What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tea Party Manifesto: A Vision for an American Rebirth
The Tea Party Movement is the most dynamic and powerful grassroots political movement witnessed by modern-day America. It arose spontaneously - and in the nick of time - to save this country from an advancing, fatal drift away from self-government, liberty and the promise of greater prosperity for future generations. But what does the tea party movement really stand for? And where does it go from here? Joseph Farah was a tea partier before there was even a tea-party movement. In his new book, The Tea Party Manifesto, Farah fleshes out the origins and evolution of the movement that daily intensifies in speed and spirit. Defining the terms of the debate, the true meaning of independence, the danger in waiting for political messiahs, and the sincere need for a spiritual core, Farah provides the road map for this country's citizens to extricate themselves from the overreaching grip of government and reclaim the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
188 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2010
1 person is currently reading
25 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Farah
21 books7 followersJoseph Farah is an American journalist, editor, and writer. He currently serves as editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily, a conservative online newsmagazine, and has authored several books on American politics. He is controversial for his newsmagazine's continual pronouncement questioning whether President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in the United States, which has been a subject of conspiracy theories.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Read
August 18, 2012Not going to give this one a star rating because it'd be about the book's politics and not the book itself. I will say that the book is basically ranting and raving about two ideals that are needed to "save America":
1. The federal government is evil.
2. We need to turn back to God, or we're doomed.
If those views resonate with you, along with a heavy dose of attacks on the "mainstream media" and the "gender-bending agenda", then this book might just be for you.
1. The federal government is evil.
2. We need to turn back to God, or we're doomed.
If those views resonate with you, along with a heavy dose of attacks on the "mainstream media" and the "gender-bending agenda", then this book might just be for you.
April 30, 2011
Joseph Farah is a weird guy. The editor of the conspiracy-ridden and schlocky WorldNetDaily news website, he makes it very clear that he was the first to the tea party. He intended this book to be a corrective to trends within the Tea Party which have been pushing towards issues-based politics rather than an ideological 'revolution'. It's very short, and very repetitive, but engaging and clear in its messaging.
While not as compelling or powerful a writer as fellow demagogue Glenn Beck, Farah's book employs similar tactics in its emphasis on a number of simply-put, key points. He has both warnings and praise for the Tea Party. Summed up - the Tea Party has far outgrown the modern conservative movement that preceded it, and needs to push forward as a united front around God and the Constitution.
This is pretty heavy material to take on in a short book, and the author doesn't quite accomplish his attempt at a rallying cry. For example, God is one of the cornerstones of his concept of the Tea Party. God is the higher power to which people are accountable, transcending worldly authorities such as the government. That's all well and good - it's a common argument, and actually similar to arguments used by Islamic revivalists for why Muslims should rebel against secular dictatorships.
However, Farah is making a conscious appeal to atheists as part of the Tea Party alliance. Why should atheists support a God-based political movement? Apparently because some of the atheists among the Founding Fathers sucked it up and supported the Constitution, which was apparently a religious document. While this point is not very accurate, it also seemed like an extremely weak sell for that kind of audience.
Outside of the main arguments, you do get a taste of Farah's somewhat bizarre political thoughts. Perhaps it's because I'm anarchist, or because I haven't read very much conservative literature or have much interaction with very conservative people, but there were some arguments that didn't quite make sense. For example, this is his political spectrum:
Communism - fascism - liberalism/"soft socialism" - tea-party conservativism/"centerism" - libertarianism - anarchism
In this spectrum, Communism = total government and anarchism = no government, with a range of degrees in between. While that's not wrong, it's an odd re-framing of the issue, especially in claiming that anarchy is, in fact, a rightist ideology.
This book was not a worthwhile read for me. If you're looking to become more educated about the Tea Party from its own perspectives, pass over this book.
While not as compelling or powerful a writer as fellow demagogue Glenn Beck, Farah's book employs similar tactics in its emphasis on a number of simply-put, key points. He has both warnings and praise for the Tea Party. Summed up - the Tea Party has far outgrown the modern conservative movement that preceded it, and needs to push forward as a united front around God and the Constitution.
This is pretty heavy material to take on in a short book, and the author doesn't quite accomplish his attempt at a rallying cry. For example, God is one of the cornerstones of his concept of the Tea Party. God is the higher power to which people are accountable, transcending worldly authorities such as the government. That's all well and good - it's a common argument, and actually similar to arguments used by Islamic revivalists for why Muslims should rebel against secular dictatorships.
However, Farah is making a conscious appeal to atheists as part of the Tea Party alliance. Why should atheists support a God-based political movement? Apparently because some of the atheists among the Founding Fathers sucked it up and supported the Constitution, which was apparently a religious document. While this point is not very accurate, it also seemed like an extremely weak sell for that kind of audience.
Outside of the main arguments, you do get a taste of Farah's somewhat bizarre political thoughts. Perhaps it's because I'm anarchist, or because I haven't read very much conservative literature or have much interaction with very conservative people, but there were some arguments that didn't quite make sense. For example, this is his political spectrum:
Communism - fascism - liberalism/"soft socialism" - tea-party conservativism/"centerism" - libertarianism - anarchism
In this spectrum, Communism = total government and anarchism = no government, with a range of degrees in between. While that's not wrong, it's an odd re-framing of the issue, especially in claiming that anarchy is, in fact, a rightist ideology.
This book was not a worthwhile read for me. If you're looking to become more educated about the Tea Party from its own perspectives, pass over this book.
