Since about 2006, the leading political growth category in the U.S. has been conservative independents. But this rightward trend has focused on economic and regulatory issues; on social issues, independents show little or no rightward movement. (Link to article at NationalJournal.com)
The Tea Party Paradox
ADVERTISEMENT
17 Comments for “The Tea Party Paradox”
posted by another steve on
Given what this research relates, it’s too bad so many LGBT Democrats are so quick to demonize the tea party people — and in the most offensive ways. It seems these liberal-leftists would rather not put together a broad majority for gay equality if it means working with those who don’t support the state takeover of the economy that they think will bring us their “progressive” nirvana.
Just read the comments to the blog from the liberal Democrats — pretty hateful stuff, and all the time they walk around praising themselves for their supposed moral superiority.
posted by BobN on
Here’s a paradox. The Tea Party movement is supposedly not focused on social issues, yet you can’t find a TP candidate who supports gay rights.
Odd.
posted by Bobby on
Why would any tea party candidate support gay rights? The basis for any Tea Party candidate is to attract frustrated democrats, independents, republicans, and social conservatives. That’s how you win elections, gay rights is a waste of time since the people that support gay rights are likely to be liberals and progressives who are never going to vote for a Tea Party candidate or anyone who’s not a liberal or progressive like them.
posted by BobN on
Why would any tea party candidate support gay rights?
Uh… cuz a fair number of them claim to be libertarian?
I swear, Bobby, your need to be contrary leads you to make the silliest arguments. You say the TPers need to attract “frustrated Democrats”, then you say they shouldn’t bother with people who support gay rights. What about all the supposed “conservative gay people” you and others are always going on and on about? Wouldn’t they rather vote for a TPer than a Dem whose immigration policies they don’t like or a GOPer whose social agenda scares the bejeezus out of them?
posted by John Howard on
This article is nothing more than Rauch trying to think of something to write about and fill up space, in order to avoid responding to my argument against allowing gay marriage. He has no response to me because he knows I am right that marriage means equal conception rights for same-sex couples, and can’t bear to admit that he’s been the one harming thousands of families that need equal protections because he demands equal conception rights with someone of the same sex.
It’s not too late for many families, Jonathan, you could still admit you’ve been wrong and push for the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.
posted by Carl on
“Why would any tea party candidate support gay rights?”
They don’t. The question is more why gay activists would be interested in working with a party which is basically just a less formal version of the GOP.
This basically boils down to the same argument used for the GOP — if gays are nice enough to Republicans, and humble enough, and remember our place, then someday, the Republicans will really like us, they swear.
posted by Bobby on
“Uh… cuz a fair number of them claim to be libertarian? ”
—Claiming to be a libertarian and being a libertarian are two different things. John Stossel is a libertarian and usually the responses to Stossel’s articles on townhall.com agree with him. However, when he wrote a column advocating the end of DADT 9 out of 10 responses disagreed with his position.
Besides, the Tea Party is not a political party, there are three different tea party groups, so there’s no such thing as a tea party candidate but rather a candidate supported by the tea party.
Take the case of Sharron Angle, who enjoys support from the tea party and was able to beat an experienced republican in the primary. Look at her issues here:
http://sharronangle.com/issues
Except for her views about same-sex marriage, I agree with her entire platform. The tea party would be stupid if they made gay rights a litmus test.
Besides, gays have done pretty well without government help, why I hear in Arizona there’s even a retirement community for gay and lesbian seniors. See? We didn’t need Carter, Clinton and Obama to take care of our own, we just need to keep taxes low so entrepeneurs will not be afraid to take risks. A woman like Angle is likely to promote the economic conditions that help the gay community, God knows lots of gays got rich when George W. Bush was president.
posted by jimmy on
“we just need to keep taxes low so entrepeneurs will not be afraid to take risks.”
Because nobody was willing to invest and take risks during the Clinton administration – they was too skeerd.
