Why Did So Many Attend the 'Tea Party'?

Like drowning men grasping at a life preserver, U.S. citizens still desiring “Hope and Change” shifted from the obviously corrupt political environment to the unknown.

(HARRISVILLE, N.H.) - Sometime between the last election cycle and the previous one, a somewhat viable third party (named the “Tea Party”) arrived on the political scene in the United States. Regardless of whether you believe this third party is good or bad for American politics, it came about for a reason and may well be here to stay.

This article is not about the “Tea Party”, what it stands for, whether it is good or bad, or its leadership. The intent of this article is simply to postulate why it came to be in the first place and where it may be headed.

President Obama was elected on a political platform identified by the words “Hope and Change”. Independent voters flocked to the call for hope and change believing that this obviously bright and well-spoken young man could get our country back on the track so many of us yearned for. Due to the nature of the political beast, his attempts initially met with conditional success but quickly stalled. It appeared that both major political machines quickly backslid into their old ways of stuffing every bill to come out of Congress with enough unnecessary and unwanted fat to fatally clog the arteries of hard working U.S. citizens. Rather than seeing improvement in the condition of all, we witnessed spending increased to insane levels that would cripple all but the financially elite.

No restructuring of the tax code was done in advance of legislating these new and crippling expenditures so once again, the lion’s share of the tax burden was placed on the backs of those willing to work second and third jobs to provide for their families. The problem intensified when the recession we are currently experiencing caused cutbacks in the workforce. Jobs previously held by U.S. citizens were being sent off shore to improve profit margins and keep stockholders happy. Once again, greed prevailed regardless of the severity of the economic downturn.

Interest rates were held artificially low in an effort to keep the economy from going too far South too quickly. The price of gas, heating oil, and food-stuffs rose at an accelerated pace creating an inflation that the government refused to recognize because food and energy are not counted as elements contributing to the cost of living. To make matters worse, borrowing added to the deficit spending and then the printing presses that create our fiat currency began rolling non-stop last November, further exacerbating the inflationary spiral.

All of this led to the recognition that the elected leaders of our country, regardless of political affiliation, were “Hoping” for re-election, and “Changing” with every shift in the political winds that blow daily in Washington, D.C. Rather than focus on helping to improve the life of average U.S. citizens and of future generations, it became apparent that re-election at any cost was the only focusing the politicians of either of the two major political parties were capable of... Enter the “Tea Party”.

Like drowning men grasping at a life preserver, U.S. citizens still desiring “Hope and Change” shifted from the obviously corrupt political environment to the unknown. They did so more on hope and a prayer that things would be different than on factual knowledge or historical record. Desperate people make desperate moves. In this case, they wanted to send a message to the political establishment and wanted to keep hope alive. Right or wrong, many felt that casting their lot with the new “Tea Party” would bring about the “Hope and Change” they so desperately wanted.

The saddest thing about all of this is that there are no signs that things have changed very much at all. Corruption goes on unabated. Politicians have become more careful in structuring their lies. The promise to end pork-barrel politics has been modified to placing a short moratorium on it. The focus is still on the next election rather than the next “Right Thing” to do. The “Rah-Rah Team” rhetoric by all political parties continues in the hope of gathering the party loyalists and the plight of the average hard-working U.S. citizen continues to be ignored by the officials they elected regardless of whether those elected officials are backed by Democrats, Republicans, or Tea Party. You see, the old saying that “Power corrupts” is true and to believe that those backed by the “Tea Party” are exempt from this influence is nothing more than foolhardy.

Any U.S. citizen who ever wondered what it must be like to be violated no longer has to wonder . . . as all political parties continue to rape and pillage with the sole purpose of filling their re-election coffers... but, that is just my opinion!

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jerry West March 29, 2011 2:20 pm (Pacific time)

Dan, I do not want corporations to be treated the same way as a person or to have any rights of a person. They should exist at the sufferance of the public and be liable to dissolution by the public anytime that they act against public benefit. I want the individual stockholders to all be directly responsible for the acts and liabilities of the corporation up to percentage of the amount of stock that they hold. If a corporation commits a crime all those directly responsible get charged with the crime and face prison if prison is in order. All stockholders pony up their share of any fine or other compensation.

