Could the Boston Tea Party be considered an act of terrorism by the British?

This appears to be one of the questions that set off the opponents of CSCOPE and led them to believe that the curriculum is fraught with political bias.

Here's a related clip from a news source covering the debate:

Criticism intensified when parents discovered a lesson plan used in previous incarnations of CSCOPE that asked students to consider whether participants in the Boston Tea Party could be considered terrorists in some contexts by the British. Another sample lesson asked students to design a flag for a new socialist country. Some critics also suggested that lessons on the world’s major religions contained too much material on Islam.

Patrick opened Saturday’s debate arguing that studies showed that students in school districts that use CSCOPE performed worse on state standardized tests that those who didn’t. However, he acknowledged that his source was a survey conducted by a ninth-grade business class.

When the debate shifted to the question of bias, Ratliff referred to the Boston Tea Party lesson, saying: “The lesson does not say the Boston Tea party members were terrorists. It does not say it.”

Patrick shot back: “Do you think it’s a good idea to plant the seed (of terrorism) in the mind of high school students?” When Ratliff tried to answer about international perspectives, hecklers shouted: “This is America! You’re American!”

“Read it for yourself and see if you become a terrorist overnight,” Ratliff responded.

In a story last year, the Huntington Post hunted down the assignment, which has since been changed. It asked student to comment on a news story and whether the event covered met the definitions of terrorism:

News report: New Act of Terrorism A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.

Its actually a question historians have asked before, so there's nothing new about it:

Here's the simple definition of terrorism from Websters: 

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

And a description of the event from about.com: 

On the night of December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty, a loosely knit secret organization of American colonists in favor of American independence, illegally boarded three British East India cargo ships in the Boston Harbor and threw 45 tons of tea into the harbor, rather than let the tea be landed. Today, as some have argued, this protest might be considered an act of terrorism, since it was property sabotage designed to bring to wide attention the political objectives of a non-state group, the American colonists. The event is considered one of the catalysts of the American revolution.

Also check out the Wikipedia entry on the Boston Tea Party.

So the question seems to be whether property sabotage is an act of violence that tries to achieve a political goal. The goal was in fact to provoke the British to do something extreme, which it did by passing the Coercive Acts, which included shutting down trade. This hit the merchants in the pocket and drove them to stop waffling on independence and start supporting it.

So it did have its intended political consequence, though no lives were lost - maybe that does not make it terrorism in the minds of some.

Its worth trying to dig into what drives this dispute - aside from pure politics of course.

The CSCOPE debate

CSCOPE, a K-12 educational curriculum support system designed to assist the smaller ISD's in Texas to prepare it students for the STARR tests (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) has been controversial for a variety of reasons.

Teachers complain it imposes limits on what they do in the classroom and parent complain about a lack of transparency - they can't see the lesson plans.

But the most heated area has to do - no big surprise - with content. How do students cover certain subjects, most social studies?

A month back - while we were discussing the importance of education in maintaining republics - a debate was held between a member of the State Board of Education - Thomas Ratliff - and the chair of the State Senate's Education Committee - Dan Patrick. While both men are Republicans, Patrick is affiliated with the Tea Party wing of the party. Ratliff sides with the moderates.

The Tea Party maintains the curriculum is liberal, Anti-American and pro-Islamic.

For further background:

- Ratliff, Patrick Exchange Words over CSCOPE Lessons.
- Debate again thrusts CSCOPE into Texas spotlight.
- Sen. CSCOPE announce sweeping changes.

The curriculum was designed by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative and overseen by the Texas Curriculum Management Program.

From thr Texas Tribune: Inside Intelligence: About The 83rd Legislature...

According to insiders, the power of the Tea Party was weaker, that of moderate Republicans stronger, and that of Democrats about the same this legislative session.

Could Republicans overplay their hands?

