Can someon explain the politics behind "The Tea Party?

Actually, the confusion about the Tea party is that in some ways it is not political. It is political in that it is a collective voice of disenchanted voters raising "big government - big debt" issues with their elected officials, but it is not a "political party" in and of itself. In my observation there are really 3 tea parties or approaches to a tea-party movement happening all at once: One is a grass-roots open discussion among many citizens who are aghast at the exponential push toward expanding central government in the USA, and the resultant consequences of lost liberties (ex everyone being required to have health insurance instead of the liberty to make that choice for themselves.) Another is a small (but moderately funded) group of individuals who are trying to "formalize" this grass roots discussion into a party,or at the very least a viable lobby.

I do not get the impression that they are broadly supported on a voter basis although some individuals are committed enough to keep this aspect still alive and kicking. We'll see where it goes as time passes. The last tea party element I see are talk-show commentators and some independently minded politicians using the grass-roots element as an audience for social action.

An example is Glenn Beck's D.C. Rally yesterday (8/28/10). I do not get the impression he was trying to direct the 100,000+ attendees toward a new "party," but I believe he and other like-minded nationally recognized people are creating forums (like the rally) where the disenchanted electorate can come together and perhaps develop a more focused collective voice. While the "don't tread on me" flag is a good representation of what the USA is all about - individual freedoms and liberties vs. big government, it is not an "official" flag of the (not really existent) "tea party," but it does say a similar visual message as what the grass roots electorate is trying to tell it's representatives in D.C. I posted a link below that will lead you to more comments and essays about this correlation.

Not that this is directly answering your question, but below is a Ron Paul video that will give you one aspect (not all) of what the tea party discussion is about. The concept of the "tea party" appears radical in some respects, ex. A bunch of crazies trying to stop what appear to be well intended legislation that helps people ex: Obamacare.

What tea-partiers realize is that with the passage of each "socially-conscious" piece of legislation, two significantly bad things are happening: 1) Earmarks and backroom deals are getting tagged on at a huge cost to taxpayers, and 2) Significant individual liberties are being lost. Grass roots tea party participants don't want to be a party, they just want their elected officials to get back to acting like representatives of the USA, i.e. Following the Constitution in good-faith using principles laid out by our founding fathers; and to stop trying to act like a European republic whose citizens somehow deserve government mandated entitlements.

Actually, the confusion about the Tea party is that in some ways it is not political. It is political in that it is a collective voice of disenchanted voters raising "big government - big debt" issues with their elected officials, but it is not a "political party" in and of itself. In my observation there are really 3 tea parties or approaches to a tea-party movement happening all at once: One is a grass-roots open discussion among many citizens who are aghast at the exponential push toward expanding central government in the USA, and the resultant consequences of lost liberties (ex everyone being required to have health insurance instead of the liberty to make that choice for themselves.) Another is a small (but moderately funded) group of individuals who are trying to "formalize" this grass roots discussion into a party,or at the very least a viable lobby.

I do not get the impression that they are broadly supported on a voter basis although some individuals are committed enough to keep this aspect still alive and kicking. We'll see where it goes as time passes. The last tea party element I see are talk-show commentators and some independently minded politicians using the grass-roots element as an audience for social action.

An example is Glenn Beck's D.C. Rally yesterday (8/28/10). I do not get the impression he was trying to direct the 100,000+ attendees toward a new "party," but I believe he and other like-minded nationally recognized people are creating forums (like the rally) where the disenchanted electorate can come together and perhaps develop a more focused collective voice. While the "don't tread on me" flag is a good representation of what the USA is all about - individual freedoms and liberties vs. big government, it is not an "official" flag of the (not really existent) "tea party," but it does say a similar visual message as what the grass roots electorate is trying to tell it's representatives in D.C. I posted a link below that will lead you to more comments and essays about this correlation.

Not that this is directly answering your question, but below is a Ron Paul video that will give you one aspect (not all) of what the tea party discussion is about. The concept of the "tea party" appears radical in some respects, ex. A bunch of crazies trying to stop what appear to be well intended legislation that helps people ex: Obamacare.

What tea-partiers realize is that with the passage of each "socially-conscious" piece of legislation, two significantly bad things are happening: 1) Earmarks and backroom deals are getting tagged on at a huge cost to taxpayers, and 2) Significant individual liberties are being lost. Grass roots tea party participants don't want to be a party, they just want their elected officials to get back to acting like representatives of the USA, i.e. Following the Constitution in good-faith using principles laid out by our founding fathers; and to stop trying to act like a European republic whose citizens somehow deserve government mandated entitlements..

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.