Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Tea Party and Extremism

Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 10:55:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is there any intellectual who seriously believes that the tea party is extremist or is it just a buzz word that liberal media outlet uses? If someone sincerely believes the tea party is extremist, please explain why.

Extremist: a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

Extreme: furthest from the center or a given point; outermost.

very great in degree

very serious or severe

very far from agreeing with the opinions of most people : not moderate
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 11:27:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The problem with a word such as "extreme" in the present context is that it evokes very violent, negative connotations. Because we are living during the "War on Terror," the word immediately conjures images of terrorist acts.

At the same time, certain politicians, such as Jeb Bush, are being criticized by the "true believers" as being "too moderate." According to the definitions you have laid out in your OP, that could very well equate to "not extreme" or "not extreme enough."

So, the very limitations of language itself are at issue here. "Moderate" is not always seen as good, and "extreme" can certainly be seen as bad. I would say that the Tea Party is extreme ("not moderate") ideologically, but certainly not in the sense that it constitutes a violent extremist sect.

Clear as mud? Good.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 2:14:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 11:27:10 AM, Fly wrote:
The problem with a word such as "extreme" in the present context is that it evokes very violent, negative connotations. Because we are living during the "War on Terror," the word immediately conjures images of terrorist acts.

I agree this is one reason why its used, but I think it more is the idea that "anyone that disagrees with me is an extremist"

At the same time, certain politicians, such as Jeb Bush, are being criticized by the "true believers" as being "too moderate." According to the definitions you have laid out in your OP, that could very well equate to "not extreme" or "not extreme enough."

I see what you mean but I take issue with this because we have a multi party system for a reason, instead of being an authoritarian state that only has one state approved ideology, we have multiple parties that are supposed to set themselves apart based on their ideology, for this reason if a republican holds democratic ideals, they should be independent, not undermine the ideology that sets republicans apart from democrats. The other issue I have is that we have to look at ideology, not people, to determine if a party is extremist, so if you still believe the tea party is extremist I'd like a few policies they have that you deem extreme so that I can either see your perspective on this or explain why they aren't extreme positions.

So, the very limitations of language itself are at issue here. "Moderate" is not always seen as good, and "extreme" can certainly be seen as bad. I would say that the Tea Party is extreme ("not moderate") ideologically, but certainly not in the sense that it constitutes a violent extremist sect.

I agree things aren't always black and white, but in this particular case anyone who truly believes the tea party is extremist would be hard pressed to prove such a thing. Unless you believe that people like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater are extremists, and enlightenment era philosophers such as John Locke and Hayek, that is. I would say democrats/liberals are far more extremist in all honesty since they are the people that seek to actively undermine the institutions that our country was built on, but I'm not trying to shift blame here so we can focus on that another time.

Clear as mud? Good.
Fly
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 2:57:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 2:14:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/26/2015 11:27:10 AM, Fly wrote:
The problem with a word such as "extreme" in the present context is that it evokes very violent, negative connotations. Because we are living during the "War on Terror," the word immediately conjures images of terrorist acts.

I agree this is one reason why its used, but I think it more is the idea that "anyone that disagrees with me is an extremist"

Ok, but that is precisely what YOU have done at the end of your post. If you are to maintain an air of credibility here, doesn't the cure (presumably you via this thread topic) need to be better than the disease (presumably pejorative labeling)?

At the same time, certain politicians, such as Jeb Bush, are being criticized by the "true believers" as being "too moderate." According to the definitions you have laid out in your OP, that could very well equate to "not extreme" or "not extreme enough."

I can surely address your other points here, but I want to start this with a firm foundation in your premise. Can you provided some examples of "Tea Party as extremists" in the media? Context is always good to have...

I see what you mean but I take issue with this because we have a multi party system for a reason, instead of being an authoritarian state that only has one state approved ideology, we have multiple parties that are supposed to set themselves apart based on their ideology, for this reason if a republican holds democratic ideals, they should be independent, not undermine the ideology that sets republicans apart from democrats. The other issue I have is that we have to look at ideology, not people, to determine if a party is extremist, so if you still believe the tea party is extremist I'd like a few policies they have that you deem extreme so that I can either see your perspective on this or explain why they aren't extreme positions.

So, the very limitations of language itself are at issue here. "Moderate" is not always seen as good, and "extreme" can certainly be seen as bad. I would say that the Tea Party is extreme ("not moderate") ideologically, but certainly not in the sense that it constitutes a violent extremist sect.

I agree things aren't always black and white, but in this particular case anyone who truly believes the tea party is extremist would be hard pressed to prove such a thing. Unless you believe that people like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater are extremists, and enlightenment era philosophers such as John Locke and Hayek, that is. I would say democrats/liberals are far more extremist in all honesty since they are the people that seek to actively undermine the institutions that our country was built on, but I'm not trying to shift blame here so we can focus on that another time.

Clear as mud? Good.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 2:57:22 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/26/2015 2:14:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 3/26/2015 11:27:10 AM, Fly wrote:
The problem with a word such as "extreme" in the present context is that it evokes very violent, negative connotations. Because we are living during the "War on Terror," the word immediately conjures images of terrorist acts.

I agree this is one reason why its used, but I think it more is the idea that "anyone that disagrees with me is an extremist"

Ok, but that is precisely what YOU have done at the end of your post. If you are to maintain an air of credibility here, doesn't the cure (presumably you via this thread topic) need to be better than the disease (presumably pejorative labeling)?

I didn't do it without an explanation or reason, which is what most media outlets do or people that accuse the tea party of being extremist. Additionally, I didn't say the democrats were extremist, I just said that if anyone is they are.

At the same time, certain politicians, such as Jeb Bush, are being criticized by the "true believers" as being "too moderate." According to the definitions you have laid out in your OP, that could very well equate to "not extreme" or "not extreme enough."

I can surely address your other points here, but I want to start this with a firm foundation in your premise. Can you provided some examples of "Tea Party as extremists" in the media? Context is always good to have...

Just google "tea party extremist" or "the tea party are extremists" and you will see a plethora of results.

I see what you mean but I take issue with this because we have a multi party system for a reason, instead of being an authoritarian state that only has one state approved ideology, we have multiple parties that are supposed to set themselves apart based on their ideology, for this reason if a republican holds democratic ideals, they should be independent, not undermine the ideology that sets republicans apart from democrats. The other issue I have is that we have to look at ideology, not people, to determine if a party is extremist, so if you still believe the tea party is extremist I'd like a few policies they have that you deem extreme so that I can either see your perspective on this or explain why they aren't extreme positions.

So, the very limitations of language itself are at issue here. "Moderate" is not always seen as good, and "extreme" can certainly be seen as bad. I would say that the Tea Party is extreme ("not moderate") ideologically, but certainly not in the sense that it constitutes a violent extremist sect.

I agree things aren't always black and white, but in this particular case anyone who truly believes the tea party is extremist would be hard pressed to prove such a thing. Unless you believe that people like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater are extremists, and enlightenment era philosophers such as John Locke and Hayek, that is. I would say democrats/liberals are far more extremist in all honesty since they are the people that seek to actively undermine the institutions that our country was built on, but I'm not trying to shift blame here so we can focus on that another time.

Clear as mud? Good.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:33:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fortunately, this country doesn't really have violent political parties, so our cultural definition of "extremists" is far more tame than other interpretations of that word, perhaps.

That said, we have an intricate political spectrum. On that spectrum lie the liberals, the moderates, and the conservatives - I'm trying not to go into too much detail here. The beliefs which lie to the left of the liberals or to the right of the conservatives, are extreme and defined by their placement on the political spectrum. Therefore, there are two types of extremists. The polar opposite of the Tea Party is PETA, for example.

You seem to think that the liberal categorization of the Tea Party is to say "you don't believe what I believe so you're an extremist." That statement simply isn't true. The term applies to any beliefs which lie well outside the 'normal' political factions.

