The Tea Party is dead

By Scott A. Robinson, Editor

Filed Under Race for White House 2012, Tea Party on Dec 7 

The “Tea Party” rose at a time when the political landscape in American had seen President George W. Bush’s administration begin a series of bailouts for failing businesses and President Obama Barack continue this legacy. Many conservatives and libertarians were extremely frustrated by what they viewed as the government far over-stepping its bounds. Then on February 19, 2009 an impassioned speech on CNBC’s by analyst Rick Santelli became a rallying cry for many of those in these frustrated constituencies. Santelli raved: “This is America. How many of you people (turning to the traders on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor) want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? . . . We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up at Lake Michigan, I’m going to start organizing!”

The video went viral and “Tea Party” websites went up all over the internet, representing groups large and small. As it was a decentralized, individual, and small group driven movement, the Tea Party has never had a specific agenda. Characterized largely by conservative and libertarian themes, it is clearly an anti-establishment movement promoting smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

However, today the Tea Party is dead.

Individual candidates and the Republican Party tried to capitalize on and attach themselves to this popular movement, as popularity translates to votes, and votes win elections. Orrin Hatch, a person the some Tea Party groups have targeted to defeat and a career politician who has often been instrumental in the growth of government, especially during the Bush administration once claimed: “I’ve been a Tea Party person I think since before the Tea Party came into existence”.

But now the credibility of the Tea Party is nearly gone. Although its members often blame the media for mischaracterizations of its positions, which certainly has happened and were inevitable due to the disparate nature of the movement, the Tea Party has ruined itself. Credibility was lost when it promoted unprepared and inadvisable candidates such as Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, though at the time, the movement generally remained true to its principles of anti-establishment, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility.

A recent poll shows this collapse is practically complete. Forty seven percent of likely voters that favor Newt Gingrich also identify themselves as Tea Party members. Only 43 percent of Tea Party members prefer all the other candidates combined! Meanwhile, Gingrich personifies the Washington establishment. He has been in Washington for 30 years, and remained closely connected to it since his resignation in 1999. He supports subsidizing the businesses and industries of his choice, the individual mandate in Obamacare, and helped form the Department of Education.

If the Tea Party actually drives Newt Gingrich to the Republican nomination, it will have completely lost its way, having no principles, and the Tea Party’s demise will be complete.

Comments

  • Troy La Mana

    Except Romney stepped in it again with another flip-flop. Before he adamently defended RomneyCare as a state’s rights issue. Now Romney won’t recommend RomneyCare for other states. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/romney-wouldnt-recommend-romneycare-states/242601

  • Whodat

    As a Tea Party enthusiast as opposed to “activist”, I submit that the death of the Tea Party has been greatly exaggerated by Scott’s treatise. We might not be as amped up as we were during the Obamacare debate. But, like all young idealists and/or revolutionaries, our fire simmers down when the fuel is reduced and anyway, mixing metaphors here, we all become somewhat pragmatic with maturity.
    .
    But, if the catalyst for the Tea Party was indeed the Obombcare, then it is no mystery why Tea Partiers would not support Romneycare icon Mitt. So, who is left to get behind to beat Obomb? Newtie. None of the others matter at this point; They have been seen and heard ad nauseum and essentially rejected. Barring a new face and message, Newt is the only possible winning horse. Being pragmatic, the Tea Partiers are holding their nose and drifting toward Newt.
    .
    When you are not near the one you love (or, the one you love is a loser), you love the one you’re near – especially as we approach closing time. It is very simple.

    • QPC

      Newt=Big Goverment. Tea Party voters support Newt when non-big government candidates are available. Therefore Tea Party=Big Government. I agree with Scott’s point. If this were the general election I suspect he would write something entirely different.

    • Whodat

      I’m feelin’ pretty smarty pants! Shortly after I wrote the above, I watched my sweetie, Michelle Malkin, using the same “holding their nose and supporting Newt” metaphor on Hannity this evening. That makes it official when an All-Star like Michelle says it! I may not sleep tonight…

  • The Gallant Gallstone

    Attention all Tea Partiers, Attention all Tea Partiers:

    Be prepared to spew “he’s better than Obama” talking points to defend your new corporate-mandated Republican candidate, D.C. arch-insider and Freddie Mac consultant Newt Gingrich.

