A Tale of Two Tea Parties
By W. E. Messamore | 01/23/2010 | Issues | 5 CommentsFirst there was a “Tea Party” whose members said they did not care about party, but principle. They railed against corporate America’s tax-funded bailouts, they demanded more transparency at the highest levels of government, and they stuck up for the little guy against the establishment.
Though predominately composed of “right-leaning” Americans (whatever that means), their anger at a shady, secretive, corporate establishment should have made even Michael Moore proud. Indeed, they echoed the very themes of President Barack Obama’s campaign- change, transparency, reform, accountability. In 2009 something truly amazing seemed to be happening in America- an army of white, middle-class, middle-age Americans were actually raging against “the machine“!
When it came down to it, they proved their earnestness and “principle-before-party” politics in the NY-23 special election by opposing the Republican candidate for not being principled enough. Instead they threw their support behind a virtually unknown third party candidate, Doug Hoffman. This gave lie to the claim that the “Tea Baggers” (as they’ve often been called) were simply hacks of the Republican machine. If that were the case, why would the GOP direct them to support a non-Republican and cause the GOP to lose a seat it has held for over a century?
But where is the Tea Party now? It emerged that at the first National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Sarah Palin may be getting paid as much as $75,000 to speak at an event that will be closed to the press, and tickets to the event are going for $549. Then Palin announced that she would be campaigning for her former running mate, John McCain’s reelection in Arizona (remember, the guy that voted for Bush’s policies 90% of the time and for the TARP bailouts of wealthy banks on Wall Street with your money?).
This week, something even more alarming happened- Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts, which pushed the members of the Tea Party movement into the throes of ecstasy. The spirit of celebration resounded through the blogosphere, on Twitter, in talk radio interviews, and on Fox News. But how many of those celebrating knew that Scott Brown had voted for universal health care in Massachusetts? That he had voted for a major tax increase on the residents of MA? That he actually supports universal health care on a national level?
Indeed, based on his voting record as a state senator, Scott Brown may be to the left of Senator Olympia Snowe. And the “principle-over-party” people were celebrating!? In the Massachusetts special election this week, the Tea Party movement did the exact opposite of what it so proudly did in the New York 23 special election.
What makes it even worse is that the Tea Party folks had an even better alternative than Doug Hoffman this time around- Joe Kennedy, a third party candidate with superior credentials, a meatier message, and a lot more personality. For goodness’ sake- his name was even Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy family though). Why didn’t the same thing happen in Massachusetts that occurred in New York 23?
Could it be that the Tea Party movement is losing its focus? Could the skeptics and naysayers who derided those “tea baggers” as establishment puppets be right after all?
It would certainly appear that the Tea Party of 2010 and its leaders seem to be entirely different than the Tea Party of 2009.





Leave Your Comment →
5 Comments
Mytheos Holt
01.25.2010
The comparison between Hoffman and Scott Brown is not a fair one – firstly, Hoffman was running in a reliably conservative GOP district, whereas Brown was running in a State which hadn’t voted for anyone even remotely right-of-center for decades. Secondly, the conservative party in New York is an established third party with a history of electoral success, whereas Joe Wilson’s third party had just been created and had barely any political capital in Massachusetts. Finally, to claim that a movement is selling out because it is acting pragmatically is a mistaken perception, especially given that a large number of committed ideologues have made their political determinations on the basis of the lesser of two evils. Ayn Rand, for instance, supported Richard Nixon in 1972, but only because his opponent was so far to the Left that his platform violated everything she believed in. The Tea Party movement was fighting to stop socialized medicine from coming to America, which would by some accounts have been the death-knell of liberty as a political doctrine. At that point, going with a winner was more important than going with a purist.
Ryan Jaroncyk
01.25.2010
While politically expedient at times, pragmatism is often a recipe for effecting little to no fundamental change in a system plagued by a two-headed, one-party monster.
Anonymous
01.26.2010
Scott Brown was the lesser of two evils … so the celebration was focused on a better alternative than a rubber stamp Democrat. Joe Kennedy was a victim of mainstream media – no coverage.
As for the Tea Party National Convention … I am a guest speaker. And if anyone has read “Tea Party Revival” they would correctly acknowledge that I am no fan of the political elitists in either the Republican or Democrat Party. My book identifies this slide to socialism started under Bush and continued with a vengeance under Obama.
Yet, they have me as a guest speaker! Definitely not the person you want to rubber stamp either Rs or Ds. Give the Tea Partiers a chance … they are making a difference. Respectfully, Dr. B Leland Baker
Anonymous
01.26.2010
This whole “lesser of two evils” **comment edited for foul language** as espoused by so many people on the right and the left is ridiculous! How does anyone expect change to happen when we are voting for the lesser of two evils?! We are playing right into the two-headed, one-party monster’s hands! (That is such an amazing analogy Ryan, so true!)
As a liberal turning Libertarian I find the most pragmatic way of changing the system is to promote ANY candidate that isn’t a part of the one-party monster (Republican or Democrat) who we identify with.
Corruption is the culprit. Complexity is the weapon. I argue that it is not bigger government that leads to corruption but the complex government that does. I know there is a correlation between the two but we must be careful not to mistake one for the other.
Anonymous
01.27.2010
I personally do not accept “lesser of two evils” argument in my voting habits … But make the observation that it did contribute to the Brown victory.
In reality, there is so little difference between the Republican and Democrat Party elites that you’d often have a choice between socialism and socialism-light programs … both encroach on our liberties.
How do you fix it? Get rid of all incumbents regardless of party.