The Tea Party Is Over - The conspiracy to kill a grass roots political movement

I doubt the 'tea party' and everything that sprung from it is over. As long as there are people who question the party duality contradiction of our government and question what the government is doing it's going to take a bit more than GOP attacks to squelch it.
One of the T party's strengths is that it's not an actual party but a loose organization of a bunch of little groups. Yes there will be those in this band that jump at what cookies are tossed by the likes of that Witch from Alaska* but what they don't show are those who would sooner turn around and question the other political side as soon as the present administration is out.

Always remember that dissent is American and that parties puts on a show for us. They work for us and answer for us and as long as we peacefully band against them then government will work for us and The U.S.

And if you like what the past or present or future administrations are doing or have done then all the power to you. But only together can we make sure that our government doesn't go off the rails and the way to do that is to be part of groups like the Tea party, and the coffee party, and any other group that says 'we are watching you big brother because we pay for you'
As long as we do that then organizations like the tea party will never die.

*OP feel free to edit Witch with her actual name.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by js331975]

Originally posted by ogbert
Just because these people do not have a leader to wrap around does not mean that they have no resolve and do not add to the momentum that has taken root since the sixties and is flourishing.

I do agree with this. I just wonder how this resolve and momentum will affect change... If the goal is to have spirit, then we're there. And have been since the 60s. Then what? The PTB still have stolen our country and do with it what they will.

If, however, the goal is to affect change in this country, having the spirit isn't going to get us to the goal.

I find I'm feeling just somewhat disaffected and practically apathetic, because of lack of a clear vision and course.

Originally posted by ogbert
Just because these people do not have a leader to wrap around does not mean that they have no resolve and do not add to the momentum that has taken root since the sixties and is flourishing.

But without a ballsy leadership with decisive conviction, any movement can easily be usurped and corrupted. Such as what we're now seeing with the "Tea Party," and in what we've seen with "9/11 Truth."

It's the nature of the beast, and while it "feels" contrary to a person's individual altruistic tendencies, it's the only way to ensure the movement remains pure to it's ideals.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can't see any other way for this to be successful than to START with a LEADER. Someone that's intelligent, charismatic and widely respected. Someone with integrity of iron.

I would like to add that the leader of such a new reform entity MUST make it clear that he/she would never run for office, nor officially endorse anyone who is.

And, to add, the "reform movement" needs ONE crystalizing point of focus that everyone from any party and walk of life (not necessarily politicians) can enthusiastically get behind. No list of change. No rambling manifesto. No partisan madness.

One big idea, one big ROAR.

It is fairly simple. People here on this site and everywhere else needs to do one thing and one frelling thing only.

Do not vote for the Dems or Repubs!

Wow, simple huh?

But no, you will vote for them because you do not care about this country.

You care about getting what either party promises.

Just as always, you all want a nanny state to think for you, take care of you, pay your bills, etc etc etc.

Trinkets and baubles. That is all you want. Keep destroying the country one vote at a time.

edit for gramma

[edit on 4/3/2010 by endisnighe]

You guys need a leader....think about it...
You Need Following Attributes:
1. An already Leader of Men/Women
2. Who although a leader follows Protacol
3. Who follows Protacol who evers in power (this means he can't be usurped his will is strong who evers in power)
4. He has leanings both Left and Right(seeing a benifit to cherry pick the best ideas from both Ideologies) A true nuetral
These are just a few qualities required.......so look in your everyday life at who would fill these attributes:
American..........Judge/Sherriff/Average Ranking Military with Liberal views/ lawyer /Corporate Man whos high in the chain but not too high as we all know High Corporates have more often than not done something unscrupulous.
Just a few ideas......the basics really then comes the personal qualities.
Family man, Integrity etc. etc.
The Brittish e.g
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 3-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


My point is that when enough people become dis-enfranchised and lose hope in the status quo; when they can not afford to pay the fines and the taxes, eventually they will not conform. In a tyrannical system, there are so many laws that everyone becomes criminalized, no one complies. In Zimbabwe now, where the currency is totally collapsed, they laugh at the bankers and trade amongst themselves. The government can not micro-manage them, when the government has failed. You can not incarcerate the majority.