All things considered, you have asked for an argument that is hard to prove. The Tea Party does not exist. There is no central organization called 'the Tea Party,' so it is difficult for me to prove that a nonexistent, continually changing political wildfire endorses this opinion or that. However, I will say that the vast majority of those individuals who associate with the Tea Party are extreme...

1. Vaccines cause autism.
2. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
3. Concealed Carry should be allowed in schools.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:52:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:33:54 PM, Praesentya wrote:
Fortunately, this country doesn't really have violent political parties, so our cultural definition of "extremists" is far more tame than other interpretations of that word, perhaps.

Even with our political spectrum, a conservative libertarian ideology is not considered extremist.

That said, we have an intricate political spectrum. On that spectrum lie the liberals, the moderates, and the conservatives - I'm trying not to go into too much detail here. The beliefs which lie to the left of the liberals or to the right of the conservatives, are extreme and defined by their placement on the political spectrum. Therefore, there are two types of extremists. The polar opposite of the Tea Party is PETA, for example.

I see the analogy you are making here but I don't necessarily believe that either of those groups are extremist based on their set ideologies, maybe certain members of the group are but overall I wouldn't say either group is extremist.

You seem to think that the liberal categorization of the Tea Party is to say "you don't believe what I believe so you're an extremist." That statement simply isn't true. The term applies to any beliefs which lie well outside the 'normal' political factions.

Ideologically, the tea party is not extreme even based on our normal political factions, libertarianism is not extreme, conservatism is not extreme, so I would venture to say that the tea party is no one way extreme.

All things considered, you have asked for an argument that is hard to prove. The Tea Party does not exist. There is no central organization called 'the Tea Party,' so it is difficult for me to prove that a nonexistent, continually changing political wildfire endorses this opinion or that. However, I will say that the vast majority of those individuals who associate with the Tea Party are extreme...

http://www.teapartypatriots.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I agree that you can't fully pin down the Tea Party's ideology, but that is about the closest thing you will get to their official ideology and none of it is extremist.

1. Vaccines cause autism.
No one ever outright said that that belonged to the tea party, a few members expressed skepticism of vaccines and they were dogpiled by the media.

2. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

This is still a divisive issue in the tea party, even though most members of the tea party hold that view its a little under a 50/50 split when it comes to the legal question of marriage equality. Besides, being against gay marriage is (unfortunately) not an extremist stance in the USA, lets be honest here. Especially since as you mentioned extremism shifts with the political landscape of each country.

3. Concealed Carry should be allowed in schools.

I am relatively sure that isn't a widely held view of tea partiers or their leadership.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 4:17:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:52:31 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Ideologically, the tea party is not extreme even based on our normal political factions, libertarianism is not extreme, conservatism is not extreme, so I would venture to say that the tea party is no one way extreme.

The Tea Party isn't just an amalgamate of libertarian and conservative opinions. There are extremist libertarian views, and extremist conservative views, I would say the Tea Party goes a step further than each.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Democratic Party and Republican Party have central, organized hierarchies with legitimate political efficiency and funding, the Tea Party doesn't. The links you posted are not the home pages to a Tea Party Caucus, they are recruiting pages and educational pages, respectfully.

1. Vaccines cause autism.
No one ever outright said that that belonged to the tea party, a few members expressed skepticism of vaccines and they were dogpiled by the media.

2. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

This is still a divisive issue in the tea party, even though most members of the tea party hold that view its a little under a 50/50 split when it comes to the legal question of marriage equality. Besides, being against gay marriage is (unfortunately) not an extremist stance in the USA, lets be honest here. Especially since as you mentioned extremism shifts with the political landscape of each country.

3. Concealed Carry should be allowed in schools.

I am relatively sure that isn't a widely held view of tea partiers or their leadership.

Again, it's difficult to pin down the ideology of an organization that doesn't exist. So the best we can do is speak about trends.

Under the third bullet point, what leadership does the Tea Party have?

Just out of interest, what political label would you attach to the Tea Party?