The tea-party movement is dominated by conspiracist kooks

[Puppycow]

Is the tea party movement a serious political movement, or has it been co-opted by the tinfoil-hat crowd?

A conservative who attended the Tea Party National Convention as a paying member found it to be the latter

I consider myself a conservative and arrived at this conference as a paid-up, rank-and-file attendee, not one of the bemused New York Times types with a media pass. But I also happen to be writing a book for HarperCollins that focuses on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I have a pretty good idea where the various screws and nuts can be found in the great toolbox of American political life.

Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn't just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.

With the exception of Sarah Palin, most mainstream republicans seem to be wary of this crowd, and for good reason.

 

[Infoexcavator]

You have it backwards.

The modern tea party movement was started by libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, a group where conspiracy theories are quite popular and Alex Jones had a big part in promoting it before the elections. The republican party has invaded the whole thing and turned it from a libertarian anti-war and anti-tax movement into a GOP propaganda tool promoting more wars, Sarah Palin and running people against real libertarians like, well, Ron Paul. The whole thing has turned into a revolting joke and the idea died with Sarah Palin. Its good to see that some of the meetings still are what they used to be instead of the milk toast garbage that the article's writer was expecting.

Maddow had an interesting piece about this with Ron Paul, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFFPHC13uEY

 

[dudalb]

Yeah, Ron Paul supporters are SO Rational........

 

[drkitten]

The modern tea party movement was started by libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, a group where conspiracy theories are quite popular and Alex Jones had a big part in promoting it before the elections.

In other words, "the tea-party movement is dominated by conspiracist kooks" and has been from the beginning.

The whole thing has turned into a revolting joke and the idea died with Sarah Palin.

The whole thing started as a revolting joke.

 

[dudalb]

I maintain the Tea Party movement is a logical progression from the Ron Paul movement. I think the OP is angry that his idol Ron Paul has been replaced by Sarah Palin. Which is ironic, since IMHO there are only minor differences between Palin and Paul as far as ideology go. Only the Style is different.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Conspiracy nuts exist in that nebulous space on the political spectrum where extreme left meets extreme right. They are kind of the polar opposites of moderates that way. Oddly, this tends to give them a fair amount of influence, especially when national politics switches hands, as the more mainstream partisans start to identify with whatever anti-establishment BS the nuts are chasing. The Militia movement, the Truth movement, and now the Tea Parties (among others) were all branches of the same CT nutjob community that has lurked in the counterculture since at least the 60s.

Most people who particapate in these movements buy into the superficial rhetoric and get only glimpses of the nuttiness beneath it. When the power structure changes again, most of them will abandon the movement, while the same cast of characters will turn on the very people who supported them last time around.

 

[dudalb]

And if Palin is a plot by the GOP to destroy Ron Paul, explain why Palin is supporting and has given money to Rand Paul's (Ron 's son) Senate race in Kentucky, when Rand's stands are exactly the same as his fathers.

 

[Infoexcavator]

I maintain the Tea Party movement is a logical progression from the Ron Paul movement. I think the OP is angry that his idol Ron Paul has been replaced by Sarah Palin. Which is ironic, since IMHO there are only minor differences between Palin and Paul as far as ideology go. Only the Style is different.

Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are the same ideologically, oh really? Palin is a republican who wants to bomb Iran and torture the evil-doers, Paul is a "isolationist". Palin supported the TARP before claiming she was against it, Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS. I really don't accept your statement that Palin and Paul have just minor differences, Paul really should not even be in the republican party while Palin is a cheerleader for them.

...as the more mainstream partisans start to identify with whatever anti-establishment BS the nuts are chasing. The Militia movement, the Truth movement, and now the Tea Parties (among others) were all branches of the same CT nutjob community that has lurked in the counterculture since at least the 60s.

This is pretty much spot on. The Tea Parties started as a movement for real change and had a lot of conspiracy thinking but unfortunately they have been perverted into a GOP tool.

And if Palin is a plot by the GOP to destroy Ron Paul, explain why Palin is supporting and has given money to Rand Paul's (ron son) Senate race in Kentucky, when Rand's stands are exactly the same as his fathers.

This is a very interesting question. I think Palin is just supporting who ever she feels is winning. In Texas Palin is supporting Rick Perry instead of Debra Medina. I haven't really studied this issue at all so I could be completely wrong, but I think she is just hoping that she picks the winner so that FoxNews can say how great her influence is.

 

[Michael Redman]

I think it's fair to say the tea party started as a movement for real change, but based on some rather paranoid, conspiratorial views of the current state of things.

 

[geni]

I think it's fair to say the tea party started as a movement for real change, but based on some rather paranoid, conspiratorial views of the current state of things.

