Last week, Matt Continetti published a long essay in The Weekly Standard arguing that we should understand the Tea Party as a movement that’s torn between two competing political instincts — one reformist and one reactionary, one that “wants to repair deformities in the American political structure” and another that’s “ready to scrap the whole thing and restore a lost Eden.” He associated these two impulses with CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Fox News’ Glenn Beck, respectively, “who are arguably the Tea Party’s two founders” — Santelli because of his famous on-air rant against the White House’s mortgage bailout, and Beck because of all his labors to promote the Tea Parties, and to supply their inchoate passion with a comprehensive intellectual foundation.
Read the rest of NYTimes conservative op-ed columnist, Ross Douthat here:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 … p;emc=tyb1
Jonah Goldberg isn’t buying it:
I largely think [Continetti's] wrong to divide the movement this way. And it is telling that he has to offer a literary interpretation to support this claim. If there were true wings to the movment, he would deploy polling data, and speech excerpts from Beckians denouncing Santellians. Where are the primary fights manifesting these supposedly durable and longstanding schisms? We aren’t seeing any because, I suspect, the more radical tea partiers do not define themselves in terms of their opposition to the Santelli wing of the movement at all. That’s why the Beckians supported Scott Brown, and why the Santellians supported Nikki Haley — because this schizophrenia that Matt ascribes to the tea parties isn’t all that pronounced according to the tea partiers themselves. In other words, Matt is simply taking a journalistic short cut to get to the Beck-Bashing.
sums it up nicely, indeed.
David Beckham's in the Tea Party? Whaaaa?
I tend to think of the two heads of the Tea Party movement as the libertarian-minded segment and the social conservatives. Both sides agree that the government should stay out of the economy. But only the libertarian-like side wants the government out of people's personal lives as well.
What struck me about this op-ed piece is that it equated calling someone "socialist" with paranoia, as if socialism weren't a legitimate economic theory which a president of the U.S. could espouse, should he wish to do so. Has socialism somehow gotten redefined recently?
Social conservatives often do not want the government to stay out of the economy. They want big expansions in the military, some entitlement programs, and homeland security. (They paradoxically say they want the deficit paid down and/or the government abolished, but this group is not known for being coherent) They also tend to live in states which are net beneficiaries of federal government largesse, and in rural areas that are more likely to depend on agricultural subsidies.
Livelonger, from my point of view, social conservatives do seem less in possession of a coherent ideology than libertarians, since I'm a libertarian myself. However, I would venture to say that the social conservatives who join the tea party movement are willing to forgo the pork and the subsidies in order to get the government out of their economic affairs. They are better than the average social conservative.
I'm not sure that you can generalize that. As many have said here, the Tea Party movement is a fairly diverse one. The only thing they seem to have in common is rage at the government. Looking at some of the signs and hearing commentary from some of the attendees, some are furious at the government because they believe Obama is a Kenyan by birth.
I'm a little confused by your post. Do you consider exactly one of Santelli or Beck to represent the social conservative wing of the Tea Party. If so, which one?
If not, then they must be in the same wing. (Though stylistically, they are clearly very different.)
I know of them only by hearsay and innuendo, not direct evidence. Which wing do they belong to?
That's the thing. I suspect you know the Tea Party largely by innuendo, too. And I don't your division into two wings is the correct one.
The Tea Party was always intended as a broad based movement whose concerns are economic (hence the name.) The Tea Party deals with issues of government interference in the economy and government spending. What you believe about where Barack Obama was born,
whether buildings can be harmed by having airplanes crashed into
them, or whether homosexual activity is fun, has little bearing on what part of the Tea Party you're in.
However the Beck/Santelli division exists and is important. If I had to pick an ideological litmus test to define the dividing line,
it would be "Are you in favor of or opposed to Central Banking?"
Come to think of it, wasn't this the dividing line between Burr and Hamilton as well.
Can you guess which side of that line Beck and Santelli are on?
You mean all they ever do is discuss the banking system? As you know, I don't watch TV, but I do read Hubpages Forums and I do talk to other people. So, entirely through hearsay, and I may be totally mistaken, here's what I've picked up about Beck:
* he had some kind of animosity toward the people of Haiti
* he's against gay marriage
* he has a strong stand about illegal aliens, and not just for economic reasons, but because of cultural issues
The truth is, I haven't heard much about Santelli.
