…has a Facebook page.
You know, maybe the American Tea Party is a third party that could actually get enough adherents to work…
[Update a few minutes later]
Of course, that was just an off-the-cuff comment, and it deserves a lot more thought. “Clarendon” has provided some:
I’m not objecting to the protests. Far from it in fact. I’ll be at the protest in Washington, D.C. But I am not expecting anything other than street theater, or the political equivalent of clearing our throat rather than the yelling our politicians deserve to hear. I won’t compare it to the Boston Tea Party, because there is no comparison. To claim otherwise is to both cheapen the actual protest by 200 Bostonians and their thousands of supporters, and to inflate the magnitude of our current actions.
I wonder, what are we expecting to achieve from these protests? Are we content to merely register our disapproval, or are we seeking to change what Congress and our president have done? If it is the former, I’m sure the politicians will note our objection, and wait for us to quiet down. If it is the latter, I fear our current protests are too scatter-shot to do any real good.
What is the target of our protest? Are we protesting the President and Congress for an act already passed, or are we petitioning our state and local governments to refuse to accept the stimulus money?
What do we do if these protests do not result in the change in policies we are asking for? What happens next?
Make no mistake, once a movement like this has begun, it will, sooner or later, have to answer these difficult questions or risk failure. Now is the seed-time of liberty, and the steps we take and the words we use will either be recalled triumphantly by our grandchildren, or seen as a sad charade conducted by children who could not muster the strength and conviction of their ancestors.
It’s a good question. But a strongly related one (though not one that the original tea partiers had thought through themselves) is “what does this movement stand for? What are its principles?”
It’s very easy to say that we’re opposed to the bailout(s), just as “we’re opposed to tyranny and taxation without representation, and a tax imposed on our favorite hot beverage with no recourse.” But to what else are we opposed? What are we for? Those are the issues on which third parties have foundered over the decades, even ignoring the institutional difficulties of starting one. It’s very easy to unite against something, because the enemy of my enemy is always my friend, but the devil lies in the details of determining what one stands for.
I’d like to think that this is a small-government movement, but I fear that people who are opposed to the bailout(s) aren’t really opposed to big government — they just don’t like what the big government has been doing lately.
[Late Pacific update]
Here’s more from PJ Media.
[Sunday morning update]
Has the revolt of the Kulaks begun?
[Another update later morning]
OK, I didn’t watch Schoolhouse Rock, but I think I get it anyway.
[Early afternoon update]
Per one of the commenters, yes, the Perot mania is exactly what I was thinking when I expressed the concerns above. That was a Seinfeld campaign — a campaign about nothing.
“The Tea Party” has a rather nice, libertarian ring to it, don’t you think? Kind of internationalist, too.
I think these protests are the next step. Calling and writing your representatives isn’t working any more (did it ever work?)
This government is going too far and we need to be heard. My great hope is that if we come out, it will rattle their cages a little and they will sit up and take note?
What’s next if this doesn’t work? I don’t know – maybe a little civil disobedience?
Suggestions?
Here are three principles to consider:
– individual rights with personal responsibility;
– small and limited government
– free-market capitalism
In my direct experience so far, Republicans, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Libertarians, libertarians, Objectivists, and even a few anarchocapitalists have been able to agree on these points.
Let me know when you’re up on myspace
“The Tea Party” was the name of a reasonably successful Canadian rock band.
Heaven Coming Down video.
Here’s some principles:
Honest, efficient government.
The trouble in the UK, and possibly to a lesser extent in the USA, isn’t taxation without representation – it’s representation without taxation, which is even more corrosive to freedom and prosperity.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. ”
The USA is on borrowed time. Borrowed from the Chinese.
“The trouble in the UK, and possibly to a lesser extent in the USA, isn’t taxation without representation – it’s representation without taxation, which is even more corrosive to freedom and prosperity.”
Huh? Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you saying we aren’t taxed enough? Are you saying that we need to pay our representatives more out of the tax coffers? What? That quote you followed up with didn’t really shed any light on your statement.
TL James said:
“Here are three principles to consider:
– individual rights with personal responsibility;
– small and limited government
– free-market capitalism
In my direct experience so far, Republicans, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Libertarians, libertarians, Objectivists, and even a few anarchocapitalists have been able to agree on these points.”