Self-Reliance is a responsibility and maybe not the easy way out, it all comes down to favoring truth and justice vs. selfish desires. There are good and bad folks out there. Most will go along with the system as long as it works for them, but when the system fails to serve the public--change is inevitable.

Capitalism works as long as the "robber barons" are not allowed to monopolize. Many anti-trust laws were implemented after the last depression. The truth comes out. When enough people recognize the truth that these corporations have become too powerful, they can reduce that power by majority consensus. Huey Long advocated that no individual or entity should be allowed to have more than 20 million dollars. He was immensely popular in the thirties. He would have been scoffed at in the roaring twenties. He also started his career as a grass roots movement.

If a corporation can be deemed as a person, then why do we allow corporations to own other corporations? Wouldn't that violate slavery laws?

My point is that we are oppressed because we allow it. We get what we deserve. Funny, how most people become righteous when they are incarcerated. When the system fails the populace and enough people are impoverished, the "right thing" becomes more appealing. The people still have the power. Presently, most refuse to use it. For this reason, i applaud the Tea Party. I can only see movements like this increasing. It's the overall consensus that counts.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I would like to add that the leader of such a new reform entity MUST make it clear that he/she would never run for office, nor officially endorse anyone who is.

My husband always says that anyone who has the motivation to run for an office is automatically not fit to lead the people. They're in it for themselves. Something like that, anyway. But yeah, I agree.

And, to add, the "reform movement" needs ONE crystalizing point of focus that everyone from any party and walk of life (not necessarily politicians) can enthusiastically get behind.

I would suggest the founding ideals of this country. The Constitution and bill of rights. That's definitely something I could get behind.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


You do not need any "One Group" if a majority consensus can be achieved. Whoever the group in power at the time, will have to comply with the direction of the masses. All these groups in lateral motion, are pretty much disturbed over the same things. They are but the tip of the iceberg, for every one that complains, there are 40 that agree, but remain silent. People feel safer in groups. As dissent becomes more popular--more of the forty quiet ones come forth.

What the tax protestors advocate is true. If no one complied, there would be no more IRS. Yet, "they" would find another way, like printing money out of thin air.

I've been talking about the Chinese Stratagems lately.

What happened to the Tea Party is one of the 36 stratagems:

"Remove the firewood from under the pot"

And to infiltrate in the first place

"Usurp leadership in a situation where you are normally subordinate. Infiltrate your target. Initially, pretend to be a guest to be accepted, but develop from inside and become the owner later."

I don't think that the Tea Party Movement is over by any means. This movement is older then the media has reported and I think that its roots are deeper than either political party would like to admit.

Tax Day protests have been going on for years and they have been growing stronger each year. I fully expect that this year's protest will be bigger than last year's and that is a good thing.

The people that I have met at the Tea Parties have been sincere in their views. The one's that I have spoken with have shown intention to quit or to be incorporated into either political party. One of the overriding sentiments that I have heard is that both parties suck and that all incumbents need to be replaced. Neither party benefits from an anti-incumbent movement.

It is true that the Republican Party would like to incorporate this movement into the party. This is simply because the minority party stands to gain the most from an anti-incumbent wave in November.

To achieve lasting change in DC however, the Tea Party movement needs to take the long view. This movement needs to recognize that the problems in DC did not develop over a few years, it's been happening for decades, maybe centuries. It will take decades to reform the system.

The anti-incumbent sentiment is usefull in the short term. The Tea Party should use this to replace the most offensive office holders. This would serve to flush the system. As you know though when you have a full toilet bowl, it often takes more than one flush. So, the anti-incumbent movement needs to last for the next several election cycles. Yes, I do mean that the Tea Party needs to vote out the politicians that it puts into office this cycle on the next cycle. Hopefully many of the politicians who ride the Tea Party coattails will simply not run for re-election. I doubt that this is realistic though.

Also, the movement needs to think on a national level but needs to act locally. It really needs to focus on getting Tea Party members elected to city council, school board, and county level jobs. Sure, we need some Congressmen and Senators too, but we need to think about the long view of creating a new type of politician.

If the Tea Party can excercise the discipline needed to stay together and not allow itself to be absorbed into a specific party, then I think that it has a very good chance of producing some real change.