Gotta say that the Beck video about how money circulates is not very convincing. Why would you send your money to the banks? It doesn't seem like a better deal than sending it Washington. It looks very similar.
I wrote a hub about the Tea Party. People don't realize that the founder is a complete flake. People don't realize that the Tea Party blames the people of colored skin, people of subprime, for the meltdown. But clearly, the ponzi loan scam was established by the big banks. Once they were able to write insurance, ie swaps, on the bad loans, they threw risk aside.
Both political parties wanted these swaps written. The vote in the Senate to repeal Glass-Steagall was 90 to 8.
We don't have a democracy folks. We have an international banker cabal and we have nothing but a banking scam. People have the right to walk away from a scam. The flake of the Tea Party doesn't even grasp this.
You can't handle the truth Sab. That is fact, not fiction, not my made up idea. Glass-Steagall was approved by 90 senators, all of which should be in jail if they made a dime. That include Schumer and McCain.
Once insurance and banks merged, the banks were allowed to write swaps, a form of insurance. These swaps allowed banks to write liar loans and pay option arms, because now they had "insurance". Try to understand Sab.
"We don't have a democracy folks."
"You can't handle the truth Sab. "
"Try to understand Sab."
Don't know much about the Tea Party, but agree with you on your assessment of government, so-called, in general.
I agree with the fact that our government is run by and for special interests - but what's the best way to get rid of that? Get them the hell out of where they don't belong and restore the rule of law in the country - which has been systematically undermined by both political parties. Restore the 10th Amendment and give power back to the state - where it belongs and is closer to the constituents instead of the Leviathan we have in D.C.
That's what the Tea Party is about - rejecting the Neo-Conservatives and Socialists that have been in power in the country for the last several years. it's not about the color of your skin, it's about freedom and slavery. The freedom to make choices and take risks and live your life without having to bow down and submit your time and money to the lord of the manor in Washington.
I am curious as to whether it is true that the Tea Party is rejecting the Neo-Conservatives (Bush Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz); is that true? (Not in the US, so not following too too closely).
As to the remark about Socialists, there's a difference between Socialists and Social Democrats. Clinton was a Social Democrats, but in practice his policies were not really this at all, because of course he lost the House in the first mid-terms after his election. Thus, I am not sure that even under him Social Democratic policy held much sway. Under Obama, yes, any kind of attempt to provide universal health care could be called Social Democrat, but, that said, 'Socialist' most definitely implies a public, monolithic, medicare system covering everyone and basically excluding the health insurance companies. So, again, in practice I really see no Socialism in your system (for one thing, it implies supertaxes on the rich -- has Obama repealed any of the tax breaks for the rich Bush introduced? Maybe he has -- again, I am not watching all that closely, but, to give some contrast, even under Reaganite Margaret Thatcher, the rich were taxed at FIFTY PERCENT -- is that happening in the US? Mrs Thatcher was NOT a Socialist; she HATED Socialism).
"The freedom to make choices and take risks and live your life without having to bow down and submit"...to neo-Christian Conservatives!!
That's what I want!
And I want freedom from big business profiteering, which has made the cost of living untenable.
And I want Stern back on commercial radio...free to speak his mind without censorship....just as limbuttburger and shmecky the clown do every day.
The mere fact that he includes Santelli's rant, which I was watching when it occurred, as qualifying him as a 'founder' of this Tea Party movement, makes both the article's intent suspect in my eyes, as well as any facts presented. Every day I get my email from the NYT on their top stories, and lately it is the rare day I've bothered to read them. I keep a New York Times subscription for a very elderly friend of mine from New York, it is her joy to continue to read the NYT, and I'm happy to help her enjoy that, and she is a long time Democrat, but these days we just avoid politics all together, as it is clear to me that she is quite concerned, and it literally hurts her to be so concerned about a party she has so staunchly supported for so very long, and we simply can't debate politics anymore, it hurts her what's happening, and that both makes me sad and alarms me.
Can't help but see Doug's laundry list below as I write this. The Tea Party is not against these issues he lists, they seem to me to be against the enormous government control aspect of most of the leftist bills, and the unknowns buried in those legislative tomes. No American is opposed to health care reform, wall street reform, election accountability, etc...... just not handing it over and being taxed and taxed while the non-existent 'budget' runs rampant.
The Tea Party showed up in force in DC the day of the Senate Vote on HCR. They spit on Democrats who voted FOR, and hurled racial and homophobic insults. You want to tell me that the Tea Party is FOR Health Care Reform as long as it doesn't cost anything. Sorry - TANSTAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. For you to say you are for universal health care when we can make it tax-free - is to say you are opposed.