I 100%, wholeheartedly agree with this as the foundation.
Aside, the government doesn’t have to care about our protests,, after all, the Dem lapdog, the media, makes these events become invisible. After dumping the goods overboard in the Boston Tea Party the colonists hurt the British by boycotting the product. That’s a big difference. Do we have any way to materially show our objections to the governement in a way that they will care about.
Andrea, it is quite simple. As of a few days ago, 50% of Americans do not pay taxes – they are net receivers of tax revenue. Those 50% predominantly vote Democrat. They consistently vote for increased government spending, because they have no downside.
We are quickly approaching the point that war will be the only way out – because that 50% has no incentive to listen at all to the “evil rich” that actually have to pay taxes.
Andrea,
You asked about this comment. “The trouble in the UK, and possibly to a lesser extent in the USA, isn’t taxation without representation – it’s representation without taxation, which is even more corrosive to freedom and prosperity.”
I don’t speak for Fletcher, but I think he was pointing out that many people, close to 50 % of voters in the US, do not pay any income tax, but they do receive many government benefits. It is in their personal, short term interest to vote for representatives who will increase their government benefits, and it matters little to them if taxes are increased because they are not paying taxes anyway.
TL James three principles might work to unite enough people to form some sort of party, but trying to take the theory into actual policy is going to cause divisions.
In my view, the best option for now is to form the ‘Throw the Bums Out’ party.
Pick some of the more egregious representatives of the elite aristocracy – Dodd, Murtha and Pelosi to start with – and put up a candidate against them. Then go into all out negative campaigning mode.
Don’t promise anything to the voters. Just point out the eminent mess that the incumbents have produced and demand that they be punished by eviction.
Do the same at the town, county and state level. Make as much noise as you can at the local level and it will matter little that the MSM will seek to diminish you.
Throw the Bums Out!
Anymouse and JeanE – Precisely. There are far too many people who pay no tax and yet have a voice in how other people’s tax is spent. Such people often make no other contribution to society either.
One could also add to the list those who do pay tax, but nevertheless make a negative contribution to tax revenue because they are employed by the government. A person in such a job would, from a short-term point of view, need psychiatric help if he voted for a low-tax, low-spending party.
Fourth principle:
Strong national defense.
Well, the lefties’ protests didn’t stop the war, and they still won in ’08. How about we say it’s okay for people to voice their disapproval as they see fit, within the confines of the law.
NO…No…No….No….please I remember
Ross Perot
do you?? The litle guy that was gonna “opn p the hood and fix it”
WE GOT EIGHT YEARS OF BILL CLINTON!!!!
No…no…no…no…
How many of the people who spend so much time writing here actually go to Repuclican Party meetings, sign up, hold signs and all that BS (yes it’s a lot of rah-rah BS too)
I’m a memebr of the local repubs in MASSACHUSETTS fer christs sakes. I don’t see that many new people showing up (and yes we do recruit, announce, etc) to work the system
Yet a new party…what a great idea NOT
It’s a lotta work to bulld a party. A lotta volunteer time in the rain,, cold, asking strangers for signatures maybe even a donation, telephone banking, driving elderly to the polls. This aint gonna happen w/ a spontaneous “Tea Party”. It’s a recipe to SPLIT the anti-democrat vote and re-elect MORE DEMOCRATS. Don’t be fooled.
Yeah, yeah repubs pissed away money the last eight years Bush did this/that/etc. Hey I’m a republican in MASSACHUSETTS. Me and the other guy in the party have heard it all but we ain’t quitting and NOR SHOULD YOU.
Go and find your local republican party committee has its next meeting. Every town has one. They’re there. If you want to change stuff. Well go there AND CHANGE IT.
Seriously a third party would be a diasater as it split conservative voters. Bama is president because his organization was able to successfully build within the party. Buy a copy of Rules for Radicals and take over your local committee
Been down so long….. looks like up to me
Despite paulfr’s inability to spell, he has a point. Any “Tea Party” votes would come primarily out of the Republican vote. It might attract some Dem votes too, but not as many. In our current “First Past the Post” voting system a Tea Party could only win big (by winning) or lose big (by putting a Dem in office by default) – there is no 2nd place.
