The tea party has certainly made its mark on the politics. But does it have a future?
It's a question that political observers have been asking ever since the tea party came along -- whether it's here to stay or is simply a flash in the pan.
I've written a few times here that I think the tea party is just the most vocal component of a movement in this country with a lot of depth and staying power. But, hey, I've been wrong before. And there is a tendency among politicians and pundits to look at the latest hot thing and declare it a permanent thing. It was just two years ago that everybody was saying there had been a realignment to the left that would doom Republicans forever. I do think, however, that people like Harry Reid are wrong when they predict the tea party will simply go away when the economy improves. A lot of anti-big government sentiment has bubbled up that has nothing to do with the economy.
Comments
The Tea Party certainly isn't going to "doom Republicans forever."
As an outsider I do wonder how the Republicans are going to nominate a presidential candidate for 2012. With a bad economy, Obama is vulnerable. But not if the GOP fails to nominate a serious candidate.
As a fan of the two-party system, I'd hate to see you guy pull another Goldwater.
Someone like Romney could win the general, but I don't see how in the world the Palin wing could support him in the primary.
A Palin or a Huckabee would lose badly to Obama, despite their popularity on the far right.
Who do you think could be nominated by the GOP and have a chance against Obama? I remember the Dems had a similar problem in '68 and '72, when they were the party with the internal split.
And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut used to write.
Part of worked well for the tea party is that they had no central leadership. This could also be their undoing. It's an amorphous group, and since their success, they have a lot of entities who'd love to get a hand on the political clout they've had. I predict failure, further marginalizing a group that's already sort of on the margins.
I've read and listened to a ton of commentary, and a couple of points make sense to me. 1. Republicans can't, as they historically have, just pick the one whose turn it is (which would suggest Romney or Huckabee in 2012). 2. When people are disappointed in who they picked, they are likely to go for the opposite. That suggests maybe someone with executive experience but also with an air of competence instead of charisma, so maybe one of the GOP governors would make sense.