Tea Partiers are for Wall Street Reform, you say, but to quote a tea party site - they "oppose government intervention into the operations of private business." In other words, reform Wall Street, but don't tell them what they can't do. How do you suggest we 'reform' without regulation?
Election accountability??? There's a post about the DISCLOSE bill, which would require honesty in political advertising - as in WHO PAID - and the Tea Party has totally twisted the intent of the bill in an attemt to defeat it. And you want to tell me the Tea Party is FOR election accountability? What a CROCK!!!!!
Not really - he's actually pointing to specific positions and events.
Empty rhetorical ranting would be "The government wants to send the elderly to death panels" or "Getting rid of government waste will solve the budget crisis" without pointing to anything grounded in reality to support that.
K, I am asking this out of genuine curiosity and nothing else: is English your original language? The reason I ask is that your phrasing is quite unusual and different.
I'll take that as a complement. Yes, English is my original, and my only, language. Sadly, I wasn't forced to learn Spanish, no one was paid to see to that for certain, and wish I had been.
And on a re-read of the post you referred, I can't imagine why you would think otherwise.
You have a style of your own that is easily recognizable, although the post I replied to isn't the most clear example I've seen. The one before it, though, in reply to lovemychris, is very definitely you. :-)
Why? Rush says the NYT has become useless for anything but bird cage lining, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
Did you read the article? It might improve your credibility beyond citing Rush Limbaugh's opinion on the NYT. Douthat is writing about an article that appeared in the National Review. It has nothing to do with the NYT.
"Read the rest of NYTimes conservative op-ed..."
Must I say more....
NYT is not credible, but the morbidly obese racist pill popper is?
It's hard to have a discussion with people who respond to the topic by quoting Limbaugh on the NYTimes. Par for the course.
Shoot the messenger has become the battle cry of the right.
I love how the two "conservatives" in this thread are preemptively bashing Ross Douthat, because he writes an op-ed on the NYT, without, apparently, knowing a single thing about him.
Two conservatives!! Gasp Something must be done!!!!!!
Runs out of thread before the labeling and judging starts.
I just think it's funny that two conservatives are bashing a conservative for being a liberal. He's not, but they'd rather react than read.
Which is, I suppose, what you've done, too.
Like I said, shoot the messenger and not the message.
I haven't bashed the POSTER.
I have laughed at the NYTs and their use the term conservative as applied to thier journalism or op eds.
The left doesn't have a clue about who or what the Tea-Party is, they are too busy name calling and slurring them, us.
And that, is not what the Tea Party is all about.
I do not believe in separating the American people by a Left/Right Paradigm
I am even less interested in dividing the people even further.
Do you think everyone at moveon agrees on every point?
Where does the division stop. There are not Democrat/Liberal or Republican/Conservative Americans.
There are only Americans. Anything else is simply a propaganda tool.
And I am not a tea party member nor really interested in their motives of beliefs.
BTW: I did look over the article first.
I am sure there are many faces to the Tea-Party. I wouldn't try to box them in or define them in to strict a sense.
Speaking of many faces, TM, here's a better image of Joe McCarthy for your avatar:
There are so many out there Ralph... its a hard choice indeed.
But thanks for caring.
I don't believe that, even though he did openly employ a gay Aide in Congress. Imagine that.
I will ask if, he was. What does that matter?
Apparently there isn't enough spice in his life....
You *asked* for this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agf1O7nyZYQ
(Referring to McArthy:) And a closet commie deflecting attention from himself to J. Edgar Hoover, who was a closeted gay.
You see, it's his OPINION. I don't agree with his characterization of Beck, or of the Tea Party. I think the left and the right don't understand the movement at all. The left thinks it's a right wing organization driven by conservative extremists in the republican party and the right thinks they are republicans with a fiscally conservative view that can be brought back into the fold. Both are wrong! It's a grass roots group angry with republicans for straying from their ideals but also angry for their wars and uncontrolled spending and fed up with the lies and corruption that has led to larger government. They also don't care for the socialist leanings of the left and the European style big government, big spending ways of the democrats or their revisionist interpretation of the constitution.
Beck and the right would like to hijack the Tea Party and make it their own, Beck for the ratings and the republicians for a return to power, but as we have seen in recent elections where republician backed candidates were passed over in favor of Tea Party endorsed candidates, the Tea Party people aren't buying into the BS.
