The best summary of the tea party I've read

[borrofburi]

Ok it's not really a summary: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904

So most of you hate the tea party... What many of you don't know (except maybe Joe, in the case that he remembers) is that I was quite sympathetic to the tea party, at first... I've consistently reminded people that hey, it wasn't all bad, it was nice when they started out, before they got corrupted by the GoP and before a bunch of... well generally racist and ignorant supporters became the core of the movement...

And now finally I've happened to run across a very nice summary of what happened (emphasis all mine):

The original Tea Party was launched by a real opponent of the political establishment , Rand Paul's father, Ron, whose grass-roots rallies for his 2008 presidential run were called by that name. The elder Paul will object to this characterization, but what he represents is something of a sacred role in American culture: the principled crackpot. He's a libertarian, but he means it. Sure, he takes typical, if exaggerated, Republican stances against taxes and regulation, but he also opposes federal drug laws ("The War on Drugs is totally out of control" and "All drugs should be decriminalized"), Bush's interventionist wars in the Middle East ("We cannot spread our greatness and our goodness through the barrel of a gun") and the Patriot Act; he even called for legalized prostitution and online gambling.

Paul had a surprisingly good showing as a fringe candidate in 2008, and he may run again, but he'll never get any further than the million primary votes he got last time for one simple reason, which happens to be the same reason many campaign-trail reporters like me liked him: He's honest. An anti- war, pro-legalization Republican won't ever play in Peoria, which is why in 2008 Paul's supporters were literally outside the tent at most GOP events, their candidate pissed on by a party hierarchy that preferred Wall Street-friendly phonies like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Paul returned the favor, blasting both parties as indistinguishable "Republicrats" in his presciently titled book, The Revolution. The pre-Obama "Tea Parties" were therefore peopled by young anti-war types and libertarian intellectuals who were as turned off by George W. Bush and Karl Rove as they were by liberals and Democrats.

The failure of the Republican Party to invite the elder Paul into the tent of power did not mean, however, that it didn't see the utility of borrowing his insurgent rhetoric and parts of his platform for Tea Party 2.0. This second-generation Tea Party came into being a month after Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office, when CNBC windbag Rick Santelli went on the air to denounce one of Obama's bailout programs and called for "tea parties" to protest. The impetus for Santelli's rant wasn't the billions in taxpayer money being spent to prop up the bad mortgage debts and unsecured derivatives losses of irresponsible investors like Goldman Sachs and AIG , massive government bailouts supported, incidentally, by Sarah Palin and many other prominent Republicans. No, what had Santelli all worked up was Obama's "Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan," a $75 billion program less than a hundredth the size of all the bank bailouts. This was one of the few bailout programs designed to directly benefit individual victims of the financial crisis; the money went to homeowners, many of whom were minorities, who were close to foreclosure. While the big bank bailouts may have been incomprehensible to ordinary voters, here was something that Middle America had no problem grasping: The financial crisis was caused by those lazy minorities next door who bought houses they couldn't afford , and now the government was going to bail them out.

You should read the whole thing, it seems to be quite good (I've only really read 2/5ths of it, but it's nice to finally have the history (that I personally didn't know very well, I just knew that I liked the tea parties, and then later that they were racist and crazy and I didn't and wouldn't have liked that) so well laid out.

Here's another set of interesting reading (particularly the part of the tea party): http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Here's another set of interesting reading (particularly the part of the tea party): http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

yeah, i enjoyed that myself and quoted it here

i quite like bob altemeyer's research as a whole and often use it against those who claim nazis aren't right wing because right wing is all about "liberty" when in reality Govt size and "liberty" are not the determiner for these things, Coservativism btw is a broad political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society. its something which can be achieved with or without the "small govt" idea of politics. and right wing and left best refer to the political economy as far as i make out, I've expanded on this elsewhere so no need to do so here.

on another sidenote, here's a couple of abstracts from other papers regarding altemeyer.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Political Intolerance among Whites in the Future Majority-Rule South Africa[/url]"]The anti-Black prejudice, ethnocentric ingroup preference, and affinity for right-wing politics and ideology of White right-wing authoritarians in South Africa suggest that they should be particularly opposed to political intolerance and infringements on civil liberties by a future Black, left-wing, majority rule government. In this study, conducted in August 1992 with 79 White South African students, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale (Altemeyer, 1981) showed a strong positive correlation with anti-Black racial prejudice and a negative correlation with anti-White attitudes. However, the RWA scores were negatively associated with support for political tolerance by a new majority-rule government, despite indications that the intolerance would be directed against conservatives opposing the new state. This finding is consistent with a previous finding that right-wing authoritarians were more ready to persecute not only left-wing but also right-wing groups proscribed by governmental authorities, and it suggests that political intolerance, rather than ethnocentrism, ingroup loyalty, or right-wing politics, is fundamental to the authoritarian syndrome.