The National Journal argues that Republicans face electoral risks if they focus only on the current scandals - IRS, AP, and Benghazi - to the expense of any policy accomplishments which require working with the president. Future presidential bids may require tangible accomplishments, but the party base - which despises the president - may not allow it: 

. . . in our polarized era, oversight often becomes a partisan cudgel. And that process, which is already infecting the Benghazi inquiry, could bruise not only Obama but the Republicans driving the investigations as well.

These confrontations’ most predictable effect will be to enrage the GOP base, which will strengthen the party factions most dubious about any compromises with Obama. In that way, these storms will likely weaken not only the president but also Republicans who believe the party must reboot to restore its competitiveness for the White House. “The base of the party is going to go ballistic on this, particularly the IRS [issue],” says Tom Davis, the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It makes it harder for [GOP legislators] to go along with Obama on things in general.”

Party leaders seem to want at least a degree of restraint, which the base - many affiliated with the Tea Party - may not allow.

One author suggests a stealth campaign against the president - one where Republican fingerprints cannot be detected: 

Republicans would be much wiser to pursue a third option: Dig up as much damaging information as they can about the Obama administration and leak it to reporters they know will write tough stories that won’t be traced back to the source. That way, the public won’t see the GOP as being obsessed with attacking the other side and playing gotcha at the expense of the big issues facing the country—the ones voters really care about.

The IRS audits the Tea Party

There's lots flying around on Friday's revelation that the IRS was auditing Tea Party groups that had applied for 501(c)4 status prior to the 2012 election.

It also applies to alot of what we will cover this class, including the organization of the bureaucracy and the way that decision are made within it, presidential power over the bureaucracy, and the murky status of the superPACs and other organizations involved in political activities without making it seem like they are really getting involved in political activities.

The purpose of the designation is to grant tax exempt status to social welfare organizations that "promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole." Political parties and PACs generally do not fit this bill.

The Washington Post broke the story that an internal audit is set to be released, click here for one of  the stories.

For a summary of various points about the story, click on Andrew Sullivan's post here.

There'll be lots more on this.

An Update on Joe Straus

The Texas Tribune has a brief write up on the Speaker. Whatever move against him that was going to happen against him fizzled very quickly. His approach to the session contrasts sharply with both Perry and Dewhurst, especially Perry:

On Tuesday, during his acceptance speech, he called on lawmakers from both parties to work together to make what he called the “core responsibilities of government” a priority.

He said the state’s biggest challenges were “not fiscal in nature” and pointed to its rapidly growing population and changing demographics, with increasing numbers of children with limited English skills and economically disadvantaged backgrounds in public schools.

The remark contrasted with Gov. Rick Perry’s speech that day, which focused heavily on the need to keep spending down. But Straus has stopped short of saying whether the $5.4 billion sliced from public schools during the last legislative session should be restored — a position that would put him directly at odds with the governor, who said recently that the state’s financing for public education has been “pretty phenomenal.”

Straus’ political resilience so far is in part because of the makeup of his district, which includes the well-heeled Alamo Heights neighborhood. His constituents, while conservative, tend toward mainstream Republicanism. He has also learned to wield the power of his position while earning a reputation among his house colleagues as a largely fair and reasonable leader.

Very little is said about ambitious Straus might have beyond the House. Perhaps this explains his positioning on issues. He has a safe seat - the Tea Party probably cannot touch him. Democrats don't mind having him as Speaker - which gives him significant support for the Speakership. And if he is uninterested in higher office - unlike Perry - he doesn't have to work to gain the electoral support of a vocal faction.

He seems to be an unusual figure in today's Texas politics.

Paul Burka writes that Straus seems ready to start leading the House and that Perry sounded like he was mailing in his speech.

