Changing Tea Party Movement

[cserou]

I just read this article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-koelkebeck/post_1153_b_774964.html, which explains how the Tea Party movement, originally a conservative economic movement, is being taken over by religious and social conservatives. This mirrors my own experience with AFP, a Tea Party group in which I participated until some of the members started using our booth at events to promote socially conservative issues, like anti-abortion/gay marriage. They seem to believe that you can't have fiscal conservatism without right-wing moral values. I have mixed feelings on this, and I'm curious to see whether:
1) If any of you are/were involved in the Tea Party movement, whether you have witnessed the same trend,
2) What drew so many right-wing conservatives to the Tea Party movement in recent months (is it that people are getting bored with it, so the kooks have come out?),
3) If you are socially liberal, how much of a turn-off do the right-wingers cause?
This issue is important to me, so I really appreciate your opinions!

 

[old_man]

Your problem is you are reading the Huffington Post. That crap will rot your brain.

 

[kastein]

I just read this article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-koelkebeck/post_1153_b_774964.html, which explains how the Tea Party movement, originally a conservative economic movement, is being taken over by religious and social conservatives. This mirrors my own experience with AFP, a Tea Party group in which I participated until some of the members started using our booth at events to promote socially conservative issues, like anti-abortion/gay marriage. They seem to believe that you can't have fiscal conservatism without right-wing moral values. I have mixed feelings on this, and I'm curious to see whether:
1) If any of you are/were involved in the Tea Party movement, whether you have witnessed the same trend,
2) What drew so many right-wing conservatives to the Tea Party movement in recent months (is it that people are getting bored with it, so the kooks have come out?),
3) If you are socially liberal, how much of a turn-off do the right-wingers cause?
This issue is important to me, so I really appreciate your opinions!

1) not officially involved, but share many of the same views... been seeing it a bunch recently
2) my take is that any movement or site that gains mainstream attention gets a bunch of retards and hangers on who degrade the group as a whole and make it less focused. Happened with slashdot, reddit, digg, the republican party, etc... eventually those who started it realize that it now looks nothing like what they had in mind, and abandon ship to run things how they want again. Repeat ad infinitum.
3) a big turn-off. I could care less what people do socially so long as everyone involved is cool with it, I don't really need or want religion jammed in my face and we have much more important issues for government to deal with than what people do behind closed bedroom doors.

 

[XJEEPER]

Check the credibility of the source. Any proof that the Huffpost statements are accurate?

Look at the big picture. Our Constitution was founded by individuals with specific moral values, fiscal conservatism being one of them.

Our Founding Fathers didn't all believe in the same God or higher being, but they clearly understood how morals, the family unit, frugality and personal responsibilty played in to maintaining our God-given rights and freedoms.

I'm not a Tea Party member, but I agree with the movement as a whole and the effort to return our country to it's core principles and values.

A house divided cannot stand....same goes for a nation.

There are many in power who's main goal is to divide us, to "take care of us", to enslave us for the good of the collective.

The US Consitution is about personel rights, powers, freedoms, responsibility and accountibility. Our current elected have become rulers, with the goal of collective rights, increased government power, control of freedom, lack of responsibility or accountiblity.

We are at a pivot point as a nation.....We the People need to decide if we want to be led buy our rulers......or do we want to lead ourselves back to the Constitution?

We still have the right to elect those who share these core values and beliefs.

The integrity of our Republic depends on it.

 

[old_man]

XJEEPER, that was very well said.

 

[katuah]

... They seem to believe that you can't have fiscal conservatism without right-wing moral values. I have mixed feelings on this, and I'm curious to see whether:
1) If any of you are/were involved in the Tea Party movement, whether you have witnessed the same trend,
2) What drew so many right-wing conservatives to the Tea Party movement in recent months (is it that people are getting bored with it, so the kooks have come out?),
3) If you are socially liberal, how much of a turn-off do the right-wingers cause?

1. When the Tea Party started I really hoped it would be a serious populist movement to get corporations & Wall Street out of Congress and give our corrupt & co-opted government a good cleanup. I would have joined up with that! But it didn't happen like that - it got astroturfed right away by the far right in bed with invisible big money like the Kochs and BP. It's amazing how legitimate anger can get twisted by people with money.

2. See "legitimate anger" above. Cr4p is falling apart and the government is too pwned to do anything about it. People are getting desperate, and angry. Anybody who offers a focus for that anger....well, there you go.

3. Kastein said it. Not your, anybody, or the government's business what I believe, think, or do in my bedroom or with my own body. It's not freedom if you are only free to be like everybody else (or like one particular group's idea of what is ok). The louder the social conservatives get, the harder I plug my ears and look somewhere else for somebody to support in cleaning up this mess.

If that makes me less than popular on here, so be it. Hopefully somebody will still go wheelin' with me.

