On 11/2/2010 5:41 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> [cue the liberal fearmongers to refute this, since they need the TP - via The Awl]
>
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110201301.html>
>
> But at least two uncertainties remain. First is the finding, in an extensive Washington Post canvass conducted last month, that local tea party groups are less organized and politically active than previously thought - and that much of the grassrootsorganization that swayed primaries was coordinated and financed by large national groups led by Republican insiders, including FreedomWorks, Tea Party Express and Americans for Prosperity.
>
> Second is the question of how, and whether, such a disjointed army can make a difference in a general election. Polls show that more Americans than not are turned off by the tea party, with many viewing the movement as extreme.
I'd already printed out the original WP article (from Oct. 24) and now you've reminded me to read it. I hope I'm not one of the liberal fearmongers, but let me take a crack at this.
It's a terrific piece of journalism. They literally tracked down every extant TP group in the country and had them respond to a questionnaire. That's invaluable data, the kind social scientists wish they'd had about the early 60's right-wing groups.
Second, the Post was able to verify and talk to "only" 647 local TP groups. Let's put that in context. Right now, DSA - which bills itself as the largest socialist group in the country - is trying to expand the number of local groups it has. I'd love to see it happen. At the moment, they have 23 locals listed on their site. If they expanded to 100, it would be an earthquake. 647 seems beyond the imagination right now.
Third, did you read the original WP piece?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102304000.html
The thesis of the article is that the TP isn't serious because the local groups are more interested in bringing together likeminded conservatives than participating in election campaigns. For the Post, a "movement" only matters to the extent that it elects candidates to office. Less "politically active than previously thought" means less involved in electing Republicans.
This is presented as evidence of weakness:
> "We're not wanting to be a third party," said Matt Ney, 55, the owner
> of a Pilates studio and a founder of the Pearland Tea Party Patriots
> in Pearland, Tex. "We're not wanting to endorse individual candidates
> ever. What we're trying to do is be activists by pushing a
> conservative idea."
Leftists are always complaining about the tendency of progressives to fall into the clutches of the Dems. Here you have a right-wing movement that wants to avoid that fate. Obviously the Post sees that as a weakness because it doesn't believe there's such a thing as being "politically active" outside the two-party electoral system. But why would you buy that?
Bottom line: Would you like to see a left-wing multi-issue movement with 647 chapters, or would that be a disappointment to you?
SA