How Tea Party Members Don't Always March to the Same Beat

Wow! Hypocrisy to the core in this post. No one can say they support women's rights/stem cell research/equal rights/family planning (if it includes the right to access to birth control) and then claim that they have always voted straight party Republican. In doing so, you do NOT support the above, you actually support their opposites. Support means that you actually support candidates that believe in these things. I have not seen a Republican candidate since 1994 that supported ANY of these.

If the poster is truly a Xtian, then they would be familiar with the line that "by their fruit you will recognize them". Which is why Rheb-El is quite correct -- you can not make any valid claim to support those positions if you vote straight-ticket Republican. A vote, any vote, for the GOP is a vote against those issues.

My initial response was exactly like Rheb-El and Constance. My gut tells me this person votes straight -R for fiscal reasons, and disregards the GOP's absolutely abysmal record on the "progressive" issues he says he supports. But that means he doesn't really support them all that strongly, and certainly not as strongly as he supports Republican tax and spend policies. We all have to prioritize, I suppose.

In the interest of trying another tack, this part jumped out at me:

It was all about getting back to running our country using constitutional law.

I would be curious to know how the poster and the professor think we have gotten away from that. Are there specific examples of approaches to governance that do not comport with "constitutional law?" The only example I can think of recently is California's effort to limit the rights of its citizens via Prop 8. But I don't think that's what he's thinking about.

I am especially concerned about greed among our leaders, corporations, class action lawyers and government.

1) Your leaders are those whom you let lead you. Do you have any specific examples in mind? How is a tele-evangelist not a "greedy" "leader" if he solicits donations from those that have less money than himself and makes his own wealth from those incomes?

2) Corporations need not be motivated by greed. Some are, by construction, non-profit or not-for-profit. The problem doesn't belong to the soulless and thoughtless corporations, but to their share-holder-elected corporate boards who hire CEOs who act like short-term gains are the only relevant criteria. If this is the bad behavior you wish to reduce, would you support raising the capital gains tax to be at least par with the lowest Federal income tax bracket?

3) Class-action lawyers are responsible for reining in some of the excesses of the the corporations. Presumably what you are really concerned with is the profit motive of lawyers who are willing to pursue expensive-to-prosecute cases on the behalf of not-extremely-wealthy clients based on a contractual agreement to share in the judgment (if they win) or settlement (if it looks like they may win). Why does this upset you? Do you fear the not-extremely-wealthy seeking justice? Do you hate the rule of law? Do you think that proving that some public utility overcharged everyone in twelve states 12 cents/month for the last 20 years should be only prosecuted by the government? Do you think that each of those millions of people should file their own separate case in small claims court even though the defendant's action was the same for all? Do you think lawyers don't have the right to try to get paid? Do you think that contingency fees are too large given the chance of a favorable outcome, the dependence on the client and the expenses involved, and if so, from which data did you come to this conclusion?

4) You do realize that the US Government is not on a gold standard and in fact decides how much money to print based on the opinion of officials not subject to general election. How do you make a case for government greed, when if they chose to they could fund all expenditures (which are made for the collective benefit of the US population) without taxation and by the mere printing of additional money? You do understand that taxes have macroeconomic benefits of reducing the boom-bust economic fluctuations? Like corporations, governments are made out of people and the choices they make are made by people. The Constitution _commands_ the various branches of government to levy taxes and make laws and expenditures both to provide for the "general welfare" which includes building hospitals and attempting to ensure we all don't wind up destitute, homeless and sick. Why do you claim that the US Government is greedy?

Dr. Toney, does this anonymous guest poster have any connection with any field of reliable methodology? This post seems to provide talking points of a PR campaign but I'm not seeing evidence-based reasonable arguments here.

I'm also confused. The only part of the poster's voting record that seems to match his stated ideals is the vote for Ross Perot.

However, it may be that he doesn't so much vote for the Republicans as against the Democrats.

studied engineering supported by the GI Bill

(government subsidy)

I am approaching my mid-eighties

(and have been collecting Social Security and using Medicare for twenty years now...)

So, you've been getting yours, everybody else is just being greedy?