 

[cserou]

As to the credibility of the Huffington Post article... I wouldn't make a monetary bet based on their statistics. The article did, however, note the same issue that I had personally witnessed, and it summed up many of the recent public statements that I have noticed.

2) my take is that any movement or site that gains mainstream attention gets a bunch of retards and hangers on who degrade the group as a whole and make it less focused.

I suppose it's actually much better for the Democrats (IMO the greater of two evils) when the retards are distracting focus from issues where we could actually gain some ground.

 

[cserou]

3. Kastein said it. Not your, anybody, or the government's business what I believe, think, or do in my bedroom or with my own body. It's not freedom if you are only free to be like everybody else (or like one particular group's idea of what is ok). The louder the social conservatives get, the harder I plug my ears and look somewhere else for somebody to support in cleaning up this mess.

Definitely.

 

[XJEEPER]

1. When the Tea Party started I really hoped it would be a serious populist movement to get corporations & Wall Street out of Congress and give our corrupt & co-opted government a good cleanup. I would have joined up with that! But it didn't happen like that - it got astroturfed right away by the far right in bed with invisible big money like the Kochs and BP. It's amazing how legitimate anger can get twisted by people with money.

2. See "legitimate anger" above. Cr4p is falling apart and the government is too pwned to do anything about it. People are getting desperate, and angry. Anybody who offers a focus for that anger....well, there you go.

3. Kastein said it. Not your, anybody, or the government's business what I believe, think, or do in my bedroom or with my own body. It's not freedom if you are only free to be like everybody else (or like one particular group's idea of what is ok). The louder the social conservatives get, the harder I plug my ears and look somewhere else for somebody to support in cleaning up this mess.

If that makes me less than popular on here, so be it. Hopefully somebody will still go wheelin' with me.

1- Sorry it didn't meet your expectations, but that's not really what the movement is about. Could net some collateral benefits, though. I don't really see the movement fueled by anger, frustration perhaps..... you appear to be uke: talking points from the Obama Administration here.

2-Again with the anger.......:dunno:. It's pretty simple actually. Look in the mirror. That's who's going to do something about the current state of our nation. A party isn't going to take our country back from the ruling elite, We the People are.
It doesn't have to involve violence or bloodshed, simply educate yourself and everyone in your sphere of influence on the issues and get out and vote for the person (not party) that will do their best to represent you. Let them know that if they fail to deliver, they will be removed from office by the same people that put them there.

We didn't get here overnight and we won't take our country back overnight or in the election next week. It is a process that will take time.....but will be worth the effort. There is no other country on Earth like the USA. Period.

3-I'm confused with your reference of "social conservatives".......Socialism and Conservative-ism are polar opposites. Definition please.....

 

[kastein]

3-I'm confused with your reference of "social conservatives".......Socialism and Conservative-ism are polar opposites. Definition please.....

there are a few meanings of the word social:
* those damn reds hiding under the bed
* things pertaining to social occasions / view on politeness, decency, morals, religion, etc as opposed to finance.

I consider myself a social liberal (well, not quite in the way democrats are... I want everyone to leave everyone else the hell alone if they don't like it, rather than forcing everyone to accept everyone else's wacky beliefs and lifestyle) but extremely fiscally/financially conservative, i.e. libertarian.

 

[XJEEPER]

there are a few meanings of the word social:
* those @#!*% reds hiding under the bed
* things pertaining to social occasions / view on politeness, decency, morals, religion, etc as opposed to finance.

I consider myself a social liberal (well, not quite in the way democrats are... I want everyone to leave everyone else the @#!*% alone if they don't like it, rather than forcing everyone to accept everyone else's wacky beliefs and lifestyle) but extremely fiscally/financially conservative, i.e. libertarian.

*.....they're not hiding under the bed anymore, they've migrated to Washington DC and are bragging about it.

*Hmmm, this gets tricky. Who defines "wacky beliefs and lifestyle" and what is socially acceptable?

 

[cserou]

*.....they're not hiding under the bed anymore, they've migrated to Washington DC and are bragging about it.

*Hmmm, this gets tricky. Who defines "wacky beliefs and lifestyle" and what is socially acceptable?

I believe that no one should define "wacky beliefs and lifestyle". As long as someone's lifestyle doesn't infringe on any one else's rights (i.e. child pornography), then it's certainly not the government's business to determine social acceptability. Social pressure, not government, is for attempting to define social acceptability. There will always be a majority of Americans who believe that everyone should adhere to a strict moral code. Those people are more than welcome to exert social pressure over their neighbors, but they must keep in mind that their neighbors have the right to behave however they choose at the end of the day.

 

[XJEEPER]

I agree that as US citizens, we have the right and freedom to act as we will, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. We also have laws that were created through majority vote, that we must adhere to, even if we don't completely agree with them. We also have the right to organize a majority vote to overturn laws that we don't agree with.

