The tea party, a movement of confusion and disorganization

Since the tea party became more of a popular movement following the election of Barack Obama it has appeared to me as though the individuals leading and pushing the movement were disorganized and confused among themselves. I have continued to fail to see or understand where this movement was heading or as to just what consensus or goal was there. On the one hand I'v had plenty of libertarians, some of which I can confirm personally, insist the movement is against both the Democratic and Republican parties, insisting the movement was pure and not some knee jerk reaction to the election of president Obama. These individuals have insisted this movement at its core was about ending the Federal reserve, ending our involvement in foreign matters and removing the patriot act among some other laws.

However I have debated and discussed with many tea party individuals who contradict this view for the movement. To the other side we have conservatives/Republicans or former Republicans who will not outright disagree with their libertarian counterparts but when they discuss the goal of the movement, there is this contradiction to their counterparts. We have these tea party members rally the cry of the Tea party movement behind the likes of such individuals as Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, well known Bush/Republican policy advocates and supporters of the Iraq war, the patriot act. These individuals among many other examples of Republicans assuming representation of the movement, their views and actions have gone to the exact opposite of the libertarian tea party members. Yet to this day these same libertarian tea party members have insisted and defended the movement as pure. I mean I have found it rather hypocritical to say the least, and I fail to understand how this is a straight movement at all. Even those who insist they just 'joined the movement to carry funny signs', I fail to understand how you are not contributing a movement of individuals who for the most part disagree and counter your view.

Then you have some tea party members who have insisted they were former Democratic or liberal voters who joined the tea parties, and while these individuals are in the minority within the tea party movement, their actions and comments further make it as if this movement has virtually no goal or aim. Essentially these individuals voted for the likes of Clinton or even some Democrats senators or congressman, have joined because Clinton had lost, Clinton who shared virtually the identical view, who is for the most part equally hated in the movement as this current president, and yet they have continued to market themselves as former liberals who have somehow 'seen the light'?

I have found that the tea party consists of many voices which have completely contradicted the movement itself and does not appear to be going anywhere. Why is it that the members of the tea party can agree to disagree so lightly? How can a self proclaimed libertarian insist the tea parties are counter-Democratic and Republican and yet half of all tea party members stand behind Republican party leaders and elites? How can conservative and Republican tea parties insist this movement is straight when their libertarian counterparts within the movement oppose of the policies they continue to push behind the tea party itself?

I had a good libertarian friend argue with me that the tea parties behind the likes of Palin and other Republican figures are not representitive of 'his' tea party, and yet at times he would always address the tea parties and represent them as a whole.

What is happening here? There is this tug of war occuring in this movement that nobody seems to want to address. Is there some 'mutual agreement' that to make the movement appear bigger and influencial everybody must 'agree to disagree'? How can you call this movement when it is not moving anywhere because of these contradictions, hypocrisies among tea party individuals speaking out with one another?

I would like to address afew examples below:


They need a commander and chief to 'win the war' says Palin? This from what would be considered the leader of the movement by half of all tea party members. But I assumed this movement was in part against the wars I thought it started in part as opposition against the wars and our foreing involvement?? I thought this movement was counter to the two parties? So how is she accepted as one of the leaders in this movement when other leaders contradict her view?



Lets not forget Dick Army was a former Republican himself and an avid supporter of Israel and our continued alliance with them, yet he insists the 'Republicans lost this'. While he was talking about the New York race from last year in particular, it is evident he meant the overall movement itself as well. How can the Republicans had 'lost' its chances to gain support from the movement when you had Sarah Palin time and time again assume leadership of the movement by so many involved? Iv had libertarians tea party members insisted she hijacked the movement, but how can the movement be hijacked when the bulk of members in the movement supported McCain, Palin and the Republicans?

Then theres Rand Paul:


Who has at many times represented himself as a spokesperson for the movement, as have many tea party followers, and even his father has been considered the founder of the entire movement. He has continued to insist part of this movement was to end our foreign involvement and obligations? Ron Paul himself is another example:
www.youtube.com...

When it comes down to it, the tea party supporters can rest assured knowing that when it comes to 'government spending', they all parrot the same things. However as to how to run a the government, where to cut, where to improve, where to get involved, there is this silent disagreement and tug of war on the issues within this movement nobody wishes to address. It just seems to be this 'agree to diagree, lets walk together'!?

