The Cato Institute’s David Boaz expects tea-party congressional freshmen to push for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, not an amendment to ban gay marriage. “I don’t think there’s likely to be a lot of social activism coming out of them,” he tells the Wall Street Journal.
More thoughts from Boaz on the tea partiers, here.
There’s no question that the tea party patriots have focused like a laser on Washington’s fiscally unsustainable course. Could that change? The Journal notes, “82% of tea-party supporters interviewed said they oppose gay marriage, compared with 74% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats, according to a Zogby International poll.” On the other hand:
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in June found that just 2% of those identified as tea partiers put social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage at the top of their priority lists for federal action. By contrast, 29% chose job creation and economic growth at the top, and 25% picked the deficit and government spending.
Engagement and dialogue with the tea party movement, rather than rank attacks from the LGBT left is the better way to help ensure that they don’t shift gears and make common cause with the cultural warriors.
More. Just received a fundraising letter from the Human Rights Campaign that attacks the Tea Party movement, without citing any evidence of the Tea Partiers’ anti-gay activism. For HRC, it’s all about supporting the Democratic Party.
8 Comments for “More Tea”
posted by james on
thats funny ….. you said “engagement and dialogue ” with the tea party. yeah right like that will happen. they do not want dialogue… its there way or the highway. they are correct on all matters. the bible is there law for all social matters and if you fall for all this “they dont really care about social issues ” then they have already won half the battle.
posted by another steve on
James, you’d be amazed how many gays are active in the tea party groups. From another IGF post. titled “It’s Not the Tea Partiers Who Are Intolerant“:
posted by Bobby on
“thats funny ….. you said “engagement and dialogue ” with the tea party. yeah right like that will happen. they do not want dialogue… its there way or the highway. ”
—There’s no need for dialogue, progressives are certainly not interested in dialogue themselves. In the typical college campus if your teacher is progressive God help you if you disagree with him. In the political arena progressives and liberals have proven time and time again that they never compromise, they simply want conservatives and independents to vote their way.
Take Obamacare, funding for abortion was supposed to have been removed from the bill, yet now we know that this isn’t so. Abortions will be funded by Obamacare. So you see? There’s no need to debate progressives, we simply have to get our people elected to congress, gain the majority, and do what we like.
posted by Jorge on
the bible is there law for all social matters and if you fall for all this “they dont really care about social issues ” then they have already won half the battle.
Wrong. This is a scientific poll by two major news organizations: only 2% of tea party supporters consider social issues the most important federal priority. This poll is a powerful confirmation of a pattern of many previous reports suggesting that social issues are a low or null priority for the tea party. This finding is consistent and robust. Your failure to accurately read the tea party and willingness to say things that are dead wrong about them will contribute nothing to stopping them.
posted by Amicus on
Why would an LGBT “activist” engage with tea people on a balanced budget amendment, except in passing? Do gay people do better if we make booms and busts bigger?
There is little evidence that the Terri Shiavo fiasco was anything but prologue.
How can a group that doesn’t seem to grasp much about economics take the spearhead on economics? If they are deluded that Obama is “the problem”, they don’t understand how Washington bows to K street, maybe…
Nevertheless, a “balanced budget amendment” is one of those simple-minded solutions (like dumping tea?) that seem to be a hallmark of how the ressentiment stirred up by the failed Bush years is settling out.
When the Tea Party “says” that they understand that higher taxes are appropriate, in some circumstances, or that it would have been irresponsible for Obama to have proposed one of the two budgets he’s done with an eye toward rapidly balancing the budget, then maybe there is something there to work with.
Otherwise, they caucus with the GOP and they are still captive to Norquist, et. al., who would run the Republic to ruin, rather than show a real conservative’s prudence…
posted by Carl on
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of politicians do not care about laws involving gay rights, but they will say they do in order to further their own agenda. This is true for both parties. President Bush and Karl Rove went along with bans on gay marriage, even though Bush was said to not have any negative view of homosexuality, because it benefited them politically. I imagine it will be the same here. There was a Values Voters summit a few days ago where social conservatives said don’t forget us, Republicans. So even if a lot of tea party Republicans are elected, they are likely to support laws that are against gay rights and can be used to divide Democrats and also drum up public interest. That would be making sure DADT doesn’t end or becomes even stricter, probably stuff like gay marriage in DC, perhaps things like adoption bans, who knows.
posted by Jorge on
There is little evidence that the Terri Shiavo fiasco was anything but prologue.
Huh? That was years ago. How is Terri Shiavo relevant today? Could you show me some evidence?
How can a group that doesn’t seem to grasp much about economics take the spearhead on economics? If they are deluded that Obama is “the problem”, they don’t understand how Washington bows to K street, maybe…
You are making it too complicated. They want to reduce spending. They are saying both Obama and Bush have increased spending. That’s their beef. As for Washington bowing to K street (whatever that means), I can’t imagine big business supports Obama’s drive to let the Bush tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000.
posted by Houndentenor on
An amendment to balance the budget. So then what happens when Congress can’t/won’t balance the budget? Does it go to the courts who then decide what cuts have to be made or taxes will be raised to balance the budget?
If you want to balance the budget you have to cut spending or raise taxes or both. Passing an amendment (which probably won’t get ratified anyway) isn’t the answer. It would take a Congress and a President willing to piss off pretty much everyone in the country to balance the current budget. One can hardly wait until all those retired people at Tea Party rallies realize that this would mean cuts to social security and medicare.