The Real Tea Party, Not Today’s Tea Party Fakes

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

Today I came across this fascinating exposition on a facet of American History often overlooked in our educational syllabus. The Boston Tea Party, from which today’s Tea Party takes its’ name, was actually a revolt against the dominance of the largest Multi-national Corporation of its’ time and its’ monopoly of the ubiquitous tea trade. The power of this entity came through its political dominance of the British Monarchy and with its’ compliance and enforcement of this Corporation’s needs. Contrast the actual positions of today’s “Tea Partier’s” with those whose names they usurp. I think you will find this a fascinating video and I will comment after the fold.

Even if you didn’t watch this whole video, I’m sure you got enough information to understand that the Boston Tea Party was about fighting the bestowal of government privileges, including tax cuts, to a large, influential corporation. Today’s “Tea Party” is a movement created by wealthy corporate interests, guided by a powerful lobbyist, Dick Armey, and is committed to ensuring that corporations have no regulations whatsoever. I had previously documented that here:

 This is a fact that it seems none dare mention in the Mainstream Broadcast Media, excepting MSNBC. The average viewer is led to believe, by the bloviating pundits, that this is a “grass roots” movement of average folk, fed up by too much government involvement in their lives. The “Tea Party” has been invested by the same punditry, with the mantle of being a “populist” movement. In fact, the only resemblance to them and certain “populists” of the past is that there is a racialist percentage among them.

Today’s TP’ers are essentially anti-constitutionalists, in league with those who would be theocrats, working in the service of corporate interests. They bandy about epithets for the rest of American’s, the majority of Americans I must say, that call their opponents socialists, communists and fascists. Although all of these epithets could hardly characterize either the Democratic Party, or the President they revile, they gain currency through the repetition of the corporate “Big Lie” and are given equal treatment by the media.

The only way for real American’s to battle these anti-constitutionalists is by constantly exposing the lies and the memes they use to give themselves legitimacy, such as taking on the mantle of an historic American move towards independence. Admittedly, these are harsh words and do not necessarily represent the views of this blog or its proprietor.

Enough, however, is enough. I cannot abide the hypocrisy being displayed here, nor can I abide watching a field of Republican candidates, kowtowing to this movement, who are themselves made up of clowns, knaves and even much worse. Oh, do I long for the days of Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower before him. The current crop of Presidential hopefuls in the GOP isn’t fit to step into the shoes of their Republican forebears, who were demonstrable realists with no small intelligence.

The worst part of it is that although the whole contingent of Republican Presidential hopefuls pretend to represent themselves as the people’s protectors, their history strongly suggests quite the opposite. Their greatest weapon thus far has been to seize the political initiative and attain power through erecting a Potemkin Wall of popular support. They have done this by redefining American History, the Constitution and given new meanings to words. The TP’ers have successfully infiltrated our Congress  with preachers of cant and no-nothingness and because of this, we must perforce expose and oppose them, or watch the very heart of our government, our Constitution, shredded by the hypocrisy by which they justify their actions.

62 thoughts on “The Real Tea Party, Not Today’s Tea Party Fakes”

  1. Otteray Scribe:

    take a look at the history of people trying to corner the market on most any commodity, it doesnt work out well for them for the most part.

    Land is not like a stamp or rare painting. But a rare stamp or painting is the property of the owner to do with as they please. The same for land to the extent you dont do something to violate your neighbors land/property/person.

    If resources belong to all of us, you shouldnt have any problem signing over title to private individuals.

  2. OS, We will see how Perry does tonight. Ron Paul has been running ads that attack Perry for being too liberal so I don’t think the cuts will hurt Perry in the republican primary. It is now his to lose if you look at today’s NBC/WSJ poll.

  3. Great link, SwM, thanks. I am bemused by the cognitive dissonance displayed by that example. If things were going the way they should–as LBJ would have handled it–Perry would be summoned to the White House for an epic arm twisting. Ol’ Lyndon would have explained to him that he would get jack shit out of the government unless there were a quid pro quo to the administration’s liking. And Perry, hat in hand, would have caved.

    In the present instance, I fear that it is not Perry who will do the caving.