    Forward… March!

    • Rob

      LOL!

    • Gary Russell

      If you think that Gingrich is “corporate mandated”, you are delusional.

      • Rob

        Really? We’ll see who donated to him when the next FEC report comes out for Q4.

  • Gary Russell

    How can you say “the Tea Party is dead” with a straight face? (I couldn’t see your face when you typed it, but I’m assuming that it was straight…)
    .
    You speak of the Tea Party as if it were an organization. I know, you gave lip service to the “its a movement” concept, but your premise doesn’t back that up.
    .
    I never attended nor financially supported any tea party functions or candidates, but my views are right in line with the general concept.
    It is a governing philosophy, not a particular candidate or person. Saying that the philosophy is dead is very naive. I suspect that if the 2010 landslide didn’t show that to you, the 2012 election will.
    .
    P.S. If the Tea Party is dead, and GOP politics is back to the “whose turn is it” philosophy, then how do you explain Mitt’s failure to launch, and the “Tea Party audition” of a pre-primary season that we’ve seen over the past 2 months?

  • Rob

    Some of you don’t understand the concept of state’s rights.

    Should a conservative support the rights of a state to enacts it’s own policies in said state? Yes.

    Does that mean one can govern a state, enact progressive policies and then run for president claiming to be a conservative? No, it shouldn’t.

    • Rochelle

      I believe that you are the one who doesn’t understand the VERY conservative principle of state’s rights. And Mitt has from the beginning said that it wasn’t a fit for the Federal government. In fact I just saw a video made in 2006 where Mitt said that Mass healthcare plan was definitely NOT Hilary-care. So he didn’t want a Federal plan with this in 2006. All the videos I’ve seen, if seen in their entirety- talk about how other states should look at Mass and see how it works and see if they want to copy. Additionally, the voters can vote it out. They voted for it! They liked it. You may not like it, I may not like it, but lets face it, Mass is a diff. beast, and that common wealth, does have the right to enact that. It is in their constitution.

      PLUS, I would like to see how you or Mitch Daniels or Sarah Palin or even Ron Paul would do as a Republican Governing a Democratic state. We should be more impressed with how he stopped embryos from being created for the purpose of destroying them. Or how he argued against the Liberal Sup. Ct. in Mass, or how he vetoed masses of tax increases. I’m tired of the bash on Mitt people. I’m tired of the bash on any republican actually. I’m tired of the division in our party. We should be acknowledging the good that each candidate has done, instead of buying the fodder from the DNC. This whole Romney-care and “anti-romney” stuff came from the DNC playbook. They had a plan to kill Romney and the TEA is buying it. The problem is, now they are wrapping their arms around a candidate who is arguably more establishment and less conservative than Romney. It reduces their credibility. Please note- I like Newt. I like all the candidates. I just don’t like the spin and the meanness.

      • Rob

        Sorry, you don’t understand the point.
        .
        You can’t be a conservative and implement progressive policies as governor of a state. There is absolutely nothing conservative about that.
        .
        I assume you would support a GOP Presidential candidate who pushed for gay marriage and abortion in his state? Since your argument is that as long as it’s on the state level we should support it.

      • Rob

        And no, you’re wrong. We should be bashing people in the party who don’t stand for conservative principles. If anything, we as Americans should be fighting more and more to get away from the terrible two party system and have a real diversity of candidates and election equality in this country.

        • Rochelle

          I’m not wrong. I’m done arguing. I’ve made my points.

          • Rob

            You are wrong, your entire premise is wrong. You cannot excuse a conservative implementing progressive policies. Doing it on the state level doesn’t make it right. I’ll repeat, would you support a Republican governor who pushed for gay marriage and abortion?

  • Brian H

    Thanks for defending the Mitt train, Rich and Roch. It seems as though competence has lost its way through all the rhetoric.

  • Richard

    As a Freedom works member I can tell you the movement is far from dead. I assure you that the heart and mind of true conservatives is very much alive and well.

    As for me, I vote on competence, and by that measure, Mitt Romney is the vastly superior candidate.

    • Trudy

      I agree with you Richard.

  • Rochelle

    I agree!

  • Neil B

    One thing I know for sure is that anyone who ever associated with the Tea Party will show up and vote for whoever is running against Obama. Regardless what any poll shows now.