If the Tea Party moves forward it should have a Plan A and Plan B, where Plan A is taking the Republican establishment from within (using Alinsky and Marxist tactics if necessary; say what you will, but the Left knows how to run a political insurgency). The Tea Party could also endorse candidates in Republican primaries.
Actually running a candidate in a general election should only be Plan B where the Republican candidate is viewed as a lost cause to small government types, such as a particular Senate seat in Arizona.
such as a particular Senate seat in Arizona.
Or Pennsylvania. And Maine.
It’s a little long winded, but how Responsible Adults Party? After all, Washington seems to be lacking (for quite some time now) adult supervision.
I understand the sentiments relayed via your words here, and the feelings so apparent across our nation.
I am soundly of the belief that protesting is not the most effective way to bring the changes we need and want as a nation.
A wise old man once told me, “Instead of complaining, just start doing- lead by example, and those who are with you will follow in concert.” Smart Guy.
I’m starting a movement to help our govt become more effective, compassionate leaders, – we elected them, they’re there for us in theory, but are so often SO busy they don’t really have time to take input from the people who elected them. That’s the fundamental issue, in my mind –
and to get them thinking like us, and most importantly FOR us, we need to teach/show them how to love. Both themselves, us, and the world that their decisions effect.
Now before you write me off as “a goddamned hippie,” I invite you to think about this:
In the most simple interaction between two people,
who’s more likely to get what both people want? Two that love one another and share a common understanding of humanity, or a group where one or both is negative, filled with hate, piss and vinegar?
The answer is those who will cooperate, and come from a place of genuity, united by the love of both the common man, and the high up man leading policy decisions for both individuals.
The mindset that our govt is *above us* needs to change before they’re able to fully be understood.
also, I’m able to be found here:
http://www.omfglol.org
best,
-Omar
Brock makes a good point about splitting the vote, which is why I’d like to see a change to something like approval voting, where a 3rd party can compete on equal footing.
Where do I go to join!
In the most simple interaction between two people,
who’s more likely to get what both people want? Two that love one another and share a common understanding of humanity, or a group where one or both is negative, filled with hate, piss and vinegar?
Not enough information. Plenty of examples of people who love each other, but can’t get along due to psychological or moral problems. Then there’s examples of people who hate each other but cooperate to mutual benefit. The skills of the two parties can be more relevant. A relationship with a bit of distrust can be better than one with unconditional trust due to reduced temptation.
And a lot of the time the problem isn’t “learning how to love”, but rather that one choses not to. Perhaps, their beliefs do not allow them to love me or perhaps there’s nothing it for them.
For example, I don’t love you, Omar. I don’t see a point to it. It’s a first time interaction. You seem heavily invested in this “love” thing while I don’t care. Also, glancing at your webpage, you seem to be espousing some Buddhist ideals (eg, “oneness”). Whatever, but I’m not interested in that stuff either. So seems like a lot of baggage for what will inevitably be at best a minor relationship.
For Omar from Eric Raymond via Samizdata:
Love doesn’t scale
A third party has zero chance and will kill the Republic.
Remember how Ross Perot led to the election of Bill Clinton?
We must re-mold the Republican Party in the image of the Tea Party, of Reagan, of Adam Smith, of Thomas Paine and of the free market.
We must not tolerate corruption in the GOP. We must kill earmarks, defend the border, rebuild the military and appoint judges who will follow the letter of the Constitutional limits on Federalism.
A third party is national suicide for conservatives.
Hugh Hewitt’s book “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat” has a much better explanation than I can muster.
Here’s a suggestion to avoid the Ross Perot problem:
Announce that the American Tea Party will NOT run candidates of its own, but will instead throw its support behind candidates OF WHICHEVER PARTY who will publicly sign a pledge to uphold its principles… and will wholeheartedly support any cahllenger to an incumbent who signes and then welshes.
Bravo!, DaveP.–
That’s the most sensible idea I’ve heard yet. I’m going to copy (with your permission) it and paste it at other websites, where appropriate.