I addressed the TPM in my last post and why from my view it failed. So now I will put forth my ideas about creating a "grassroots movement" to be successful.

I agree that there needs to be one strong leader for any grassroots movement...but it should not be anyone already in power or known. It should be someone who is right now sitting around upset about the current situation and wanting to change it.

But let's look at, IMO, some of the reasons why the TPM and movements like it fail. And what should be differently to have a better chance at success. I basically see three reasons:

1. Wanting Instant Gratification
2. A main message of "attack" and "negativity" towards those currently in power.
3. No true leader of their own



Instant Gratification

It wasn't long after the TPM started to gain momentum that they started to explore ideas of running TP candidates for congress...I even heard talk or running a TP candidate for President in 2012. This was the trigger point that caused the Republicans to push the agenda to absorb the TPM into the GOP. And it worked very well...they basically scared in as I said in my previous post. The basic message was "Run your own candidates...and the progressives (socialist, communists, etc.) WIN. Join us...and we will defeat them".

The problem with a true grassroots movement is that it is going to, and has to, take time...a long long time. If you are looking for Instant Gratification...and want to jump into the national ring at the start...you are doomed from the beginning. It's not going to be fast...you won't see a grassroots third party candidate as president in the next 10 years...maybe not the next 15 years...but if done right it may eventually happen. You may not even see a grassroots third party in the Senate in 10 years...but in the House you have a better chance. But even the House is still too high of a starting point.

You have to start small...very small. I am talking about a group in any town (harder to do in a big city)...get together start talking about your ideas and frustrations...and start trying to make changes at your local level. Your first goal should be to rid the D's and R's in your LOCAL government. Your second goal is to get your DISTRICTS STATE REP...not FEDERAL REP...STATE REP...elected as your grassroots third party canddiate. Then move to the districts next to you...but still all at the local and state level. If you make your local government successful by eliminating the D's and R's...then your neighboring towns will take notice...and you need to encourage them to do the same with their local government and state reps. Pretty soon...you are going to have a pocket of the state that is represented by this grassroots third party. If things go well...you can get your whole state eliminated of D's and R's. And once again...if it is done right and the state runs better with no D's and R's...other states will take notice. Hopefully soon it would spread without your help. Hopefully...multiple graasroots movements will spring up all with their own views and opinions...the goal shouldn't be to turn this into a one party system or even a three party system...but a N-party system.

It's not unlike tactics used in war. You don't try to win a revolution/invasion/war by attacking the enemies main stronghold...you don't try to go out and have a nation wide war all at once by spreading your "warriors" thin throughout the nation. You secure a stronghold and you expand. Think D-Day in WWII...we would of been completely destroyed if we just tried to take Berlin on D-Day. Instead...we took some beaches...created a stronghold and expanded from there. Please note...I'm using this as a metaphore...not a call to violence, I am very strong opposed to using violence for political change.




Messages of "attack" and "negativity"

Like it or not...the TPM was very anti-Obama. And when you have a two party system and one of your main messages is a direct attack to one of the parties...you have already lost any hope of not being taken over by the other pary.

I agree with SO in this aspect that any grassroots movement should have a list of 5 well thought out and specific issues they want to use as their message. And they need to enforce that (that comes next with a strong leader).

It is useless to have a message of "anti-Obama"...you are basically saying that you will vote for anyone who is against him...regardless of their own policies. People should really stop and think about this...STOP protesting about thing you OPPOSE and DISAGREE WITH...START "protesting" things you support and AGREE WITH.

The problem with protesting against things we oppose and disagree with is that there is no unity in the solution. We could get 10 of us here that are all against something...let's say the HC bill. So we all go out and start protesting against it...but we may have drasticly different views on what the correct solution should be. I may be protesting against it because there is no public option. Someone else may be because they don't like the mandate. Someone else because they wanted insurance companies to sell across state lines. And someone else might want single payer. So what if the protests are successful and the HC bill would of died...then what? The 10 of us go our seperate ways...and once again we are divided.