Reminds me of the first election I was old enough to vote; I was attending Auburn, and pointed out to one of my dorm mates who had voted for Reagan that one of his first actions was to cut student grant programs, as promised. Her response was "I'm graduating this year." She got hers... my first exposure to conservative thinking.

... our Party initially formed with the moniker "Tax Enough Already."

Contemporary news citation required!

According to Wikipedia, the Tea Party protests started in January 2009 (you know, right after the current President was sworn in) and the "Taxed Enough Already" didn't appear until about April 8, 2009. While taxes (not all Federal) have been a focal point for rallies since January 2009, the name was originally an allusion to the 1773 Boston "Tea Party" raid on shipping. I suggest "Taxed Enough Already" is just part of a media branding campaign designed to reach US residents who don't bother to inform themselves about even the popular bits of Revolutionary History.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Early_local_protest_eve…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4_COOh4VXw

TMBG brings clarity.

Actually I totally believe the author when he says he has voted straight party line, and yet has those "progressive" opinions. The human brain has an amazing ability to compartmentalize, no different than a biological scientist who believes in teh scientific method and empiricism and yet still wholeheartedly believes in god. Both positions held firmly with no reduction in ability to function.

I can accept that some people might be willing sacrifice their progressive social positions in favor of what they believe to be a more crucial fiscal point of view. I disagree with that, especially in the light of the fact that there hasnt been a fiscally conservative republican (as the tea party defines one) in our lifetimes.

I also do not fall for the standard internet trope that TEA partiers are all disgruntled caucasion right-wing fundamentalist bigots with limited educations. If the tea party was solely about returning fiscal discipline to Washington I would be a member, and I dont know how anyone could complain about that position. Alas they are NOT solely about that, and they have taken on a whole load of other causes that will forever keep me from agreeing with them.

Most of all what really boggles my mind about tea partiers, republicans, and even a few democrats, is that they will preach up and down about defending the constitution and then turn around and piss on it. I am convinced that most people dont know whats in the constitution any more than they know whats in the bible, I am also convinced they dont give a good **** about whats in the constitution if it goes against their beliefs.

You and a handful of others may be marching to a different beat, but the parade seems to be moving on without you.

Last November, no fewer than 65 Tea Party leaders signed an open letter to the incoming Tea Party-affiliated congressthings reminding them that "restoring traditional moral values," not just slashing taxes and spending, was one of the clear goals they were elected to achieve.

This was in response to a previous letter urging the incoming Tea Partiers to ignore hot-button social issues (i.e. gays and abortion) in favor of concentrating on taxes and spending. That one was signed by a mere dozen obscure Tea Partiers and a few people not even affiliated with the movement.

Slashing government services. Lowering taxes on the rich. Deregulating every industry in sight. And "restoring traditional moral values." These sound like the same old goals of "disgruntled right wing fundamentalists" to me. What am I missing?

I don't know how any scientist could vote Republican with a straight face and a clean conscience.

From John "overhead projector" McCain to Bobby "volcano monitoring" Jindal to Sarah "fruit fly" Palin to Michele "intelligent design" Bachmann to virtually every GOP candidate on the issues of global warming and evolution, a vote for the GOP is a vote against science and scientists. The GOP wants to defang the EPA, neuter the NSF, withdraw from the IPCC, cut funding for the CDC and FDA, and privatize NASA.

Are you out of your Vulcan mind?

Addendum: Mea culpa - belatedly realized that the post was ghost-written. My message still generally applies, however.

OK. Relevant to your points, see Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science."

... the US Constitution is a timeless, living document that can guide us as well today as it did in 1787.

Did the Constitution really take effect before the first Congress and President were elected in 1788?

[Insert standard tropes about status of women, slaves, landless, et al, here. Also your choice of riff about the complete subversion of the Electoral College, by the men who created it, during its first implementation.]

And don't "timeless" and "living" contradict each other? Last I heard, strict "originalists" such as Antonin Scalia insist that claims of a "living" Constitution imply that its meaning changes, that our interpretations must learn from experience - an approach they oppose from the depths of their bitter shrunken Republican souls.

