Good evening,
since I'm not American, but from Europe, I would like to ask you to explain to me what the Tea Party actually is. I believe I do not really understand it, and considering the trend in journalism to look for sensations and shrill voices and events, it's a bit hard to know if it does that movement justice.
I've seen reports about obvious radicals at Tea Party events, like people who made shrill polemic comments, like comparing Obama to Hitler, or suggesting he is a Muslim out to destroy the country. Some broad-brushed things Obama did as "socialism", without really defining what they think that is, and why that's always a bad thing. I've also seen reports when people used many labels, from "constitutionalism" over "libertarianism" to "conservatism", but these terms were not defined, so I was not sure I really understand what they mean. I saw when Sarah Palin made rather heated remarks, like "don't retreat, instead reload!", comparing their fight to military action.
I admit that for me, as a European, what I've seen of the Tea Party so far didn't strike me as very likeable, some things I found even ugly. But probably that's mostly just because this movement is alien to me, and I have only seen few sensationalist reports. Also, campaigns are traditionally shriller and more polemic in the US than in Germany, so maybe I have a mild culture shock too. We guys are sometimes too cramped when it comes to politics. So I am honestly interested in your ideas, sentiments and reports.
I assume in case of any relatively spontanous political movement or ralley from any side of the political spectrum, you find these rather shrill elements. But most of the time, they are not representative, and don't really tell you much about the real intentions and complains of that movement. For example, you found quite a few shrill voices and polemics in the anti-Bush and anti-war ralleys, like the Bush-Hitler comparison or the Bush-chimp theme, but that doesn't say much about the general character and concerns of this movement.
So what is the Tea Party? Has it somethin in common with right-wing extremists in Europe? Or is it a good thing, something to bring back enthusiasm to politics, changing it for the better? Do I need to be afraid of the Tea Party, or welcome it?
Probably that is not different in case of the Tea Party. Since I assume there are people here who sympathize with the Tea Party, some maybe even actively involved, I would like to ask you: Can you explain to me, a foreigner, what you believe the Tea Party really, essentially stands for, what you like about it, what you maybe dislike about it? Of course those who disagree with the Tea Party are invited to post their impressions as well. Neutral impressions are just as welcome as polemics.
Looking forward to your replies!
I think there's a few aspects of the Tea Party movement that haven't been mentioned or thought of.
Essentially, it's a movement of paleo-conservative populists to take control of the Republican Party, and specifically take the Republican Party away from the neo-conservatives who previously held control of it.
Remember, the United States only has two major political parties. But that doesn't mean that everyone
within one of the parties agrees with everyone else. This is because the two-party system, which naturally occurs because of plurality voting systems, calls for broad platforms. This is unlike the multi-party systems found in Europe and elsewhere, where there are more political parties with stronger party discipline as compared to the U.S., but the political parties form coalitions in order to hold majorities to pass legislation.
So, to use a metaphor that a European may better understand, don't think of it as the Republican Party and the Democratic Party but rather the Republican Coalition of conservatives and the Democratic Coalition of liberals.
So the Republican Coalition is made up of several conservative/rightist factions. Among these are paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, libertarians, and religious conservatives. All of these factions vie for control of the Republican Party to some degree, and how well they get along varies from time to time.
For quite some time paleo-conservatives were, for the most part, in control of the Republican Party. Paleo-conservatives have among their core beliefs:
1) economic conservatism: little regulation of businesses and the economy
2) fiscal conservatism: reduction of the national debt and national deficit
3) decentralization of government: "states' rights" advocacy, and reduction of "big government"
4) strong border policy: they are against easy immigration to the United States
5) a non-interventionist foreign policy: they are against interfering in the affairs of other nations, and many want to go so far as to pull out of the United Nations
6) traditional family values: they favor conservative old-fashioned values centered around conservative ideas of family (a married couple of a man and a woman raising their children)
Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, have different values. What makes them conservative, but "neo," is that they essentially favor centralization of government in order to promote their conservative values. They share many essential values with paleo-conservatives, but choose to use the government to promote them, whereas paleo-conservatives aren't as willing to use government interventionism. The core beliefs of neo-conservatives are the following:
1) limit government support to industry: neo-conservatives support using tax revenue to support or bail-out important industries, such as the airline industry or bank industry
2) use of national debt: neo-conservatives are not as fiscally responsible, and by that I mean they do not have such a strict adherence to a balanced budget or reduction of national debt
3) centralization of government: neo-conservatives believe in the use of government programs for conservative ideals
4) soft border policy: neo-conservatives want looser immigration regulations in order to benefit from foreign workers
5) interventionist foreign policy: neo-conservatives are more willing to use diplomacy and the military to promote American interests abroad
Neo-conservatism arose after the Great Depression, and basically applied FDR's principles of politics to conservative values. They came about during the '60's and '70's, ascended during the '80's and '90's, and came to power during GWB's administration.
Look up on YouTube a video from the Daily Show that shows "Governor Bush" debating "President Bush." Effectively, it shows GWB as a governor promoting many paleo-conservative ideals while as president he promoted many neo-conservative ideals.
It was during GWB's administration that many paleo-cons were silent on the intense government interference the neo-cons were doing into areas that traditionally the conservatives were against interfering in. Among these were the No Child Left Behind Act, the airline bailouts after 9/11, the Global War on Terror, wars for regime change in Iraq, and the bailouts GWB did during the burst of the housing market bubble in 2006-07. Many paleo-cons didn't criticize the neo-cons in order to provide a more united front against their opposition from the Democratic Party.
The bailouts of Wall Street was what really re-energized the base of the paleo-cons of the Republican Party. For years, the base voters of the conservative movement had grown up on paleo-conservative beliefs. However, the faction of neo-conservatives took power and went against those ideals. So while the voter base was heavily paleo-conservatives, it was neo-conservative politicians who came into power on their behalf.
So, in many ways, the Tea Party is a faction of paleo-conservative voters who are acting out not only against Democrats and liberals but also the neo-conservatives within their party. While the neo-conservative politicians were willing to use government dollars to support industries advocated by conservatives, paleo-conservative voters don't want government dollars to support any industries, even those advocated by conservatives.
So this is what I see what the Tea Party is all about. Basically a group of paleo-conservative voters who are attempting to make themselves heard by those of their own broad-based party and reassert paleo-conservatism in the Republican Party.