  4. Roco, where your argument breaks down is the nature of human nature. Resources belong to ALL of us, and the government is the body that represents all of us. Your recommendation that resources should be in private hands does not take into account the human trait of hoarding. How many rare stamps or paintings in private hands disappear into vaults never to be seen again? But, if they are on display in a public museum, they cannot be hoarded by a private owner.

    The spigot of essential natural resources do not need to be controlled on the whim of a private owner whose investment strategy may call for creating artificial scarcity in order to maximize profits at the expense of the rest of us.

  5. Slartibartfast:

    how would it do both? Natural resources should not belong to government. They should belong to individuals. They should be used to benefit all, which means they should be in production.

    Government has failed and miserably at most everything it has done except restricting the freedoms of the people.

    We know enough about how to control pollution. As far as stewarding goes, government has done such a great job with social security. SS could be self sustaining by now if the money had been actually used for retirement accounts alone. So I dont see why you think they could steward our natural resources any better. If a guy gets a D in calculus, he probably isnt going to get an A in differential equations.

  6. Roco,

    I don’t believe that a government in any way helps its citizens (they aren’t all workers…) by failing to protect the quality of their air, land, and water and failing to faithfully steward their natural resources – your plan would do both.

  7. lotta katz:

    anyone who works pays taxes and even those who dont work pay sales tax. Although that money is taken from people who do work so I think anyone who has paid taxes on labor is a reasonable place to start.

    But I see nothing wrong with reimbursing people with federal land in the amount of the tax they have paid. It would sure open up a good number of opportunities for the average person, mostly the poor and the middle class. Mineral rights, land development or just selling it outright to developers and using that money to start some other business.

    So I guess you are against the working poor and the middle class and for the fat cats and the environmentalists? The ones who lead that movement are by and large fat cats. Why do say you are for the worker when you are against a policy that would help the workers? Seems rather contradictory to me.

    Nothing was said about voting in any event, but nice red herring. Very nicely done. Or maybe I should say straw man? I’ll let you pick.

  8. Roco
    1, September 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm
    “I did not say to everyone, just people who work, kind of a reimbursement for the taxes they have paid.”

    Slippery slope there Roco.

    That’s another teabagger meme; only “productive” citizens should have a say in the affairs of state or reap its rewards. It’s nothing new, it’s actually a pre-revolutionary idea. Pretty cool if you’re one of the folks that can set the policies that determines how many jobs and of what calibre, the country will sustain. It tends to take care of all those slackers that work but don’t make enough money to actually pay federal income taxes, as well as the disabled and the non-working/taxpaying elderly not receiving enough income to pay those taxes. Well, at least we know where the teabaggers want to take their country back to, the mid-eighteenth century.

    Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American
    By Matthew Vadum

    “Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country –”


    U.S. Voting Rights
    When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation’s population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term “government by the people” has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.

    1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote

    Read more: U.S. Voting Rights

  9. Roco,

    Depends on your viewpoint and facility for taking in information counter to ones’ pre-judgments.

  10. “[Tea Party]Membership and demographics
    Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. Though the various polls sometimes turn up slightly different results, they tend to show that Tea Party supporters are mainly white and slightly more likely to be male, married, older than 45, more conservative than the general population, and likely to be more wealthy and have more education.
    One Gallup poll found that other than gender, income and politics, self-described Tea Party members were demographically similar to the population as a whole. When surveying supporters or participants of the Tea Party movement, polls have shown that they are to a very great extent more likely to be registered Republican, have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party and an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party. The Bloomberg National Poll of adults 18 and over showed that 40% of Tea Party supporters are 55 or older, compared with 32% of all poll respondents; 79% are white, 61% are men and 44% identify as “born-again Christians”, compared with 75%, 48.5%, and 34% for the general population, respectively.

    “[Tea Party]Canvass and polls
    An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 99% said “concern about the economy” was an “important factor”. Polls have also examined Tea Party supporters’ views on race and racial politics. The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that 74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement “[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it’s not really the government’s job to guarantee it”, while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States. A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were “more likely to be racially resentful” than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents. However, analysis done by ABC News’ Polling Unit found that views on race “are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement” because they are typical of whites who are very conservative.”


Comments are closed.