Why not start with "protests" supporting the issues we support?? So then if those in power see 5 different protests...and see that the protest that supports the public option outnumbers the protests that supports tort reform 10 to 1...well then they have a good idea on how to frame the bill. If it is just a protest against the bill in general...they have no direction as to where to take it. I'm not saying they would listen anyway...but it is a stronger voice. In general for political issues, it is always better to support what you agree with than oppose what you disagree with....IMO





Having a True and Strong Leader

The TPM had no leader...it was like an open invintation for anyone to swoop in and set their agenda...and that is exactly what happened.

Going back to my first point on the local grassroots movement...it needs to be started by a strong leader...or it will fail. A strong leader who is new on the scene...and is willing to put in the time to see the movement grow...at a slow pace. They would also need to be able to set their message, a good solid 5 points...2 points...10 points...whatever, but a SET LIST of points that are "positive" in nature. Stay away from a message that attacks EITHER party...you are just asking for trouble. Not because the party you are attacking will harm you...but the party you are not will easily infiltrate and subvert your message.

So the leader will also have to be in charge of having an iron fist of expelling and distancing the movement from people who choose to go against the movements message and those that choose to attack others views instead of support the movements views.

The movement would need to be very well regulated...if you have a protest...you will need to have "approved" signs...not just anyone writting what they want...too easy to have a plant come in and misrepresent you. Everything would need to be regulated by the leader (or leadership later on).

I know this sounds kind of anit-freedom...but starting a grassroots movement isn't about allowing everyone to speak their mind however they want...it is about getting a group of like minded individuals to spread a well thought out message. If you want to do something else...you are free to...but not as part of this movement.

I have so many more ideas...but running out of space. It is a complex thing and needs complex solutions...the TPM tried to keep it simple and that is what destroyed them.

reply to post by SpectreDC


A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.
Lao Tzu

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
You guys need a leader....think about it...
You Need Following Attributes:
1. An already Leader of Men/Women
2. Who although a leader follows Protacol
3. Who follows Protacol who evers in power (this means he can't be usurped his will is strong who evers in power)
4. He has leanings both Left and Right(seeing a benifit to cherry pick the best ideas from both Ideologies) A true nuetral
These are just a few qualities required.......so look in your everyday life at who would fill these attributes:
American..........Judge/Sherriff/Average Ranking Military with Liberal views/ lawyer /Corporate Man whos high in the chain but not too high as we all know High Corporates have more often than not done something unscrupulous.
Just a few ideas......the basics really then comes the personal qualities.
Family man, Integrity etc. etc.
The Brittish e.g
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 3-4-2010 by DreamerOracle]

Regarding the need for a leader. Can you name one in history that has not let down his followers?

If you have a leader then you become a follower. Isnt that exactly what we need to stop being?

If you invest your efforts behind one person if that person fails the whole group fails. So the opposition has one target to aim at. So you dont need a leader to stand behind, you need a spokesman to stand next to and be willing to take on that role if needed.

The so called leader you describe can never happen and is easily corrupted and so easily beaten.

We need to stop being lazy and not put our resposibilty onto one person. Yes you need a spokesman. No you dont need a leader.

OutKast Searcher

I agree with your point on expecting instant victories but reading your qualifactions for a leader shows exactly why a leader is not a good thing.

Could acceptinfg a leader with an agenda be the reason the TPM failed?

ogbert

Spot on



[edit on 3-4-2010 by colin42]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by colin42]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Well put. I find the middle paragraph pure genius.

There are no real leaders anymore, nor heroes ... Only in novels and movies, and in distant past history texts.

Leaders today are simply articulate teleprompter readers, able to deliver lies and false promises in such a compelling way, that enough people will fall for it and give them the needed votes to win.

What reason would anyone have to believe otherwise of a new party movement candidate?

The only way to find if one possesses that true leadership is after they are elected.... Before that it is all BS.

Stop believing in fictional character actors portraying leaders.

Heh, its a start.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Fractured.Facade]

SkepticOverlord, I really like this comment.

Republicans will fuel the flames via extremist ultra-conservatism (that is their role in this grand game, supply the anger), Democrats will shudder and cry about how terrible it is (that is their role, supply the sniveling spineless)

Except I would change it slightly.

Republicans supply the anger, Democrats supply the guilt.

I think I will add it to my signature.

I think the dissatisfaction with the two party political system is growing. Neither side cares about the U.S. public.