Breaking Down the Factions in the 113th Congress

Nate Silver looks at the numbers in upcoming Congress and sees reason to expect repeated turmoil. Here's the reason: While there will be 233 Republicans and 200 Democrats, they will be broken down as follows:



The principle problem for Republicans is that the 182 establishment Republicans are not large enough to pass legislation on their own, and if the Tea Party wing does not support a bill - like the recent Plan B - there are not enough conservative Democrats - the Blue Dogs - to make up the difference. Since Liberal Democrats are unlikely to support anything substantive offered by Republicans, the Tea Party has enough leverage to control Congress' agenda.

Here's Silver's take:

Perhaps cooler heads will prevail in these negotiations. But a majority of the incoming House – 237 of 433 members – will be either Tea Party Republicans or liberal Democrats, leaving only 196 members who are either Establishment Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats and who might form a functional center-right coalition.
Moreover, the House is likely to engage in repeated battles over fiscal policy during the next two years: not just the over the fiscal cliff, but also over the debt ceiling, annual budgeting plans and whatever stabilization measures might be proposed in the event of another economic downturn.

If Mr. Boehner is having as much trouble whipping votes as he did on Thursday night, reducing the pool from which he might be able to draw together a compromise, this arithmetic problem could turn out to be intractable at some point.
The lesson: Don't expect much from the 113th Congress. 

From the New Republic: Romney’s Convention Aimed for Swing Voters, but Lost the Tea Party

I can't vouch for whether the point made in the article is in fact true, but it does highlight a central fact about campaigns for the presidency. They are won by whoever is able to both retain their base and lure a majority of the swing voters.

The term "the base" refers to the hard core party identifiers, many of whom are members of the tea party movement. They tend to hold extreme ideological positions on issues and are resistant to compromise. The term "swing voter" refers to the small group of independents that can switch their votes from party to party based on the unique circumstances presented in each election.

We spend time when we discuss elections and parties discussing these terms more fully - as well as the issues associated with each (example: is there such a thing as a truly independent voter?) - but for now its useful to think of each party's convention as their effort to both solidify support by the party base while reaching out to the middle.

The problem is, what excites the base may drive away the center, and what interests the center may repel the base. The article linked to above argues that Romney's effort to reach out to the middle, may cause the Tea Party folks to sit this election out. They may see actually it more beneficial to wait until 2016 to support a candidate they find more appealing than Romney.

It's just a hunch though - but not a bad one.

On Establishment Conservatives and Movement Conservative.

Robert Miller's blog today - he's a public law guy at Locke Lord - has a post pointing out that many many Republican Texas Legislature races feature competition between an establishment conservative and a movement conservative. There are no moderates in the Republican Party anymore. They have been pushed to the side by the Tea Party.

What's the difference between the two?

The former is a fiscal conservative willing to recognize a role for government to play in educating the workforce, building roads, providing water and the various other items necessary for civilized life.

The latter "believes that government, by definition, is inherently wasteful and inefficient and that we can continuously cut government spending and still provide necessary services."

Movement conservatives tend to be more passionate about their positions and are in a better position to win primary elections. If voter turnout is low in the Republican Primary on election day, expect them to do well. This can have one of two outcomes, either the state drifts further to the right, or the general population - assuming they are more moderate than the movement conservatives - finds them too extreme and votes for Democrats in November.

Will Republicans in the House cause problems for Mitt Romney

Jonathan Bernstein thinks so. He points to the 50 or so members of the Tea Party Caucus who are unwilling to compromise on measures that the public supports - preserving Medicare and extending payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance. Opposition to these programs proved problematic for them last year, and a refusal to seek the middle ground on these issues could force Romney's hand. Does he support the House members and risk upsetting the Tea Party, or does he side with them and risk upsetting a large chunk of the electorate?

From the Gallup POll: Support for Third U.S. Party Dips, but Is Still Majority View

Despite what we've discovered in class, thee is still strong support for third parties in the U.S:

Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job of representing the people that a third party is needed. Forty percent believe they do an adequate job. The percentage calling for a third party is down from August, when it tied its high of 58%.
Interestingly, this number includes a majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters. Is an independent Tea Party bid out of the question?

