and every party has people who fit that description - even the Democratic Party.
Ever since the very beginning of our nation after the Revolutionary War we have had an ongoing argument about the size of the national government.
After the Constitution was signed and approved by delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it had to be ratified by the states. As determined by Article VII of the Constitution, ratification required the approval of nine special state conventions. States that did not ratify the Constitution would not be considered a part of the Union and would be separate countries.
Passage of the Constitution by the states was by no means certain in 1787. Indeed, many people at that time opposed the creation of a federal, or national, government that would have power over the states. These people were called Anti-Federalists. They included primarily farmers and tradesmen and were less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their opposition, who called themselves Federalists. The Anti-Federalists believed that each state should have a sovereign, independent government. Their leaders included some of the most influential figures in the nation, including PATRICK HENRY and GEORGE MASON, leading national figures during the Revolutionary War period. Many Anti-Federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified. As one member of their opposition, EDMUND RANDOLPH, said, these politicians "will not cherish the great oak which is to reduce them to paltry shrubs."
The Federalists favored the creation of a strong federal government that would more closely unite the states as one large, continental nation. They tended to come from the wealthier class of merchants and plantation owners. Federalists had been instrumental in the creation of the Constitution, arguing that it was a necessary improvement on the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, the country's first attempt at unifying the states in a national political arrangement. Leaders among the Federalists included two men who helped develop the Constitution, JAMES MADISON and ALEXANDER HAMILTON, and two national heroes whose support would greatly improve the Federalists' prospects for winning, GEORGE WASHINGTON and BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html You do make a good point about the Tea Party in the sense that many love the big government benefits that they receive. There does seem to be a disconnect.
I really don't now any Tea baggers so I had to look up what they stand for.
What the Tea Party Movement Stands ForBy Karen Miner Hurd The absolutely amazing thing about the entire Tea Party Movement, which has grown exponentially, is the unity and deep conviction of those involved. The Tea Party movement is drawing people from all political stripes, social causes, and income brackets. It is drawing people who have never participated in any kind of political or grassroots movement before. What we have in common, and what holds us together, is a very deep love for the uniqueness of the United States of America, a desire for the limited government that our Founding Fathers created, a fairly "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, a belief in capitalism and free enterprise and a strong sense of personal responsibility. Tea Party Movement people are feeling an urgency. They are sensing that we must take action NOW, not next year. There is a general sense among the majority of Tea Party people that both major parties are to blame, neither were fully responsive to voters and that it's time to clean house.
The Tea Party Movement is not endorsing one particular solution, candidate or party. We know that there are many good ideas out there, and excellent people behind them. We know that some groups have worked on these issues in a formal way for years, and perhaps feel that the Tea Party movement is eclipsing their efforts. That is not the intention of the Tea Party Movement at all. We are choosing to "major on the majors". That is the strength and the power of the Tea Party movement. It won't matter if it's fair tax, no tax or flat tax if our country is bankrupted. It won't matter if you want the Federal Reserve abolished if Congress keeps appropriating power for itself, and voters are ignored. It won't matter how you feel about the federal funding for abortion, or the Marriage Amendment if our government usurps power and does not reverse its current path, your voice will have little impact.
We see ourselves as serving as a springboard for the people. We are a starting point. We are a powerful voice saying to all elected officials - local, regional, state and federal - "the government belongs to US the VOTER, the taxpayer, not you". The incredible, laser-like power of the Tea Party movement is the lack of factions. We cannot be ignored. Even the framers of the Constitution chose to set aside some issues, (like the issue of slavery) at the time in order to focus on the foundational issue - the founding of a constitutional democracy.
emphasis added http://ezinearticles.com/?What-the-Tea-Party-Movement-Stands-For&id=2129216 Tea Party movementThe Tea Party movement is a populist,<1> conservative/libertarian<2><3> political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests.<4><5><6> The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,<7> the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,<8><9> and a series of healthcare reform bills.<10>
The name "Tea Party" echoes the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 incident when colonists destroyed British tea rather than paying what they considered a tax that violated their right to "No Taxation without Representation."<11> As of 2010, it is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots.<12>
According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, the bailouts of banks by the Bush and Obama administrations triggered the Tea Party’s rise. The interviewer adds that the movement's anger centers on two issues, quoting Rasmussen as saying, "They think federal spending, deficits and taxes are too high, and they think no one in Washington is listening to them, and that latter point is really, really important."<13> The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups.<14> The movement's primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,<15> lowering taxes,<16> reducing wasteful spending,<16> reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit,<15> and adherence to the United States Constitution.<17>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement Many people here on DU have expressed anger with the way our government has been run in the last few years. We hoped for far more than our elected Democrats were willing to pass. Some here, including me, feel that corporations have bought and own our elected officials and call the shots on what laws are passed. The heathcare bill is a sellout. We already have the most expensive heathcare in the world and after the passage of this bill, the experts are predicting that heathcare premiums will jump 10% next year. Many people of all parties feel that Congress is broken and refuses to follow the wishes of the voters.
The OP asked
"Why didn't we organize the working people with grievances instead of the Tea Party" and I believe that it is a fair question. I believe we lost that chance when we chose to ridicule the growing movement. By doing that, we convinced many that we felt we were intellectually superior to tea baggers. We alienated the movement and drove it in a far more conservative direction.
While we were busy laughing and giggling, the Tea Party was organizing and gaining strength. Perhaps we are not as smart as we think we are.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(97 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