Good comment. Pretty much on target, in my opinion.
I think this is one of the more accurate assessments of what the Tea Party is about. From what I can gather, it's a revolutionary movement of complete and utter contempt for the corruption of the two-party system, AND the US government.
Not precisely. Contempt for what the government has become, a tool to be used by an elite group to funnel money from the masses into their own pockets and that of their friends. A system so far removed from what the founders intended that it can no longer be recognized. A bloated bureaucracy that no longer serves the people, but enslaves them, rife with corruption and self serving individuals that may have been well intentioned when they first entered it to serve but were soon corrupted by a system so large and complex and removed from the people that it's impossible for anyone to do anything except go along to get along.
Now it's just about two parties bickering over who controls the pie. It's quite disgusting really.
In my opinion, this is close, but not the full picture.
There are quite a few fiscal conservatives that were disgusted with the fact that the GOP has basically become the party of the Dixiecrats: socially conservative, but fiscally reckless (even worse than the Democrats). They are relatively few in number compared to the social conservatives, but they are wealthy and incredibly influential. They somewhat astroturfed this movement, which gained momentum once the social conservatives and partisans flocked to it. I'm sure the idea is that any major revolt to kick out incumbents will disproportionately benefit the opposition (i.e. Republicans), so the cynic in me believes this was just a way for the Republicans to regain power, and again (unfairly) claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism.
The problem is that most conservatives love government spending just as much as the next guy, although they don't count defense, homeland security, medicare, and countless other agencies "government spending" (these agencies money comes out of the thin air, apparently).
Of course, the Tea Party would look less like a typical GOP stunt if the Tea Partiers, in similar numbers, had protested government spending under Bush and the Republicans (2000-2006). They didn't, so they appear to be partisans, nothing else.
I recently heard someone (I forget where I saw it, it might have been Noam Chomsky, interestingly, who IS an "actual" Leftist, unlike Obama or the Democrats, who continue to uphold the status quo, roughly, ie, the rich get richer and screw you if you lose your home/job/health/infrastructure/coastline) point out that the Tea Party is, in a sense, doing SOMETHING RIGHT...
...That is, people are scared, angry, and many cases hit by tragedy. The Tea Party, Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, etc are giving Americans what they desperately need -- some ORIENTATION. Some ANSWERS. The Democrats SIMPLY DO NOT DO THIS, and, for my money, this suggests that they don't CARE about average people...
Now, I am not saying that they do not care about the average person, in fact -- I am saying that not giving people CLEAR ANSWERS about what's going on SUGGESTS to the People that they don't.
Where is the Democratic Talk Radio? Or, ANY other political position's Talk Radio? At least the Tea Party gives people some orientation.
In general, if I was in America, (which I am not), I would vote Democrat, even if much of what has happened under Obama is not what I call leadership, and under Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and JFK, much happened that is DEPLORABLE. BUT, at *least* the Tea Party gives people some *answers*. And God knows the people deserve at least THAT.
Apparently, two faces isn't enough to attract people to their convention, which was postponed just two weeks before it was scheduled to begin.
"We were so excited about the tremendous success of the first convention, we jumped into this second convention without considering the timing. The heat in Las Vegas in July is keeping many who would like to participate from attending," organizers wrote. "We have also received numerous emails from people who were forced to decide between family vacations and attending the convention."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 … tponed.php
Apparently, tea party activists are not willing to give up their creature comforts for their cause.
What does it matter? This government doesn't listen to the people anyway. They simply have their agenda and are going to shove it down the throats of the American people, at least until after the elections in 2010. Trust me, the dems will all be swept out and Obama will be gone in 2012, which was his wish.
The government does a good job of listening to the people that elected them. That obviously doesn't include you, and it includes far fewer Obama voters than you'd like to believe.
Right, that's why health care was passed even though 60% of Americans didn't want it. Yeah, I'd say I don't much like how Obama or the dems listen, they know better what's good for us.
I agree with your general sentiment here. The government does a good job of listening to the people that elected them???? Mmmm, OK...
It's called FUD and it apparently fades when the propaganda ends and reality sets in.
Pollster: Health Care Reform
What BS! Sure it's going to be more favorable once it's been passed and opposition is useless! That's the masses subbmitting to authority and throwing up their hands in disgust, as smug liberals like yourself gloat over your domination of the people.
