Who's at the Tea Party?

[lookin]

GIVEN how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics.

But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea Party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think.

Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like "atheists" and "Muslims." Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

more: Crashing the Tea Party: NYTimes.com

[RA1]

The problem with the Tea Party as I see it is even though they have very good fundamentals for conservatives, they seem to seek out wackos to represent them. Go figure. One or two or even more good ideas followed by absolute silliness will not get my vote. Elvis died in August and was born in January. Please pay attention.

I certainly know that no one will have exactly the same views as I do but, please, let's be realistic.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Here is an article on the same theme I stumbled over today....

Survey’s surprising finding: tea party less popular than atheists and Muslims

By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket

In an op-ed article in the New York Times, Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and David E. Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame, say they have collected data indicating that the tea party is "less popular than much maligned groups like 'atheists' and 'Muslims.'"

But Campbell says the tea party was really an afterthought in their research.

"We didn't go into this study to look at the tea party," Campbell said in an interview with The Ticket.

The professors were following up on research they conducted in 2006 and 2007 for their book "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us" and decided to add the tea party and atheists to their list of survey queries. By going back to many of the same respondents, the professors gleaned several interesting facts about the tea party.

One of their more surprising findings, Campbell concedes, (and one drawing national attention) is that the tea party drew a lower approval rating than Muslims and atheists. That put the tea party below 23 other entries--including Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Republicans and Democrats--that the professors included on their survey of "a representative sample of 3,000 Americans."

By examining which respondents became supporters of the tea party, Campbell and Putnam's survey "casts doubt on the tea party's 'origin story,' " they write in the Times.

Early tea partiers were described as "nonpartisan political neophytes," Campbell and Putnam write, but their findings showed that tea partiers were "highly partisan Republicans" who were more likely than others to have contacted government officials.

"They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do," they went on.

In addition to being socially conservative, the study found a close tie between religion and the tea party, whose supporters seek out "deeply religious" elected officials.

"This helps to explain why candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are just as much about the public presentation of themselves as religious people as fiscal conservatives," Campbell told The Ticket.

Campbell said Tuesday that he does not regard his research as politically motivated. "I don't have a particular dog in this or any other political fight," he said.

"We actually didn't go into this study primarily to look at the tea party," he told the Ticket. "The primary purpose of the study is to update what we learned about religion in America."

See the original article at:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/survey-surprising-finding-tea-party-less-popular-atheists-160220531.html

[Guest hitoallusa]

Where? I love tea parties.. But I don't really get the identity of these tea party members? MB said she can turn around the economy within 3 months once she get elected and surprisingly people applaud her for that statement. There is something very wrong with those people. Lucky is extremely about negative Hitler but he forgets Germans who empowered him and the crisis Germans faced at that time. I am intrigued about the anti-christ in the Bible. It seems just a perfect moment for one to rise and seduce people. Don't you think?

[lookin]

I don't think we're as bad off as the Germans were in the 1920's when Hitler was building his power base, but things could always get worse. I'm currently reading a book on Germany between the wars and, as you might expect, there were some who knew Hitler was toxic, some who thought he was Germany's savior, and then the majority who tried to keep their heads down.

For me, the turning point is when we start to lose compassion for one another. That's what allowed the Nazi's to take hold. I think there's still a lot of compassion in the U. S., but I do believe we need to make sure we all stay connected and do not allow our poor and infirm and powerless to be sacrificed in the name of lower taxes and 'smaller government'. When that kind of heartlessness makes it into the polling booth, as the Tea Party seems determined to have happen, I think we're on our way downhill.

In my opinion, it's better to err on the side of too much compassion (if there is such a thing) than too little.

[RA1]

lookin-

Unfortunately, does it not strike you that the or a major force for cohesiveness for nations is to have an enemy? Us or them. That sentiment seems still to be familiar through today. BO is now threatening Syria ala Libya. He is just the latest example. I don't know if it is to build his public image or promote his current presidential campaign or what. Ditto on his remarks about Congress not willing to compromise. Us vs. them.

Do we need an enemy from outer space in order to have a one world government? It would seem so.

Is "needing" an enemy part of the human genome? If so, we are not getting past very much very fast, are we?

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

A thought-provoking question, as always, RA1. One thought it provokes for me is that a society that needs enemies will find them, either inside or outside. When there is a clearly identifiable outside enemy, then, as you say, internal cohesiveness will build. We saw that here, just after 9-11. When outside threats subside, a society that's in the habit of looking for enemies will find them within itself.

Another thought is that there have been, and are, societies that are able to function fairly well without enemies, either external enemies or internal ones. This website lists a few.

Yet another thought is that societies can change as the years go by, sometimes adopting an 'us vs. them' approach and sometimes realizing that we're all in this together.

