By contrast, in Tea Party (2015), Eisenman uses the genre of the cartoon — an enduring point of reference in her work — to more specific ends, confronting the live and contentious topic of the right -
wing Tea Party movement which has gathered force over the course of Barack Obama's presidency.
Not exact matches
The supposedly cultured, civil and enlightened members of left
wing political culture (up to and including President Obama, who three days earlier publicly decried the lack of civility in American politics) and supposedly professional journalism (CNN and MSNBC main anchors and PBS senior correspondent, not just some random blogs or forum commenters) decided that this term would strongly elevate American civil discourse if it was publicly and massively applied to members of
Tea Party (which was, of course, a political movement named after a famous historical event wherein a quantity of tea cargo was destroyed in protestation of British tax policie
Tea Party (which was, of course, a political
movement named after a famous historical event wherein a quantity of
tea cargo was destroyed in protestation of British tax policie
tea cargo was destroyed in protestation of British tax policies).
And this is what's reinvigorated the opposition
movement, which was frankly before just a fringe of far - right -
wing think tanks and groups like this, but now has become reinvigorated by the
tea party's interest in this and by interest that has arisen in the anti-testing crowd.
Global warming science has become a battleground in a wider cultural war, particularly in the United States where rejecting climate science has been seamlessly adopted by right -
wing populism — notably by the
Tea Party, the
movement of those who demand their fair share of injustice.
(See above paragraph, combine with economic alarmism, a great sense of solidarity, an easy issue — complex and futuristic — to do it on, and a huge
tea party and right
wing conservative
movement predicated on the idea that markets «solve» everything even though by definition they can't solve externalities — hence along with justice and national defense why we even need just limited government in the first place, and an implicit inherent belief in the right to pollute (here it's really better characterized as just radical alteration against our interests, not pollution), since common area is «fair game,» and there we go.)