Anonymous, are you reading this? What do you say?

Infernalis several of the instances you give cannot reasonably be considered an attack on "science". They are simply a disagreement on particular values or on efficiency. If anything varying processes is precisely what scientifically incminded people should do - it is known as experimantal method.

It is a matter of values not of science whether you believe the EPA should have the right to regualte in facour of puffer fish interests against those of human beings.

The IPCC is a political more than (if at all) a scientific one. What is abnti-scientific about saying you should not support an organisation which said, against all the science, that the Himalayas will have melted by 2035 or that we are seeing a rise of about 0.3 C adecade to 2100?

The Ansari X-Prize putting a ship in space for $10 does not inherently prove that giving $20,000 annually to NASA is the most effective way of using that money. If putting all $200,000 over 10 years into X-Prizes would achieve more surely supporters of science should support that. The evidence is that prizes are at least 30 times more effective when they work and infinitely more, because they then cost nothing, when they don't.

By your own argument, over NASA no scientist should vote for any politician who supports NASA over prizes.

Wow, Neil Craig. You really are a stupid ************..

The poster may believe his history of the tea bag party, but their own documents indicate it isn't correct.
I'm interested in knowing more about this "constitutional law" bit mentioned. Which parts of the constitution, as originally written, would he like to have us governed under and which would he ignore?

Neil craig has a growing reputation for flaunting his scientific ignorance (especially about global warming) despite having facts and references pointed out to him. He's like the mole on the principal's face in a John Candy movie: you shouldn't pay it any attention but it keeps drawing your back.

The writer seems to have thoughtlessly adopted numerous TP memes. Some more:
...and I have no political agenda. When those I oppose make political statements, it's an agenda. When I make political statements, it's pure, logical TruthTM.

I believe moderation is always the best policy. As a veteran of WW2, that certainly didn't apply then. It's often true, but not always. And look at your fellow TP'ers. Do you see "moderation" in their views of Obama?

I believe that one of the world's biggest challenges is the population explosion and that we need family planning. Directly contradicted by typical TP activity - banning abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood, abstinence only sex ed ...

I am especially concerned about greed among our leaders, corporations, class action lawyers and government. See the funding for TP activities - Kochs, Scaifes, Olins etc. What is the TP line on regulating/ameliorating some of the worst excesses of capitalism?

It was all about getting back to running our country using constitutional law. Very infrequently mentioned in the whining about the Constitution are the most clear and egregious examples of unconstitutional behavior by the Executive. Clear contraventions of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments by the last two administrations along with several treaties. Accompanied by the uncounted failures of the Congress to uphold its role as a check on the Executive.

You're being led by those with an agenda that clearly is self-serving and often runs counter to your purported ideals.

Thank you Ema for demonstrating the highest standards opf scientific respect (& breadth of inte4llect) to which so many on "scienceblogs" aspire.

DFoubtless anybody honnest here who claims you cannot respect science without being a "Democrat" will be equally quich to assert that you cannot resperct science while being the sort of subliterate filth Ema is, at least any of them who are honest. Obviously that doesn't apply tp DFean.

Cynic I note you do not mention the Xth Amendment which, if the Constitution is taken literally, prevents the existence of the EPA.

Neal, Emma nailed you perfectly. Perhaps if you had any evidence in support of you r positions, and gave them, there would be a chance for discussion. Your habit of paranoid and dishonest rants indicates you can't do it (the fact that reality isn't on your side does put you at a huge disadvantage. Pity it doesn't make you think.)

Neal, Emma nailed you perfectly. Perhaps if you had any evidence in support of you r positions, and gave them, there would be a chance for discussion. Your habit of paranoid and dishonest rants indicates you can't do it (the fact that reality isn't on your side does put you at a huge disadvantage. Pity it doesn't make you think.)

"Perhaps if you had any evidence in support of you r positions, and gave them, there would be a chance for discussion"

(A) I have done so repeatedly.

