Are the Core Beliefs of Republicans and the Tea Party Different?

[Winzer]

I am aware that the Republicans are an actual political party and the Tea Party is a political movement. But what are the differences in core beliefs between the two?

 

[mheslep]

People who self-identify as being Tea Party supporters overwhelmingly choose reducing the size of the Federal government as their number one concern. That notion has a great deal of overlap with the Republican party in word, but not in deed. Also, Tea Party supporters as a "plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?#
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

 

[FlexGunship]

People who self-identify as being Tea Party supporters overwhelmingly choose reducing the size of the Federal government as their number one concern. That notion has a great deal of overlap with the Republican party in word, but not in deed. Also, Tea Party supporters as a "plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president."

Yes, these seem to be the most significant differences. The Tea Party (or at least the most significant portions of it) seem to be fundamentally unconcerned with dictating social issues. If you were to give a Tea Party member the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz), the would overwhelmingly score high on both social and economic freedoms.

So, technically, it might be best to identify the Tea Party at a "libertarian" movement, as opposed to a colloquially "conservative" movement. The confusion enters when individuals unfamiliar with the term "conservative" link it automatically to the Republican party.

Closing note: I think we can all agree, that the Republican party (and previous republican candidates) seem to have hijacked the Tea Party name since its inception.

 

[Gokul43201]

People who self-identify as being Tea Party supporters overwhelmingly choose reducing the size of the Federal government as their number one concern. That notion has a great deal of overlap with the Republican party in word, but not in deed.

Aren't you sort of comparing TP supporters with members of the RP?

Also, Tea Party supporters as a "plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president."

Those numbers are very similar to what people that call themselves Republicans say, isn't it? Yet both groups overwhelmingly express a favorable opinion of Palin - northwards of 80%, I think.

As for actual differences between elected TP endorsed Republicans and the broader set of Republicans in Govt, one must wait a few years to tell what substantive differences there are between them. If you don't have the patience, I guess you could look to TP endorsed establishment Republicans like Jim Demint and Michelle Bachmann, and see how they differ from other Republicans.

 

[FlexGunship]

Those numbers are very similar to what people that call themselves Republicans say, isn't it? Yet both groups overwhelmingly express a favorable opinion of Palin - northwards of 80%, I think.

As for actual differences between elected TP endorsed Republicans and the broader set of Republicans in Govt, one must wait a few years to tell what substantive differences there are between them. If you don't have the patience, I guess you could look to TP endorsed establishment Republicans like Jim Demint and Michelle Bachmann, and see how they differ from other Republicans.

Two brief comments.

(1) The "support Palin" percentage has a modifier since she has "self-identified" herself as a Tea Party leader. By the law of compounding politics (I like to call it the Gunship principle), Palin followers are ascribed the title of Tea Party member just by fiat. Again, the Tea Party existed before (and free of) Palin's involvement... "Palin brought her followers to the Tea Party", not "the Tea Party adopted Palin."

(2) I believe the two Republicans you quoted were only endorsed by the Tea Party Express. Which is, fundamentally, a Republican organization; not an independent one.

 

[Gokul43201]

(1) The "support Palin" percentage has a modifier since she has "self-identified" herself as a Tea Party leader. By the law of compounding politics (I like to call it the Gunship principle), Palin followers are ascribed the title of Tea Party member just by fiat. Again, the Tea Party existed before (and free of) Palin's involvement.

Are you saying that:

1. The group that self-identifies as TP supporters includes a subgroup that do so only because they are Palin supporters and Palin self-identifies as a TP leader?

2. That this subgroup should not be considered as legitimate TP supporters?

Is there then any good way of knowing when a self-identified supporter of the TP is indeed one? Or is the group common referred to as supporters of the TP tainted, for all practical purposes, by those that are in "by fiat"?

(2) I believe the two Republicans you quoted were only endorsed by the Tea Party Express. Which is, fundamentally, a Republican organization; not an independent one.

Not according to the WSJ article about the history of the TP that mheslep cited in the other TP thread. Nevertheless, how do you identify a candidate endorsed by the TP?

Edit: Here's the link to the WSJ page: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578332725182228.html

Edit 2: Here's a list of all the candidates that acknowledge TP support (Demint and Bachmann are on that list, among many others, like Tom Coburn and John Thune): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/31/tea-party-candidates-midterm-election/

 

[FlexGunship]

Are you saying that:

1. The group that self-identifies as TP supporters includes a subgroup that do so only because they are Palin supporters and Palin self-identifies as a TP leader?

