Will the Tea Party Movement Shape the Coming Decade?

The AtlanticWire ^ | January 05, 2010 | John Hudson

[mdittmar]

The Tea Party movement has many detractors. Some call it radical, some dispute its size, others say it's dangerous but few deny its growing influence in the GOP and beyond. In a recent bout of commentary, some pundits who dislike, and in some cases loathe, the Tea Party have marveled at its clout. The latest to join the club is David Brooks, the New York Times' moderate conservative. In his Tuesday column Brooks says that while he's "not a fan of this movement" it may very well "shape the coming decade." Here's how Brooks and other Tea Party opponents are depicting the movement:

• The Most Popular Party in Town, writes Brooks: "A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity... It is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party."

• Like 60s Radicals, Tea Party Movement Will Hang Around for Years, writes Bobby Cramer at The Reaction: "Mr. Brooks is right; the tea-baggers will dominate the GOP and could make life very difficult for them, but he's whistling past the graveyard if he thinks it's just for the near term... It will take just as long for the GOP to shed the likes of the loons like Michele Bachmann and Dick Armey as it did for the Democrats to go from Abbie Hoffman to Barack Obama."

• A Genuine Grassroots Vehicle, writes Mark McKinnon at The Daily Beast. McKinnon, a former McCain adviser, once remarked that untamed Tea Party protests were "bad for Republicans" as long as they allowed "freaks" and "right-wing nutballs" to "fill the void" in the absence of leadership. But now he says they could be crucial to GOP success: "Much of the media and most Democrats are dismissive of what is truly a grassroots movement. But the Tea Party has shown remarkable energy in its short life span... Their ability to leverage energy behind candidates and policies could be very similar to what MoveOn.org has accomplished on the left."

[OldMissileer]

David Brooks is NOT a conservative.

He is a liberal who calls himself a conservative so he can maneuver within the Republican Party and sabotage it from within.

[o_zarkman44]

“shed the likes of the loons like Michele Bachmann and Dick Armey as it did for the Democrats to go from Abbie Hoffman to Barack Obama.”

“McKinnon, a former McCain adviser, once remarked that untamed Tea Party protests were “bad for Republicans” as long as they allowed “freaks” and “right-wing nutballs” to “fill the void” in the absence of leadership”

So we are still loons, freaks, and right wing nutballs according to the GOP? No wonder they are choking........

[maine-iac7]

It will take just as long for the GOP to shed the likes of the loons like Michele Bachmann and Dick Armey

?????????????????????

[benewton]

as it did for the Democrats to go from Abbie Hoffman to Barack Obama

For some reason, I’m having a problem, beyond the scale of the actions, seeing the difference.

[marron]

It will take just as long for the GOP to shed the likes of the loons like Michele Bachmann and Dick Armey as it did for the Democrats to go from Abbie Hoffman to Barack Obama."

There is no particular difference between Abbie Hoffman and the general run of O's "czars". They are the same people.

What I am not clear on is this: whether O is in fact another Abbie Hoffman himself, or if he is rather a chameleon who runs with marxists and black nationalists not because he is one of them, but rather because he finds them so darned easy to manipulate. I think he is a Sorosian before he is anything. Obama is an Obamist. A Sorosian Obamist.

[GonzoGOP]

Will the Tea Party Movement Shape the Coming Decade?

In a short answer no. You can't keep that level of energy up for that long. It will succeed or fail by 2012. If they succeed in putting their kind of president in the white house there will be no need for more tea parties, because once you are the man you can't protest against the man. If Obama gets a second term the tea parties will be ruthlessly crushed.

[03A3]

moderate conservative

Now there's an oxymoron.

[almcbean]

“moderate conservative

Now there’s an oxymoron.”

Like jumbo shrimp or forward lateral.

I once met the world’s tallest midget.