I believe this to be true:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.

John Adams


I also believe this to be true:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Samuel Adams

The Tea Party movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government, lowering taxes, reducing wasteful spending, reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to the United States Constitution.

atriot:

 

[ECKSJAY]

I agree with the OP and have noticed the same things. I didn't even have to attend any meetups or rallies to see it. Subscribing to a few of the email and Facebook groups showed me right away that the organizers were using them as sounding boards for personal and radically social agendas.

 

[Boatwrench]

What does 'socially liberal' have to do with the bedroom and your body? Most respondents went straight to this issue.

Isn't socially liberal about taking care of one another?

 

[cserou]

No, you're thinking of socialism, or being economically liberal. Being socially liberal means that you want the government to allow individuals to choose their own social values. Being socially conservative means that you want the government to decide your values for you. Social conservatives are usually pro-life, and anti-gay marriage, hence the reference to bedroom and body.

 

[5-90]

@XJEEPER - "socialism" is an economic system, not a political one. Therefore, "social conservativism" is not a misnomer.

However, I am now and have always been registered NPA (No Party Affiliation.) The closest I could possibly come to agreeing with any particular party would be the Libertarians, but even they're a little centrist for my liking.

Personally? I'm socially libertarian - rights and powers of the government should be restricted in favour of individual liberties. The minimum of laws should be in place - enough to prevent any member of the body politic from harming any other member, or to punish those who do harm others. People should be able to defend themselves - the purpose of the government (WRT protection of the body politic) is to protect it against threats from without. Individuals should be able to protect themselves against threats from within.

Fiscally, I'm heavily conservative. Taxation is essentially theft - and any taxation used to provide services which are not essential to the health and growth of the society constitutes robbery with violence (considering they can toss you in prison for not paying for their useless programmes, I think that's a proper description.) What constitutes "essential services?"
- Public Safety - minimal police presence.
- Emergency Medical Services.
- Libraries & Musea (preservation of culture and knowledge.)
- A standing military is vaguely necessary, although I don't generally agree with the way it's been used in the last couple dozen years. We're the United States of America, not "Globocop." Let the UN handle policing the world, if they want to, and leave us out of it.
- Limited programmes of social welfare - as oulined by Thos. Paine in Common Sense.

That's all that leaps to mind. It is not the place of our government - or any other - to legislate non-harmful personal behaviour or interpersonal relationships. If two guys want to dress up in Bugs Bunny outfits and take turns smacking each other in the head with small hammers while they take turns fellating their cat, who am I to care? It's a victimless hobby - and think of how good the cat must feel!

It is not the place of government to tell me what to wear on my head if I'm riding a motorcycle. It is not the place of government to tell me I have to be strapped into my vehicle when it's moving - particularly if it's only moving into or out of my driveway (yes, I've had to deal with that asininity. Fought it in court and won, just on simple logic.) It is not the place of government to tell me I can't have the means to defend myself against others - the extent of involvement there should be to investigate and make sure I acted properly.

By now, I'm sure you get the idea. But, as long as we have the 537 idiots in Washington who have come to consider themselves "royalty" (I know there are a couple who don't, but they're very much the exception...) we're going to continue to spiral into socialism (economic) and totalitarianism (political.) Considering all the talk of "political dynasties" in the House and Senate, we've almost created a new class of royalty in America - I thought we fought the Revolution to get away from that sort of thing?

 

[ehall]

Individual Liberty is the over-arching principle. Economic conservatism as you call it is a major component of that but it's not the central element. The freedom to create and exercise wealth is ultimately about liberty, while "spread the wealth around" requires seizing your wealth and giving it to other people without your consent.

Another key component of that is taking responsibility for others, so that The Collective doesn't have to do it (or is unable to argue their way into it). Historically in America this type of support has been provided by Church-related missions. Other organizations do it too (Shriner's Children Hospitals is a great example of philanthropic works that the government cannot and should not provide), but the local providers of food and shelter to the downtrodden have historically been churches. With that in mind, some people believe that religion is a necessary prerequisite to individual liberty. I don't happen to think so, however I think churches are more positive than negative towards that end, so I like having them in the mix.

Another thing, democracy is ultimately about having a voice in the laws that you live under and the society you want to bring children into (drugs and prostitution are okay as long as it isn't happening on my street!). A weak fed and a strong local government is the balance we all seek. As long as the bible thumpers agree with that scoping, keep them around.

 

[XJEEPER]

:wave1:

 

[XJEEPER]

Being socially liberal means that you want the government to allow individuals to choose their own social values. Being socially conservative means that you want the government to decide your values for you. Social conservatives are usually pro-life, and anti-gay marriage, hence the reference to bedroom and body.

Disagree.

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice.

Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

Therefore, subscribers of social liberalism prefer that the government take care of everyone and everything.