2. That this subgroup should not be considered as legitimate TP supporters?

Is there then any good way of knowing when a self-identified supporter of the TP is indeed one? Or is the group common referred to as supporters of the TP tainted, for all practical purposes, by those that are in "by fiat"?

Gokul, I'm playing devil's advocate here, a bit. But I also have some personal experience with the internals of the "Tea Party."

(1) Yes. That is what I am saying. (An expansion is: there are members of the TP that would not be members if Palin were not a "leader" in the party.)

(2) Much fuzzier. The TP is entirely self-declared members. So, it's difficult to create a rule that excludes anyone. However, if you define the "Tea Party" as having the ideals that were demonstrated at the reenactment of the Boston Tea Party in early 2009, then the Palin followers do not meet this criteria.

When I self-identified as a TP member, it was because it was a group of individuals who felt the government SHOULD NOT intervene in social or economic matters (or, rather, should do so in a limited fashion as prescribed by the constitution).

I stopped identifying myself as a TP member when it became a group of individuals who felt the government SHOULD intervene in social and economic matters, but in a specific way.

Palin not fit the criteria of the original Tea Party movement. She has a specific social agenda and she has espoused it repeatedly. The original social agenda of the TP movement was to NOT have a social agenda.

 

[mheslep]

Aren't you sort of comparing TP supporters with members of the RP?

Exactly, as per the OP's specific question.

Those numbers are very similar to what people that call themselves Republicans say, isn't it?

Similar, but I think there are clear differences. As I recall from polling one will see more social issues up front w/ R polls of the electorate, and if we look at recent elected or nearly elected officials we see some stark differences between TP Republicans (Rand-Ky, Buck-Co) and Not So Much TP Republican's (Murkowski-Ak)

Yet both groups overwhelmingly express a favorable opinion of Palin - northwards of 80%, I think.

Who knows what 'favorable' means, but also put me down as 'favorable'. But neither will I support her for the '12 nomination.

 

[mheslep]

since she has "self-identified" herself as a Tea Party leader

No, she has not.

... the Tea Party Express. Which is, fundamentally, a Republican organization; not an independent one

Again no, the Express is fundamentally a TP organization, formed wholly outside the R. party leadership, and it is the only major TP organization that endorses candidates.

 

[FlexGunship]

No, she has not.

Very well. She has self-identified herself as the leader of the Tea Party Express which is often (questionably) associated with the Tea Party movement itself.

Edit: Okay, okay... maybe not a leader, but a spokesperson and role model. Is that, perhaps, more clear?

 

[mheslep]

Very well. She has self-identified herself as the leader of the Tea Party Express which is often (questionably) associated with the Tea Party movement itself.

Edit: Okay, okay... maybe not a leader, but a spokesperson and role model. Is that, perhaps, more clear?

Palin has roughly the same role in the TP as did Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam for the Restore Sanity rally (though with different impacts.) They are both popular in their groups. Neither has a right nor any invitation to speak on behalf of anyone else.

 

[Gokul43201]

Exactly, as per the OP's specific question.

If that is the OP's question (I think it isn't), then I find it somewhat meaningless to compare a segment of the electorate with a group of elected officials. It makes more sense to compare elected Republicans with elected TP movement endorsees.

Similar, but I think there are clear differences. As I recall from polling one will see more social issues up front w/ R polls of the electorate,

My observation of similarity was limited to the numbers about Palin that you cited. In that regard, I don't think there's much difference between Reps in general and TP supporters. I think the relative importance of social vs. economic issues may be a more clear difference (though I don't recall specific numbers on these). But from all that I've seen so far, the one metric that shows the clearest difference between TP supporters and Rep voters is their favorability ratings for the Rep Party (around 50% from TP and closer to 2/3rds from RP, I think).

and if we look at recent elected or nearly elected officials we see some stark differences between TP Republicans (Rand-Ky, Buck-Co) and Not So Much TP Republican's (Murkowski-Ak)

I think it's unwise to pick a small sample and extrapolate broader trends from that. I could just as well choose O'Donnell or Bachmann as TP Reps, and pick Lugar or Rick Snyder as not-so-TP Reps.

Who knows what 'favorable' means, but also put me down as 'favorable'. But neither will I support her for the '12 nomination.

Whatever it means, my point was that (by my recollection) there wasn't much difference between TP supporters and self-identified Reps using the Palin metric.