Daniel Johnson March 28, 2011 9:05 pm (Pacific time)

I agree with your last comment, Jerry, but I would go two steps farther. Corporations are now treated as legal (though fictitious) persons. Let them be treated the same way as a person. If you commit a crime, the basic sanction is a fine. This happens to corporations already but I would make the step that the corporation would really have to suffer. As it stands now, in the majority of cases after fines are paid, the corporation still has a healthy gain from their criminal activity.

The second thing I would introduce is a serious penalty for more serious crimes. You, as a real person (at least I believe you are. LOL) would go to jail for varying lengths of time and lose some of your rights as a citizen.

In a corporate case, I suggest that a corporation should lose the right to exist. All their assets would be seized and the void they create would be rapidly filled by more ethical and law abiding companies.

There would be lots of details/philosophy to sort out, but I think the principle would be workable. After all, a corporation exists at the sufferance of society as a whole.

Jerry West March 28, 2011 8:46 pm (Pacific time)

Greg, what worked or did not work in Russia needs to be considered with the difference between Russian society and history and that of the US and other western democracies. When we do find it necessary to subsidize a business, that certainly should only happen it such an action is a benefit to society. Also, I see no good reason not to make corporations legally responsible to the public directly through changing the parameters of incorporation to remove limited liability and to demand proof of public benefit every few years to receive a license to operate. This would be particularly true if some degree of limited liability were to remain in place. This would not apply to sole ownerships or partnerships with no limited liability. I think electing all judges would not be a bad idea, provided there is a high standard of proven competency required to qualify for the ballot. Restricting term limits, though, is a band aid fix to a problem that could hurt as much as it fixes. We need to break up concentrated economic power so that its role in the election process is far less important. That is where the real problem lies. I totally agree on a ban on elected officials being able to become lobbyists, I would extend that to senior bureaucrats and senior military officers, and would bar military officers from employment in defense industries after retirement.

Greg Lawson March 28, 2011 9:44 am (Pacific time)

Jerry you wrote: "I would also look at subsidies to businesses and tighten up requirements for them to ensure that they only happen when they are truly in the best interest of the public, and when they do, the public gets oversight on how the business conducts itself." This has been tried in the USSR, did not work out too well. So who decides what the "best interests" are? We have numerous anti-trust laws on the books and a legal system that does provide some watchdog benefits, though the latter is mostly via political appointment. Maybe it's time to make all judical positions via the ballot box, and have term limits for all elected positions, coupled with a law that prevents ex-politicians from working as lobbyists for life.

Bob Collinsworth March 28, 2011 7:40 am (Pacific time)

Hi Jerry: It is quite possible that I have become too cynical. It may be that searching for the proverbial "Needle in a Haystack" otherwise known as an "Honest Politician" has etched this cynicism deeply into my very soul. You are probably right that my generalization regarding the honesty (or lack of same) inherent in our current crop of politicians is unfair. However, the tide we witness daily emanating from Washington, D.C. does not appear to be carrying less trashy flotsam and jetsam . . . it appears to be carrying the same . . . if not more. I must admit that if there is even one member of Congress who truly cares about their constituency, all-inclusive generalizations should be avoided. Therefore, when I find a truly honest Congressional Representative or Senator . . . one willing to truly represent the majority of their constituency, I will extend to them my sincere apologies. Believe me when I say that I would love to feel my jaw ache from making such apologies . . . however, at this point, I do not expect to be spending my life savings on Novocain. Nonetheless, you points are well taken and I can truly appreciate what you say. Bob

Jerry West March 27, 2011 5:48 pm (Pacific time)

Hi Bob: I don't believe that ALL of the politicians are in it for themselves. I have known too many of them. A lot of them have good intentions and work the system to the best advantage for their constituents. The problem is the system which is controlled by money, so the

wealthy control the system. The voters that put politicians in power are directed in their voting by propaganda paid for by that wealth, and it is often cynical stuff, holding out this or that promise because it will get votes, but with no intention to deliver what the voters think

that they are getting. Politicians that go against the money can't win very many elections, so there is a quandary. Principles vs getting elected is a common thread in serious political discussion.

