To see the future of the Tea Party, look to Canada.
Canada’s Tea Party movement started within the old Conservative Party, and in 1987 they split off to become the “Reform Party.” They were motivated by the need for democratic reforms, by profound discontent with the Conservative establishment, by a lack of power outside of the capitol region, and by runaway deficit spending which the Conservative party promised to stop but instead accelerated. Sound familiar?
Early on the Reform Party was marked by wingnuttyness and racism, and was home to the religious right. Sound familiar?
Because they split the conservative vote, the old Conservative party was reduced to almost no seats in the next election. Of course extremists get more press than moderates, so the writing was on the wall. Most remaining Conservative candidates went over to the Reform Party.
The old conservative party (The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada) dissolved in 2004. The Reform Party renamed itself to the Conservative Party of Canada. They got the wingnuts and racists under control. The religious right is still in control. They kept the old Reform Party leadership.
And now they run the country.
America’s Tea Party believes that McCain lost in 2008 because he wasn’t right-wing enough. Romney lost in 2012 because he wasn’t right-wing enough. They’ll make the same claim in 2016 regardless of who wins the primaries.
And so after the 2016 loss, they’ll split and form their own party. They’ll tell the remaining Republicans not to split the vote in 2020. Drop out or join the Tea Party. Which will make sense, since the the Tea Party will be getting all the press for the same reasons that Trump and the “protecting the sanctity of traditional bigotry” crowd get it now.
Like Canada’s Reform Party, they’ll “grow up.” (Major campaign donors will insist on it.) And eventually they’ll run the country. Perhaps after renaming themselves to the “Republican Party.”
So some teens from /pol/ grew up and made blogs because real people don’t interact like people online manage to. I’m not sure why Moldbug is even getting coverage when the entire movement seems to be insignificant, let alone his blog that has been dead for a year…
I see a typo there. I think you meant “ruin.”
"fever swamp of feudal misogynists, racist programmers and ‘fascist teenage dungeon masters’
Say that 10X fast!
Socially conservative, racist, anti-immigrant, misogynist political parties can’t win general (nationwide) Elections in the U.S. without cheating/changing how elections are run. Edging farther to the right in a general Election hurts the GOP in the United States. They’ll always have a majority in the house and sometimes the senate because of gerrymandering, but will not be able to win a general Election. I’m not sure how it works in Canada as they have a parliamentary system and different demographics, but our strong executive branch cannot be won via parliamentary majority as (I think?) it works in Canada. Also, white people are gonna be minority soon enough.
As I wrote, once they take over, they’ll “grow up.” Major campaign donors will insist on it.
In any case, the longer the other party (Liberals in Canada, Democrats in the US) is in power, the more they get the blame for anything still bad. They more they take their power for granted, alienating more people. The more the opposition party’s claims and promises are believed. The Democrats - or ANY party - can only stay in power for so long until the voters insist on change no matter the cost.
Ah BoingBoing, every time I feel the weird underbelly of the Internet is withering in the shadow of Facebook and YouTube and Whatever-r, you shine the light on some off-brand band of trolls doing their thing in larger numbers than anyone would expect. Thanks!
You think people are going to vote for a vitriol-spewing bigot who openly hates immigrants, women, etc. out of some vague concept of “change?” The farther right the GOP moves, the less electable their candidates are in a general election.
By “grow up” do you mean the GOP will have to abandon the most extreme right-wing rhetoric of their party? If so, that’s exactly what I see happening in the future. The GOP will have to move to the left to have any hope of winning a general Election.
One more time:
As I wrote, once they take over, they’ll “grow up.” Just like the Reform Party did. Major campaign donors will insist on it.
“As the twenty-first century gets darker…” That’s the real problem here a bunch scared people who think they can hide behind a wall with their guns and legalize righteousness. I suggest they turn off the tv and internet, go outside and see it’s really a pretty decent world.
One problem with this hypothesis; the major donors are fueling the childish behavior of the monster they created. The end is libertarian dystopia, the means is intentionally incompetent leadership.
Another problem with this hypothesis. Major donors don’t want any meaningful economic policy. Ensuring the left always has to fight insane social rhetoric ensures they never have the chance to counter the interests of big business.
They want whatever economic policy puts more money into their own pockets, and that policy is do not tax the wealthy, tax the crap out of the proles, and privatize everything. Same piss we’ve been told is rain for the last 30 years.
Right. Ensuring there is no economic reform is what I meant. Promoting an insane radical right wing that is constantly threatening to drag us back to the dark ages ensures that the democrats-- who are themselves pro-business/wealth consolidation-- are never forced to consider economic reforms to runaway capitalism.
You remind me of one of my children. If I don’t understand what she’s saying, she’ll repeat the exact same words to me. And I’ll say “nope, still don’t get it, could you explain it some other way please?” and she’ll repeat the exact same words to me, again.
If you’re trying to communicate something, and people don’t seem to be understanding your point, you might want to rephrase. At least, that’s what a grownup would do.
If a claim is simply repeated, why would the answer change?
Except it doesn’t always work that way. For example, SNAP puts cash directly in WalMart coffers. So why do the Waltons support politicians who would weaken or end SNAP? It’s against their self-interest; but maybe it’s not enough to be rich, they must also punish the poor.
By extension, a strong, affluent middle class is good for business. Who else is going to buy all those SUV’s? The Chinese? And yet Republicans continue to fight for policies that impoverish the middle class. I’ve begun to wonder if the most powerful few are saving up for the apocalypse, because they know where climate change is really headed.
Your child is probably more sincere than these people, though.
I wouldn’t treat these folks with kid gloves. Remember Justine Tunney? She went hard right in a hurry. It’s not that they’re powerful by themselves (they’re weak as hell), but that if the economy slows down or there’s a persisting moral panic I can see these chuckleheads getting traction with folks who aren’t too keen on thinking and more keen on smashing things (people’s faces, cars. it doesn’t seem to matter).
It’s what happened in Germany. The situation can easily happen again.