There you go again, telling it like it isn’t.
posted by Carl on
“The tea party would be stupid if they made gay rights a litmus test. ”
Are you sure it isn’t already a litmus test — and if you don’t oppose gay rights then you’re not acceptable? I have never seen a tea party favorite who supports anything related to gay rights, whether it’s partnership benefits, or DADT, anything.
posted by Bobby on
“Because nobody was willing to invest and take risks during the Clinton administration – they was too skeerd. ”
—You do realize that Clinton moved to the center after losing the house and senate, do you? I’m sure he lowered taxes after the republicans forced him to, it’s the same reason he signed welfare reform and ended the cycle of people spending lifetimes on welfare, not to mention signing DOMA.
“Are you sure it isn’t already a litmus test — and if you don’t oppose gay rights then you’re not acceptable? I have never seen a tea party favorite who supports anything related to gay rights, whether it’s partnership benefits, or DADT, anything.”
—Have you asked Rand Paul how he feels about those issues? I’m sure he wouldn’t mind ending DADT. Besides, the Tea Party does not care about gay rights, abortion, and all the other silly issues. What they care about is less government and bringing back federalism the way our founding fathers intended.
In fact, the tea parties have been criticized by social conservatives and “mainstream” republicans for not taking on social issues.
Besides, everyone knows that the tea parties was born out of frustration not with gay rights, abortion, or anything else but a government that kept growing and taking control over everything during Obama’s reign. It was the stimulus package, cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, TARP, the GM bailout, Obamacare, and all those kinds of wasteful spending that created a coalition of democrats, independents, republicans, whites, blacks, etc, who either didn’t vote for Obama or voted for Obama but came to regret it.
The Tea Party is frustrated with a government that doesn’t listen to the people, that insults the people at the townhall meetings, that has Nancy Pelosi worried about angry rhetoric from one side while ignoring true violence from the other.
Tea Partiers are simply trying to save America from a man who wishes to transform it. That has nothing to do with gays, in fact, I didn’t see the Tea party get angry when Obama issues an executive order protecting gay visitation rights.
posted by Jorge on
If the rise of the Tea Party movement (etc.) does not equate to a rise in social conservatism, will we see a default shift toward the GOP party-line if they win Congress or the White House, or will we see an intra-party moderation instead?
I think the flaw of this article is that it does not examine the Democrats’ and liberals’ attitudes on social issues and how far they are from the non-partisan conservatives. There’s a lot they will want to put an end to.
posted by Jimmy on
“You do realize that Clinton moved to the center after losing the house and senate, do you?”
Clinton was already in the center. The Clinton Administration and Congress utilized pay/go in the budgeting process, creating budget surpluses. One thing we know, Republicans hate paying for stuff, just like corporations.
posted by Carl on
“—Have you asked Rand Paul how he feels about those issues? I’m sure he wouldn’t mind ending DADT.”
This blog is very critical of him but they link to the original interview. It’s a video so I couldn’t get it work so I don’t know how closely it matches up. Anyway the blog says.
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-civil-rights-miserable.html
“During an April 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul said that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military’s anti-gay policy, “worked relatively well.” Paul also repeatedly described DADT as a “nonfraternization policy,” which is patently false. Paul likened DADT to other military policies, such as rules banning adultery or campaigning in uniform. Paul, however, said that he liked recent “modifications” to the enforcement of DADT, such as the decision not to pursue individuals who are outed by third parties.
posted by Bobby on
“Clinton was already in the center. The Clinton Administration and Congress utilized pay/go in the budgeting process, creating budget surpluses. One thing we know, Republicans hate paying for stuff, just like corporations.”
—No, Clinton started on the left by trying to end the ban of gays in the military and Hillary trying to bring health care for everyone.
Oh, and what do you mean corporations hate paying for stuff? America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. American corporations pay for everything. Really Jimmy, you’re such a contrarian.
posted by Jimmy on
“America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. American corporations pay for everything.”
Please. Rates of taxation v. what actually gets paid are two completely different things. I’d be for a dramatic reduction of the rate if all loopholes, abatements, deferrals, and off-shore money hiding were nixed.
Fat chance.
When I invoice a large company, I have to practically plead for them to pay, and even with contractual late fees, they take forever. Small businesses and Mom and Pops, no problem.
posted by Jorge on
No, Clinton started on the left by trying to end the ban of gays in the military and Hillary trying to bring health care for everyone.
Being pro-civil rights and pro-government is pretty mainstream for Democrats.
posted by Arthur on
Can you be a Tea Party Libertarian if you read ‘The American Spectator?’