Precisely because everyone else has a say, too. People cut deals so we can all get along and live our lives without constant conflict. I'm starting to see it as not so admirable to hold out for what one person wants. Right or left, it is not so moral after all, to insist that you are "right" and moral and have the high ground and therefore your "strength" and stubbornness should be admired as "standing your ground." The Tea Party is a minority. They use the system to hold everything else up. They are not interested in working with others and considering what they want and making a compromise.

And I think that's what cost tea party candidates in the primaries.

Voters might think its a good idea in concept to hold out for what they STRONGLY believe in, but when the Air Force reserve has personnel cut backs because the government is shut down - then it seems kind of childish.

This is one of the effects that I personally saw during the shut down last fall. A conservative friend of mine that is in the air guard noticed that families were hurt by the shutdown and I think the shutdown soured a lot of people against the tea party when they personally witnessed the damage from the shutdown.

Just reading the Constitution will tell one that. We are a Republic, with some democratic ideas thrown in. A study of US History will reveal how the ebb and flow of politics has led to several sudden increases of "democratic ideals" alternating with periods of increasing plutocracy.

The Constitution itself has major protections for minority interests, and by that I don't mean races or cultural groups so much as monied interests and the political power of the states. The Founders were comprised of two main groups. There was the landed gentry of the South and the businessmen of the North, two groups so at odds on economics and social issues that the Civil War which occurred some 80 years later was nearly inevitable. The Southern 'gentlemen' preferred a return to a somewhat idealized, bucolic version of English lordship and landed privilege, based on slave labor. The Northern businessmen preferred the rough and tumble of commerce, with many of them having been engaged in what the British government considered smuggling. With few exceptions, the Founding Fathers were not enamored with democracy at all, and constructed a govenment that they thought would protect their interests.

The problem I have always had with the Tea Partiers in general is that by their actions, they have supported and furthered the very group that the original protesters fought against, that being the corporate/government proto-fascism that was British mercantilist policy. Note that the original Tea Party was performed against the East India Tea Company, which had a near stranglehold on Parliament of its day and controlled politics in Britain in ways that the Nazis of the mid 20th Century would be proud of. If any of them really knew their history, they would be ashamed. But of course shame is not really an emotion they waste a lot of time on. Unfortunately, their leaders know their history and are quite willing to exploit their ignorance to their own advantage.

I remember some conservatives I've talked to during the Bush years who strenuously mentioned that the US is a representitive republic, not a democracy every chance they got. Of course Rush Limpballs used that meme as a conservative talking point, which his fans would repeat as a truism. Anyway, the gist of it was basically: "He's our president, get behind him".

Fast forward to 2008-today. These very same people I debated haven't said a peep about being a representitive republic now. No, instead they pine for a democracy since they disagree with a president that was elected in the representitive republic we are. ie; he's a tyrannical dictator bent on disenfranchising them as they see it.

They're spoiled "1-way" brats and nothing more.

anyone who says "the USA is a republic, not a democracy" is saying something that's essentially meaningless.

There's something disingenuous about this article. It starts off by talking about threats to democracy -- and just when you expect that it's going to discuss the latent fascism among many Tea Party groups, or the widespread conservative attempts to subvert voting rights, or the fact that the very wealthy see nothing wrong with buying control of Congress, it does a complete pivot and suggests that the greatest threat to democracy is gated communities.

Does anybody really think that the Tea Party is in favor of federalism because they want to take certain states back to the days of the Old South while the coasts and much of the northern tier go their own liberal, diversity-embracing, healthcare-loving way? No, they want it all. They're glad to be for things like turning federal land in the Western states over to state governments that will immediately open it up for private development. But the ultimate prize is the control of national policy. And to suggest anything else is dangerously naive -- or worse.

At its heart, the article seems a bit resigned to encroaching fascism, like there is nothing to be done about it. I detect a bit too much "government bureaucracy bad" in it for my taste.

I remain hopeful that we can salvage some semblance of democracy out of the fustercluck that is current US governance. I'm really not ready to just "deal with it" as this article implies.