The Tea Party is Officially Dead

[Chris0nllyn]

For me, it's personal. For years, the Tea Party was my life, and I have the the battle scars—and tattoos—to prove it. When I was the President of FreedomWorks, I worked side by side with tens of thousands of citizen activists as a Tea Party organizer, organizing protests and knocking on doors, hoping to topple the Goliath of government. But now the party's over.

Gone are the Tea Party's biggest and most hard-fought policy victory—mandatory caps in domestic and defense spending. The budget deal replaces them with $300 billion in new spending over the next two years, and, in all likelihood, sets a precedent for greater spending in the decade to come.

It's 2009 all over again, with trillion dollar deficits, and red ink as far as the eye—or at least CBO projections—can see. As budget deals go, it's a total fiasco.

In the Senate, Rand Paul and Mike Lee fought the good fight, but they couldn't even convince Ted Cruz to stand firm. Cruz, the one-time Tea Party darling, "reluctantly" supported the spending measure, making sure to itemize all of the spending increases he helped procure with his fellow Texas senator, John Cornyn, while simultaneously decrying "unfettered spending." Cruz's statement is world class political jujitsu.

I still remember being back stage at the massive 9/12 march on Washington in 2009. Over a million activists had shown up, and as word got out, the politicians started showing up too. They circled like sharks behind the stage, hoping to get at the microphone. We kept them off that day. But ultimately more and more opportunists got onto the Tea Party stage, wanting to "lead" a leaderless movement.

With Mitt Romney as our "leader," political momentum fell apart in 2012. And then Donald Trump split the Tea Party right down the middle, and that was the end.

One thing is for sure: Under Trump, the Tea Party original agenda of freedom and fiscal responsibility has been replaced with a populist nationalism that doesn't particularly prize spending restraint. Many of the original Tea Partiers have been replaced with new activists animated by different issues, such as immigration walls and trade restrictions.

In an odd way, Trump is the product of the same political disintermediation that launched the Tea Party. More voices, and different perspectives, have more power in the political process. This same dynamic boosted Ron Paul and his ideas. It also fueled the rise of Bernie Sanders' "democratic" socialism. Politics, like almost every aspect of modern life, is finally becoming radically democratized.

The Tea Party can claim some lasting victories. Thanks to Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie and others, liberty has a historically unprecedented seat at the table in Washington. These legislators may fight in futility for fiscal sanity, but each has emerged as a leader on other liberty issues as disparate as criminal justice reform, drug policies, and privacy.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/02/11/the-tea-party-is-dead-long-live-liberty/1

 

[This_person]

http://reason.com/archives/2018/02/11/the-tea-party-is-dead-long-live-liberty/1

So Matt Kibble is going to stop being conservative because of a bad budget? Seems odd.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So Matt Kibble is going to stop being conservative because of a bad budget? Seems odd.

I didn't get that from the last sentence.

So yes, the Tea Party is dead. But the American principles of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government, are all still very much alive.

I think he's saying that the idea of fiscal conservatism is gone.

 

[transporter]

So Matt Kibble is going to stop being conservative because of a bad budget? Seems odd.

It really does help if you:

1. read the actual article.

2. maybe actually understand that "conservatives" (claim...but never practice) fiscal responsibility.

The author's real problem, the underlying problem with the Tea Party movement was a complete misunderstanding of the fiscal requirements of the economic situation that faced this country in 2008/2009 (most on here STILL don't get it).

The other problem, which the author basically nailed, was that the Tea Party (like the Occupy Movement) really had no leadership or direction (other than "We Hate Obama" that is.).

 

[Gilligan]

It really does help if you:

1. read the actual article.

2. maybe actually understand that "conservatives" (claim...but never practice) fiscal responsibility.

The author's real problem, the underlying problem with the Tea Party movement was a complete misunderstanding of the fiscal requirements of the economic situation that faced this country in 2008/2009 (most on here STILL don't get it).