Two Peoples in One Land. A Validation Study of Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale in the Palestinian and Jewish Societies in Israel[/url]"]Altemeyer's (1988) Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) was translated into Hebrew and Arabic and tested for reliability and validity. Seven hundred and eight Jewish undergraduate students, and 120 Moslem Palestinian students studying at a university in the occupied territories, completed the RWA and a demographic questionnaire. RWA scores of right-wing party supporters were significantly higher than those of left-wing party supporters, and scores of secular subjects in both societies were lowest. RWA scores of right-wing subjects remained significantly higher than those of left-wing subjects when religiosity was controlled. The results confirm the validity of the RWA, tested here in two languages in two societies that for years have been involved in bloody conflict. RWA scores and religiosity levels were lower in the Jewish Israeli society than in the Moslem-Palestinian one. The results are discussed within the sociopolitical context of the two societies.

 

[JWW]

Ok, first of all, why do you believe that authoritarianism goes hand in hand with right wing policy? Correct me if I'm not catching your meaning properly, but this seems to be what your saying. Secondly, please don't associate the right wing with the fools who deny the Nazis as a right-wing party. They may claim to be part of the right-wing, but they do not in anyway represent us. It's simply ignorant when you can't understand the difference between universals and specifics (i.e. the philosophies of a right wing generally and those of Americas right wing.)

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Ok, first of all, why do you believe that authoritarianism goes hand in hand with right wing policy? Correct me if I'm not catching your meaning properly, but this seems to be what your saying. Secondly, please don't associate the right wing with the fools who deny the Nazis as a right-wing party. They may claim to be part of the right-wing, but they do not in anyway represent us. It's simply ignorant when you can't understand the difference between universals and specifics (i.e. the philosophies of a right wing generally and those of Americas right wing.)

Okay's you're asking for it, let's rerun what i said and show you the error of your ways.

"i quite like bob altemeyer's research as a whole and often use it against those who claim nazis aren't right wing because right wing is all about "liberty" when in reality Govt size and "liberty" are not the determiner for these things"

The phrase "not the determiner" does NOT mean that i accept the proposial that authoritarianism goes hand in hand with right wing policy, I do not state that it does. At the same time, the phrase also means accepting that authoritarianism does not go hand in hand with left wing policy either. What i state is merely an argument AGAINST THOSE who claim that left wing politics somehow = authoritarianism. furthermore, my arguments are AGAINST THOSE who claim the nazis as a left wing party. I did not, or at least i thought i did not, make a sweeping generalization of all those who claim to be conservative by using the nazi brush, That would be absurd and wrong of me to do so.

The place, that one takes on the political spectrum is determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.

There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent.

 

[borrofburi]

Ok, first of all, why do you

Please determine your relative pronoun: who are you talking to?

 

[RichardMNixon]

What I can't understand for the life of me is how the right-wing in the US can claim to support freedom when they really just mean low taxes. But reproductive rights? Privacy rights? Sexual rights? Drug rights? The right-wing is adamantly opposed to freedom at every turn.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Ok, first of all, why do you

Please determine your relative pronoun: who are you talking to?

i gathered he was talking to me

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

What I can't understand for the life of me is how the right-wing in the US can claim to support freedom when they really just mean low taxes. But reproductive rights? Privacy rights? Sexual rights? Drug rights? The right-wing is adamantly opposed to freedom at every turn.

They can say it because they think it will garner them votes (and I think they're right). This is independent of whether the proposition is actually true or not...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ok, first of all, why do you believe that authoritarianism goes hand in hand with right wing policy? Correct me if I'm not catching your meaning properly, but this seems to be what your saying. Secondly, please don't associate the right wing with the fools who deny the Nazis as a right-wing party. They may claim to be part of the right-wing, but they do not in anyway represent us. It's simply ignorant when you can't understand the difference between universals and specifics (i.e. the philosophies of a right wing generally and those of Americas right wing.)

Because that's what the science says. Sorry that you don't like it, but reality doesn't conform to your desires. Right-wingers are authoritarian, and generally in line with the Nazis. Claiming that there are individual deviations from the trend does not in any way invalidate the trend.

Here's where you can start educating yourself: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

 

[ImprobableJoe]

What I can't understand for the life of me is how the right-wing in the US can claim to support freedom when they really just mean low taxes. But reproductive rights? Privacy rights? Sexual rights? Drug rights? The right-wing is adamantly opposed to freedom at every turn.

Those assholes have come up with a term called "economic freedom" which they worship, and it means "freedom for rich people to exploit everyone else to become richer." I'm stuck in a macroeconomics class where the professor has bought into the idea that consolidating wealth in the hands of a few powerful individuals to the detriment of others is the definition of "freedom".

