I was going to post this on another thread, but I thought that it needed a separate one, because I hope that it generates important discussion
On another thread, Thunderbolt made this observation:
“…Tea Partiers insist on shelving social issues and putting fiscal issues and limited government as the core of their message…”
This is where things become “dicey” for these “movements”. There is NO QUESTION that fiscal issues have social implications…but there are a myriad of social issues that simply can’t be boiled down to “it’s not my responsibility”; “get a job”; and “build a wall and deport”.
The “Perot Movement” (yep…I drank the Kool-Aide) was a case in point. It had the greatest momentum of any “movement” in modern political history and even led (indirectly) to the election of a President.
However, as soon as the “Perot Movement” began to attempt to come up with a) a viable platform of some sort and b) began to attempt to take a stand on any host of social issues, it fell completely apart. (In addition to Perot finally losing it).
Now…if the “Tea Party” is not “really an organization”…with no real leader or platform and some vague “values” that it follows, that’s well and good…but having no cohesive voice and/or leadership will only take you to the outskirts of the “Promised Land”…and attempting to address the social issues of this large Republic of ours is where these “movements” begin to lose their focus.
Right now they have clear “boogymen” to direct a collective rage (Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Huge Recession/Big Government/etc.)…but that doesn’t last long, as previous movements have shown.
I think that the jury is still out on the Tea Party.
What say 'ye?