Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTea Party’s hot mess: Inside a noisy, disenchanted movement
After Chris McDaniel's unlikely defeat in Mississippi last night, an angry movement is about to get even angrierELIAS ISQUITH
In Mississippi on Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran defeated state Sen. Chris McDaniel in a runoff election to determine who would be the state Republican Partys nominee for Senate in the extremely conservative state. Despite the fact that the two men were more or less indistinguishable on issue positions, the race was remarkably contentious and largely defined by dueling allegations of impropriety and fraud. Indeed, while non-conservatives may consider the differences between the so-called establishment and Tea Party wings of the GOP to be slight, the primary battle that reached its culmination last night is clear evidence that Republicans themselves strongly disagree.
On that front, if nowhere else, Mississippi GOPers have themselves an unlikely companion: University of Washington associate professor Christopher Parker, who is the author of 2013?s Change They Cant Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America and is a firm believer that the divisions within the GOP are significant and likely to endure. Hoping to gain a keener insight into the Tea Party mind, Salon recently called Parker to discuss his research, his recent Brookings Institution paper on the Tea Party and why he doesnt think the kind of bickering and dysfunction we saw in Mississippi as of late is likely to go away any time soon. Our conversation is below and has been edited for clarity and length.
You make a distinction between Tea Party conservatives and establishment conservatives, even though they often support essentially the same policies. How come?
There are a couple of really key differences, one of which has to do with change. An establishment conservative doesnt necessarily embrace change of any kind; in fact, theres a reason they cling to conservatism, because they prefer stability. So they dont necessarily embrace change, but what they do do is they know that (change is) necessary in order to maintain a stable society over the long haul What they want is, if a change is going take place, they prefer to have organic, controlled change versus revolutionary change. In other words, evolutionary versus revolutionary change. You can see that in the works of Edmund Burke, who railed against the French Revolution because it was such a drastic change and (because) he would have preferred more evolutionary change, not something so drastic that it completely overturned the foundations of society. The difference between these establishment conservatives is that they see change as a necessary evil, if you will, in order to maintain a stable society over the long run.
more
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/25/tea_partys_scary_new_rise_inside_the_movements_terrifying_revitalization/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1205 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tea Party’s hot mess: Inside a noisy, disenchanted movement (Original Post)
DonViejo
Jun 2014
OP
underpants
(182,603 posts)1. Mark for later read
belpejic
(720 posts)2. Yes. tl;dr
It's actually kind of simple, though. Many ding dong Republicans want an immediate transformation into their version of a Calvinist (and, paradoxically, Randian) state. This is the "Tea Party." They have their own funding sources. The other faction, the Koch-sucking mainstream Republican politicians, want to enrich their .001% benefactors. They need to support some kind of social and economic stability. If they don't, the pitchforks might come out. That is Thad Cochran.
JustAnotherGen
(31,780 posts)3. From the article
Salon: That makes me wonder something that, in all honesty, makes a me a bit uncomfortable but: If youre correct and its the case that these people wont ever back down so long as they feel their social placement threatened, would it be possible to argue that Democrats would be better off nominating candidates who are not superficially threatening i.e., who are white guys while still pushing the same policy goals as they would under Obama or Clinton?
Christopher Parker Response: It doesnt make sense logically because you see what the Tea Party is doing to the Republican Party right now? Its tearing it apart. So if I were a strategist, Id continue to pick candidates that make the Tea Party group want to remain politically viable because its ripping the Republican Party in half.
tee hee - I like this Christopher Parker . I'm going to have to read his book. Thanks for posting this D.V.
Christopher Parker Response: It doesnt make sense logically because you see what the Tea Party is doing to the Republican Party right now? Its tearing it apart. So if I were a strategist, Id continue to pick candidates that make the Tea Party group want to remain politically viable because its ripping the Republican Party in half.
tee hee - I like this Christopher Parker . I'm going to have to read his book. Thanks for posting this D.V.