Edit: Found some poll numbers for the Palin metric. Oct 2010 ABC/WaPo poll finds Reps are evenly split 46/47 unsuitable/suitable for presidency. That's not so far from the 47/40 margin among TPers that were polled by CBS/NYT a year ago.

 

[Al68]

Palin has roughly the same role in the TP as did Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam for the Restore Sanity rally (though with different impacts.) They are both popular in their groups. Neither has a right nor any invitation to speak on behalf of anyone else.

Restore Sanity? From their web site:

"Think of our event as Woodstock, but with the nudity and drugs replaced by respectful disagreement".

That's insane.

 

[FlexGunship]

Palin has roughly the same role in the TP as did Yusuf "Cat Stevens" Islam for the Restore Sanity rally (though with different impacts.) They are both popular in their groups. Neither has a right nor any invitation to speak on behalf of anyone else.

I entirely agree with your statement. The analogy isn't perfect since the Restore Sanity rally isn't actually a political movement, just an event. However, you're right in your assessment.

That being said, ask Tea Party Express followers who the head of the TPE is. Right or wrong, I bet you'll hear Palin's name a lot.

 

[Gokul43201]

As I recall from polling one will see more social issues up front w/ R polls of the electorate...

There's now an effort started by some Tea Party (and related) groups urging Congress to keep social issues off the front-burners, and concentrate on fiscal policy for now. I'd be interested to see if that catches on, at least among more TP groups (right now, it's a very small minority that support this move), and then, hopefully with some of the people they endorsed in Congress.

GOP is urged to avoid social issues

A gay conservative group and some Tea Party leaders are campaigning to keep social issues off the Republican agenda.

In a letter to be released Monday, the group GOProud and leaders from groups like the Tea Party Patriots and the New American Patriots, will urge Republicans in the House and Senate to keep their focus on shrinking the government.

"On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement," they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. "This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue."
...
"For almost two years now, the tea party has been laser-focused on the size of government," said Barron, who said his group and the tea partiers are part of the "leave-me-alone coalition."

"No one has been talking about social issues - not even the socially conservative candidates who won tea party support," Barron said.
...
"We're not talking about pushing social conservatives out of the tea party movement. Those people aren't only welcome but they're a critical part of this movement." said Barron.

But ideas like the one Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) floated about banning gay teachers run counter to the tea party ethos, Barron argues. "How is that limited government?" he said.

The alliance underscores many of the tensions and divisions in the freewheeling, leaderless tea party movement.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45110.html

There are some 2000-odd Tea Party groups around the country, and so far, only a little over a dozen have endorsed this message. I'd like to see if more join in, and if this goes anywhere.

<OT> Just noticed that when you copy-paste a passage from a Politico article, you automatically get a link to the source appended at the end of the passage - neat. </OT>

 

[Evo]

A focus on sane government issues and no religious or social witch hunts would be amazing. Is it possible?

 

[NobodySpecial]

A focus on sane government issues and no religious or social witch hunts would be amazing. Is it possible?

Yes, it's just that everybody has a slightly different view of what is a sane government issue of and what is a witch hunt ;-)

It's the same problem with small government. Everybody wants a smaller government, but then one group wants a smaller government but an increasing proportion of what's left spent on security, or support for business, or environmental concerns, or education, or ...

If you want all of them to vote for you you have to support the sum of all their views.
Unfortunately the integral over 300million 'small governments' is a large government.

 

[lisab]

A focus on sane government issues and no religious or social witch hunts would be amazing. Is it possible?

We can always hope. It makes me giddy just to think about it!

 

[mheslep]

There's now an effort started by some Tea Party (and related) groups urging Congress to keep social issues off the front-burners, and concentrate on fiscal policy for now. I'd be interested to see if that catches on, at least among more TP groups (right now, it's a very small minority that support this move), and then, hopefully with some of the people they endorsed in Congress.



Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45110.html

I like this part in particular:

"When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren't arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion," said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45110.html#ixzz168bYmbxM

 

[ShawnD]

It's the same problem with small government.
...
If you want all of them to vote for you you have to support the sum of all their views.
Unfortunately the integral over 300million 'small governments' is a large government.

As explained by a republican friend of mine, lots of republicans just want more regional government.