    • Rochelle

      That I can understand. :)

    • http://twitter.com/#!/PD_Scott Scott A. Robinson, Editor

      This is true. However, if the Tea Party votes contrary to its basic principles in the primary election when it is presented with potentially its greatest opportunity to change how the federal government operates and it chooses Newt Gingrich, I stand by my premise. It is dead.

      • Neil B

        Just how many voters do you think are in the Tea party? The Tea Party was and still is more of a motivational and informative group than and actual “party.” They keep conservatives informed and motivated while holding Republican candidates and elected officials’ feet to the conservative/constitutional fire. They are also smart enough to know who to vote for when it comes down to a Democrat or Republican. Baby steps my friend.

        • Rob

          Except that isn’t happening and most of the “Tea Party” elected candidates haven’t stuck to what they were suppose to with the exception of a few (Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Mike Lee somewhat)

      • B. Taylor

        Mr. Robinson,
        I get your point as to the inherent cognitive dissonance of the TEA party support of Newt Gingrich. I think we all do. (I am a TEA party supporter, but not a member or involved in any organization). What I think your missing is that the TEA party as a whole has learned from the past. (And yes we remember Gingrich’s past. That is why he has not been embraced until now). They have learned both from it’s support of non-viable candidates in 2010 (Angle, O’Donnell, etc) and from a memory of what came of 1992. Bush I was punished for abandoning the conservative position on taxes and we got Clinton… Was that worth the price of ideological purity?

        They (I) want a viable consistent conservative candidate. Unfortunately, those people either did not run, or haven’t proven themselves viable. So, for now, we are left with Romney and Gingrich, and time is running out. Who is more in line with conservative thought and who has a better chance of defeating Obama? That obviously is the big question being debated here and elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere, and the case can be made for and against both. What I think ultimately tips the TEA party towards Gingrich at this point is the desire for someone (viable) who conveys a sense that the choice before us is utterly crucial and decisive for America, and will frame the general election campaign in this light. Apparently Gingrich (warts and all) meets that desire. Romney, not so much. Romney can win. If he is the nominee, he’ll have my full support. But I fear that he will play it safe and shoot for a 51%, 270-268 win… and then have a status-quo mandate.

  • dw

    Not!
    .
    Totally incorrect correlation tying the poll results to any type of status statement about the Tea Party.
    .
    We still are having local Tea Party meetings. The Tea Part is alive and well. There just aren’t any POTUS candidates that represent the Tea Party, so many are just going with the lesser of two evils.
    .
    Wait until the Congressional races heat up. You’ll see the Tea Party influence there.

    • Rochelle

      oh gosh, the lesser of two evils. Really. Mitt left the state of Mass with a surplus, and he left the Olympics with a surplus. Oh- he didn’t raise taxes to do it in Mass. He closed loopholes. So do tell me, if tea partiers, who have been clamoring about fiscal responsibility cannot get behind that, what are they for?

      Oh, its the Health care thing. um– the Tea Party was yelling “states rights” all over that debate. Didn’t Mass have the right of a state, to enact that healthcare law?

      Brother!

      Additionally, Rick Santorum is a great candidate for the Tea Party. He has actually held to his conservative creds absolutely steadily.

      Picking Newt is not the most horrible thing in the world, but it is not TEA.

      • Troy La Mana

        Romney is still Liberal-lite

  • Joyce A (East of Eden)

    I think you’re really overgeneralzing the tea party here. The Tea Party is not one big organization, it’s many smaller organizations all over the country. And the poll you cited: I never really trust a poll, because the sample sizes are so small and they never present the questions that were asked along with their results. The better way to say it is, “47% of people who were polled”. I also think that most Tea Party people are very independent thinkers who have not made up their minds yet and yes, that the media want us to all think that a “group” is going a certian way.

    …

    I identify with the Tea Party, although I’ve never gone to any sort of rally or function. I don’t support Newt either. But even if Newt is the nominee, which it’s looking like that, he’s going to be a whole lot better than what we have now.

    …

    One thing that the Tea Party has done, is to get people involved, and I don’t think that aspect is going to change, even if it all appears to be discombobulated.

    • Brian H

      He will only better than what we have now if he can defeat what we have now. Can he?