I doubt if this can ever be stopped completely, but the system would be more democratic and responsive the the voters if there was a much narrower gap between the rich and the rest of us, and large accumulations of wealth were not permitted. Rather than hollering for

lower taxes, those really interested in making things better for the average citizen would be demanding more public benefits, and much higher taxes on the upper income levels to pay for them.

I, too, think that the riders on bills that have nothing to do with the subject of the bill should be banned. It is a practice that makes for great horse trading, but also subverts democracy to a degree. I would also look at subsidies to businesses and tighten up requirements for

them to ensure that they only happen when they are truly in the best interest of the public, and when they do, the public gets oversight on how the business conducts itself.

Bob Collinsworth March 27, 2011 1:45 pm (Pacific time)

Hi Jerry: Thanks for the kind comments. Tea Party, Democratic Party, Republican Party . . . each with their fairytale axe to grind. Until the individual voter understands that ALL politicians are in it for themselves and not their constituency, true change will never be realized. As it stands now, every politician believes that the biggest bang for his or her buck is by courting the party . . . not the voter. The party directs re-election campaign fund distributions . . . not the voter. Some mechanism needs to band the voter together to keep the election booth operating as a revolving door. If reasonable term limits cannot be achieved by any other means, we always have the election booth as a last resource. Elected officials are pretty deeply entrenched in the "Special Interest - you scratch my back - I'll scratch yours" scheme by their second term. Regardless of which of the political parties back a candidate, the candidate should recognize and honor the majority of the voters who put them in power . . . not the party that funneled party managed re-election funds to them. As long as we allow "Pork-Barrel" spending by Congress via hidden inserts into pending and passed legislation, Special interest groups will be running this country through Congressional Representatives and Senators that they have bought and paid for. As far as I have been able to tell, our votes are the only way to stop it and to accomplish that, some entity must be able and willing to organize that effort. If anyone knows of an organization that has the size, power, willingness, and is honest enough to take such a task on, I would love to hear about it . . . PLEASE! Bob

Jerry West March 26, 2011 6:51 pm (Pacific time)

Good piece, and like J+ I also do not believe in deficit spending. But why the Tea Party? One could also ask why do so many believe in religious fantasies, read tabloids or (once upon a time) buy pet rocks. Good people are often sold a bill of goods and become tools for someone else's purpose. In the case of the TP that would be the neo-conservatives and the rich. The TP shifts public focus from the real issues to contrived ones and keeps the public distracted. As J+ says, there really would have not been a lot of difference between Obama and McCain in the end. There are some valid concerns being expressed by the TP along with the manufactured ones, but in the end these will never be adequately addressed by the plutocracy that runs the country. Some things to consider: http://georgelakoff.com/2011/02/19/what-conservatives-really-want/ http://toomuchonline.org/the-rights-pushback-against-taxing-the-rich/

Bob Collinsworth March 26, 2011 6:21 pm (Pacific time)

J+: I am glad you enjoyed my opinion piece. I have appreciated the willingness of Salem-News to fairly represent all sides on an issue and to be open to opinions backed up with fact. There are not many publications of any type in our country as open to opposing views as Salem-News. I wish that were not true but sadly, it is. Bob

J+ March 25, 2011 6:26 pm (Pacific time)

Fantastic commentary; only wish it were longer. At least someone on this site does not write with a pervasive, purely leftist-Democratic agenda.
As a fierce Independent (libertarian-green), I was very excited when the (informal) Tea-Party first hit the political scene. Having long believed debt = slavery, and seeing NO difference in the unfathomable deficit-spending of Republicans/Democrats in my entire lifetime, I finally thought there would be some realists coming into play.
But naturally, the Christer conservatives had to hijack the movement, with Princess Palin leading the insane with her mercury-filled flag. Now the phrase "Tea Party" immediately conjures up such images, making us forget its original (recent) roots.

I've always advocated bringing back the Anti-Federalists, myself. But as an Anti-Federalist, I would never get involved with a Federal movement ;)

Editor: That's right, Salem-News.com is the land of diversity.

[Return to Top]