I just finished an interesting and very well written article in the latest Foreign Affairs about the Tea Party. It is by Walter Russell Mead, a really good thinker in foreign policy circles.

The article is behind a paywall, but he published an Op-ed in the New York Times that is a shorter version of the article.

Pretty much he says the Tea Party is a throw back to the ideas of Andrew Jackson and Jacksonian policy-stay away, near neo-isolation in foreign policy, but when America has to be involved, go full force. He says that the movement is likely not going away, is too broad to have one spokeman or one lead idea and is largely diverse.

He goes on to say the movement has two large sides though, Palinites (the view of Sarah Palin) and Paulites (the view of Ron Paul) Palinites are more hawkish in foreign policy terms while Paulites are more isolationish. His view is that the Palinites will probably win out in the end, but Paulites will still have large say in foreign policy. Also, both sides agree to end American commitment in large construction of the liberal world order (The UN, International treaties, etc.)

It is an interesting and well written analysis of the movement and where it may be going.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22iht-edrusselmead22.html

FA article:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67455/walter-russell-mead/the-tea-party-and-american-foreign-policy

Interesting read. He has already divided them into two trains of thought, but if I had to guess, based on observations of the Tea Party and conversations with those who support it, I would think that foreign policy isn't a burning issue with them. Those who do speak about foreign policy leave me with the impression that they would like to see a hard-line response, if not outright military in nature, to many global issues. Part of the spread of the Tea Party, IMO, can be attributed to the passion of its members toward what they perceive as a government that is against their ideals. That same passion, applied to foreign affairs or policy, could result in hasty, knee-jerk decisions, with possibly catastrophic results.

I see the NY Times is still trying to manipulate the Tea Party movement into a political party. They understand, as I've been writing for over a year, that the destruction of the Tea Party lies in making it a political party...complete with planks, platforms, and a leader. In the Times article, they claim Palin will lead them over Ron Paul. In order to make all the links work, the writer has to transform the Tea Party followers into something called, "Jacksonians". Since "Jacksonians" have all the political tenets that they wish to apply to the movement, then it's just as easy as A--->B--->C to link one to the other. Once the link is made, then it's easy to apply labels, blaspheme, call the members neanderthals/rednecks/extremeists/nutjobs, and make the case that the movement needs to go away sooner, rather than later.

The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with foreign policy, and we've talked about this before, ptown. It was generated by the spend-lust of elected elitists in Washington, DC and it's sole mission is to return the USA to it's original mission as ordained by the founding documents, not some new "living Constitution" that seems to be the rage of Progressives/statists. That's what it is. To apply leaders (Palin & Paul) and foreign policy (just like the Jacksonians) is to misrepresent the movement and to cause discomfort in it's members.

While the Tea Party is impugned, laughed-at, and berated daily, if we fail in our mission, we all fail and the price to pay will be economic collapse of the dollar and our standard of living. The Times doesn't care about any of that. All they want is the destruction of conservative ideas, faith, and ideals.

^^^SWOOSH....Nothing but net!

BGFalcons82;701420 wrote:I see the NY Times is still trying to manipulate the Tea Party movement into a political party. They understand, as I've been writing for over a year, that the destruction of the Tea Party lies in making it a political party...complete with planks, platforms, and a leader. In the Times article, they claim Palin will lead them over Ron Paul. In order to make all the links work, the writer has to transform the Tea Party followers into something called, "Jacksonians". Since "Jacksonians" have all the political tenets that they wish to apply to the movement, then it's just as easy as A--->B--->C to link one to the other. Once the link is made, then it's easy to apply labels, blaspheme, call the members neanderthals/rednecks/extremeists/nutjobs, and make the case that the movement needs to go away sooner, rather than later.

The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with foreign policy, and we've talked about this before, ptown. It was generated by the spend-lust of elected elitists in Washington, DC and it's sole mission is to return the USA to it's original mission as ordained by the founding documents, not some new "living Constitution" that seems to be the rage of Progressives/statists. That's what it is. To apply leaders (Palin & Paul) and foreign policy (just like the Jacksonians) is to misrepresent the movement and to cause discomfort in it's members.

While the Tea Party is impugned, laughed-at, and berated daily, if we fail in our mission, we all fail and the price to pay will be economic collapse of the dollar and our standard of living. The Times doesn't care about any of that. All they want is the destruction of conservative ideas, faith, and ideals.

