Culture War Brewing Within Tea Party?

[DearAbby]

Social conservatives who felt shut out of the conversation in the last two elections are banking on a Hill resurgence going into the 2012 presidential campaign.

These voters didn't see GOP presidential nominee John McCain as their guy in 2008, and the economy squeezed their issues in the midterms. So a more robust social agenda on Capitol Hill should be a given, says Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, since more than 50 of the freshman House Republicans who will give the party a majority come January oppose abortion.

But libertarian-minded Tea Party activists have been warning freshmen whom the movement helped elect that if they stray from a laserlike focus on fiscal issues, they'll face a primary challenge in two years and harm Republican chances in the coming presidential race. And they have accused leaders like Perkins of attempting to appropriate the Tea Party's success to promote a broader and different agenda.

"The Tea Party movement was born out of objections to the expanding size of government," says Christopher Barron, who chairs GOProud, an organization for gay conservatives. "Even social conservative candidates didn't run on social issues.

"The Tony Perkinses of the world are trying to rewrite history to make this about those issues," he says.

More:

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/22/131512631/culture-war-brewing-within-tea-party

[Drale]

1. It really is like watching children bicker isn't it?

The right wingers are so arrogant and self centered, there is no way they can work together for any length of time.

[GoldMedals4U]

2. soc-cons vs. tea partiers

I think the tea party does have more of a libertarian bent, meaning they don't care about social issues as much. But I think they'll probably go along with a socially conservative candidate after the dust settles.

[NightWatcher]

7. the batshit crazies vs the apeshit crazies.

[Myrina]

3. I will never ever never understand ....

... why so-called 'conservatives' are so against 'big government' but then want that same government to regulate your reproductive decisions, who you can marry, what you can do in your bedroom, where you worship, what's taught in your kid's school, what you can or can't see on tv, etc etc ...

:hurts: I need a drink now.

[Ter]

8. Well, I agree with you but...

What about the opposite? Those of us on the Left who love government, but want the government not to get involved in "reproductive decisions, who you can marry, what you can do in your bedroom, where you worship, what's taught in your kid's school, what you can or can't see on tv" etc.?

It just proves we are all hypocrites, all of us. Except the Libertarians.

[jeff47]

13. You've got a faulty assumption there

There's a lot on the left who are not particularly fond of government either. Government is a tool to use against our baser nature. Not a beloved institution.

[Myrina]

14. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[ThomThom]

21. Just because one believes that there is a place for government

does mean you believe government should dictate everything. Libertarians don't see that their philosophy does not work when it is put into place in the real world, they only like the perfect world scenario. At some point we have to look at outcomes. People don't behave with pure motives, some are out to take advantage and that is what people need protection from.

[Goldstein1984]

4. Just growing pains

"Liberals" had better get off their asses, organize, and start to do something besides hand-wringing, or Tea Party America will be in their future.

Like what? I've already thrown it out there: a general boycott of all nonessential goods. If it isn't basis food, water, heat, clothing and medicine, then stop buying it.

Buy local when you can.
Buy American when you can't buy local.
Buy free trade when you can't buy American.
Buy nothing if you don't need it to survive.

No movies, eating out, iPods, iPhones, iPads or anything else that isn't life critical. In an economy based 70% on consumption, it will have a huge impact.

Will it also hurt workers? In the short run, yes. That's the price we pay for having participated in a big Ponze scheme that put our short hairs in the grasp of the rich and powerful. So yes, it will hurt. War does that.

[drm604]

5. And what would it gain?

I fail to understand your strategy. How will this hurt the tea party?

[Bragi]

6. Looks like an 'underpants gnomes' business plan

Step 1. Adopt the proponents suggestions

Step 2. ?

Step 3. Tea Party weakened/ more people vote Democrat


See http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/the-underpants-gnomes-theory-of-reform/

[Goldstein1984]

9. The tea party are just stooges

They're a tool. Maybe a symptom. They aren't the enemy, they're populists with a demented and ignorant political dogma.

Distinguish between the Tea Party and the tea partiers. The Tea Party is just a stage set erected by the ruling class. The tea partiers are their puppets.

As far as a general boycott, a drop in consumption would send the Dow crashing, and world markets along with it. And that sort of organization would put a little fear into the system.

Or you can just sit back, whine, and enjoy the process of peasantification.

[drm604]

10. Yes, those are the only two options.

Engage in an aimless and unfocused boycott, or sit back, whine and enjoy the process.

Maybe you're on to something, I don't know, but I don't see what it is. How will this hurt the tea party? How would it put fear into the system, and how would the system respond to that fear?

Believe me, I'm all for doing something that causes some kind of constructive changes, I'm just not seeing how your plan will do that.

If you crash the economy (more than it already is crashed), what may happen is that people will blame the President and the Democrats and turn to the Republicans for answers.

