Talk:Tea Party movement

Expand Energy policy section, please.

• Do energy subsidies actually work? Governement subsidies are largely social experiments without any guarantee of success. Some pay off royally, while others are a waste of time and money. By Russ Finley, April 12, 2012

Reference above related to Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 18 # Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole 99.181.132.241 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure would be nice if there was a mention of the Tea Party in that article. Ravensfire (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What about this Welfare for (Very Rich) Oil Companies by Bill McKibben in the May 2012 issue of Sojourners magazine? 99.109.127.232 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Incredible (and not reliable) source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Polling data

In the section of canvasses and polls, I found the following statement: " ... the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole ... " My issue may seem like nit-picking, but that sounds to me like an interpretation of polling data as opposed to a report of polling results. Because I don't think the question was: "On a scale of one to five, with one being the least racially resentful and five being the most racially resentful, do you consider yourself to be 1-not racially resentful at all, 2-somewhat racially resentful, 3-racially resentful, 4-more than usually racially resentful or 5-very racially resentful." I think that the polling data are reliable, but that interpretation ought to be explicitly identified and explained or removed. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we cite the study's director?

"The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."[1]

— goethean ॐ 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We should really be looking for analysis, and at least somewhat objective analysis. The fact that they made such a blatant logical error (equating attributes of supporters to what the TPM is "about") to allude to the TPM as being about race indicates that they are not such. If more TPM supporters had red hair, then that does not mean that the TPM agenda is red hair. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One, your analogy is inapt. Having red hair is not really related to politics in the same way that having racist beliefs is, especially when we are talking about a group well-known for using extreme rhetoric ever since a black person was elected President. Two, the article, per my suggestion above, can simply quote the director of the study on what he believes the study found. It doesn't need to say that his analysis is definitive. — goethean ॐ 21:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is the we CAN put junk in here. I'm saying that we should be looking for better. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the Tea Party has habitually engaged in extreme racial rhetoric. Thus what an advocate of the Tea Party might describe as "junk", I might see as neutral description. The mainstream media, which Wikipedia articles are obliged to reflect, tends to be on my side of this issue, not yours. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My only objection is that the polling data have been interpreted and that the interpretation has been presented as polling data. If the data have been interpreted, then that ought to be explicitly stated. It's not unlike exit polling data - the numbers are irrefutable, but interpreting the data is a guessing game based on when the numbers were collected, in what districts, and what questions were asked. I would, honestly, just delete the text and leave interpretation to the reader. TreacherousWays (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, here is the research, and here are the actual questions that were asked (PDF). While I don't know if "racially resentful" is the most accurate/neutral wording that could be used in the Tea Party article, it is the wording the researchers and the reliable sources that cited it used. So I think that "resentful" may not be the best word, because that wasn't what was asked, I don't think the sentence should be removed from the article altogether either. - SudoGhost 01:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The TPM is a name, a slogan, and an agenda, not a group of people. Poll data about supporters does not define the agenda of the movement. My whimsical " If more TPM supporters had red hair, then that does not mean that the TPM agenda is red hair." was to make this point more clearly. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: I insist on making clear the dividing line between the poll questions and the interpretation of the data. I think that's both reasonable and neutral. Explanatory text ( ... the pollsters, members of a purely academic group focused exclusively on gender and race issues, used subjective interpretation of the polling data to conclude that the TPM members polled were "racially resentful" ... ) will detract from the otherwise neutral and acceptable poll data. Had the pollsters used the word "bias" I don't think that we'd be having this discussion, but the word "resentful" is non-neutral and has many connotations that extend beyond the scope of the poll questions (including "hateful" and "bitter"). From a policy standpoint, the poll data are reliably-sourced neutral facts and should stay. The interpretation of the poll data can be reasonably described as the opinion of an otherwise non-notable, non-neutral academic and should probably go. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My review of the poll questions reinforces my opinion that the "racially resentful" label is an almost purely speculative and subjective interpretation of the data. It's an unfounded and radical position to assume after a nine-question survey of 1,000 people, of which only four questions deal with race. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From a Washington Times article dealing with the Parker polling data: " .... Emily McClintock Ekins, a graduate student at the University of California at Los Angeles, said tea partyers have more faith in the fairness of capitalism, which she said could explain their attitudes on race. “This makes it less surprising that nearly all Tea Partiers believe that hard work, rather than luck, drives success. This might also explain their lower levels of racial empathy, as they are less aware for how opportunity may be different for particular groups of people,” she wrote in a working draft paper .... " I would consider her opinion to be more sympathetic, certainly, but more neutral - avaoiding as it does the loaded words. But either way, it is clear that the conclusions that can be drawn from the data vary. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Useful to this article reference

• http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/12/the-new-debate-in-the-republican-party-n “The New Debate in the Republican Party Needs to be Between Conservatives and Libertarians” Sen. Jim DeMint talks about the looming fiscal crisis and the future of the GOP. ... by Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch from the May 2012 issue of Reason (magazine). 99.109.127.232 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's reliable, but I thought the note on Koch and the ACLU was reliable. I think consensus is against you. Especially since it doesn't mention the Tea Party, and it's just the Senator's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Add current involvements?

