This is exactly what you and I were talking about a few months back.
Why so many in the movement chose to join ANY of these groups is beyond me. They must all be sheep and NEED to have a leader and feel like they BELONG.
Sad.
Boy did you NAIL it with that comment. Rush had an interesting segment last week similar to this. Libs are "group" people ... what's good for individuals is what's good for the group. Conservatives are focused on the individual, looking at what's good for the individual ... avoiding groups. Groups don't "get it right" unless everybody in the group is doing it right (and they never will). But an individual can do it right and it is "complete." It doesn't take someone else's input to succeed. As you move toward the "right" (individual) there is more and more RISK/REWARD, or FAILURE/SUCCESS ... and at the very end of that line, either is "total." If you move to the left toward "group", at the end of that line is NO RISK/NO REWARD or NO FAILURE and NO SUCCESS. Beck touched on it last Friday with the "collective" salvation rather than the "individual" salvation.
Diverging now back into the subject. We are all "somewhere" along that line from extreme left to extreme right. There is this genetic need to "herd" ... must be some old, old instinct that once protected us from dinosaurs or something. So the "easier and safer" method moves us left along the line, a natural desire for self protection. I think the Tea Party folks tend to move on this same line. They feel "safe" all agreeing on a candidate and supporting him/her. But then their "choice" gets clobbered in the primary and they are devastated. Why make the choice as a "group?" ... that should be an INDIVIDUAL choice! You make the decision IN the voting booth and you don't tell anybody who you are voting for ... you simply have a personal mission statement, your own core values, then in the voting booth RESTATE those beliefs with you choice of candidate.
The fallacy is that we have this "need" to convince others that they need to vote for a particular candidate. As soon as we do that, we are moving left ... that's group think. Staying "true" to the Tea Party Movement, we wouldn't be discussing a candidate ... we'd be discussing what WE believe and what the candidates believe. It's more difficult, and it takes more INDIVIDUAL thought.
The Tea Party should be about setting up a system by which people can LEARN and QUESTION and FORMULATE their OWN individual "system." What we don't like is "the group" telling us "as individuals" how to behave. So if people only explore that aspect ... the Tea Party is a huge success. But no, they decide to "back" something and all come out cheering (not different than a lynch mob) for "their winning choice." I don't want to vote for someone because "others think s/he is the right choice." I really don't care what "others" think ... its MY choice ... but I'm pretty far to the right on that line.
We have to be teaching people that INDIVIDUAL thought is more productive than GROUP thought. It is because YOU control the choices YOU make ... you are not waiting for consensus.
Groups move toward consensus. That is the DANGER inside the Tea Party movement, and a poison that could kill it. What's more important, supporting a Dem or Repub or supporting someone who will "act" as you wish when elected? The (Group Name Deleted) Tea Party group got "taken over" by a Republican Club President ... and they threw all their weight behind the Republican candidate, actually had a rally for her, etc. There was a Dem candidate too, but that person was not invited to speak at the rally. Result? Half those folks LEFT the group. By making a "group choice" they alienated fringe Democrats and EVERYBODY ELSE that didn't support that person. They reverted back to being a "Republican Club" which they already had. Now they have "two" of them ... efforts split.
I always get upset when I hear "Tea Party Candidate" ... nobody should know who the Tea Party Candidate is. If you keep pointing out what is GOOD about a candidate's position or what is WRONG about a position ... but discuss it, discuss it and discuss it again. The candidates should be continually having to define their positions because of the discussion, allowing the voter to better "see" what s/he is voting for or against. And this should continue until the magical moment in the voting booth where an INDIVIDUAL choice is made based on all the discussion.
Unfortunately, there is a little "left" in all of us, I suppose. Something we have to LEARN how to control if we are to be successful INDIVIDUALS.