Saturday, March 20, 2010

Tea Party, please note

The New York Times has an article on the accelerating collapse of ACORN, the grassroots community-organizing group, which appears to be on the brink of bankruptcy:

Over the last six months, at least 15 of the group’s 30 state chapters have disbanded and have no plans of re-forming, Acorn officials said. The California and New York chapters, two of the largest, have severed their ties to the national group and have independently reconstituted themselves with new names. Several other state groups are also re-forming outside the Acorn umbrella. …

But wait, there’s more:

[T]he organization was dogged for years by financial problems and accusations of fraud. In the summer of 2008, infighting erupted over embezzlement of Acorn funds by the brother of the organization’s founder. Some chapters were also found to have submitted voter application forms with incorrect information on them during the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, leading to blistering charges from conservative organizations linking Acorn’s errors to the Obama campaign.

The extent of sheer incompetence, tinged with possibilities of corruption, does indeed give off a bad smell. But before conservatives indulge themselves in the shouting of hosannas, there is this to consider.

The Tea Party movement, like ACORN, includes many impassioned and well-meaning people who are not part of established groups and whose expertise in setting up and maintaining a national political organization is unproven. There are fledgling organizations within the movement whose goals and tactics may turn out to be inconsistent. And there appear to be large sums of money floating about – and conservatives know as well as anyone that when the money is flowing many people will be tempted to dip their own buckets into the stream.

Both ACORN and the Tea Party movement have their origins in citizens’ disenchantment with the existing political parties and lobbying operations, which they have found ineffective, unresponsive, or susceptible to corruption – or all three. Unfortunately, good intentions do not guarantee immunity from bad decisions, or protection from lurking rascals.


  1. Yeah, we already saw a bit of this with the controversy over whether the guy who set up the convention in Tennessee a few weeks ago was just profit-taking. The difference I would note is that Acorn is (was?) a structured organization that required some kind of organizational buy-in, while the Tea Party movement is still a loose gathering of members without leaders -- at least, at the national level.

    We'll see what happens if their candidates do especially well in November. The populist wave of disenchantment is bigger than all of us right now, but whether that wave breaks or grows bigger, what works in 2010 isn't going to work in 2012.

  2. Thank you for pointing out the similarities between these philosophically dissonant groups!! People need to realize the commonalities (word?) like this more often. Did you read the Newsweek article a few months back on the conservative case for gay marriage?
    -Lucy Walker

  3. Patricia the TerseMarch 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM

    Where is the grammatical point of this? Or are we now off on a political tangent - again?

  4. John,

    Why do you cap "Tea Party"? It's not a political party.

    Not criticizing. Jes' wondering...


  5. Can't speak for John, but here's why I do:

    (1) It's not a party named Tea, it's a movement named Tea Party. Not analogous to Republican Party or Democratic Party. (But if they start sponsoring serious candidates later, the name will be handy.)

    (2) "Tea Party" isn't a generic descriptor as in "temperance movement." The lowercase sense of "tea party" has nothing to do with the group or its objectives.

  6. Patricia,

    Aren't you glad I got us back to grammar discussion with capping question? :)


    Does AP cap Tea Party movement? Does anyone care what AP does?

  7. Acorn receives funding from the feds and local governments, meaning your taxpayer dollars.
    The tea party groups operate on private donations and volunteeers. That the difference.