[Goldstein1984]

16. I don't believe that the system can be changed using the system

Fewer and fewer people believe that every day. So, it your other alternatives involve things like demonstrating and voting, not a lot of people hold much store in that stuff anymore.

And I think the conservative populists (aka tea partiers) and liberal populists (aka directionless) are united by a common experience--loss and suffering. I work with some Palinistas, and I did an interesting experiment.

I took some ideas from Ted Rall's "The Anti-American Manifesto," which predicts a violent revolt, and I stripped those concepts of their liberal dialogue. I had 100% concurrence that politicians of both parties are corporate prostitutes; I had 100% agreement that the bailouts for the big financial institutions were theft from the citizens; I had unanimous support for the proposition that the system is so corrupt it can no longer be trusted; everyone agreed that the wars in the Middle East are about oil, not security, and that the poor were doing the dying for the rich; and they agreed fully that democracy and civil liberties were disappearing.

Unforntunately, they've been spoon fed a lot of bullshit about who the scapegoats are: unions, public employees, migrant workers. But I think something like a successful general boycott of nonessential goods would draw them in, and the response of the ruling class could be punitive enough to cause the general suffering and oppression necessary to unite populist across the board.

Or I could be wrong. But the path we're on is going to lead to violence, because even sheep fight back when there's enough pain. My desire to revolt soon is a desire to do things peacefully. Like Rall, I'm not calling for violence, I'm just saying it's inevitable with the path we're following. I have three children and five grandchildren, and I want the anarchy over before they're grown.

But we're nice and secure up here in Alaska. And we're prepared for the worst. Just hoping to avoid it.

[Recursion]

11. Austerity is a bad idea from individuals, too

What would you accomplish if that happened? Other than shooting the unemployment rate sky-high.

[Goldstein1984]

17. We're already doing austerity

I mentioned in another post, this Christmas will be the second that our spending is intentionally only 10% of our 2008 spending. Our wish lists are limited to necessities--no luxuries. Our adult children are getting their utility bills paid for Christmas. We don't eat out, and we don't go to movies. We're withdrawing from the economy to the maximum extent possible.

As far as the unemployment goes, if you're saying that the system has been set up so that we can't change it without hurting ourselves, then I agree. Those aren't employees you're worried about, they're people with the guns of the ruling class pointed at their heads. We're being told, "If you do anything meaningful to fight back, the poor people get it."

You can't deliver a punch without being willing to take one. (Unless you're a nation of cowards doing it's dirty work with pilotless drones.)

[Recursion]

18. Sorry, I have no interest in checking out

The benefits of a market economy are, ultimately, worth the costs, to me at least.

Best of luck with that, though (I mean that, not sarcasm).

[Goldstein1984]

19. In the end, I think few actually weigh the pros and cons of

a market economy. Most, I think, just fumble along--herd animals unaware of the big picture, barely educated and aware enough to feed themselves, let alone question their circumstances or plan for more. They comfort themselves with wishful thinking expressed in statements beginning with, "Someday..."

If I thought the market economy was really a free market economy I would feel differently, but it isn't. It's folded, spindled and mutilated to help the Few manipulate the Many.

I don't have any science to back me up, but I have a gut feeling and a history of gut feelings that turned out to be correct that tell me the house of cards is going to come crashing down. That's one of the reasons we moved back to Alaska, picked up 7 easily-defended and out-of-way acres adjacent to good hunting and fishing, with like-minded neighbors, and stockpiled for the worst. Because of my profession, I know the local scenarios for natural disasters and civil unrest, and I know that authorities are preparing for the latter, so they see it coming, too.

Everyone, in the end, will do what they think is the right thing, regardless of their interests and how they come to that conclusion. Most are uncomfortable questioning the status quo.

Good conversation. Thanks.

On edit: Fixed typo. There are probably more.

[StarsInHerHair]

20. we need to lazer focus on the things the TPs & GOP are

trying to dismantle, outlaw, or simply imprison in red tape "bureaucracy games" in the immediate while also aiming at long-term Progressive goals. We need people and leaders that can outline the steps, that will explain the signposts of increasing success-against the cacophony of the TPs & GOP mindgames. It's vital that short-term goals are enough to build momentum & enthusiasm and thus increasing strength as we run towards and achieve our Progressive goals.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Uh, Christopher Barron, 95% of teabaggers are social conservatives

At least that's been my experience. Even the libertarians among them, a surprising number of whom are anti-choice and anti-gay rights.

[bluestate10]

15. Voters that are not tea partiers, but who bought their argument.

Are in for big buyer's remorse over the next two years. I welcome focus on social issues from tea partiers and republicans, nothing will destroy their new found power faster. Average americans don't want fights over abortion and gay rights crowding out the fight for jobs and economic justice. Average americans determine who wins elections.