One, the NYT did not write the article, it was Russell Mead and it was adapted from the Foreign Affairs article. The Times just ran the article.
Two, what he does in the longer article is to use history to show that the Tea Party is just like the previous anti-establishment movements, populism movements, mainly like Andrew Jackson, but also the movements after WWI, and during the Cold War. Yes, Jackson is not known for foreign policy, but the idea was members of the movement in Congress will have an impact on foreign policy. (Mainly through the budget, ie Rand Paul) Since members of the Tea Party have to deal with budget issues that include Defense, State, the UN etc. like it or not, members of the Tea Party that are elected need to figure out.

The longer article is not a knock on the Tea Party at all. He actually spends the first half of the article praising the movement for its diversity and ranging from center right to far right people. He actually says it is not going away, and will have an impact in foreign policy.

BGFalcons82;701420 wrote:I see the NY Times is still trying to manipulate the Tea Party movement into a political party. They understand, as I've been writing for over a year, that the destruction of the Tea Party lies in making it a political party...complete with planks, platforms, and a leader. In the Times article, they claim Palin will lead them over Ron Paul. In order to make all the links work, the writer has to transform the Tea Party followers into something called, "Jacksonians". Since "Jacksonians" have all the political tenets that they wish to apply to the movement, then it's just as easy as A--->B--->C to link one to the other. Once the link is made, then it's easy to apply labels, blaspheme, call the members neanderthals/rednecks/extremeists/nutjobs, and make the case that the movement needs to go away sooner, rather than later.

The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with foreign policy, and we've talked about this before, ptown. It was generated by the spend-lust of elected elitists in Washington, DC and it's sole mission is to return the USA to it's original mission as ordained by the founding documents, not some new "living Constitution" that seems to be the rage of Progressives/statists. That's what it is. To apply leaders (Palin & Paul) and foreign policy (just like the Jacksonians) is to misrepresent the movement and to cause discomfort in it's members.

While the Tea Party is impugned, laughed-at, and berated daily, if we fail in our mission, we all fail and the price to pay will be economic collapse of the dollar and our standard of living. The Times doesn't care about any of that. All they want is the destruction of conservative ideas, faith, and ideals.

While you claim that the movement doesn't have any actual foreign policy per se, there are more than a few Freshman legislators in the Congress who are aligned with the Tea Party. They will be making actual decisions on foreign policy during their terms. I'd like to think that they are preparing to bone up on the subject. Otherwise they'll be completely in the dark and be susceptible to manipulation by their Republican masters.

I may be some backwoods dumbass but it was my understanding that the Tea Party stood for Taxed Enough Already... pretty much a domestic agenda-driven group that prefers smaller government and desires to reign in big government in regards to personal freedoms and states rights.

As these Tea Party initiatives take root throughout today's political landscape and more and more representatives who support the Tea Party are elected to local, state and national office, there is no doubt that there will need to be a larger geopolitical platform needed to confront international issues etc.

Tonite it is too late for me to read the articles to which ptown gave links. I look forward to reading how today's Tea Party mimics our past.

Apple;701660 wrote:I may be some backwoods dumbass but it was my understanding that the Tea Party stood for Taxed Enough Already... pretty much a domestic agenda-driven group that prefers smaller government and desires to reign in big government in regards to personal freedoms and states rights.

As these Tea Party initiatives take root throughout today's political landscape and more and more representatives who support the Tea Party are elected to local, state and national office, there is no doubt that there will need to be a larger geopolitical platform needed to confront international issues etc.

Tonite it is too late for me to read the articles to which ptown gave links. I look forward to reading how today's Tea Party mimics our past.

As long as these folks run for office as Republicans, they will always be identified as such.

BGFalcons82;701420 wrote:The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with foreign policy, and we've talked about this before, ptown. It
While the Tea Party is impugned, laughed-at, and berated daily, .

Until the Tea Party organizes and has a stance on foreign policy, It will not be taken seriously. While it is easy enough to be isolationists, the world economy has to many quirks to be ignored. If the US went off the grid, it would crash the world economy, not just ours.

The Tea Party is in the same boat as the Libertarian platform (closest to my beliefs). Both had moments, but fizzled out due to poor/no leadership and direction. ( IE Ron Paul 1988) The message was there, Allot of people agree with it, but did not carry it forward and it fizzled out.

Until it gains more momentum, it will not be a factor and the only thing we will hear from the MSM is quotes and sound bites from the nut jobs and the not so well communicated sound bites.