Read
October 26, 2010I hadn't read anything this specific about the Tea Party. This is short (and small at 4x6 " and 188 p.) It focuses on states' rights and the unsustainability of a huge federal government. Very interesting in that it says a focus on the economy is not going to make a change but a focus on a "clear, simple, and profound" message will make that change.
Two part mission statement:
1. That we have an established Constitution that governs our affairs as the basis for the rule of law in this country and it must be observed in both letter and in spirit.
2. That we seek to live as a self-governing people with accountability to God, not government, and have the right today, as yesterday, to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." p.127
His description of the "Contract from America" p.48 as being materialistic is interesting. Once an idea is proposed, the turns it takes when interpreted by everyone "out there" may not be what was intended.
Two part mission statement:
1. That we have an established Constitution that governs our affairs as the basis for the rule of law in this country and it must be observed in both letter and in spirit.
2. That we seek to live as a self-governing people with accountability to God, not government, and have the right today, as yesterday, to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." p.127
His description of the "Contract from America" p.48 as being materialistic is interesting. Once an idea is proposed, the turns it takes when interpreted by everyone "out there" may not be what was intended.
July 10, 2024
Manifestos have a problem in that they really try to sell themselves. What would be refreshing would be a manifesto which has both grace and self awareness. I have yet to find this mythical idealogue literature but my search continues as the Tea Party. Manifesto most definitely is neither graceful nor aware.
It is ironic that I have been reading through the works of Lovecraft lately as this honestly reads much the same way. I will keep this as succinct as possible to a void going into a battle of ideology and simply observe and rebuke the manner rof thinking that led to these words.
What I refer to is the fact that the manifesto begins reasonable enough. The claims and deductions within, if not wholly correct, at least having a clear sensible path to how the conclusions were reached. About halfway through the entire script flips and the author quickly divulges into dehumanizing rhetoric and calls for bloodshed masked by a veneer of civility and romanticizing a heroic fantasy of 1776. There is a difference between being greatful for our heroes and their deeds and having a diluted need to be seen as them yourself instead of realizing these men were a product of the times and necessity, not because they wished to be holy figures. They would have much preferred the events that sealed their names in their annuals of history need not have occurred, yet they saw the need and answered the call.
Note that I can find no record of Mr Farah having served in the military so he cannot in good faith speak on the horrors he hopes to ignite with his words, or perhaps he is false and just wants to sell his personality and works a grift to those it will appeal to. Both are equally plausible.
Beyond the parts which are just simply unsavory, the deductions in the later half of the book are not sound as the ones in the first half are. They jump to inane conclusions or else have no real foothold in the realm of logic for how they propose that a therefore equates to b. That is what I refer to in the reference to Lovecraft. What starts out as sane and reasonable ends as disjointed and incomprehensible.
All manifestos that I have read do little but to serve them selves and bolster the ego of the writer as the herald of the one truth which we have all neglected, while being based on some accurate claims. The balance of this particular manifesto is staunchly shifted towards the former.
It is ironic that I have been reading through the works of Lovecraft lately as this honestly reads much the same way. I will keep this as succinct as possible to a void going into a battle of ideology and simply observe and rebuke the manner rof thinking that led to these words.
What I refer to is the fact that the manifesto begins reasonable enough. The claims and deductions within, if not wholly correct, at least having a clear sensible path to how the conclusions were reached. About halfway through the entire script flips and the author quickly divulges into dehumanizing rhetoric and calls for bloodshed masked by a veneer of civility and romanticizing a heroic fantasy of 1776. There is a difference between being greatful for our heroes and their deeds and having a diluted need to be seen as them yourself instead of realizing these men were a product of the times and necessity, not because they wished to be holy figures. They would have much preferred the events that sealed their names in their annuals of history need not have occurred, yet they saw the need and answered the call.
Note that I can find no record of Mr Farah having served in the military so he cannot in good faith speak on the horrors he hopes to ignite with his words, or perhaps he is false and just wants to sell his personality and works a grift to those it will appeal to. Both are equally plausible.
Beyond the parts which are just simply unsavory, the deductions in the later half of the book are not sound as the ones in the first half are. They jump to inane conclusions or else have no real foothold in the realm of logic for how they propose that a therefore equates to b. That is what I refer to in the reference to Lovecraft. What starts out as sane and reasonable ends as disjointed and incomprehensible.
All manifestos that I have read do little but to serve them selves and bolster the ego of the writer as the herald of the one truth which we have all neglected, while being based on some accurate claims. The balance of this particular manifesto is staunchly shifted towards the former.
May 29, 2025
Farrah is completely allergic to the questions of why and how. This entire novel is either him 1. Making incredibly bold statements with absolutely 0 backing. 2. Rewriting American history and 3. Not at all understanding the constitution. My favorite parts were him wrongly assuming the US revolution is a one of a kind, and then him stating Obama didn’t know the constitution with his evidence being a quote completely unrelated to the subject. Farrah also shameless plugged his website several times. This book is a wary reminder that right wing populist are purposefully or disconcertingly stupid. I wish this movement wasn’t in charge today because then morons like Farrah wouldn’t have their wack ideology of nothing in our power structures.
March 9, 2012
I found this book to be a short and simple road map back to the America that our founding fathers had envisioned. I would recommend that every American voter that is tired of the rot that is overtaking our once great country to read this book.
September 7, 2012
A quick and easy read that provides food for thought on the course of American politics and history. The best part though is that it forced me to re-read both The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence again - that alone was worth the meager price of the book.
July 29, 2011
Didn't really help explain what the Tea Party is all about in my opinion. However, it did include an appendix with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews