6 ms·
Also, the Tea Party has so far found a far more effective means of political engagement than protests like these. For better or worse, they've actually gotten
by jgfoot 15y ago
Also, the Tea Party has so far found a far more effective means of political engagement than protests like these. For better or worse, they've actually gotten involved with electoral politics, and they've had a huge impact.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoThey've managed to take over the Republican party. It's far from clear if they've had a huge impact. We won't know that for a while.
- protomyth 15y agoI don't think they have actually taken it over. The leadership is not aligned with the tea party values. I think we are more at a split-purposes under the same house. To my mind, the 2012 primaries will be the break point.
- knowtheory 15y agoIt really is the worst of both worlds. The existing republican establishment has harnessed the Tea Party's discontent to justify their policies without actually reforming how the party operates. All the tea party caucus can do is occasionally grind things to a complete and utter halt, and the leadership can to a large extent control when and how that happens. What's the result? Tea partiers aren't going to get what they want (since it's never been on the table to offer them), and they're being used as a weapon to prevent thing that citizens in general agree with (the wealthy should pay more in taxes, the FAA should keep operating, that sort of thing). This really is political coopting at it's finest.
- protomyth 15y agoLike I said, I do believe the primaries for the 2012 election will tell the story. It either will be business as usual or the leadership takes a beating. I am particulary interested in Hatch's seat.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoThe leadership can be aligned with whatever it wants; what matters is how they actually vote, and it's a fact that at the moment, the congressional leadership (as well as nearly all of their presidential candidates) is playing the tea party tune.
- protomyth 15y agoIf the leadership was playing the tea party tune, they would have gone with Ryan's spending cuts instead of the costly debt ceiling raise. The leadership is ignoring the tea parties desires and doing business as usual.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoMaking a credible threat to drive the global economy into a ditch is not even close to "business as usual".
- protomyth 15y agoEven without a debt ceiling increase the US wouldn't have defaulted. There were a couple of plans to keep things going. The actions taken increase debt by a rather large amount, so I do believe it was meaningless theater which is pretty much business as usual.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoThat's just nonsense. There were no "plans to keep things going" -- if that were so, then whose plans were these, exactly, and why weren't those plans enacted? If the default threat were really no big deal, why did the stock market plunge 15% during the Republican-engineered budget crisis? Clearly somebody thought it was a big deal, because it requires a hell of a lot of selling to make the market move like that. The Republican congressional leadership stated outright that default was preferable to raising one penny of taxes to balance the budget. That's not "business as usual". It's arguably not even constitutional. But it's certainly never happened before in the history of the United States.