[nathanbedford]

If one clicks on Mr. Brooks' name one will encounter the article referred to in which he recites his reasons for opposing the Tea Party Movement. Essentially, Mr. Brooks finds the tea party movement offputting because it is somehow in revolt against the "educated class." Mr. Brooks lays out his menu of woes:

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

When I review the things that the party movement is allegedly against, I see no reason to believe that the people against them are in fact uneducated or, if in fact uneducated, that they are against them because educated people favor them. I see a much closer correlation with a general opposition to things that Democrats support.

Small wonder that Mr. Brooks favored Obama in the last election. Mr. Brooks cannot admit that the tea party patriots are opposed to Democrat party values, he must search for a euphemism or lose his precarious position as the token Republican at the New York Times. He fails. David Brooks sounds much more like the elitist he undeniably is as he echoes the unfortunate tirade of his hero Barack Obama directed against the benighted yeomanry of Pennsylvania who cling so bitterly to their guns and Bibles.

When one reads this and sees that every issue which Mr. Brooks describes middle-class Americans being on the wrong side of as they exercise their unalienable right to petition their government and exercise political speech, one can now fully understand why he is opposed to social conservatives and wants them banished from the party. One did read no further to understand his visceral hatred of Sarah Palin.

Nothing could better demonstrate Bill Buckley's prayer that he would rather be governed by 500 names taken from the phone book then by the faculty of Harvard University. Give me the wisdom of the unwashed over the elitism of Mr. Brooks and Pres. Obama.

[DavidFarrar]

Like I have just pointed out elsewhere in this site, and I would like to expound on it a bit further — the political strength behind the Tea Party movement is the gradual realization by its participants and supporters that regardless of who is elected to high public office and why, it is the special interests who are actually calling the shots, making the decisions. The political essence then behind the Tea Party movement is that some kind of restraint must be placed on Congress when it exercises its role in collecting and spending the peoples’ treasury.

As I have mentioned, such things as term limits, limiting terms to only one multi-year term would take away the need to raise campaign funds for re-election would limit special interests.

Members of Congress should no longer be able to vote themselves pay raises. Congressional pay raises can only be granted at the ballot box by the general electorate.

Members of Congress should be barred from enacting laws that usurp Private Enterprise under the general welfare provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws enacted and impose on all.

Members of Congress should enact the flat tax, with no exemptions up to a set amount, 50% of the flat tax would represent the maximum exemption.

Members of Congress should call for a Constitutional Convention to take away the power of the executive branch of government, or the legislative branch, to print money without the consent of the electorate, except in extremis cases, where two/thirds majority would be required by Congress and approved by the general electorate at the next election.

Any labor contracts served by the collection of public taxes are strictly limited to the taxes collected, including pension plans.

No person holding political office may declare for another office without first resigning their present office.

Candidates running for office should not be allowed to accept campaign contributions from outside the district they wish to represent.

Enact voter verification procedures to insure accurate elections.

The point being, our democratic process, as presently structured, can no longer be relied upon to produce a political class that represents the electorate, and, therefore, more restrictions must be placed on the people’s representatives by the sovereign itself, we the people.

ex animo
davidfarrar

[mdittmar]

Well,I made it through high school,flunked out of Computer Repair in college,have a diploma in Golf Course Management,and I know a rino when I see one.

Tea Party Patriots taking back the Grand Old Party.

What can I do? Tea Party Patriots are concerned American's just like you, we have made getting involved easy.

[Wonder Warthog]

"So we are still loons, freaks, and right wing nutballs according to the GOP? No wonder they are choking........"

Yup, either the 'Pubbies adapt and change so they meet the Tea Party's desires, or the Republican party will cease to exist, and the "Tea" Party will take its place. I think what we are seeing is a "sea change" similar to the periods of the demise of the Federalists around the period of Andrew Jackson's presidency (and the ascendancy of the Democrats), the rise of the Republicans with Lincoln, and the "descendance" of the Democrats until FDR re-energized the Dems.

I think the "Tea Party" movement is the awakening of the "silent majority", and they are going to "find that they are strong", and Palin will be their candidate.