A final thought is that, once again, 9-11 caused a sudden shift in the social dynamic of the U. S. The day after, we were more focused on enemies than we were the day before. In my opinion, even if we are able to reduce the threat of outside enemies, we will still be in the habit of looking around for enemies, and we will find them within. I believe that is happening now. With awareness of this dynamic, and with a bit of luck, my hope is that we can once again come to a realization that we're all in this together, and that the number of enemies we have may be fewer than we presently think. It will take time, of course, for this change to occur and some will lead the process and some will resist. Still, no reason not to get started.

[Lucky]

Not going to happen, I say with compassion. I lived in New York on 9-11, so I saw the unity and compassion that developed in the aftermath of the WTC destruction.

I was there during the great power blackout. People let their compassion out then, too.

And then, with time, the passion draws back into the shell. So, it's there, inside most of us. But when life gets busy again, we all withdraw into our more daily selves, and that means we need to cope with the stresses of everyday life. If we could create a constant state of post 9-11, then we could have compassion everyday.

But, I commend lookin for being the advocate of revealing our more compassionate selves. He could become pastor to MER if he wants to.

[RA1]

Lucky-

Were you there in NYC during any other disasters? Do you warn the good folks of NYC when you are going to be spending any amount of time there?

Bad things do tend to bring good folks together but that is not the same as recommending bad times, is it? No, of course not.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest CharliePS]

Most human beings assume that, no matter how complex the problem, it must have one simple cause, and they look around to identify it. If the economy is collapsing, it must be the fault of (1)the banks, (2)the Democrats, (3)the President, (4)illegal immigrants, (5)godlessness, (6) gay marriage, (7) the national debt, (8) unions, (9)the Federal Reserve, (10)healthcare reform, etc., etc. The answer is to (1) put the bankers in prison, (2)elect Republicans, (3) get rid of the President, (4) build a fence along the Mexican border, (5) have a national day of prayer, (6) DOMA, (7) cut all social benefits, (8) take away workers' bargaining rights, (9) eliminate the Fed, (10) defund the healthcare reform, etc. You can find groups who promote any one of these as the perfect--and sole--solution. The Tea Party seems to like most of these possibilities, which is what makes it so attractive to a variety of people, and also so dangerous.

[TampaYankee]

lookin-

Unfortunately, does it not strike you that the or a major force for cohesiveness for nations is to have an enemy? Us or them. That sentiment seems still to be familiar through today. BO is now threatening Syria ala Libya. He is just the latest example. I don't know if it is to build his public image or promote his current presidential campaign or what. Ditto on his remarks about Congress not willing to compromise. Us vs. them.

Do we need an enemy from outer space in order to have a one world government? It would seem so.

Is "needing" an enemy part of the human genome? If so, we are not getting past very much very fast, are we?

Best regards,

RA1

There is something to what you say, but the enemy must be real and not 'trumped up'. 9/11 was effective in coalescing the country because we were attacked by a real enemy.

'Trumping up' enemies for political purposes only works when there is widespread fear or paranoia gripping the country. We do see some of that now being used against Obama. We do not see that with respect to Libya or Syria and there is great division about what role we should play if any. Either of those military actions are a negative political gambit because their is no consensus in the country about them, just factional issue groups. That only deepens divisions.

[TampaYankee]

A thought-provoking question, as always, RA1. One thought it provokes for me is that a society that needs enemies will find them, either inside or outside. When there is a clearly identifiable outside enemy, then, as you say, internal cohesiveness will build. We saw that here, just after 9-11. When outside threats subside, a society that's in the habit of looking for enemies will find them within itself.

Another thought is that there have been, and are, societies that are able to function fairly well without enemies, either external enemies or internal ones. This website lists a few.

Yet another thought is that societies can change as the years go by, sometimes adopting an 'us vs. them' approach and sometimes realizing that we're all in this together.

A final thought is that, once again, 9-11 caused a sudden shift in the social dynamic of the U. S. The day after, we were more focused on enemies than we were the day before. In my opinion, even if we are able to reduce the threat of outside enemies, we will still be in the habit of looking around for enemies, and we will find them within. I believe that is happening now. With awareness of this dynamic, and with a bit of luck, my hope is that we can once again come to a realization that we're all in this together, and that the number of enemies we have may be fewer than we presently think. It will take time, of course, for this change to occur and some will lead the process and some will resist. Still, no reason not to get started.

A very thought provoking reply too. Definitley food for thought.