On another arguement, I have had many tea party members insist the Tea party movement is a movement of individuals, that you cannot judge one tea party individual or group by the actions of another tea party individual or a group. But this is more so confusing then is it not? How can you call this a movement and how can you bank on the numbers within the movement if they all contradict themselves and hold different agendas? How can you be ok with somebody speaking on behalf of the tea parties, speaking against your political views, and yet you continue to hold the tea party banner up insisting you have no part of them? They carry the same name, and you proudly walk with them, and yet they contradict your views for the movement?

It is evident the tea party movement has lost much of whatever influence or attention it came with last year, and part of this reason is that the movement itself is contradictory. It has no sense of goal or purpose, rather opposing goals or agenda's within itself. To me this entire movement from the time it grew in attention last year was rather reactionary. In the end when this president won, we had alot of people on the rightwing react negatively and decided to join with one another because they shared this negativity for the new government, and yet they disagree and contradict eachother behind their backs? The Tea party is an disorganized movement and I fail to see why people continue to carry the name on their backs when their counterparts continue to contradict them on their views and vision for the movement. How does that work out? I fail to see what people hope to achieve through such confusion and disorganization. Maybe the tea party members will better explain it to me here?



[edit on 6-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

In case you would like to read it for additional information, there was a lot of good discussion recently about this in this thread.

I'm going to read and watch your videos and come back.

I have Southern Gaurdian on ignore, so I can't read the opening piece, but I do want to be the very first person to say what a load of politically motivated tripe based on the title.

The Tea Party is an extension of the diversity of the people of this nation, which is what makes it an 'honest' party, unlike the democrats and republicans who are programed into their platforms and prohibited by that from deviating from them.

The tea party consists of mostly PROPAGANDA, LIES, and NONSENSE to be extremely POLITE about them.

They really are a TOTAL FAIL in all honesty.

Some folks have their heads buried too far up where the sun dont shine to see it correctly.


(Edit for typo)

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Baloney]

Originally posted by Baloney
The tea party consists of mostly PROPAGANDA, LIES, and NONSENSE to be extremely POLITE about them.

They really are a TOTAL FAIL in all honesty.

Some folks have their heads buried too far up where the sun dont shine to see it correctly.

I assume you have something to base this on aside from, well, nothing. Right?

The TP is fractioned into loosely affiliated groups based on geographic location who have differing opinions, and are not under restriction to express them or conform to a [non existent] central governing authority. Not very progressive, I know.

I wonder if this 'movement' would have even gathered steam or gained national recognition if it weren't for the media and liberals in general sand bagging it at every turn. It seems the best way to further a grassroots/unimportant group or person is to trash it and call those who believe in it socialists/nazis/racists.

Southern Guardian might have actually created more tea party supporters (out of spite) than detractors with this post, due to it's emotional charge and condescending vernacular. You catch more flies with honey.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by azguyblahblah]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I could sneak back into my post, edit it, and beat you to it

The Tea Party movement is chaos. The only common threads maybe seem to be 1.) everyone's American, 2.) a strong dislike for the current government or government and 3.) a proclaimed standing behind of the Constitution (unless it you don't agree with it or it doesn't agree with you or unless you want to bring back the 13th amendment or add the First Commandment ahead of the First Amendment...I think that's all I can remember).

I'm watching with a lot of interest what happens in November. Based on the (admittedly very few so far because it's hard to track them down) Tea Party-endorsed candidates I've read about and looked into, it's a loony bin, and most of them look like same old GOP to me, and probably to most people, which I guess goes to the diversity factor. Anyway, I'm reserving judgment until November. But I'm pretty sure it's going to be a fail.

Because it is too disorganized and too scattered. A movement needs focus and leadership and to accomplish something. Otherwise it's just bunches of Americans banding together by region and special interest to pat each other on the back and bitch. Again, the true test will be in November.

I'd love to be wrong about all of this.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I have Southern Gaurdian on ignore,

So in other words you have not bothered to read the OP and address me likewise. Wonderful. Why are you so scared of what I have to say?

The Tea Party is an extension of the diversity of the people

I fail to see how a movement can be a movement if the people contradict one another. Diversity is a nice sugar coating of the matter at hand within the movement, I'll give you that.

unlike the democrats and republicans who are programed into their platforms and prohibited by that from deviating from them.

Very bad idea to admit you have not even bothered reading the OP.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Why is that even an option on this site? That is so funny. I may disagree or hate someone's politics, but I never put anyone on ignore. Are people harassing each other though PMs or something, because I haven't heard of that either.

Regardless, I think we should always hear out all sides of all issues and begrudgingly hold hands in the name of what keeps us together...conspiracy theories.

Anyways, I know I was off topic, just kind of look over this post and not delete it.