The other problem, which the author basically nailed, was that the Tea Party (like the Occupy Movement) really had no leadership or direction (other than "We Hate Obama" that is.).

So..insightful...erudite...high-level...revealing....thought-provoking... You are my hero.

 

[This_person]

I didn't get that from the last sentence.


I think he's saying that the idea of fiscal conservatism is gone.

It's only gone if people give up.

We knew that many if not most Republicans are not conservatives. This is the whole idea of "establishment", and "the swamp" that needs drained.

The Tea Party movement was meant to work to do the draining - R's and D's alike. They've hit a bump in the road, but can see the leadership in a Rand Paul on fiscal conservatism. The problem is, no one is the same level of conservatism as anyone else. So, conservatives end up saying, "yeah, but that guy did this thing, so we are no longer going to support HIM". Leadership includes the ability to convince people to compromise towards a common goal - to see the baby steps actually DO help you get somewhere, to know that you CAN tack into the wind and get where you are going.

It has long been said that leading is far easier than following. The follower must bend his or her own will to someone else's means of achieving those plans. That's no small task, and mostly small people can't do it. Like, for example, the person who wrote this article. He's given up instead of living to fight another day.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It's only gone if people give up.

We knew that many if not most Republicans are not conservatives. This is the whole idea of "establishment", and "the swamp" that needs drained.

The Tea Party movement was meant to work to do the draining - R's and D's alike. They've hit a bump in the road, but can see the leadership in a Rand Paul on fiscal conservatism. The problem is, no one is the same level of conservatism as anyone else. So, conservatives end up saying, "yeah, but that guy did this thing, so we are no longer going to support HIM". Leadership includes the ability to convince people to compromise towards a common goal - to see the baby steps actually DO help you get somewhere, to know that you CAN tack into the wind and get where you are going.

It has long been said that leading is far easier than following. The follower must bend his or her own will to someone else's means of achieving those plans. That's no small task, and mostly small people can't do it. Like, for example, the person who wrote this article. He's given up instead of living to fight another day.

Paul couldn't even get anyone to agree on a 1% reduction in spending. Outside of maybe a handful of folks, it's quite clear no one in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) are willing to spend less. That's up to us to elect people who are serious about it.

I also didn't get the sense the author was giving up. He clearly stated he believes the pillars of the Tea Party are still alive and well in the US, just that the party that championed them (you know, outside of the obvious Libertarian Party who has never given up on those pillars) no longer exists. Those same people that tried to "lead" that party (Palin, Cruz, etc.) don't even abide by those pillars.

 

[This_person]

Paul couldn't even get anyone to agree on a 1% reduction in spending. Outside of maybe a handful of folks, it's quite clear no one in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) are willing to spend less. That's up to us to elect people who are serious about it.

I also didn't get the sense the author was giving up. He clearly stated he believes the pillars of the Tea Party are still alive and well in the US, just that the party that championed them (you know, outside of the obvious Libertarian Party who has never given up on those pillars) no longer exists. Those same people that tried to "lead" that party (Palin, Cruz, etc.) don't even abide by those pillars.

Palin left government. Cruz wants to be elected to even higher office. There's the Constitution Party.

 

[somdwatch]

It really does help if you:

1. read the actual article.

2. maybe actually understand that "conservatives" (claim...but never practice) fiscal responsibility.

The author's real problem, the underlying problem with the Tea Party movement was a complete misunderstanding of the fiscal requirements of the economic situation that faced this country in 2008/2009 (most on here STILL don't get it).

The other problem, which the author basically nailed, was that the Tea Party (like the Occupy Movement) really had no leadership or direction (other than "We Hate Obama" that is.).

I would love to see, "the economic situation that faced this country in 2008/2009 (most on here STILL don't get it)."
Your opinion would be I'm sure hilarious. Let's not forget, that both parties created or extended the housing bubble creation since Jimmy Carter.