If the Tea Party movement were to transcend into an actual political party at this point, it would give a voice to those who have been lacking one for so long. Wealthy white businessmen and fearful Middle Americans have been ostracized from politics for so long by those power hungry poor people and minority groups that it’s hard to remember back when they had any representation.

Of course this is a flippant generalization, but there is a large nugget of truth to that perspective. The Tea Party movement is broad and encompasses many views from many different people. Therein lies one of the bigger problems for the supposed movement. There are so many voices and so many perspectives, many being contradictory, that the movement appears to be cannibalizing itself. The early protests were libertarian in theme and focused on the TARP bailouts which were signed in by Presidents Bush and Obama.

Day trader, Graham Makohoniuk, is reportedly the first person to call on people to mail tea bags to the Senate and Congress on market-ticker.org. The theme stemming from the Boston Tea Party is easily identifiable and easily relatable. Realistically, it was a protest against taxation without representation; generically, it represents revolution, which is the meaning that many in the Tea Party have adopted.

The problem that arises once you have a broad theme that’s relatable to many is that the message and purpose become convoluted. This can be seen at the mega rallies where protest topics range anywhere from gun control, to spreading the fear of communism and socialism, to simply being taxed. The last part is particularly odd considering that taxes have gone down for most people.

The protests and the Tea Party itself have come to represent generic, all-encompassing anger at the government. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that roughly 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. It shows that they are white, wealthy and more educated than the general public. The poll also shows that they are more conservative than most Republicans, and they are more willing to classify themselves as being angry. Change appears to be the catalyst for much of the anger.

Some fear the direction that President Obama is taking the country. They fear that he’ll take away their guns when there’s been absolutely no mention of it. They fear that he’ll raise taxes when he hasn’t. They fear that there’s some abstract assault on the Constitution and the fabric of the country. Simply put, they fear change.

The Libertarian view is the exact opposite of the hawkish Republican conservatives. The Libertarians have been pushing for change and less government for a very long time, and their views aren’t abstract. They want the government out of our lives in almost all regards and want to see an end to most public programs. To them, not only are most public programs a waste of money, they are also a public abdication of basic responsibilities.

The clashing views only align on the grounds of governmental distrust. A friend of mine, Trey Wray, is a staunch supporter of the Libertarian perspective, and he was a supporter of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. He feels that Republican neoconservatives have attempted unsuccessfully to hijack the Tea Party movement. Considering that Sarah Palin can demand six figures to speak at Tea Party functions and that so much support comes from Fox News, the hijacking seems pretty successful. If the movement is to survive, then the Libertarian passion will have to outlast the populist rage. As it stands, the populist rage is winning this political tug of war.