Originally posted by Baloney
The tea party consists of mostly PROPAGANDA, LIES, and NONSENSE to be extremely POLITE about them.

They really are a TOTAL FAIL in all honesty.

Some of the what tea party has said is correct, I do not think the people in the movement I completely wrong in their issues. They are right in saying the government has for the past decades overspent, they are to to say our government has been corrupted, that is true to an extent. Its how they argue it, its what they claim caused it, its in the way they insist it should be solved is where I disagree.

reply to post by Baloney


So... You've got nothing. Would've been so much easier to just say it outright but whatever floats your boat. [shrugs]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I have Southern Gaurdian on ignore, so I can't read the opening piece, but I do want to be the very first person to say what a load of politically motivated tripe based on the title.

So you are willfully ignorant. Doesn't that sort of go against the spirit of this site?

Yet you still find the time to post in his threads?




The ignore button was put in by the staff to avoid harassment and spam. Not to filter out opposing views that you can't intelligently respond to.

It's the Socratic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming showtunes. Very mature.

So just because it has no definite libral or conservative goal it is useless? The goal is restablish our government the way our founding fathers wanted. This is a place where librals and conservatives get along, which is very rear and, as I see it, a step towards progress. Even though they might disagree on many subjects, they agree that our government is terrible. Just because no political agenda for either parties in the movement is being pushed makes it a bad thing? No, this makes it a great thing! Finally there's a movement where members of both parties can put their differances aside and try to make progress. Do you think the founding fathers agreed on every issue? They agreed that they were being opressed and it had to change. It's unorganized because it's not an organized party and welcomes differnent viewpoints which was what our country was founded on. You make it sound as though you want there to be a rift between the parties, and if thats so then you my sir are a jackass. Together we stand, divided we fall.

Originally posted by azguyblahblah
The TP is fractioned into loosely affiliated groups based on geographic location who have differing opinions, and are not under restriction to express them or conform to a [non existent] central governing authority. Not very progressive, I know.

I still do not see how contradictions within the tea party movement will make it go anywhere? On the one hand you have libertarians and others insisting the movement is counter-Democratic Republican, against our involvement in foreign wars, and the you have Republican tea party protesters who who are completely behind Palin and Bachmann, who continue to insist on the Iraq war, that we continue to support Israel, that they continue to move behind Republican candidates. How on earth can you continue to insist the movement is united, that it is 'going somewhere' when there is an obvious disagreement and disorganization behind the movements agenda? I fail to see how this helps anything.

I mean Iv heard alot of libertarians come in defense of this movement including a friend of mine, but wait a minute, half these people have a completely opposing agenda to you. Imagine the tea party actually assumed government majority. How do you imagine the goverment being run considering this fact?

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
So just because it has no definite libral or conservative goal it is useless?

No, my arguement is that the tea party members contradict one another when arguing what this movement is about. You cannot consider this a 'real' movement in any sense if people oppose one another in where to move to. There is this consensus as I have said in the OP that tea party members agree on government spending and size, but beyond that there is this contradiction about the movement on foreign involvement, support for either of the major parties. My point is the movement is not going anywhere and this is because for the part the movement consists of individuals who hold contradicting views.

This is a place where librals and conservatives get along,

I have no doubt liberals and conservatives can get along socially, or through family. But I disagree with you on this notion that the tea party consists of a liberals and conservatives getting along, unless you can define the types of liberals at the tea party? Because any true Clinton or Obama supporting liberal, or liberal who disagrees would not be caught in the tea parties. Iv described how former Clinton supporters had jumped on the tea party bandwagon but for this most part these individuals did this as a direct snipe towards Obama because Clinton lost, not because of policies. Clinton and Obama shared virtually the same policies during the elections, policies the tea parties to its core have advocated against.

Even though they might disagree on many subjects, they agree that our government is terrible.

You will get plenty of Liberals that will agree our government is broken, but when you have so many opposing views as to why and how the government is broken, and the solutions, all within one movement, how can you insist the movement will go anywhere. True, people can agree that something needs to be done, but where it comes to solutions, to preventing causes, you cannot expect such an opposing mix in the tea parties bring up any sufficient solutions.

Do you think the founding fathers agreed on every issue?

No, certainly not, but they did in the end come to a consensus. My view is that when you have a movement a represent yourself as part of the movement, you would have your views expressed as well. You do not have KKK members and black panther members in the same organization because it simply doesnt make sense and there would be opposing views.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by ~Lucidity

Because it is too disorganized and too scattered. A movement needs focus and leadership and to accomplish something. Otherwise it's just bunches of Americans banding together by region and special interest to pat each other on the back and bitch. Again, the true test will be in November.

That is not a bad thing, democracy as the Greeks invented it, and meant it to be used in practice is about everyone having a voice and a place for their voice to be considered.

This notion of 'unity' and 'shared' direction is not what democracy is about...fascism, communism and corporatism yes, democracy no.

What is troubling the democrats is just like Ross Perot in the Bush Sr. Clinton election a wild card can tip the balance away from the incumbants.

This is why some republicans are trying to make inroads with the party because it is only bound to hurt incumbants. Right now the majority of incumbants are democrats, but if the Republicans had the majorities and the White House right now they would be bashing the Tea Party and the Democrats would be embracing it.

While the republicans motives for trying to make inroads into the party might not be on the up and up because of that, neither were Perot's it was all about punishing Bush Sr. for not having the Federal Land Management and Deparment of the Interior lease him land they owned south of the Ft. Worth airport so he could expand it.

He had no desire to be President, he just didn't want Bush to be President, Henry Ford did the same thing to Woodrow Wilson back in the early 1900's.

That's politics.

Because national politics is such an expensive endeavor the Powers that Be really control that, but local politics on the County and City level especially are still viable places where voters can make a difference, having a party that locally lets voices be heard like the Tea Party is a good thing.

We truly don't need another lockstep political party with a enforced platform like democrats and republicans, who might as well be the Steelers and the Cowboys because it's really just a team sport with more people carrying about their team winning than what they won or how they played the game, or for what purpose.

We don't need another mindless automan movement, we need freedom.



[edit on 6/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I have Southern Gaurdian on ignore, so I can't read the opening piece, but I do want to be the very first person to say what a load of politically motivated tripe based on the title.

So you are willfully ignorant. Doesn't that sort of go against the spirit of this site?

Yet you still find the time to post in his threads?




The ignore button was put in by the staff to avoid harassment and spam. Not to filter out opposing views that you can't intelligently respond to.

It's the Socratic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming showtunes. Very mature.

I reserve the right to filter out those who's posting habits seem to be dishonest and disingenuous.

The Ignore key comes with no such instructions.

Southern Guardian is in lock step with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the dogmas they espouse really aren't worth my time.

It's all about keeping people divided and over legislating for the purpose of telling people what they must think.

I don't know about you, but I throw away broken records, I don't listen to them warble again and again, hoping that they will some how fix themselves.

The Tea party is a grass roots work in progress that people on the left and right are both desperate to try to define, because some people actually run campaigns based on not being four more years of someone else.

So defining who someone else is, becomes more important than defining what you are!

That's what this thread is about. Democans, and Republicats are the same thing. People simply imagine one party or another represents their values, which unless you are a habitual liar, thief, narcissist or assorted pervert they don’t really represent the people’s true values, they represent the politicians own desire for power and wealth.

The Tea Party has the potential to throw a monkey wrench in the two party system and as I have stated that’s more likely to hurt incumbents which the majority of are democrats right now.

Understand because of the dishonest nature of the platforms and politicians defining what the other is becomes more important than defining themselves, in this case, they are just trying to sell the notion because the Tea Party can’t be defined its not valid or a safe or viable option for voters.

In reality politicians should be defining themselves by concentrating on what they really stand for instead of ignoring that to define and insist what the other guy stands for and that’s bad, and they don’t stand for that.

Wake up!

reply to post by Southern Guardian


What I think you fail to see is that the Tea Party is not trying to establish themselves as a poltical party in the way we define a party it in today's society. It is not trying to replace the government itself, but trying to bring the government's faults to the peoples' attention. They do not take a definate position on fixing the country's problems. If they did try to implement their beliefs on everyone then they would be no different then the parties they criticize. They are trying to establish themselves as the opposite. They're not as much as a party but an opposing force trying to break the traditions of the parties that have been created. Even though they are flawed, it's comforting to know that finally there's some other political force besides Republicans and Democrats. I don't see them as a group trying to gain power but a group trying to take power from the established grasp that the major parties have in America today. They want the powers to be exchanged from the parties back to the people.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Hey. It's worth a try, and it might work, but in my opinion is not going to because it's such chaos.

Why not just cut to the chase and go straight for individualism....the ultimate freedom?

Think for yourself.

Decide for yourself.

Guess many people just have this inherent need to have a side or be lead by group think or win...something.

I guess because it's been conditioned into them. But hey, I will agree this is a step in that direction.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by ~Lucidity]