AHC WI: No Major Tea Party
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
The problem is that, in terms of being disorganized, nebulous and not warmed up, what is the Tea Party has always existed in the Conservative regions of the country (or rather at least the non-metropolitan and non-cosmopolitan). The Tea Party itself originated from people coming off of the Bush years very jaded and disillusioned, against big government and big business and big war and all of it. And it originated with the smears the McCain campaign/Conservative establishment in the run up to 2008 ran against Obama (which is actually oddly similar to the deal that happened with Kennedy when he was elected; all those Nixon smears are the ones that linger today, like the bootlegging claim). That's where you get the birther stuff and all of it. And the problem is, even early on Obama was tainted by that. I remember that deal where he wanted to address the schools, like other presidents had before him, but it was an issue because it was Obama and it didn't happen in my high school. For goodness sake, I remember in our mock election in high school, in Obama's description on the paper it was "He wants to "redistribute" the wealth ...", which is how a clearly rather Conservative faculty member tries to write in a non-partisan way.
I don't think you can not have it. I think it could have been neutralized and made to fade away had it been dealt with and properly politically maneuvered, and certainly not grow. But I don't think you can make it not exist. There was a shocking, vitriolic ire from the Republican party/Conservative movement that it was not in the White House and that it was not the majority party in Congress. To wear my politics on my sleeve, I'd call it a childish hissy fit unbecoming a respectable political faction. That's why the Republicans fanned those flames.
I don't think you can not have it. I think it could have been neutralized and made to fade away had it been dealt with and properly politically maneuvered, and certainly not grow. But I don't think you can make it not exist. There was a shocking, vitriolic ire from the Republican party/Conservative movement that it was not in the White House and that it was not the majority party in Congress. To wear my politics on my sleeve, I'd call it a childish hissy fit unbecoming a respectable political faction. That's why the Republicans fanned those flames.
Last edited:
But how can the Tea party be prevented from becoming a major faction in the Republican party and fade away by 2012.
Obama gets possessed by the spirit of LBJ?
You can't remove an initial surge of those guys. They existed, and the Republicans stoked them up because they wanted to win over the Democrats, regardless of the fact that they began to take over the party. How you neutralize them after, and keep them only as much as they were in the earlier portion of Obama's presidency (which was still a major faction) and make them fade away, I don't know the details of. It can be done, but I don't know the exact route to go. I'm the guy who, after that giant loss for the Republicans before they came back, argued on this forum the GOP would have to begin to moderate to survive, so I wouldn't recommend myself to predict politics concerning the Tea Party.
Peter Parker
Banned
The Republicans knew they were going to lose in 2008
Like above, elements of the Tea Party was always there. They were just kept hidden and locked away.
Since there was no point in trying in 2008, they thought it was okay to let them out. All it was going to do was hurt the dying chance of 2008.
But... They ended up much stronger then thought off, which allowed them to take the House in 2010.
They also forced Romney to turn right in the primaries, which hurt him in the general.
So, in order to prevent the Tea Party, have the Republicans have a good chance in 2008.
Maybe have John Edwards be the nominee, and have all his sex stuff blow up.
Like above, elements of the Tea Party was always there. They were just kept hidden and locked away.
Since there was no point in trying in 2008, they thought it was okay to let them out. All it was going to do was hurt the dying chance of 2008.
But... They ended up much stronger then thought off, which allowed them to take the House in 2010.
They also forced Romney to turn right in the primaries, which hurt him in the general.
So, in order to prevent the Tea Party, have the Republicans have a good chance in 2008.
Maybe have John Edwards be the nominee, and have all his sex stuff blow up.
Peter Parker
Banned
The Republicans will need to think they have a chance in 2008
Maybe have the Republicans do much better, but Obama still wins.
There won't be such a backlash in 2010, and the Democrats keep the House.
Maybe for the Republicans doing better, maybe Barclay's buys Lehman and the stock market crashes in November or December, but that opens up so many butterflies.
Orville_third
Banned
One way to lessen the impact: Have Obama not pick Janet Napolitano for any posts. This deprives Jan Brewer from becoming Governor of Arizona, ensures SB 1070 does not pass, and thus removes a major impetus to the rise of the Tea Party.
Two things could happen on the Obama side
1) Wait until the economy recovers before doing Obamacare
2) Actually try working with moderate Republicans in drafting Obamacare so that at least some Republicans have skin in the game. Without ANY Republican support the party has no reason to support it and every reason to sabotage it.
1) Wait until the economy recovers before doing Obamacare
2) Actually try working with moderate Republicans in drafting Obamacare so that at least some Republicans have skin in the game. Without ANY Republican support the party has no reason to support it and every reason to sabotage it.
1 I don't think is plausible, 2009-2011 was probably the best opportunity the Democrats would get to pass universal healthcare in decades. If they worked with Republicans, maybe it might have been passed without the 60-vote majority, but it's understandable that the Democrats wouldn't want to take risks.
I can see 2 maybe happening. However, the best I can see is about 5 GOP votes for it. Obamacare was a sweeping change and was going to attract big opposition.
No SB1070 might weaken the Tea party somewhat, as said before.
Probably more than 5, they would have to change the bill somewhat to do so though. Not requiring insurance to cover birth control might have been a good start at getting some support in the Bible Belt. The Hobby Lobby case got rid of it for employers and it is only a matter of time before some individual challenges it on religious grounds for individual policies, if they haven't already. Once it hits the USSC at the latest I don't see how they can rule for the government in that instance. If privately held corporations have a right to have their insurance not cover certain types of birth control certainly individuals have religious rights not to have their premiums pay for it either.