In general this is a good idea because of obvious cultural differences between regions. California is talking about legalizing marijuana while states like Nevada will put you on death row for smoking a joint. Trying to make a broad policy that will please both of those states is basically impossible. The only solution is to reduce the federal government and build up state government. California can have their legalized cocaine or whatever and Nevada can execute people for parking violations; every state gets what they want.
Doing this would also help the budget situation because it would stop politicians from running a campaign based on how much they are going to screw the other 49 states. Vote for me and I'll bring back a bunch of free money from the other states! If the federal government only controlled things like defense/FBI/CIA spending, it would be a lot harder to run a campaign based on how much you're going to spend.

 

[Al68]

As explained by a republican friend of mine, lots of republicans just want more regional government.

In general this is a good idea because of obvious cultural differences between regions. California is talking about legalizing marijuana while states like Nevada will put you on death row for smoking a joint. Trying to make a broad policy that will please both of those states is basically impossible. The only solution is to reduce the federal government and build up state government. California can have their legalized cocaine or whatever and Nevada can execute people for parking violations; every state gets what they want.

The obvious advantage of this is that escaping from what one considers oppressive government is a simple matter of moving to another state, not another country. This is why the constitution reserves general lawmaking power to the states. And this is even a bigger advantage of federalism than it was 200+ years ago, since it is far easier to leave a particular state now compared to then.

It's no accident that this advantage has been systematically undermined as it became an even larger weapon against oppression. Power hungry politicians know that the power to oppress is limited at the state level, and they are well aware that they have exceeded that limit, particularly with economic oppression.

 

[lisab]

As explained by a republican friend of mine, lots of republicans just want more regional government.

In general this is a good idea because of obvious cultural differences between regions. California is talking about legalizing marijuana while states like Nevada will put you on death row for smoking a joint. Trying to make a broad policy that will please both of those states is basically impossible. The only solution is to reduce the federal government and build up state government. California can have their legalized cocaine or whatever and Nevada can execute people for parking violations; every state gets what they want.
Doing this would also help the budget situation because it would stop politicians from running a campaign based on how much they are going to screw the other 49 states. Vote for me and I'll bring back a bunch of free money from the other states! If the federal government only controlled things like defense/FBI/CIA spending, it would be a lot harder to run a campaign based on how much you're going to spend.

Notice to PFers who are not citizens of the US: Shawn is using hyperbole here; Nevada does not execute people for smoking marijuana or for parking violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Nevada

Just trying to thwart a dead-end thread derailment.

 

[WhoWee]

Notice to PFers who are not citizens of the US: Shawn is using hyperbole here; Nevada does not execute people for smoking marijuana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Nevada

Just trying to thwart a dead-end thread derailment.

Didn't you want to see where he was going - maybe White Castle?

 

[mugaliens]

A focus on sane government issues and no religious or social witch hunts would be amazing. Is it possible?

Sure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE"(straw man).

Disclaimer: I am not a tea-partier. I'm not even Republican. I am, however, an advocate against injustice of any kind.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why is it that someone who puts up a youtube video gets to be the only legitimate spokesperson for a semi-amorphous group with no organized structure or statement of principles? Why is this person any more able to tell us what the TP stands for than any other randomly sampled person who self-identifies as a TP proponent?

 

[Al68]

Notice to PFers who are not citizens of the US: Shawn is using hyperbole here; Nevada does not execute people for smoking marijuana or for parking violations.

Unless your car is blocking access to a brothel. They take that pretty seriously.

 

[ShawnD]

Why is it that someone who puts up a youtube video gets to be the only legitimate spokesperson for a semi-amorphous group with no organized structure or statement of principles? Why is this person any more able to tell us what the TP stands for than any other randomly sampled person who self-identifies as a TP proponent?

He's the most intelligent sounding tea partier, so he speaks for them.

Seriously, do you want average people to explain what their party is all about?
average democrat: the republicans is all racists
average republican: all democrats are unemployed
(notice how neither generalization is true)
average tea bagger: president hussein is from nigeria and he attends a radical left wing christian church even though he's a muslim

I think the guy's video pretty clearly explains what tea party conservatism is about. He said he wants small government. He said the tea party is different because the republican and democrat parties both support large governments, which is true. That's the whole idea right there - smaller government. The video is filled with a lot of fantasy ideas, but so is every other political video.

 

[NobodySpecial]

California can have their legalized cocaine or whatever and Nevada can execute people for parking violations; every state gets what they want.

Sure but california wants regional government to legalise marijuana but still wants lots of federal spending on stealth fighters built in Ca and cheap water from colarado.