Err we know how the teaparty movement started. Classic astroturfing:

http://exiledonline.com/exposing-th...-machine-is-cnbcs-rick-santelli-sucking-koch/

 

[Infoexcavator]

Err we know how the teaparty movement started. Classic astroturfing:

http://exiledonline.com/exposing-th...-machine-is-cnbcs-rick-santelli-sucking-koch/

That was the corruption of the the teaparties, the teaparties started with the Ron Paul campaign, they were smaller but had actual real people in them. The original tea parties that were for change are now mostly part of the Campaign for Liberty. Its probably pointless to try to hammer this point but it bothers me a lot to see a political movement stolen.

 

[Walter Ego]

Is the tea party movement a serious political movement, or has it been co-opted by the tinfoil-hat crowd?

A conservative who attended the Tea Party National Convention as a paying member found it to be the latter

The author of that piece is working on a book about the 9/11 TM.

Jonathan Kay is the managing editor for comment at Canada's National Post newspaper. His book, Among the Truthers: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, will be published by HarperCollins in 2011.

That should be an interesting read.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are the same ideologically, oh really? Palin is a republican who wants to bomb Iran and torture the evil-doers, Paul is a "isolationist". Palin supported the TARP before claiming she was against it, Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS. I really don't accept your statement that Palin and Paul have just minor differences, Paul really should not even be in the republican party while Palin is a cheerleader for them.

The Republican party is more diverse than you seem to think. Ron Paul is, for the most part, far from a freak in the Republican party. A good many of his positions, such as isolationism, are common in the party and in fact were dominate before Bush and his Neocon/Compassionate Conservatives took over. The Neocons are notable for abandoning one of the most important doctorines of the Right, fiscal responsibility, in favor of using the Leftist tactic of using the power and wealth of the Gov't to support social causes. This is, as the "neo" suggests, a new way of doing things for conservatives, and has not been amazingly popular with party's old guard.

Paul is a social and fiscal conservative, and a bit of an extreme one at that. As such, you could say that he is actually more in line with traditional Republican views than either Palin or Bush. What you cannot say is that shouldn't be a Republican.

This is pretty much spot on. The Tea Parties started as a movement for real change and had a lot of conspiracy thinking but unfortunately they have been perverted into a GOP tool.

Don't kid yourself. The CTers don't want to change anything, because they don't think anything can be changed. It's all controlled by the NWO, Illuminati, Luciferians, Jews, Reptiles or whatever. They just want personal agrandizement and to throw monkey wrenches in the plans of whoever's in charge, and to do that, they need mainstream support. They are the ones using the GOP, just as did the kids in the Truth Movement, and they will with whatever movement comes up after Obama is gone.

 

[dudalb]

I disagree about Isolationism being commonplace in the GOP before Dubya and the Neocons. It was there,but was the voice of a small minority.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

I disagree about Isolationism being commonplace in the GOP before Dubya and the Neocons. It was there,but was the voice of a small minority.

Through the Cold War, sure. Isolationism was pretty rare. However, after that ended, right up until 9/11, it was pretty common, perhaps even dominant. You don't really need to look very hard for it. It was behind the American withdrawl from Somalia and the refusal to enforce UN weapons inspections in Iraq.

 

[The_Librarian]

Through the Cold War, sure. Isolationism was pretty rare. However, after that ended, right up until 9/11, it was pretty common, perhaps even dominant. You don't really need to look very hard for it. It was behind the American withdrawl from Somalia and the refusal to enforce UN weapons inspections in Iraq.

I add my agreement to this, for what it's worth.
During Clinton years, the US was playing firefighter all around the world, at the demand of most western countries and the UN. It was the time of the "Devoir d'Ingerence", as we French said (Duty of Interference?)
(this mindset upsets me - we order the US to come apply their military might to keep peace in countries in our backyard (e.g. Serbia/Croatia), and then we complain of their imperialistic arrogance)
The first thing that Bush Jr. declared re: foreign policy was that from now on, the US will only take care of US-related matters, i.e. stop sending the US army every times the UN requests it. US were going isolationnist.
And then came 9/11 as a harsh reminder that the US are not alone in the world...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've got to disagree strongly with the notion that the U.S. was isolationist up until 9/11.

The U.S. had military presence (bases) all over the world.

During the Clinton Era, there was a huge move for "free trade" treaties.

Or are you guys using "isolationist" in some strange way such that these things don't count? Does only the active use of military force count? And also this.

Just a bit of a fact check on these claims of "isolationism".

 

[drkitten]

I've got to disagree strongly with the notion that the U.S. was isolationist up until 9/11.

The U.S. had military presence (bases) all over the world.

During the Clinton Era, there was a huge move for "free trade" treaties.

You're confusing the GOP with the United States.

Oddly enough, a lot of conservatives do this.