DaveP, how does that make the American Tea Party (ATP) any different than the Heritage Foundation, or any other group that endorses candidates?
Some jurisdictions (all? mine anyway…) actually allow candidates to run under more than one party (e.g., both Republican and Constitution). The ATP might be better off as a real party that would “allow” either a Republican or Democrat to run under their name (as well as the “main” name) provided they meet the criteria.
What I’d really like to see though is a move away from endorsements and campaign promises, and move towards “pay for performance” in Washington D.C. If the ATP were going to be just a group that endorses candidates and collects money for lobbying efforts, I’d like to see a system of “escrow accounts” where money is put in a fund that promises to donate 50% of the money in the fund to the campaign fund of whichever Congressman actually gets a bill doing X, Y or Z to the floor for a vote, and the other 50% split equally among all Congressman that vote in favor.
Imagine a $10 million pot to get a 20% flat tax without loopholes. What Congressman wouldn’t want to at least aim for that $5 million pot to be the sponsor? For a House Rep that’s a serious amount of money, and even the $45,871 “voting in favor” award isn’t chump change.
Sorry, I’ve done way to much signature gathering in August 98 degree heat trying to get someone without a D or R behind their name on the ballot to attempt that again. It saps all of your volunteer strength and in the end you _may_ get 25% if you’re lucky enough to have only one opponent.
Ballot access laws in most states have been written to make it impossible for anyone other than a D or R to even run, much less win.
I have to agree with paulfr (dude, _please_ spell check your stuff!). You are going to have to take over and reform one of the existing parties.
But even then you’re going to have to also convince the other half of the US population who agrees with where Obama and Congress are taking the country. THAT is the real task…
It’s obvious that the surfacing of a third party is a direct result of the complete failure of either current dominant party to live up to each ones true principles.
If it was a fair fight where each of these party’s truly did live up to their ideals, history shows that big government is a recipe for disaster, and the party that ignores this wil eventually eat itself.
I guess the question is:
Is there enough room under the Tea Party tent for those disillusioned by the dominant party’s failures?
I’ve fleshed out my idea a bit about Congressional “pay for performance.” You basically make campaign contributions to Congress-critters who do what you tell them to, without caring what their personal opinions are.
http://links-thoughts.blogspot.com/2009/02/pac-for-performance.html
A third party has zero chance and will kill the Republic.
I guess you don’t have much of an inkling of history. The Republican party, for example, used to be a third party.
Michael Maeling said: “Ballot access laws in most states have been written to make it impossible for anyone other than a D or R to even run, much less win.”
I think you should stop blaming your problems on ballot access laws. As far as I can tell, the laws just require more signatures than you can find. That indicates that you weren’t going to win anyway, which was the intent of the law. I’m not in favor of having a high bar for ballot access, but blaming the access law is missing the point. Garner support for your party, and you’ll have no trouble garnering signatures. I’m sure it would be easier to win party primaries than to win via a third party, but that’s because people aren’t comfortable voting for third parties, or giving their signatures, not because of the access laws per se.
I keep seeing this claim that the GOP was a third party, but that claim overlooks the fact that the Whigs were already homeless, politically speaking, when the Republican Party arose. The GOP developed into what it became by 1860 because for all intents and purposes there was no second party against the Democrats. There has to be a vacuum for the newcomer to step into.
Things may look bad for the GOP from a short-term perspective right now, but it’s nothing like what was going on in the early 1850s.
An inkling is one thing, Karl — but looking at history in context still supports Jason C’s position.
McGehee, you wrote:
I keep seeing this claim that the GOP was a third party, but that claim overlooks the fact that the Whigs were already homeless, politically speaking, when the Republican Party arose.
And? What about your observation invalidates my observation?
Things may look bad for the GOP from a short-term perspective right now, but it’s nothing like what was going on in the early 1850s.
I hear unfounded opinion.
An inkling is one thing, Karl — but looking at history in context still supports Jason C’s position.
Oh sure, the context thing. Let me explain the problem with your argument. Jason makes a very broad and contextless generalization. Then you claim that the original statement is still correct because the historical counterevidence has “context”.
