I personally believe that the Tea Party movement has some sound principles behind it, like a more limited government, reduced spending, fewer entitlement programs, and return to the fundamentals of the constitution all align with my own personal beliefs. I do think that the federal government has overstretched its bounds and that a considerable scaling back and "weeding out" of corruption is needed.
My concern with the Tea Party movement is that it has yet to truly centralize and get some semblance of structure. It needs to find itself, so to speak. I see a bit of structure taking place, but it needs to find definite leadership and a concrete party platform before I could see it as a credible institution. Though the movement has stated some fundamental principles, like those I mentioned above, it still seems to primarily convey as its main platform a general dissatisfaction with the current government. This expression of dissatisfaction with government has attracted some genuine radicals to the movement.
There has been a push for the movement to actually become a viable political party that presents candidates for elections. I fear that until the movement becomes more credible, what will actually happen is the Ross Perot effect, where the Tea Party candidate pulls some of the conservative Republican and Independent votes away from a conservative Republican candidate, thereby splitting the vote and paving the way for a more liberal candidate to win the election.
I am not opposed to the idea of the Tea Party becoming a genuine political party, but the structuring and weeding process definitely needs to take place first if any credibility is to be expected.
It is unfortunate that the current media has done all in its power to put a negative light on the movement. Any protest, rally, or political gathering will likely include a few wackos on the fringe, but in the case of the Tea Party movement, the liberal press will do all in its power to make the few bad apples appear to be what comprises the whole barrel.
In the light of the way the media is portraying the movement, the leaders of the Tea Party (once some genuine leadership materializes), need to make an intense effort to weed out the people who are counterproductive to the movement. A definite platform will help such a process. If the tea party picks what principles it will stand on, then the people who aren't in agreement with those principles will gradually fall out of it.
Members of the party, especially at public gatherings, need to do all they can to keep members of the movement who are or may be on that fringe (true right wing radicals do exist) in check. The signs below were photographed at the rally in Washington D.C. on March 21st.
Though I'm sure that the general movement does not support blatant threats of violence or such derogatory images of our president, these are the people that the media will focus on until the movement weeds them out. And until these people are removed form the party, the party will have no real credibility in the political arena.
In my travels for work, I encounter people from all walks of life. The majority of people I work with, however, are strong conservatives. Among those individual, I have encountered quite a few who claim to be a part of the Tea Party movement. Some of these individuals have said seditious things against the government to include wishing our current president dead. Such views have no place among those claiming to be good citizens and are in no way patriotic.
That said, until those people are weeded out of the Tea Party, I do not feel that it will be viewed as a credible institution, but rather will be seen as a destructive force.
I feel like I should reiterate that the Tea Party movement can do some good for our country. A revitalization of the conservative strains in the citizenry of our country is in my view necessary. The Tea Party can be a catalyst in such a revitalization. Whether the movement becomes a driving force within the republican party, its own political party, or whatever else, as long as the bad apples can be weeded out and as long as the movement finds its platform and becomes a more viable movement, it could have a great future.
5 comments:
Do you have any links or summaries of what the "tea party" movement's beliefs are? I know that's partly what you're calling for here, but you seem to know much more about them then I do. But all I've heard is I guess how the media portrays them - that they travel to local town hall meetings with the sole purpose of disrupting them and ridiculing local representatives, and that they specialize in the strategies of ridicule, misinformation, and hate. The picture you posted is very similar to what I've heard about this movement. I have trouble supporting any political party or movement that brings that much hatred to the governance of my nation. Standing up for what you believe is important, but so is doing it honorably in a way that leads to the building up of political principles and not just the tearing down of people.
I agree that the movement needs more cohesion, but I hope that it only becomes a means to elect true fiscal conservatives into government, not a party that puts up candidates. The three-party thing doesn't really work out so well here.
At the same time, I think that the Mainstream Media are commiting malpractice in how they portray the tea party supporters. In groups of thousands or ten thousands, they will isolate the probably less than 1% who are crackpots. Any large group of people who get together is bound to have some nuts. Look at congress, after all! To take a few deranged individuals and hold them up as an example of the whole tea party group is just wrong.
The three Big sites (government, journalism, hollywood) have covered this media malpractice about the tea party quite extensively.
Jeff:
The American Tea Party (see theamericanteaparty.org) states its mission as:
"The American Tea Party is here to reaffirm the traditions and principles upon which the nation was founded, including a free market approach to economic vitality and prosperity, self determination and self reliance, personal responsibility and accountability and a prudent approach to governance and the common good."
The website teapartypatriots.org states its core principles as "Fiscal Responsibility - Limited Government - Free Market" (see http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx)
There are some leaders emerging, like Richard Viguerie of conservativeHQ.com, Ken Emanuelson and Bill Hennessy of the Dallas and St Louis tea parties, respectively. There is speculation that the movement is attempting to centralize and possibly begin promoting candidates, and that's what I based this post on, but by and large, the movement remains fractured. At least Ken Emanuelson wants it to stay that way. He says “The mainstream media has gotten the Tea Party Movement wrong. It’s not about the various national organizations, or even purported national leaders. It’s about the thousands of local tea party organizations that are loosely collaborating to return limited Constitutional Government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility to the United States." (see: http://biggovernment.com/jloudon/2010/01/15/tea-party-leaders-see-movement-becoming-a-potent-force/)
The problem with a loosely collaborated group of movements is that there is no control over the overall group. The threats of violence, name calling, and vandalism that has occurred are all examples of this. If there is no centralized leadership, there is no real authority to put these acts to an end. Debbie Dooley, co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party, said concerning the bad behavior, "We support peaceful means. There are so many Tea Party groups that are out there. ... It's like herding cats. It's impossible." (see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/tea-party-leaders-condemn-disown-threats/)
Overall, I presently see the tea party movement as a conglomerate that focuses on disenchantment with the present situation and the condition of the government. There’s nothing wrong with being dissatisfied, but since the movement has yet to begin presenting its own practical alternatives to the situation and cannot seem to quell the more extreme fringe that is riding in its coattails, it will continue to attract negative attention and will continue to mainly be seen in a negative light.
Nate:
The liberal leaning media will always portray any conservative movement in a negative light. I know that by and large the members of the Tea Party are good people and that bad apples can be found in any group, but if the Tea Party wants to achieve the perception of legitimacy in the public view despite its handicap in media coverage, it will have to do an especially exceptional job at reigning in the miscreants. As long as it remains fractured, it won’t be able to do so.
I agree that I'd like to see somme basic platform principles as their focus, which could evolve with current needs, but I don't think I like the idea of them forming a party per se. I don't see parties as particularly useful and I think they've done a lot of harm; I also think it is easier for a party to get hijacked than a movement.
All things considered, I think the Tea Parties have been and will continue to be useful. They do attract fringe groups, but I think they are numbered by moderates more than radicals. Further, I agree that we cannot stand with violence except in the most severe of circumstances, but I think the Tea Parties have been peaceful. Yes, I acknowledge the threats (which I disagree with), yet the radical left has been more violent over the past year. It's hard to keep people reigned in and at the same time charged up about issues. On this I think they've done a good job-- perhaps not perfect, but good.
Very well-thought out and well-researched, I might add...
Post a Comment