17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: +
Talk:Tea Party Movement (view source)
Revision as of 05:41, January 15, 2010
, 05:41, January 15, 2010what is their primary goal?
::Yeah, it's accurate. "amateur" -- yes this is a movement against professionals by people with no political experience. The national and state leadership cannot even be named because they do not exist. The funding does not exist. Who't the treasurer? where are the required financial reports? There's grass roots enthusiasm but much less organization than a high school pep rally. Now people may rejoice in this unled, underfunded, unorganized group but we're an encyclopedia and it's our job to describe it accurately and not ignore its most obvious characteristics. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:09, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::Yeah, it's accurate. "amateur" -- yes this is a movement against professionals by people with no political experience. The national and state leadership cannot even be named because they do not exist. The funding does not exist. Who't the treasurer? where are the required financial reports? There's grass roots enthusiasm but much less organization than a high school pep rally. Now people may rejoice in this unled, underfunded, unorganized group but we're an encyclopedia and it's our job to describe it accurately and not ignore its most obvious characteristics. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:09, 15 January 2010 (EST)
While "amateurish" may be accurate, it's a general term. "Grassroots" is a somewhat more specific term which implies that it is not run by professional politicians (ie, amateur). I also feel the amount of funding isn't the point: the fact that it brought two million people together in one spot demonstrates that whatever funding it has is at least sufficient to accomplish the primary goals of the movement, that is, organizing protests. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:14, 15 January 2010 (EST)
While "amateurish" may be accurate, it's a general term. "Grassroots" is a somewhat more specific term which implies that it is not run by professional politicians (ie, amateur). I also feel the amount of funding isn't the point: the fact that it brought two million people together in one spot demonstrates that whatever funding it has is at least sufficient to accomplish the primary goals of the movement, that is, organizing protests. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:14, 15 January 2010 (EST)
::what is their primary goal??? without any visible leaders or any agreed on policy statement, that's very hard to say. I think the goal is to purify the GOP. That is they are really keen to throw out bad GOP leaders. This is an echo of the progressive antibossism movement of 1900 (see [[Recall Election]]. What's very different is that the progressives of 1900 were very well organized, and very well led. "amateurish" means they are inexperienced outsiders. There have been lots of movements like the Tea Partiers in American history and all of them have failed to achieve any of their goals. There were several in the 1930s, for example, such as "Share the Wealth", "Ham and Eggs" and the "Townsend Movement". In the 1880s the prohibitionists fit exactly the same mold. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:41, 15 January 2010 (EST)