2009 is to late, the first Tea Party protests were already under way before the election was decided. Two main possibilities, the first is to kill the Tea Party itself, which is too have the Social cons take it over immediately and to have establishment politicians attack immediately. But that wouldn't neutralize the political effects entirely. The best way to neutralize the actual political movement, Obama needs to be more fiscally conservative than Bush and Clinton.
The Tea Party can be scuttled before it creates an avalanche in the 2010 midterms, but it'd require a really drastic POD. The only one I could think of is like...a jumped-up right-winger killing Obama before the midterms.
This is impossible. The federal government have been quite fiscally conservative post-2009 and has cut the budget year to year ever since. Nerfing the stimulus packages is going to torpedo the economy (which is why the business community would not allow it), the feds firing more people won't help. It'd just stir the political waters more.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
For myself, I'll make the challenge easier and back it up to Labor Day, 2008, the traditional start of the political campaign.
Remember, it was either the end of the September or the beginning of October, President Bush supported and signed a bailout of the same banks who had gotten us in the mess in the first place. And as people have pointed out, this probably was necessary to keep a recession from turning into a depression.
So, the GOP takes a page from Main Street conservatives and not Wall Street conservatives, and they listen to the many, many citizens who believe this whole business of banks "too big to fail" is a bad situation to be in. The Republicans get out in front on the issue. Yes, the bailout was necessary to keep a bad situation from getting really bad. At the same time, we need to use Sherman Anti-Trust or similar legislature to in an organized, lawful, straightforward way break up the big boy banks. And they speak plain and they name the banks. Yes, we need to break up Chase, we need to break up the so-called Bank of America, kind of like a car dealership which gives bad service having a great big American flag . . . Yes, they have a little fun with the issue, but they're also very strong and confident on the issue.
Another issue, at the start of 2009, the idea of infrastructure spending was popular. But the problem was, it was bad policy. Or rather, it would be Oh-so easy to overpromise and then have people be really disappointed. As the economist Paul Krugman and others have pointed out, you can't ramp up enough infrastructure spending quickly enough to make any kind of noticeable difference in the overall economy. So, Republicans acknowledge this. They sell this honestly (which is hard to do in politics for any party). They say, Look, infrastructure spending is something optimistic and something active, please don't expect more than that. Mainly, we're getting a good deal on needed projects. We're buying when material is somewhat cheaper and we're hiring when labor is somewhat of a bargain. We're not going to bust people down too much, primarily we are simply avoiding paying in an up market. The projects will have to be judged on their own terms of whether or not they're a good investment for the future.
That is, the Main Street Republicans and other factions within the Republican Party outcompete the Tea Party by having better policy!
For a flip side of the arguments people are making how about having Obama be more successful, more aggressive in using his mandate and with his political capital, and push the envelope more with the majorities the Democrats have by using every parliamentary trick in the book to short-circuit the GOP?
I know it isn't likely given Obama's personality is far more one of conciliatory compromise over partisan pugilism but if you have an Obama who is winning multiple victories, gets an actually productive 100 days going, and fires up his core voters who were casting their ballots in 2008 in some cases expecting the Second Coming of FDR you could neutralize the Tea Party by giving Obama an equally vocal, aggressive base in his corner. Part of why the Tea Party ended up dominating the debate so quickly is because of how poorly Obama mobilized and "fed" his own base; if you get an Obama who actually has meat to offer and wins in his corner then you might get enough Democratic enthusiasm to stop Scott Brown from being elected, stave off the Tea Party's win in 2010, and keep the Obama Administration moving forward.
I know it isn't likely given Obama's personality is far more one of conciliatory compromise over partisan pugilism but if you have an Obama who is winning multiple victories, gets an actually productive 100 days going, and fires up his core voters who were casting their ballots in 2008 in some cases expecting the Second Coming of FDR you could neutralize the Tea Party by giving Obama an equally vocal, aggressive base in his corner. Part of why the Tea Party ended up dominating the debate so quickly is because of how poorly Obama mobilized and "fed" his own base; if you get an Obama who actually has meat to offer and wins in his corner then you might get enough Democratic enthusiasm to stop Scott Brown from being elected, stave off the Tea Party's win in 2010, and keep the Obama Administration moving forward.
The problem with your scenario is that Obama ISN'T bipartisan and never was and it shows to a decent extent. If he was the Democrats would have offered SOME concessions to try to get Republican votes on Obamacare. They never did. A couple of the top of my head are birth control (which is likely to bite the dust anyways considering the US vs Hobby Lobby) and the tax on medical devices. There are certainly others that could have been offered. To actually govern in a bipartisan method you have to actively dicker and not just give lip service to it. I have never seen Obama do that.
jahenders
Banned
Post Obama in office: The only way to minimize the growth of a Tea Party-esque group would be for Obama to do far more outreach to Republicans in ACA and other issues AND for the Dems in Congress to do likewise. Some of the elements that became associated with the Tea Party are still there, but there's less frustration, anger, and concern for the direction of the country to feed their growth.
Before Obama takes office: A different approach by Bush and Congress that didn't involve so much deficit spending and uncertain government credit might have diffused some of the fiscal concerns before they got going too much (though Obama might then have done some of the same things and stoked them).
Before Obama takes office: A different approach by Bush and Congress that didn't involve so much deficit spending and uncertain government credit might have diffused some of the fiscal concerns before they got going too much (though Obama might then have done some of the same things and stoked them).