(B) That you use the word "perhaps" shows that you & presumably fromthe lack of disagreement by thothers they too, have no intention of engaging in honest or rational debate whatsoever. No honest person would have ahd any doubt that they would be willing to discuss facts (& nobody other than a fool would admit it).Having been on "scienceblogs" for some time this, unfortunately, is no surprise.

NC, all of your "evidence" has been shown to be crap. The fact that you continue to lie and say otherwise shows your true character (or lack of it)

To all readers - Please focus on constructive arguments and not personal attacks. Thank you.

Constructive arguments with _whom_ ? The author of the blog post is anonymous (not even presenting a pseudonymous character as the face of his position). So we have no expectation that that author will return to expand upon his talking points. And that author made no arguments whatsoever -- just empty claims of fact. (_Why_ can't we "count on a government to solve all of our problems", and who made the claim that we could? _How_ is this like "the bird that sold its feathers for food"?)

Nowhere is an authority cited, so we can't tell if this is a PR flack or an important part of the Tea Party core or, as many of us suspect, someone deluded about the motives and goals of the Tea Party. The only authority referenced, the nameless "law Professor" with no identified ties to the Tea Party, didn't seem to impress the author with any examples of how this country has strayed from the Constitution.

But the author claims to be such a novice to political thought that he claims that he has "no political agenda." Why then should his claims about the makeup of the Tea Party be weighted heavier than popular reports that place Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin among the leaders of the movement?

Dr. Jeff -- I really don't see what motivated you to post this. Neither you nor the author seems to be replying to any arguments or dissections of the author's claims. While the prose is clearly at the collegiate level, the rhetoric and reliance on methodological thought is not to be found. The author is preaching to the choir, and nowhere presents evidence that this choir is in-fact the Tea Party.

This post presents one individual's opinions and perspectives and does not represent an academic study in any way. A follow up post to address readers' questions is under consideration.

Yeah! Keep it coming.

Thank you Jeff. I wish other "scienceblog" authors had said the same. Rpenner perhaps you would confirm that that is your full birth name since you object so strongly to pseudonames.

I stand by my statement that the Ansari X-Prize, costing $12 million has shown a better return than NASA' $20 bn annually. Perhaps Dean could explain why they think this is clearly wrong since allegedly "NC, all of your "evidence" has been shown to be crap" and I cannot see the comment where that was proven.

Neil,
Thank you for reading part of my comments. My point was that without even a pseudonymous handle to label the anonymous author any future attribution of a response (say, in the comments section) to the same speaker would be of low weight. A new post, transmitted through the medium of Dr. Jeff, would largely address the ambiguity of identity the anonymous speaker. And with naked claims of fact, identity (even a pseudonymous identity like my own, or a identity vouchsafed by a trusted third party like Dr. Jeff) matters so far as it gives us a handle upon which to hang the reputation of the claimant. Identity also allows a sense of continuity of discussion.

Identity is one of the questions raised by the title of this post. Who is the Tea Party? Who can be said to speak to their purpose and aspirations? To the extent that the author does not share the goals of some members (perhaps elevated unfairly by press coverage), to what degree does the author's philosophy matter to the Tea Party strategy and tactics?

I have made a few claims of fact, ones which I believe are innocuous and well-documented to the extent my reputation and therefore my identity should not matter. (Although, of all the thousands of "rpenner" posts on scienceblogs.com, physforum.com and sciforums.com which I authored should support my weakly pseudonymous identity with some sort of reputation for evidence-based reliable methodology. Indeed, I've been "outed" by MSNBC Blogs when they used me as a source.) But if you would like me to expand on any claim of fact I have made with citations, please ask a direct question, Neil, and do not rely on innuendo and distraction.

Just by addressing me by my handle, you have demonstrated the same value I place in pseudonymous handles to maintain a question-response dialog. Like the anonymous author of the post we are commenting on, Dr. Jeff knows additional things about my identity.

I take your point and will probably look up some other things you have siad.

I agree that in anything political there is a very strong temptation to take over labels to which are not entitled. I personally consider myself a classic liberal (that personal and economic liberty is preferable to state power) and object to the way the term has been taken over. As you will probably have seen on here I also object to the way "The Science", "scientific consensus" etc is used to bolster the warming case.