What is the Tea Party? Activists? Astroturf?

Remove all ads!

I found the perfect thread to accompany the thread on the late Andrew Breitbart - and it is a one hour or so lecture on the topic of the Tea Party held by Harvard Sociologist Theda Skocpol at the University of Virginia. Highly recommended. Enjoy.
The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism

Spoiler

As for the answer of the title question ...

Spoiler

... here's my answer ...

Spoiler

... it's both.

 

The link wasn't working, but I decided to do a little research before deciding if I was going to actually try to see it.

Taken from wikipedia

LOL I'm sure in the eyes of a liberal and Democrat she is the perfect person to explain the Tea Party to them. She meets all of the qualifications, as she is a Harvard Liberal and surely she must be unbiased.

I think I'm going to pass on this one, I'm off to watch a video done by the John Birch Society on if Obama is the correct choice for America LOL

 

I don't have time to watch a 1 hour video, but I found a Cole's Notes version.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/us/08iht-letter08.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I don't know how accurately the article sums up the video, but it doesn't seem as bad as you might think, Snook. (LOL)

 

It isn't but he'll never know. Which is amusingly something that she said about the tea partiers - that the one big thing they sure agree on is who the enemy is. Personally I found it a pretty balanced presentation with interesting insights. But then, I am probably biased, too.

So Snook, just censor yourself. You don't need to expose yourself to that vile propaganda of that dastardly Harvard Liberal. It'll only get you ideas. Gee, imagine, if you listened to her and agreed with what she said - that would probably only be evidence that she had bewitched you with her sophistic Harvard Liberal trickery!

 

The fact that the Koch brothers have financed a lot of the Tea Party stuff is to me representative of what is so misguided about them. They rail against big government but fail to see the evils of big buisness. It's not government regulations and high taxes that are making them lose the economic positions they once had, it's global capitalism, with it's army of corporate lobbyists, that are undermining them through all the things that have been discussed ad infinitum. At least big government, when it functions properly, can address social grievances that aren't profitable to handle and can make life better for everyone without disproportionately benefiting a few and leaving most out, think New Deal and Great Society type of programs.

I can totally agree with being against government corruption since it is just as prevalent as corporate corruption, but making it smaller isn't the answer to that, and I can understand their complaint that taxes are too high for them in this age where a living wage is a privilege, but I see more scapegoating in their movement than an actual look at our social problems.

 

Not really, but somewhat still, and the lecture clarifies that

 

Do you have another link to it? The one you provided isn't working for some reason.

 

Link fixed.

 

*sigh*

I don't know which I find more frustrating: the fact that your first impulse was not to try to find a solution to the link issue or to find the actual piece elsewhere, but to go immediately into ad hominem mode, scouring Skopcol's background in order to procure a handy excuse to dismiss the argument in question sight unseen, employing your own bewildering bias to condemn the bias you assume is inherent in her thesis – OR – the fact that you believe that one of the most prestigious, respected academic institutions on the planet is somehow comparable to the John Birch Society. Considering where you reside, I'm quite certain you know precisely how obtuse that comparison is.

I try - I really, really try - to treat you as an intellectual equal whose position is as valid and worthy of respect as my own. But man you make it hard sometimes. You may not like Skopcol, her background, her research or her conclusions - and that's fine. But since you're the one always whining about everyone else's liberal bias, maybe you could show us all the error of our ways by thoughtfully considering and then addressing her argument on its merits, even if it's one you've predecided to disagree with. LOL?

Personally I found her piece very insightful and offering far more human respect and dignity to the Tea Party than their rhetoric deserves. I actually respect and sympathize with them MORE now, believe it or not. But I guess I am biased.

 

I'm just curious, considering the 2010 Republican representatives and their platform, if "She feels strongly that Republicans block reasonable Democratic legislation," is something you'd have to be a Democrat to agree with. Then again, I think it's hard to argue that Fox News has done a lot for the tea party, and perhaps in a way shaped it with their coverage - and that tends to attract certain people and a certain mindset. You can be reasonably sure someone with Theda Scopcol's views would not be welcome there. Then again, she seems to have been able to speak with them (ergo, they to her) well enough.

 

Bolded word is key. Of course Republicans would try to block some of the more ambitious Democratic legislative plans - with the reverse being true as well - but look at what's happened since Obama got elected. The Republicans have gone into complete obstructionist mode. We even had a debt ceiling crisis that caused a US credit downgrade last year because of Republican posturing before conceding.

 

I would not make a comment that there should never ever be a debt ceiling. I'm just saying that most analysts saw a government shutdown as an Armageddon type situation that would have long-lasting consequences. Not only would senior citizens not receive SS, but hell, even the pay of soldiers serving overseas - not to mention it would have cost a lot of politicians any chance at re-election.

So that the debt ceiling would be raised was a foregone conclusion - but it was the delay and posturing that ultimately lead to a credit downgrade - something that likely could have been avoided. And you know, given that we as a country have been operating in the red for so long, I kind of like the idea of getting the best interest rate possible on that debt.

Of course, it also misses the point I was trying to make, which is that it would be expected for the Republicans to block some of the Democrats grander plans, and the same is true with Democrats in regard to Republicans. But the point was that even reasonable legislation was being blocked.

 

OK - fine. But keep in mind I was using the debt ceiling as an example of the obstructionist policies - I wasn't intending to shift the topic to that. I could go with Obamacare, or any of the other major policy decisions of the past two years, if that is your preference.

 

But alot of the republicans who suddenly took a "principled" stand, had actually voted to raise the debt ceiling under Bush(43) several times. Hence the quotationmarks around principled.
The problem with the debt ceiling is that it is not like a household deficit, so you cant directly trace spending cuts to the debt ceiling as a whole slew of republicans wanted to suddenly do. Again after having raised it numerous times during the former president.

Regards
Defreni

 

No not necessarily, hence the statement that a country budget is not similar to a household budget.
If you cut spending in a liquidity trap or as Richard Koo would argue, a private debt crisis, you will directly have an impact on economic growth. It will stagnate and for that reason alone you will experience smaller revenues. If you cut spending in a household it will not influence how much intake there is, therefore you will have a smaller debt.

Another reason a country budget is very different from a household budget is that a household normally doesnt have any influence on the interest rate. A country normmaly have some influence on that, at least as long as it have a sovereign currency. Which incidentally is the largest problem for Spain and Italy these days.

Hope this makes my points a bit clearer.

regards
Defreni