 

[Gokul43201]

[At Shawn] If the average Tea Partier believes in a completely different set of ideas than the youtube person (I don't know his name), then why is the youtube version supposed to be representative of the group? After all the Tea Party, unlike the Reps or Dems (for whom you can go to their respective websites and see what they stand for) is a much more unstructured creature, with no single website and no representative leadership - it is essentially an agglomeration of the beliefs of its proponents.

The Youtube person considers SS and Medicare to be wasteful and immoral - essentially government sanctioned robbery. Yet a huge majority of self-identified TP supporters approve of both these programs. So, whose word should we take for what the TP stands for?

 

[mheslep]

[...]
The Youtube person considers SS and Medicare to be wasteful and immoral - essentially government sanctioned robbery. Yet a huge majority of self-identified TP supporters approve of both these programs. So, whose word should we take for what the TP stands for?

Whittle (youtube narrator) doesn't mention SS or Medicare in that part 1 video; he certainly doesn't say they are immoral. Did you have another reference in mind? About the most derogatory comment he makes (in P1) is 'horrible', about the notion that the government should be huge and can do anything it wants without restraint.

 

[Gokul43201]

Whittle (youtube narrator) doesn't mention SS or Medicare in that part 1 video; he certainly doesn't say they are immoral. Did you have another reference in mind? About the most derogatory comment he makes (in P1) is 'horrible', about the notion that the government should be huge and can do anything it wants without restraint.

I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines? And he clearly describes them as forcing you to hand over your money at gunpoint (again, a paraphrase from memory). Based on those two characterizations - unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.

Heck, I consider them wasteful and immoral.

PS: If you think I've misrepresented him, I'll go have another look at the video.

 

[ShawnD]

[At Shawn] If the average Tea Partier believes in a completely different set of ideas than the youtube person (I don't know his name), then why is the youtube version supposed to be representative of the group?
...
The Youtube person considers SS and Medicare to be wasteful and immoral - essentially government sanctioned robbery. Yet a huge majority of self-identified TP supporters approve of both these programs. So, whose word should we take for what the TP stands for?

I think it's fair to say most Americans disagree with their own party when it comes to almost every issue. As South Park elegantly put it, you're voting for the lesser of two evils every single time. With so many combinations of ideas, there's no way to clearly express all of them with just 2 main parties. Policy ideas often split into polar extremes and most people are somewhere in the middle. As an example of extremes, you might need to choose between a candidate who's ok with abortions right up to the delivery date and a candidate who thinks all abortions should be illegal. Even if both of those ideas sound horrible, you'll still say one is less horrible than the other.

Being on the dole doesn't mean you're automatically out of the tea party, and owning a gun doesn't automatically make you a republican.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it's fair to say most Americans disagree with their own party when it comes to almost every issue.

You have to recognize that the arguments made about the D or R party can not apply to the TP, since they are completely different beasts. The TP is NOT a political party. It does not have a representative body. It does not have a stated set of positions. You can go to the DNC website and click the "what we stand for" tab, or go to the GOP site and click the "positions" tab to find out what either of these parties stands for. You can not do any such thing with the TP. Your only recourse is to poll the people who call themselves supporters, or perhaps poll the representatives they put in Congress.

When someone says this is what the Tea Party stands for and not that, or that, you have to wonder how he knows, and who exactly decided that he should speak for the lot of them.

 

[NobodySpecial]

You have to recognize that the arguments made about the D or R party can not apply to the TP, since they are completely different beasts.

Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?

Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'

When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.

 

[ShawnD]

I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines?... unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.

I don't want to watch the video again, so I'll try to go from memory.

I think the key point of his ranting was that the government often puts a hard limit on the development or improvement of anything it touches. Even though I think the tea party is misguided and overly optimistic, there's no denying that what he's saying has some truth to it. I'll even use health care as the example. Right now I live a place that has free government health care, and a problem we're facing right now in this system is that there are laws stopping people from paying for medical services with their own money. Things like MRI scans can only be done through the government and they can only be paid by the government. If there's no money in the budget for MRI scans, then there are fewer scans and I can't just open my wallet and pay for it out of pocket. Liberals in my area think the government needs to increase the healthcare budget, conservatives think we need a two tier system where people with money can pay out of pocket and people without money can use the existing government services. A member of the tea party might argue that the government should stay out of healthcare because their involvement is the reason that law against paying for stuff out of pocket exists in the first place.


To summarize the differences:
liberals --> in-house big government
conservatives --> big government contracted out to private companies (I work for one of those companies)
tea party --> shrink the government