Yeah, I'm struggling. :? I have a good grade, but I have to be shitty drunk to take the tests and write the papers without puking from disgust at the ideological bent of the class.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ok it's not really a summary: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904

So most of you hate the tea party... What many of you don't know (except maybe Joe, in the case that he remembers) is that I was quite sympathetic to the tea party, at first... I've consistently reminded people that hey, it wasn't all bad, it was nice when they started out, before they got corrupted by the GoP and before a bunch of... well generally racist and ignorant supporters became the core of the movement...

Ummm... did you confuse the "evil batshit crazy GOP tea party" with the "Ron Paul-worshipping evil batshit crazy independent tea party"? That would explain the shift in your thinking, since Ron Paul is at least a semi-principled lunatic. He says stupid stuff constantly, but by-Satan he means it!

 

[borrofburi]

Ok it's not really a summary: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904

So most of you hate the tea party... What many of you don't know (except maybe Joe, in the case that he remembers) is that I was quite sympathetic to the tea party, at first... I've consistently reminded people that hey, it wasn't all bad, it was nice when they started out, before they got corrupted by the GoP and before a bunch of... well generally racist and ignorant supporters became the core of the movement...

Ummm... did you confuse the "evil batshit crazy GOP tea party" with the "Ron Paul-worshipping evil batshit crazy independent tea party"? That would explain the shift in your thinking, since Ron Paul is at least a semi-principled lunatic. He says stupid stuff constantly, but by-Satan he means it!

And he really is honest about it all.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ron Paul might actually mean all the stupid things he says. His son only says what he thinks will get him elected... and there are plenty of stupid, unprincipled, un-American scumbags who will vote for him, and the other Teabagger candidates.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

I still agree with most of the less crazy, financial positions of the tea party. After all, why should I pay taxes in order to subsidize the stupidity of others? The first time I heard anything about a variable rate mortgage I told everyone I could not to get anywhere near them, and I was a teenager at the time. Why should I bail out idiots who chose to get in over their heads?

For the record, I didn't agree with most of the bailouts, either. Let businesses who made stupid decisions fail so that less incompetent businesses can grow to take their place.

 

[RichardMNixon]

After all, why should I pay taxes in order to subsidize the stupidity of others?

Because we live in an economic system that benefits you at their expense. Capitalism is what made America great, yes, but it also fucked over the impoverished. Not everyone can be John Galt, some people just get boned.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

After all, why should I pay taxes in order to subsidize the stupidity of others?

Because we live in an economic system that benefits you at their expense. Capitalism is what made America great, yes, but it also fucked over the impoverished. Not everyone can be John Galt, some people just get boned.

What's interesting is that EVERYONE has a preference for how their tax dollars are spent, but only a certain type of anti-American idiot, always right-wing, believes that taxes should only benefit themselves and everyone else should suffer. I don't have kids. I don't begrudge the government using my tax dollars to pay for schools, because I'm not a sociopathic and narcissistic right-wing fool who believes that tax dollars from everyone should only pay for the things they use directly.

Plus, all that "John Galt" objectivist/libertarian nonsense is really the dumbest bullshit I've ever heard, mostly promoted by people who inherited wealth and are incapable of producing anything of value under any circumstances. Most of those Galt-loving morons would starve if they had to do without takeout for more than two weeks, let alone being capable of being the elite in a real merit-based society.

 

[Doc.]

So where (and when) do you think the tea party will end up?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

After all, why should I pay taxes in order to subsidize the stupidity of others?

Because we live in an economic system that benefits you at their expense. Capitalism is what made America great, yes, but it also fucked over the impoverished. Not everyone can be John Galt, some people just get boned.

... What? I've been accused of a lot of stuff over the internet, but this one just confuses me. I'm... sorry that I'm not an idiot who took out a loan I couldn't possibly afford?

And Joe begins his wonderful strawman routine again. Joe, subsidizing idiocy is something I sure as heck begrudge spending tax dollars on.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So where (and when) do you think the tea party will end up?

Back in the Republican Party... because that is where they started, where they are, and where they will always be. The whole "Tea Party" nonsense was just a rebranding of the same failed Republican policy ideas of the last 4 decades. They are stupid but clever enough to change the name every decade or so.

 

[RichardMNixon]

... What? I've been accused of a lot of stuff over the internet, but this one just confuses me. I'm... sorry that I'm not an idiot who took out a loan I couldn't possibly afford?

And Joe begins his wonderful strawman routine again. Joe, subsidizing idiocy is something I sure as heck begrudge spending tax dollars on.

I wasn't just talking about the bailouts, I was mostly referring to TEA rhetoric about taxes supporting low income families and "Obamacare."