LOL! You just can't help yourself, can you? The reason support has gone up is because the constant litany of stupid lies has subsided.
President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma
Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan
President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing
Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits
Exactly. Now that there's no financial motive to spread such ridiculous propaganda since the reform is a fait accompli, people can understand what the reform means to them without all the noise and FNC-fueled hysteria.
No one will want to go back to an era where they can be rejected for health insurance for a pre-existing condition, or that they're retroactively dumped when they develop a serious medical problem.
Mmmm, I'd say that quite a lot of people who have lost their homes in the last couple of years had liberal views. Just sayin', I am not sure that liberals as a group hold dominion -- I thought large chunks of those who voted for Obama were the urban poor. In fact I thought the urban poor tended to be Democrats, on balance, all the time... Not sure we are talking about dominion on that score, therefore.
However, there IS domination going on. Look at this whole BP thing. How in the hell are the people responsible for what amounts to a 'world crime' still running around??? For that matter, how could a president lie to an entire country so as to get them to go to War, and still be running around? I mean, get a BJ from a temp and all hell breaks loose, but start a War with a country thousands of miles away, and with no intercontinental ballistic missiles pointing at you, and you get to retire at leisure?
So yes, someone is fooling most of the people most of the time. No doubt some of these people are liberals (I actually think that Rupert Murdoch might personally be a liberal, from what I have heard, despite his Fox News channel being, well, not -- certainly his other Fox channel hardly promotes traditional family values...). But the label you want is not 'liberals in general' for those doing the screwing-over -- because the urban poor who have lost homes, or middle-class liberals who have lost homes, or gone bankrupt due to health costs, are not screwing you over...
... The people screwing you over are the people screwing you over. They are the people who let Wall Street do what it did, and the people ON Wall Street who did it. They are the people who let BP befoul America the Beautiful in one short summer, and the Americans who are TIED to BP ITSElF.
But isn't this exactly the problem, stated in a single sentence. It doesn't matter who is in power, Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Obama... your sentence above states the issue clearly, and replacing Obama with a Republican won't change this fact.
This liberal versus conservative, left versus right, Democrat versus Republican thing has been going on a LONG time. In the meantime, Americans' standards of living have gradually slipped down a slippery pole for forty years. Republicans were in power for all of the eighties and most of the 2000's -- it DOESN'T MATTER. The problem is that THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO BE COMPLACENT, and in PARTICULAR, complacent to the greed of lobbyists and corporations.
These corporations are not patriotic. There is a reason we call them multi-nationals.... There is a reason manufacturing jobs have left your shores for other countries, and why wages for Americans have fallen against cost of living -- CORPORATIONS DON'T CARE ABOUT AMERICANS. Until the governmental system ITSELF stops serving corporate (ie., multinational) interests, it will never matter who is in power.
Yup, hence the Tea Party! People are sick and tired of government, they want change, that's what Obama campagined on, except he isn't bringing the change people thought, he's bringing something much more sinister. People are now discovering, change isn't necessarily good, change can be bad, or even worse!
Could you clarify what you mean by "sinister"
An unprecedented expansion of government! The list would be too long to compile. One thing I'll give Obama credit for, he's getting a lot done.
Yes that is sinister, or at least it certainly could be read that way. I think it is something to resist, absolutely. I have to be honest though, this project is NOT a year old, or even eighteen months old. It is at least SEVEN years old (the watershed for me would be the Iraq War's beginning); so, again, the problem is the SYSTEM, or, more specifically, people's complacency in the FACE of a system that dares to do this; but BOTH THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS are pushing this rollback of freedoms.
Yes, but Obama is stepping on the gas pedal, pushing it to the floor! Of course where we are today isn't all his fault or even all the fault of the democrats, still he is accelerating the process. Perhaps in a way, that's a good thing. What if he didn't push for so much? What if he stole our freedom is smaller more tolerable bites? Perhaps the Tea Party would still be sitting quietly on the side lines, I don't know... All I know is I've had enough! Government has gone too far, grown too big and this needs not only to be stopped but reversed!
What are the practical steps for this being proposed (I am really not following the debate down there. I don't even have a TV -- don't trust the media, so what's the point, right? )
Get Thomas Woods book "Nullification". That's the first step. The states have to have the courage to resist laws and mandates that are unconstitutional like they did with Real ID.
did you fail 4th grade math?
The US population = 300 million or so... that gives me about 0.0000000003% say in WHO gets to make decisions for me.