Here’s my take. You can’t have it both ways. The creation of the Republican party shows a successful pathway for a third party. Namely, you make one of the current two parties “homeless”, as you put it, and take over. It’s also worth noting that, the beliefs of the early (before the party um, “gentrified” in the 1870’s) Republican party prevailed in the long term. They eliminated slavery in the US (I think punishment of the former Confederacy states, alcohol prohibition or “temperance”, and women’s suffrage were also early party issues).
Historical examples always have a different context. That doesn’t mean they are invalid.
Moving on, what does Jason mean by “zero chance”? There are a number of examples of third parties winning local, state, and US Representative elections. Those positions usually have some real power. It is worth noting that despite the current spending mess and that the Libertarian party has never placed a president, Libertarians still remain influential in US politics. There have been a few cases where the margin was low enough that enlisting the Libertarians (and sometimes even smaller third parties) would have carried the day.
And third parties will “kill” the Republic? Please think about it. The US had third parties for most of the history of the US. Anything that has failed to kill the US government over that much time, probably isn’t a genuine problem.
I think the claims made by Jason are merely hysterical nonsense. US elections are more than the presidential election. And voting for a third party candidate on occasion rather than a lesser of two evils can be an effective strategy. Sure you lower the chance of getting the “lesser of two evils”, but in the long run, if your views are widely shared, one or both parties will offer something to you in order to keep from losing a close election. As I see it, it means more influence in the long term.
WASHINGTON DC TEA PARTY
I sent the below letter to Barack Obama, and included a tea packet:
——————————————–
Mr. President,
As the early colonists of the USA did on December 16, 1773 I am starting a Washington DC Tea Party for the same reason as they did: TOO MANY TAXES. THE STIMULUS TAX INCREASE is the straw that broke the taxpayers back.
This is my token way of tossing YOUR TEA into Boston Harbor. I will be contacting as many people as I can to do the same thing if they feel the government is overtaxing us. We need TAX RELIEF, not a bunch of NEW TAXES. No reply necessary, except to start putting the taxpayer first.
———————————————
I encourage anyone who feels the stimulus bill is the tax that broke the taxpayers back to do the same. Send the president a tea packet, and include a SHORT letter explaining why you are doing it. The address to send it is:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC
20500
I bet it isn’t good idea to enclose a tea packet if you want your letter read in a timely fashion. I thought the white house wasn’t reading snail mail at nearly the rate that they read email and faxes because they were checking snail mail for suspicious white powders and anomalous biological material (which a tea packet would be).
I don’t know Bob, but that doesn’t sound like a real serious problem. Having the Secret Service test your tea packet is more attention than most letters probably get.
“Anymouse Says:50% of Americans do not pay taxes – they are net receivers of tax revenue. Those 50% predominantly vote Democrat.”
Hate to disagree my friend, but as a member of the armed forces I am one of those 50% you refer to; and there is a downside. My oath is for the Constitution against all enemies – foreign and domestic. Organize an event in Seattle and you will find a shredded copy of my mortgage floating in Puget Sound. Don’t tread on me!
Sorry missed the memo. can we do another when we can plan to get a bigger turn out?
Signed, slightly drunk, but still in the poorhouse thanks to our government.
To the readers,
Maybe there wouldn’t be so many problems if the government would stop lying about every thing, especially about the extraterrestrial aspect of the situation. I know for a fact that the government of the US has not only been in contact with them for a long time, they are tired of the lies.
From,
Georgia Smith
I’m sick of these incompetent politicians trampling all over my constittuion .We write to show our dislike of legislation and the pools reflect it .But what do they do they vote for the lobbyist not for the people.
It’s time to take to the streets .Its time to rid ourselves of the incompetence and socialist in our goverment .
We do not want nationalization of our banks we do not want to be europe and we do not want to be compared to europe or sweeden or any other failing socialist regimes .Give us liberty or give us death
Socialists like Obama are winning elections because the socialist party encouraged its members to join the democrat party, and take it over. The Republicans should follow their lead. The should switch their registration to democrat, vote in the primaries and take over the democrat party. The socialists called themselves liberal democrats, we can call ourselves practical democrats. Practical democrats will out number the socialist democrats 5 to 1, the democrat party can be ours!!!