• Big Test Set for Tea Party Muscle Fates of Sens. Hatch, Lugar and Other Targets to Signal Staying Power of Republican Insurgency April 20, 2012
• Allysia Finley: Can the Tea Party Defeat Dick Lugar? After 35 years in the Senate, the Indiana Republican faces angry voters and a talented tea-party challenger (Opinion) April 22, 2012

99.109.127.232 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Add parody for cultural influence?

• "The lead story involves Jack backing a mildly veiled Tea Party congressional candidate ..." from the A.V. Club per DVD Audio Commentary by 30 Rock Producer Jerry Kupfer, Brooklyn Without Limits is a commentary on the Tea Party.

99.181.137.3 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Add recent "victories"?

• Richard Mourdock wins a Republican primary election in the US state of Indiana defeating incumbent Senator Richard Lugar.

141.218.36.85 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• support Lugar was mainstream GOP. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose There is widespread speculation that the Democrats have a better chance of winning Lugar's former seat because of the contender so whether it's a "victory" is debatable. As well, there is a general trend of decline as the last Tea Party action was in 2010. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Party is not libertarian

Libertarianism's defining tenet is the nonintervention of government in personal freedom issues. Can a group that overwhelmingly opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, supports the drug war, etc. be considered libertarian? Certainly not. The tea party positions are frequently antithetical to those of Ron Paul and real libertarians. The only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism. Therefore, I recommend the article's description of the tea party as conservative and libertarian be amended to simply describe it as conservative. I also suggest references (and photo) implying Ron Paul is a leader or quintessential representative of the movement be removed. Even polling data in the article reveals Ron Paul is not one of the most respected figures among Tea Party supporters.

Respectfully, there's at least 4 things mixed up in that post. Regarding "The only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism." libertarianism is certainly not conservatism. The wording was selected by an extensive mediation process. Doubtless it was because the TPM contains both conservatives and libertarians. Where did you get ".... overwhelmingly opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, supports the drug war," from? I've not seen those in any TPM agenda. Roughly speaking its agendas have been items where conservatives and libertarians agree, and have mostly avoided items where conservatives and libertarians disagree. Ron Paul has been prominent in the history of the TPM. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange argument- there is no doubt that many, but certainly not all libertarians support the TPM, and than many of the TPM are not libertarians. That does not mean that everyone in the TPM has exactly the same political opinions on anything much at all, but does imply that some of the positions held by TPM members are, indeed, libertarian. In short, have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, did you guys even read this article? 82 percent of tea party supporters oppose same-sex marriage, and virtually all the politicians identified in the article as tea party leaders (Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Glenn Beck, etc.) oppose same-sex marriage and most of them have endorsed federal bans. They also tend to be very hawkish on military interventions -- again antithetical to libertarianism. Also, my statement "the only commonality between the Tea Party movement and the libertarian movement is conservatism" doesn't suggest libertarianism and conservatism are the same. Libertarianism has liberal elements, but the Tea Party shares none of those liberal elements of libertarianism, only conservative elements. Hence, my contention that the Tea Party is essentially conservative and not essentially libertarian. If you disagree, provide examples of libertarian values shared by the Tea Party that aren't conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your personal POV is clear. The NYT etc. however do not appear to share that POV and specifically note the libertarian influence on the TPM. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dismissing the diametric opposition of several libertarian and Tea Party values as my "personal POV" seems like a cop-out. Again, please provide examples of Tea Party values that are libertarian in nature but not conservative in nature. If you can't do that, then describing the Tea Party as conservative AND libertarian without qualification is at best controversial and makes no more sense than labeling Merlot a wine AND a beer.

Tea Party Decline?

I feel like there should be a section on the Tea Party's decline with articles like these. I think it's obvious to anyone whose looked at the movement that there haven't been any tea party actions since 2010. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that an intelligent summary of key items from that article would be good. Don't start out through the lens of "decline", just follow it where it goes; do a quality summary of the key points of what is there. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)