The Ohio Population = 11 mill = 0.000000001% decision. Not much better.
But also, one of the most important parts of the constitution was gutted out and needs be reinstated for system to work again: get rid of the 17th amendment. I want my senators elected by my representatives of my state.
... well really, I want anarchy and a voluntary state... but... I"ll settle for the ORIGINAL Constitution.. the Articles of Confederacy would be even better (no, the AoC is NOT the South's constitution.)
It was The Articles of Confederation, and they didn't work, remember?
http://legacy.owensboro.kctcs.edu/mmalt … ration.jpg
My bad - Full apologies on the mistype.
But... since when didn't they work? Gonna have to disagree with you on this one.
The only reason we have the Constitution that we have today is because Adams and Hamilton, and the other Nationalists were lying scuz-bags who wanted to be the dictators of a new country.
Hamilton organized Washington's officers to declare W the King of the country!
So... no... I'm gonna have to disagree that the Articles of Confederation in any way failed.
"But... since when didn't they work?"
Since they were enacted. It's great that you are for states' rights and have a healthy scepticism of federalism and all that, but the Articles were insufficient to actually forge and maintain a true nation. If you would prefer 50 separate countries to a Union that's up to you, but I cannot agree and I believe you may have overlooked the drawbacks of such a reality.
and you've greatly overlooked -- VASTLY overlooked -- the drawbacks of having 1 solid country.
You're just spouting "stuff I think I heard once in High School history class" nonsense. Yeah, the textbook suggested it didn't work, but the entire Constitution was passed because 5 bozos lied to the rest of the delegates.
How can you even say that having 50 independent countries would be inconceivable when the entire world has over 180 countries, and the European Union has (what is it?) 20 or so?
Also, each state has around 10-60 (or so, just a guess) counties in it...
and each county probably has around 20 or so cities...
and each city probably has a few thousand living in them...
I really fail to see how "We all must be mushed together" is in anyway better than "we must all be separate".
The national "Let's have 1 group of people decide the best way to operate" view vs.the libertarian (lower case l) "let's have each person decide for themselves the best way to operate" view.
"and you've greatly overlooked -- VASTLY overlooked -- the drawbacks of having 1 solid country."
Not even a little.
"You're just spouting "stuff I think I heard once in High School history class" nonsense."
I've taught from more history textbooks than you are ever likely to read in your lifetime, so don't go that route with me.
"How can you even say that having 50 independent countries would be inconceivable when the entire world has over 180 countries"
When did I say it was "inconceivable"?
"the European Union has (what is it?) 20 or so?"
27. Have you had a gander at the history of all those little countries in Europe vis-a-vis each other? Notice the direction they are moving toward now?
If you'd be happier being poor, divided, and at the mercy of your enemies that's up to you, but for me that is taking a good idea several thousand miles too far.
HOLY CRAP!!!! Someone's talking about Nullification!??!!? I love you Leeberttea!!! If I weren't a man....
... did I already use that joke?
Anyway - true that. I got the book two days ago and haven't read it yet.
Have you read Peter Schiff's new book about fish? It's GREAT
I would say the second step is the mises institute.
If the Tea Party wants to influence the elections, then they will need to be organized and energized. If you don't think it matters, then why bother?
I would like just one person who claims to be about freedom, hates gvt taking it away, and then say they are going to control the most basic of freedoms.... my reproductive rights?????
This includes the Tea-Party btw....most of them are anti-choice too.
AS IF it is any of your business!
Where is the freedom? Obama thinks I deserve to make my own decisions....why don't you?
Obama doesn't want you to make your own decisions: just look at the Trillions of dollars in bail-outs that he gave to businesses without asking you! You didn't decide that, right?
If you want freedom, and you want decisions... Join the Libertarians. They base their motives off of the non-aggression axion: "You're free to do that which you want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same".
Check out "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block. it's an EASY read, and it'll change the way you think about things.
Go down the 'change' list -
Health Care Reform - Tea Party against
Wall Street Reform - Tea Party Against
Election Accountablility - Tea Party Against
Government Regulation of Big Business - against
What are they for?
Drill, baby, drill
Return of the gold standard and other libertarian nonsense from the libertairian wing
Ourtight ban on abortion and heavy restrictions on contraception from the evangelical wing
All backed by the corporate intrests who stand to gain from a weak divided federal governemnt.
It's only non sense if you disagree! I can't believe anyone would be AGAINST a gold standard!
