[traderdrew]

The more I read about the US Tea Party movement, the less I understand it.
Can somebody please help me, an ignorant European citizen?

From what I understand is it a movement without a specific structure that initially was against the growing influence of government on the US society. Specifically against the extremely high spending to save companies which were going down because of the crisis and the health care reform.

So, what it is it precisely?

The funding of certain large US companies is alarming because I think many people who joined the tea party are instinctively aware that something is never really free.

I think for you to understand the Tea Party then, you need to understand conservatism. I am not a member but I believe I understand where they are coming from.

10 Key Conservative Principles - Columbia conservative | Examiner.com

There are other principles I would classify as conservative also such as private ownership of land.

Another would be that you cannnot fundamentally separate religion from government because government takes abstract concepts of morality and legislates and enforces them as laws.

There are indeed people of different races and colors in the Tea Party because I believe, they understand conservatism. Conservatism is based on the Consitution of the United States or perhaps the Consitution was based on a conservatism in an embryonic conceptual state.

What was the Boston Tea Party about? It was about people on a new land who were fed up with the taxes from the British Parliament. It seems to me the modern Tea Party was founded with the same idea in mind.

I think they understand when government spending goes up, (look at this chart of the deficit)

Government Spending Chart in United States 1995-2015 - Federal State Local

... someone has to pay for it. Who is going to pay for the mess???

I think the Tea Party people know that wealth is not generated at the printing press and government does little or almost nothing to create wealth directly. Wealth is created by people in the private sector and for government jobs to exist indefinitely, people in the private sector must be taxed.

Conservatives understand that high taxes erode liberty of the people in the private sector. (Another key concept)

I can go on but I personally think the ruling elite does not like conservatism at all. Conservatism can empower the right people and conservatives know everyone is not created equal. We maybe created equal under our creator but not as people in a society. Socialism seeks to equalize and conservatism helps empower people who act in order to find their niche in a free society. Also, when conservatives are empowered, they can help empower people along with way.

[mikemike]

I'd say the problem predates Bush, and goes back to the Gipper. Too many Americans became spoiled to the idea that there is a simple, easy solution to all our problems and a father figure out there somewhere to pleasantly pronounce them. In many of my friends who lean tea-party, I see people who cling harder to their faith in certain truisms the more evidence comes forward that they never were true.

Too many Americans became spoiled by the idea that there was a difficult, complex solution to all our problems that came without more problematic side effects. In many of my liberal leaning friends, I see people who cling harder to their faith in certain convoluted solutions despite more evidence coming forward that they never solved the problems.

[Parallax]

I'd say the problem predates Bush, and goes back to the Gipper. Too many Americans became spoiled to the idea that there is a simple, easy solution to all our problems and a father figure out there somewhere to pleasantly pronounce them. In many of my friends who lean tea-party, I see people who cling harder to their faith in certain truisms the more evidence comes forward that they never were true.

Too many Americans became spoiled by the idea that there was a difficult, complex solution to all our problems that came without more problematic side effects. In many of my liberal leaning friends, I see people who cling harder to their faith in certain convoluted solutions despite more evidence coming forward that they never solved the problems.

If either side actually has, or ever had a solution to the problems; why haven't they implemented it?



Highlight between the brackets for answer: {Job security.}

[bymy141]

I can go on but I personally think the ruling elite does not like conservatism at all. Conservatism can empower the right people and conservatives know everyone is not created equal. We maybe created equal under our creator but not as people in a society. Socialism seeks to equalize and conservatism helps empower people who act in order to find their niche in a free society. Also, when conservatives are empowered, they can help empower people along with way.

Thank you for explaining.
It will take some time for me to digest it all, I'll comment more indepth later.

However, here in Europe, we use the terms social, liberal, left, right, conservative, progressive somewhat differently.
In my opinion most posters mix up these terms in the discussion.

My understanding of these terms is as follows (in a nutshell):
1) Socialistic: The socialistic dogma states that the general individual does not understand what is good for him/her and society. Therefore the state must decide and regulate for us all.
2) Liberal: The liberal dogma states that any individual is responsible for his/her doing and that by allowing free action, the individual will develop. Society can then prosper because of the results achieved by individuals.
3) Progressive: means striving for new conditions, solutions, change.
4) Conservative: means striving for no change, maintaining the status quo.
5) "Left" more or less equals socialistic & soft, "right" more or less equals liberal & tuff.

In the old days right used to be conservative and left used to be progressive.
Today, in Europe, this is not the case anymore!

We see that often it to be the other way around: Left being conservative while right becoming progressive.
Perhaps that is different in today's US political landscape, due to your limited diveristy and lack of flexibility in a two party system.

History has shown us that complete liberal or social societies cannot exist. The human nature cannot cope with either.
The USSR and the latest credit crisis are easy examples.
It is very easy to explain why an ideal liberal society works better than a socialistic.
However, it is as easy to explain the opposite. (Let me not get there, since I think it is not relevant for this discussion).

Using the above definition, to me, the Tea Party movement seems very conservative (change adverse), while it does not seem to be specifically liberal or social.
It is build around a general feeling of frustration of things getting worse.
Also, it seems to be a very self centric movement. The world and the greater environment of which the US is part seems to be locked out in the reasoning.
The Tea Party is conservative, yes. But not necessary right or socialistic, to me (an European!) allmost all US politics is right winged.

To understand my observation of US politics, you must try and see where I'm coming from.
Bear in mind that to Europeans the US democratic party does not appear to be very socialistic.
I guess the democrats would be more or less central in the political landscape.

+++++++++++

Having said all the above, what I'm interested in now, is to understand what influence the Tea Party has on US politics.
Will it be so strong that it will raise it's own party (as we have seen in numerous European countries), or will it be absorbed by the Republican party (they seem to have a potential benefit) or will it die off? Something else?

In Europe the political establishment has been trying to deny, avoid or marginalize similar movements with the result that they have only become stronger. Tea Party like movements here have become important political players. It has not gone away, instead it has become larger and stronger. We have not seen any countries ruled by such movements, although the recent established Dutch government now is relying on one.

- Bert

---

Last edited by bymy141; 11-01-2010 at 08:54 AM.

[mikemike]

My understanding of these terms is as follows (in a nutshell):
1) Socialistic: The socialistic dogma states that the general individual does not understand what is good for him/her and society. Therefore the state must decide and regulate for us all.
2) Liberal: The liberal dogma states that any individual is responsible for his/her doing and that by allowing free action, the individual will develop. Society can then prosper because of the results achieved by individuals.
3) Progressive: means striving for new conditions, solutions, change.
4) Conservative: means striving for no change, maintaining the status quo.
5) "Left" more or less equals socialistic & soft, "right" more or less equals liberal & tuff.

If you are a visually oriented person, this might help you. It is the "Nolan Chart" that explains the two axes of american freedom and the stance of different ideological groups. The drive of "conservatives" is to make government reflect more closely there moral code while removing inhibitions for business. The drive for "liberals" is to maximize personal freedom which they see as something that is oppressed by business and religion.



Rotating 45 degrees shows the right-left divide. EDIT: The labels on the next chart are switched. The first chart's labels are accurate.



"Socialists" are on the left-side, closer to the authoritarian. They would like to see a greater government role in delivering major services like health care, education, energy, transportation, communications, etc. And they promise to do so in a secular scientifically sound way.

"Neo-cons" are on the right-side also closer to the authoritarians. They would also be happy to see greater government role in delivery of services but they would deliver them with all the trappings of their moral compass (no contraception, illegal abortions, abstinence only sex ed, prayer in public schools, young-earth and creationism instead of evolution, FISA wiretapping).

Libertarians understand that giving the government too much control over services will make them vulnerable to takeover by bad actors.

The official stance of the democrats and republicans is just to the left or just to the right of the centrist blocks around dead center and most americans are in that centrist block. The early tea partiers, Ron Paul supporters, are on the conservative side, a little bit high towards the libertarians. Late comers, Sarah Palin supporters, are on the extreme right.

[Nesster]

Bert, very interesting observations you have here, and one's I find myself nodding yes to...

One way of thinking about the American two party system is that each party is a coalition government. Because there isn't proportional representation (and for some other reasons) the two party system is entrenched. What each party dreams of is the putting together of a coalition of interests that will carry it for a decade or more...

Another way to look at liberal vs. conservative - what is the basic view of human nature? Government of course by definition involves a group of people telling another, larger, group how to behave and how to organize. So, if one believes that human nature is capable of improvement (enlightenment), one tends to be liberal: institutions and government ought to help us find improvement, a more enlightened view, and thus freee us as individuals to form a more perfect union. On the other hand, if one believes human nature is more or less the same, regardless of education, why, then there's no point in government trying to enlighten its citizens. Better to invest in institutions who keep us on the straight and narrow - that are conservative in the sense of resisting change, the better to keep human nature's more unfortunate traits from overwhelming the state.

Then, as you say, there's more what I'd call the situational conservatisms or progressivisms: these depend on the relative perceived political status quo. A liberal may act like a conservative in order to sustain a liberal institution... a conservative may become progressive to 'take back' some aspect of government.

[traderdrew]

If either side actually has, or ever had a solution to the problems; why haven't they implemented it?

Has the US not had periods of prosperity in the 200 plus years of its existence?

Here is another graph of the deficit from a source I would consider credible on this
"particular" subject:

Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com

Remember the late 90s? Who ran the house and the senate since 1994? I hope some of you are not fooling yourselves into thinking the President is responsible for everything? What is the US media talking about now? Gridlock and no change in Washington.

Another thing conservatives know is there can be no utopia. Knowing that everyone is imperfect there can be no perfect society. The closest thing to a utopia you can create is your own ultimately granted or assisted by our creator. Government cannot do it for you and never will.

"There ain't no money lying our there in the streets and if there was, there ain't nobody shoveling it into your pocket." - Jesse Livermore

[mikemike]

If either side actually has, or ever had a solution to the problems; why haven't they implemented it?

Both sides campaign on easy answers or more recently simply an "I'm better than the other guy" negative campaign, but when they arrive in washington they are faced with nothing but hard choices.

More than 75% of federal spending is on sacred cows like social security, medicare, and defense. Any attempt to cut these gets a politician labeled as either heartless or spineless. If they promise to cut either one in the campaign, they are labeled as absolutely insane. The result is promises to cut spending the remaining 20% an approach to balancing the budget with as much promise as digging a strip mine with a soup spoon.


2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[traderdrew]

Thank you for explaining.
It will take some time for me to digest it all, I'll comment more indepth later

No problem Bert,

Another thing about Conservatives is, we like people. I hope you find success without the need of government. People who expect something from others often fail by waiting. I used to think "good things happen to people who wait." You have to make something happen for you. I also say if you want to begin to think, just start asking questions but I also know that I cannot answer all of my own questions about life.

[Parallax]

These two charts contradict each other.

The top chart assigns economic freedom to the right wing, and personal freedom to the left. The bottom chart is the opposite.

[Nesster]

These two charts contradict each other.

The top chart assigns economic freedom to the right wing, and personal freedom to the left. The bottom chart is the opposite.

:confused2:

I noticed that too - I think the main point is that Libertarians are at the top

[Nesster]

Remember the late 90s? Who ran the house and the senate since 1994? I hope some of you are not fooling yourselves into thinking the President is responsible for everything? What is the US media talking about now? Gridlock and no change in Washington.

There's a crucial difference, in that the tax/spend deals struck prior to the gridlock already had put the economy and the deficit on the right track. And the parties involved had been punished by the electorate.

This time, the things punished are the various things government did to try to alleviate the recession, plus healthcare.

In other words, the coming battle over spending and taxation will be epic and one hopes will produce some outcome.

[mikemike]

These two charts contradict each other.

The top chart assigns economic freedom to the right wing, and personal freedom to the left. The bottom chart is the opposite.

LULZ, I shamelessly stole these pics from other sites. The labels on the top are accurate.

I noticed that too - I think the main point is that Libertarians are at the top

At least you got the main point

[GeneV]

If either side actually has, or ever had a solution to the problems; why haven't they implemented it?



Highlight between the brackets for answer: {Job security.}

They have. Each "side" has, at some point, made changes in one direction or the other that have made things better. Things that Reagan did made things better. Things that Johnson did made things better. However, the same solution does not work for every problem and solutions for human problems are seldom perfect or elegant. Mike has distorted and evaded my point, but my point is that problems need to examined in a way that recognizes the unique issues they present. Governing by platitudes--saying that a problem "always" requires any particular type of solution is not productive.

[Parallax]

I noticed that too - I think the main point is that Libertarians are at the top

LULZ, I shamelessly stole these pics from other sites. The labels on the top are accurate.



At least you got the main point

It demonstrates two things:

Politics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and what people really want is whatever it is that they think they don't have.