That being said, I could never get behind the tea party movement. It is a complete repub party tool from the beginning, and claims otherwise are hard to buy. Now that the democrats are in charge they want to ramp up the anti-government rhetoric, after the republicans had their chance and completely screwed up this country. There is nothing moderate or middle ground in this movement whatsoever. If they were also protesting against the corrupt business practices of the banking and Finance industries, the idea the they are not completely right wing extremist might be able to stick, but I don't hear that.

As close as the TPM gets to the middle is their dislike of the Fed Res, but then they refuse to acknowledge that the FR is a private corporation, and that the crimes of the Fed Res are crimes of the corporation, not the government.

There are plenty of us moderates on the left who feel completely disenfranchised with the democratic party who recognize the problems with government, but also see the problems created by corporations.

I am all for joining up with people who see that major changes need to be made, but I am never going to support people who refuse to recognize the need to reform the corporate entities as well as government.

As far as I am concerned, federal tax rates are small problems.

If you really want to shrink government, get behind the legalization of cannabis movement.

The war on drugs has been the number 1 tool used by government to strip people of their rights, to take away their freedom and their property. There are the extraordinary costs of fighting the war on drugs, huge amount of black ops money hiding the real cost of the fight in the war on drugs, then there is the incarceration side. We need to legalize it and tax it, it is win win economically, politically, and for liberty, a triple win.

Hopefully this will be the year we legalize Cannabis in the California. There is a very good chance we will soon see a rise in a very healthy hemp industry producing clothe, paper, and bio-diesel. These are the rallies I want to attend.

Get behind the anti-immigration movement. Hey, immigration to this country is a good thing, but all things in moderation. Not everyone on the planet can live in the U.S.. Immigration drives down wages and salaries, and drives up the cost of housing. This is a far bigger problem than our tax rates. Immigration rates need to be brought back under control.

The whole tea party movement is nothing but a huge illusion to distract people from the real problems.

edit to change U.S. to California on current legalization initiative.


[edit on 3-4-2010 by poet1b]

The TPM did hopefully what it tried to. Get people out, motivated to change their government, and educate the populace to stand for themselves. Now we have groups out there getting recognized, and hopefully the Guardians of Freedom will at least try to get infiltration into the now system, if they can't remove the governors after they serve them their notices. I'm sure they wouldn't get elected if they ran seeing that voting is broken.

Originally posted by endisnighe
It is fairly simple. People here on this site and everywhere else needs to do one thing and one frelling thing only.

Do not vote for the Dems or Repubs!

Wow, simple huh?

But no, you will vote for them because you do not care about this country.

You care about getting what either party promises.

Just as always, you all want a nanny state to think for you, take care of you, pay your bills, etc etc etc.

Trinkets and baubles. That is all you want. Keep destroying the country one vote at a time.

edit for gramma

[edit on 4/3/2010 by endisnighe]

Well my point end is that your efforts, like it or not, will produce a two party result.
In the end you are doing the leg work to dethrown Obama, which will only put the GOP
in the void. Then you talk of trinkets, how is your effort of a higher purity if you will
only reap what you hate? Ironically a whole lot of this talk around here serves the nanny state and the two party monster. Your stance sounds good, but do not fool yourself into thinking that you are not doing the monsters good work by proxy.
If you stir the pot and have no separate vessel you are in fact just stirring the pot.

I have tried to point this out to you in many ways but I feel you do not care because
it serves a short term; surface political objective. The root however, is immune to this
fine approach and I fear you will find yourself in the same place, saying the same things, from here until eternity.

Originally posted by David9176
Hello?!?!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with David here...

Check out his ATS post up there ^ as well as this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The tea-party "movement" was NOT grassroots. It was crafted and directed by rich/powerful government/corporate elites in order to seize on populist rage that could have turned into something substantial but instead fizzled it out with exaggerated lies/propaganda against the Democrats/Obama/health-care. The art of misdirection has been mastered by certain powerful right-wing elements.

The tea-party wasn't even infiltrated, it began as an astro-turf movement by right-wing think-tanks, neo-cons in hiding, and laissez-faire corporatists. It's quite disgusting actually.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by NoHierarchy]