Such crazy Republi-crat (Or is it Demo-blican?) nonsense: "Hey, let's make our money completely worthless, and allow our government the right to make real money illegal AND let's let the president, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (not by legislation!!) CONFISCATE our gold!!! YEAH!! BRILLIANT!!!"
(psst, FDR did this with EO 6102 in 1933)
Such crazy Republicrat nonsense: "Hey, since we care about the environment so much... let's ENCOURAGE oil drillers to drill in the MOST DANGEROUS and HARD TO CLEAN UP regions of the world!! -- in fact, let's give a subsidy to the drillers that gives them MORE money the HARDER the location to drill is!!!"
(psst, clinton and W did this!! The BP oil spill is a direct result of idiotic government positions)
Such crazy Demoblicans!: "Let's encourage welfare! Even though just about everyone can easily see that "if you get $2000/month for sitting on your ass and doing nothing it would be complete nonsense for you to try to get a job 40hr/week just to make $2500/month", we need to encourage more laziness!!!!"
Such Republicrat Nonsense: "hey, let's have a federal reserve bank COMPLETELY unaccountable to ANYONE and allow them free reign to expand the money supply at will!! after all, C+I+G= K!! WOOooooooOOOOoooOOOoo!!!"
(the house just granted the fed less accountability to congress)
Such Demoblican nonsense: "Hey, remember how we're becoming bankrupt by having our military involved with 2 UNDECLARED wars? Well, let's ALSO have a military base in over 130 countries around the world -- most of whom we're at peace with!!"
Do you really want me to go on? Because I can. Easily. In fact, all this took me about 5 minutes to type: i could do this all day.
"All backed by the corporate intrests who stand to gain from a weak divided federal governemnt."
"No American is opposed to health care reform, wall street reform, election accountability, etc.."
OKaaaayyy....they've just been conspicuous in their absence I guess.
And pst: (plenty of people are opposed to it....see post above via Doug: the corporate interests.)
They have been conspicuous in their lack of being gullible to a line of rhetoric intent on governmental control of every facet of our lives, rather than governmental guidance and regulation enforced by federal employees who have a work ethic, not a porn ethic, or a gravy train ethic, or a reparation ethic, or New World Order ethic......
One day I hope .....pointless to say to you.
Another view from David Harvey:
I was a bit miffed to see that Ron Paul was never mentioned in this forum.
If those are the two options for the Tea Party - Santelli or Beck... then someone's missing something somewhere.
The reason the Tea Party is the Tea Party is because Ron Paul received a 7 million dollar campaign flood on December 16th 2007 with the average donation around $100 (translation: around 70,000 people willingly donated money).
Everyone is talking about Beck and santelli, but the whole movement started with Paul.
I consider myself a Tea Party-member, but not one of the neo-con twits who have taken over the movement.
Santelli reflects the spirit of the Tea Part the best, I suppose, out of the two options presented, but even he's off by a bit. But your portrayal of him wanting to take us back to the garden of eden isn't quite accurate: if i'm not mistaken, his rant was about government accountability and proper economic thought.
The problem with every popular movement is that its ideological power gets diluted as more people join. The founders of the movement usually have fairly clear ideas and a strong sense of idealism. The people who join later are joining because there has been some success, and they want a part of the action. As they join, they dilute the power of the founders and change the message.
Whoa...I might just become a libertarian!!!:
In "The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defense," the Association of Libertarian Feminists has created what they call a "systematic philosophical defense of the moral case for abortion from a libertarian perspective." It concludes: "To sacrifice existing persons for the sake of future generations, whether in slave labor camps for the utopian nightmares of Marxists or fascists, or in unwanted pregnancies, compulsory childbearing, and furtive coat hanger abortions for the edification of fetus-worshippers, is to establish hell on earth."
Ayn Rand expressed extreme contempt for the right-to-life movement, calling the idea that an embryo should have a right to life "vicious nonsense" and flatly stating "An embryo has no rights...a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
Influential libertarian writer Murray Rothbard wrote that "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" and that therefore the woman has a right to eject the fetus.
The website run by the Objectivist-influenced Capitalism Magazine supports the pro-choice position:
"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb."
Its interesting that the quote from Ayn Rand refers to the fetus as both an embryo and a child, I would think that a child does in fact have rights.
As for the quote of the "influential libertarian writer" the "parasite" was invited into the womb by virtue of consensual sex, not so for a rape victim.