Tea Party Caucuses in Congress Largely Dormant

Story in Politico.

Tea Party v. OWS

A fun - if flip - comparison.

A Geography Lesson

The author's purpose here is to question whether the Tea Party will have an ongoing influence across the U.S. but his article touches on cultural differences within the nation. I had some of my students write about what the nation might look like had the U.S. Constitution not been ratified, and I think the map he assembles is as good a guess as any about what North American might look like had it not.

The GOP’s Purity Test

The Daily Beast's Howard Kutz points out the power of the Tea Party to ensure that Republican candidates toe the party line:

If you assembled a Republican primary candidate in a laboratory, it would be hard to build a more breathtakingly conservative specimen than Rick Perry.

Social Security is unconstitutional? Check. Evolution is suspect? Check. Being gay is a choice, like being an alcoholic? Check.

But wait—bzzt! There’s one malfunction here. Perry opposes illegal immigration, to be sure, but believes the children of such immigrants—often brought here at a young age—ought to get in-state tuition breaks so they can go to college and not be a burden on society.

And with that, he has flunked the Purity Test.

It is a test being imposed on everyone who wants the GOP nomination, and it has never been more stringent or located farther to the right—a sign of the stranglehold the Tea Party has on the process.

Never mind that a position was perfectly acceptable for a Republican in 2008; if it fails the Purity Test now, it must be explained away, preferably with an apology. George W. Bush and John McCain would be laughed off the stage these days for the positions they took on immigration.

From the Washongton Post: What the tea party is — and isn’t

The story:

The tea party movement came into public consciousness sometime in the early months of President Obama’s tenure in the White House. Ever since, it has been an object of fascination, fear, scorn and admiration.

It has also been the object of misunderstanding. The tea party was described as the new kid on the block of American politics, when in fact it was the extension of forces long at work in the political system. . . .
read on

Republican House Leaders in Trouble?

That's one author's take on the recent failure of a budget bill:

This may have been the worst defeat and biggest rebuke ever for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). A number of House members told me after the vote that both leaders had worked the vote hard but couldn’t convince enough (some thought “any” was more correct) to vote for the legislation. Two members even told me that Boehner had gone to the congressional leadership equivalent of DEFCON 1 by moving way beyond twisting arms to threatening GOP members with losing their committee assignments — almost the ultimate congressional punishment — if they didn’t vote for the bill. Even that didn’t work.

. . . no matter how they try to spin it today as being the Democrats’ fault, this in fact was a huge slap in the face of the GOP leadership by the tea party. It’s not the first time the tea partiers have voted against the GOP leadership, but it is the most visible and painful.

From the NYT: On Day Devoted to Constitution, a Fight Over It

This is an appropriate opinion piece for 2301 - and is applicable to 2302 - considering our focus on Constitutional meaning. There is a current battle underway between Tea Party members and others about how the document should be interpreted.

S.&P. Downgrades Debt Rating of U.S. For the First Time

Story in the NYT:

Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers for the first time on Friday night, a downgrade that is freighted with symbolic significance but carries few clear financial implications.

The company, one of three major agencies that offer advice to investors in debt securities, said it was cutting its rating of long-term federal debt to AA+, one notch below the top grade of AAA. It described the decision as a judgment about the nation’s leaders, writing that “the gulf between the political parties” had reduced its confidence in the government’s ability to manage its finances.

Some commentary:

- Standard & Poor’s has been wrong before. But they’re right now.
- The U.S. is downgraded. Now what?
- U.S. Faces Possible Ratings Downgrade From S&P
- Why Has S&P Downgraded the U.S.?

Debt Ceiling Rumble: Business vs. the Tea Party

Debt Ceiling Rumble: Business vs. the Tea Party

Here's more analysis of a key division within the Republican Party. So far, theTea Party faction seems to be winning the debt ceiling debate.