[RA1]

I quickly looked at a few of those "enemy free" societies. I say good for them, but, I also say it appears they are "surrounded" by "others" who can help or complement any deficiencies that may exist within their society. We all need help, whether we call it that or recognize it as that or not. I don't grow my own food, refine oil into gasoline, have my own well for water, etc. I do depend upon the government, companies, large and small + earning enough money to pay them for their various services and products. I get the distinct impression that the societies need much more than that, at least from time to time. The point being I have to think that if all societies were enemy free the whole world would be lacking a lot. Competition leads to better prices, better products, etc. but competition also leads to "enemies" of one sort or another.

I don't wish to beat this point to death. I certainly do not look for enemies under every rock or behind every tree. In fact, I don't expect them at all, but, I do find them or they find me from time to time. Please understand I am using a very broad definition for "enemy". However, I am sure you understand the point.

On a completely different point, I read today that the "Horn of Africa" has a refugee camp that will accommodate 90,000 people but that there are 350,000 refugees in the area. This boggles my mind. In the first place, just imagining a "camp" that will deal with 90,000 folks, never mind another 260,000 waiting or wanting to get in. Amazing and sad.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

But, I commend lookin for being the advocate of revealing our more compassionate selves. He could become pastor to MER if he wants to.

That remark was not tongue in cheek. Every Sunday pastors implore us to become our better selves. It's perfectly fine with me if someone here wants to do that too. I can always use the reminders.

[lookin]

Without exception, it's always my own better self I'm trying to reach through these sundry observations and musings. The reason I feel comfortable doing it in public amongst you all is that there are so many good souls here who are on a similar journey. All to the good, I think, if we rub off on one another along the way. You should pardon the expression.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oh my lookin.. I agree. When can I go to rub you? Anyways, I hope tea party members can open their hearts and mind. We don't need another Hilter and I bet our Lucky will strong oppose that so I think we will be fine. A lot of gays or accused of being gays died under Hilter. Muslims are not nice to gays as well as the Chinese. One Chinese co-worker told me that as long as I don't dress like a gay then it's fine with him. He told me that he won't do anything other than work with me. It's unfortunate.

Without exception, it's always my own better self I'm trying to reach through these sundry observations and musings. The reason I feel comfortable doing it in public amongst you all is that there are so many good souls here who are on a similar journey. All to the good, I think, if we rub off on one another along the way. You should pardon the expression.

[Lucky]

Think of all of those gay guys living in the deeper parts of China who have no chance to be who they are. North Korea too! But in each place there is no doubt someone who is trying, and then there are those who can't hide it very well. It must be a tough life.

"The official China Daily newspaper said in 2005 that the number of homosexuals in China came to around 30 million, although it conceded few were willing to acknowledge their sexuality."

(Picture and quote from AndrewGouldingarticles.blogspot.com)

[TampaYankee]

"The official China Daily newspaper said in 2005 that the number of homosexuals in China came to around 30 million, although it conceded few were willing to acknowledge their sexuality."

Interesting that China's gross population stats differ so much from much of the rest of the world which puts the frequency of gays in the population at one in ten. That would put China up there at about one hundred million, not thirty. It must be the water.

There is precendent though as Iran claims they have none, I believe. That clear hetero spring water must source in Iran and by the time it seeps into China the rainwater has diluted that purity.

When the GOP finds out about this they may have a change of heart about the EPA.

[Guest DarnTop82]

It's the NY Times...they probably only polled Harlem and NE DC. They are about as biased as Al Gore riding around in his jet while talking about pollution.

Please. The Tea Party, while some are a little...off, are quite the force to be reckoned with. Obama is gone(thank god), and God help us if Bachmann gets the nomination.

Ron Paul, of course is ignored by all the media. Rommney is a Democrat in hiding. But at this point, a fucking goat in office would be better than this tool currently living there.

[MsGuy]

Another thought is that there have been, and are, societies that are able to function fairly well without enemies, either external enemies or internal ones. This website lists a few.

Should we scratch the Amish off our list of peaceful societies, lookin?

----

Sorry, the Devil made me do it.

[lookin]

Should we scratch the Amish off our list of peaceful societies, lookin?

----

Sorry, the Devil made me do it.

Thanks for posting this. I heard a mention on the radio yesterday, and meant to check it out. According to the article,

"This is very odd and clearly outlier behavior," (Donald Kraybill, an expert on the Amish) wrote to HuffPost. "Amish-on-Amish violences is extremely rare. ... These appear to be malicious assaults on symbols of Amish identity by a wacko little group."

Personally, I wouldn't cross them off the list of peaceful societies, based on these instances. I recall another story from a few years ago that made a deep impression on me. Amish families who lost children in a school shooting showed up at the shooter's funeral and forgave the shooter and consoled his family.

Always worth remembering, I think, that societies are made up of individuals and not everyone's the same. Even the Tea Party has the occasional disagreement.