Hm....Haven't had time to read everything, but this stuck out:

That movement of ragtag and unorganized libertarians, independents and conservatives was something new and unique. An authentic protest movement angered not just by the new President, Barack Obama, who had presided over the bailouts but the president who started the ball rolling and whose incompetence had led to the crisis in the first place, George W. Bush.

Any group needs a leader--someone to figure out where you're going next. See Athenian military history for a perfect examle of why. In the absence of a leader, such a large organization is going to create one, capture one, or be captured by one. The Tea Party didn't have any truly great orators (at least, not as far as Americans today are concerned), and did not capture a leader (to avoid being captured), so they were captured. Nature abhores a vacuum.

Ronald Reagan has nothing to do with the tea party movement. Nothing. Ronald Reagan is the past. The GOP’s past, no less. The tea party movement was supposed to be the future.

The past is a bad thing to remember? Is this author promoting range-of-the-moment thinking? Would he say the same thing about quoting Aristotle, or Socrates?

The tea party I’m familiar with was concerned more about the collusion of big business and big government than the War in Iraq. The tea party I’m familiar with was more concerned about rejecting the bailout of Wall Street while looking for ways reinvigorate the economy of Main Street than looking for Al-Qaeda. The tea party I’m familiar with seemed more concerned about restoring the Republic at home than Democracy abroad.

Political parties cannot exist on a single goal. The Democrates have Socialism and the Republicans have Christianity--both full-fledged philosophies, both of which can drive national groups. Economics is important, but hardly enough to get a political party rolling.

Oops...Guess I could read it all after all! :P Anyway, the critique is interesting, but lacking any real depth. It's merely reactionary--"This sounds like Bush again!", wihtout thinking about the real issues here. Than again, so's the Tea Party movement if if only aplies to economics, so I guess that's fair.

[Mael]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Hm....Haven't had time to read everything, but this stuck out:

Any group needs a leader--someone to figure out where you're going next. See Athenian military history for a perfect examle of why. In the absence of a leader, such a large organization is going to create one, capture one, or be captured by one. The Tea Party didn't have any truly great orators (at least, not as far as Americans today are concerned), and did not capture a leader (to avoid being captured), so they were captured. Nature abhores a vacuum.

Kinda sad though I think personally. Just about anyone but her... :(

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The past is a bad thing to remember? Is this author promoting range-of-the-moment thinking? Would he say the same thing about quoting Aristotle, or Socrates?

I'm ignoring this one cause I am too dumb to frame a counterargument, even if I wanted to hehe. Ignoring the fact that you just compared Reagan to Aristotle ;)

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Political parties cannot exist on a single goal. The Democrates have Socialism and the Republicans have Christianity--both full-fledged philosophies, both of which can drive national groups. Economics is important, but hardly enough to get a political party rolling.

Oops...Guess I could read it all after all! :P Anyway, the critique is interesting, but lacking any real depth. It's merely reactionary--"This sounds like Bush again!", wihtout thinking about the real issues here. Than again, so's the Tea Party movement if if only aplies to economics, so I guess that's fair.

Your reactions are fair and your concessions are appreciated. The purpose wasn't to convince anyone of anything - and the title certainly is more attention grabbing than accurate. I just really couldn't have thought of anything worse than a Palin keynote for a Tea Party rally. Maybe if someone had just lit the whole place on fire? Nah, Palin's influence will likely be more detrimental long-term.

That the piece is largely reactionary is well put though - but as you know, I'm a reactionary kind of guy :)

[Gwynasyn]

I'm a bit sad about it too. When I first heard about the initial movement I was stirred to a great respect of those involved. At first it seemed to be a truly sincere and spontaneous reaction of outrage by a goodly number of people to the political and economic situation. Thats something we seldom see nowadays.

Even as the movement was appropriated and became more and more staged by the mainstream, rather than the grassroots folk who began it, even more people joined in on what still seemed to be a sincere and spontaneous involvement. Kind of like they only just saw a group of protesters marching down the street and on the spot decided to join them. Spontinaeity (sp?) is a great sign of sincerety, IMO. And "sincere" and "politics" are too seldom seem in anything political.

I can respect that kind of thing a lot, not in spite of the fact that I am extremely apathetic with politics (due to disgust) but BECAUSE I am extremely apathetic. I love the fact that people can be sincerely passionate about their government and economy and voice their opinion in such a great manner. It shows that they care. I know I really shouldn't be apathetic about politics since its so important, so the fact that I see people like these actually caring is a good sign for me.

I'm just sorry that I still can't give two golden nuggets about it...

[Dinwar]

Kinda sad though I think personally. Just about anyone but her... :(

Never said it was a good thing, merely an inevitable thing. If not her, it'd have been someone worse.

The purpose wasn't to convince anyone of anything - and the title certainly is more attention grabbing than accurate.

We need more of that. Less "You have to see things my way" and more "I wonder where this discussion will go". :)

Spontinaeity (sp?) is a great sign of sincerety, IMO. And "sincere" and "politics" are too seldom seem in anything political.

I'd have been happier if they were less spontaneous and more thoughtful. Like I said, a single issue isn't enough to sustain any political party--we've demonstrated that amply in the past. You need a coherent philosophy, including ethics and metaphysics at minimum, which these guys didn't have. The Republicans and Democrats, whatever else you can say about them, do, and so will always win against something like the Teaparty Movement. They reacted against the Democrats, and actually have the foundations of conservativism already in place (fiscally, at least), and so were easy to take over by Republicans. Hell, most liberal commentators have been saying they were radical GOP sects since the beginning. If they'd taken the time to formulate the differences between themselves and the Republicans, there may have been a shot.

All that said, Palin may not have taken anything over. Politicians are basically ruled by the pack. If the pack wants them to be more fiscally conservative, they will be. Palin is really no exception. While she may dominate the Tea Party movement right now, I wonder who will dominate whom in the long run.

[Alfie]

Victor, would you try and hammer cold steel into a tool?
IMO, Americans are hot,but they're not white hot! They're angry, but not angry enough to do what it will take for change. It will take more than Sarah Palin, that was just putting insult to injury. I wouldn't be surprised if that whole dinner deal was a ploy to kill the movement, I'm sure it did for some.
Politicians use history as a guide to what works. I think it would be fitting if we did the same.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Wise words that are still true 200 years later.

[Gwynasyn]

EDIT: Dammit, Alfie ninja'd my SOT "iron" analogy borrowing :P

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I'd have been happier if they were less spontaneous and more thoughtful.

I'd have been happier if that came after the spontaneous response of outrage. The problem I have with careful planning is it being too contrived and controlled NOT by the people themselves, but manipulated and then harnessed by politicians and other people with their own personal agenda.

Thats why I like the element of spontanaeity, it is so sudden that it HAS to be sincere and true to the people themselves. The lack of leadership is ALMOST a good thing. The perfect scenario IMO would be for an eloquent Joe Everyday a la Richard Rahl to give it subtle but proper direction rather than manipulation and control.

I.e., show them the door (revolution vs Imperial Order via his statue) and let THEM open it.

[Alfie]

EDIT: Dammit, Alfie ninja'd my SOT "iron" analogy borrowing :P

LOL , Sorry At least we're on the same page.

[Gwynasyn]

Imitation is the highest form of flattery y'know ;)