Talk:Tea Party movement

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.

It is not up to anyone to prove that your "truth" - isn't. Rather it is up to you to provide relaible sources for your claims - noting that the NYT, inter alia, has specifically linked the TPM with libertarians as well as other conservatives. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

76.91.74.103, with respect to the article, the main point is that made by Collect, plus that this was extensively discussed and decided in a mediation process. But as a sidebar, you have several things scrambled up in the points that you make. First, stance on gay marriage (marriage being a special status conferred by the government) is a totally different thing than the libertarian stance of openness to homosexuality. Second, views of supporters does not equate to being the agenda of the TPM. If supporters preferred the color red, would you say that the the TPM agenda is to promote the color red? Finally, the inference of your last question is faulty logic. The TPM agend is, roughly speaking, the items in common with conservatives an libertarians (i.e areas where they don't conflict) It is baseless and faulty logic to say that it is required that the TPM have an agenda in conflict with conservatism in order for it to be considered partially libertarian. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources given in the article for the claim that the TPM is "generally recognized as conservative and libertarian" (footnotes 4 and 5). The WSJ and Washington Post articles cited both describe the TPM as conservative AND DON'T EVEN MENTION LIBERTARIANISM. The one article that does mention it is a reason.com post suggesting that only a fraction of the party is "libertarian-leaning." I'm sure someone as concerned as you are with reliable sourcing of information agrees that the sources in the article by no means indicate that the TPM is best described as both conservative and libertarian.

And with respect North8000, it is you whose logic is faulty. It's true that if Tea Partiers preferred the color red that wouldn't necessarily make the superiority of the color red part of their agenda, however it would certainly indicate that the superiority of the color green was NOT part of their agenda. And contrary to your claim, if the TPM has many elements in common with conservatism that are not part of libertarianism and no elements that are part of libertarianism that are not part of conservatism, then it most certainly does follow that "conservative" is a more accurate label for the TPM than "libertarian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Try, inter alia, [1] New York Times:

Republicans and Democrats alike may have underestimated the power of the party, a loosely affiliated coalition of libertarians and disaffected Republicans.

Seems to disprove your position readly. Need more? Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As before, Collect is making the important points. But as a sidebar, the premise of your final question was incorrect. The TPM agenda in general does not have items that are in conflict with libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect: If my position was that the New York Times had never said the Tea Party contained libertarians, then yes, that would disprove my position. However, it does nothing to disprove my actual position, which is that this article's contention that the TPM is "generally recognized" as both conservative and libertarian is a controversial claim, whereas the statement that the TPM is generally recognized as conservative would not be a controversial claim. Even the source cited in the article itself for that very quote emphasizes that libertarianism is NOT a defining element of the movement, only a minority fraction of the movement. And even the title of that piece -- "Is Half the Tea Party Libertarian?" -- suggests there is controversy. It is fair to say there is a libertarian wing of the TPM (as the NYT has done e.g. "Tea Party Finds Power Leads to Policy Splits" 6-29-2011), but to call the movement itself libertarian is extremely misleading and far from generally accepted even among tea partiers themselves. Perhaps the wiki article should address the libertarian end of the TPM spectrum -- but mischaracterizing an overwhelmingly socially conservative movement as libertarian is not the way to do it.

North8000: First of all, the question is whether the article is correct in labeling the TPM libertarian, not whether there is conflict between the TPM and libertarianism. There is no conflict between the TPM and abstract expressionism, or between the TPM and quantum theory, but that doesn't make those things generally accepted as defining the movement. Furthermore, I listed several ways in which the policies advocated by tea party constituents and political figures DO in fact conflict with the social liberalism and noninterventionism that characterize libertarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Tea Party does not endorse libertarian ideas in many cases. It appears simply to be a right-wing or far-right faction of the traditional Republican voting block.--Drdak (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Then get the NYT etc. to change their articles -- we do not use what you know to be the truth -- we use what reliable sources state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect: It seems you are continuing to hold up a NYT article as evidence, while ignoring all other reliable sources -- including, as I have pointed out, sources that are cited in this very article! One line in an article saying the TPM contains some libertarians doesn't come anywhere close to showing that the movement is GENERALLY RECOGNIZED as libertarian. The fact is there is overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party is conservative and there is NOT overwhelming consensus that the Tea Party is libertarian. Mention that it contains libertarian-leaning factions if that's important, but don't describe the movement itself as "generally recognized as conservative and libertarian" because it's simply not true! Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, CartoonDiablo, but I'm not seeing a strong case made in the article you linked that the TP has declined that much. It seems to be describing more of a change of focus and tactics (away from the costumes, silly signs, etc.) while trying to stay relevant and influencial in a more dispersed, local level. I agree with North that there is some good information in that article, but the point you are stressing might be better conveyed by articles like this. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Invalid Sources for "Use of term "teabagger" section

Footnoted as 312 and 313.

Footnote 312 is purely opinion - an OPINION written about a specific sign. The sign being cited as evidence of the OPINION. There is no proof or fact to back up this opinion. Furthermore this OPINION is contradicted by several other cites which aren't friendly to the Tea Party movement. (Two words on a sign "Tea Bag" do not equal "Teabagger." Just as the words "Way Off" do not equal the word "Wayoffer." The stance made in 312 seems to be biased by political mindset, and if offered as the only evidence, it is important to point out that the words used, in the context they are used, would also indicate those NOT involved in the Tea Party movement are also "teabaggers." Again - this takes a deliberate misreading/misinterpretation, and appears to be politically driven by the author.)

313 - broken link - goes nowhere.

It is possible that no one knows when the word "teabagger" was FIRST used to describe Tea Party members, or its origins, but it is debatable whether the term was self-ascribed, or only entered the vernacular as a derogatory statement. For this reason, I feel there are NO FACTS to support the section entitled, "Use of term 'teabagger'" and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.72 (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the broken link (313); it has been replaced. Regarding your statement that (312) "is purely opinion" ... no, it's not. It's a link to a series of photo images. Perhaps you were speaking of a different link? As for your suggestion that the section "should be removed", are you implying that the "teabagger" phrase, in relation to the Tea Partiers, doesn't exist? What of the citations (314), (315), (316) and (317)? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy of "way-off / wayoffer" makes sense because "way off" is not used as a verb. If "teabag" is used as a verb, then the subject of that verb is a teabagger, just as when the word "talk" is used as a verb the subject is a "talker." If one engages in teabagging, one is a teabagger. Period. That's just the way the English language works. That said, I am skeptical about the origin of the term as identified with apparent certainty in the article. My understanding was that "teabag" was first known to be used as a verb in that context when activists circulated messages saying "teabag Obama," "teabag the fools in Washington," etc. as part of a tax protest than involved mailing tea bags to legislators. Furthermore, if the main reason many consider "teabagger" offensive is because the verb "teabag" has a sexual meaning, then the term "teabagger" shouldn't be vastly more offensive than any other usage (e.g. "Let's teabag Obama!") that implies "teabag" as a verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.74.103 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)