I am however pro choice, but not for the demented reasons that the authors of your quotes express.
I think that walter block's expanded argument about Rothbard's abortion claims make a lot of sense.
It isn't so much that we want to kill the fetus, it's just that the alternative "keeping it alive outside the womb" doesn't quite exist yet. he argues that Abortion wouldn't be so bad if we could just put the fetus up for adoption.
Amazing how blatantly and shamelessly inhumane some people are wiling to be to defend this particular form of taking a life. It is discouraging how callous some people are toward human life.
This is exactly how I feel about Cheney!!!
And yet, he lives on as a hero to people like you.....
2012 2012 2012....kill more Americans for PNAC Cheney!!! Yay repubs!!
oh, just DON'T call yourselves the "party of freedom".
Freedom means freedom, not freedom but.
Indeed... You SHOULD be ashamed. I'm glad you're finally starting to realize it.
Walter Block actually makes an intriguing argument about abortion on the lines of Libertarian views that makes much more sense to me than all the other crap put out by everyone else. Block's argument, actually, was an expansion of the Rothbard view that you quote:
The unwanted fetus can be thought of as a trespasser. But since it is alive, it must first be offered to others who might want to take care of it instead of you (kind of like an adoption). But unfortunately, that is almost impossible until about the 8th month of pregnancy. Thus, an abortion should be allowed simply because it's getting rid of an unwanted trespasser that no one else wants/is able to take care of. But one day, scientific technology should be able to decrease the number of necessary abortions in that it will be able to keep "ejected fetuses" alive and available for adoption.
I highly encourage everyone to be a libertarian - i'm going to start a series of hubs entitled "Introduction to Libertarian beliefs". i hope to see you all there.
"a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church)."
I believe this split in the Tea Party is one that exists in all parties though maybe not to this extreme. The extreme part of a party spews invectives which stir up the base and get their people out to the polls, rallies, or both. They work extremely well in the short term but corrode the party in the long run. The Republicans who the Tea Partiers are closest to will be the beneficiaries this November. But at what price? Turnout in non-presidential years are usually low. The Democrats are in power and are complacent. The economy is still week with high employment so the Democrats will suffer. Even though the laissez faire attitude towards business brought on our current economic woes. But these far right polemics will alienate the middle and the chickens will come home to roost when 2012 rolls around. This is especially true as the economy recovers and the ills of the early 2000's are repaired. So bring on Palin and her crew. Republicans would be better off with the mainstream Romney wing to correct Democratic excesses but I hope they don't. When a Bob Bennett loses in Utah you know they are eating their own. Moderate Senate Republicans are quickly becoming extinct. This is the canary in the coal mine. The Democrats did this in the 60's and 70's. Beware!
I would just like to point out that Romney's military advisor was Cofer Black, who was CIA, and a vice chairman of Blackwater during Bush's reign...you want to talk sinister, this is it.
He also headed a military detachment that was teaching the Burmese gvt how to "control a population"...detachment 88 or something....
Anyway, Romney is not what he seems, imo.
And he uses the repub version of tax-increases without the stigma of being labeled a tax increaser...he just increases the fees on everything. Same hot dog, different topping.
I didn't say that I liked Romney or agreed with him. As a matter of fact his policies are all over the place because he wants to placate whatever constituency he is serving at the time. All I am saying is that from a long term political standpoint, the GOP is better off with a candidate who is not spewing hate and invective. I in no way mean that he would be good for the country. The right wing tore this country down for its own gain. Now they are mad and energized and going crazy. Long term this will hurt them and allow the Democrats to stay in power longer and hopefully fix this mess. Unless they get stupid and complacent.
Anyway, leaving the personalities of particular people in the Tea Party movement out of the discussion, it does seem that other issues besides a free economy do come up at the rallies.
by Ken R. Abell 10 years ago
Is the Tea Party movement good or bad for the Republicans in this election cycle?
by Lady Liberty 9 years ago
Why is it that Tea Party type hubs won't post comments from anyone that doesn't see things their...way? Everytime I got to a right wing conservative hub and make a valid arguement about a topic, they won't post my comment. It's like a love fest on those sights, surely not everyone on this site is a...
by Holle Abee 10 years ago
Remember that Washington University poll about the Tea Party and anti-Tea Party that everyone was talking about? Here's the rest of the poll - the part some liberal journalists neglected to report. For example, Joan Walsh wrote a piece on Salon that stated 41% of Tea Partiers felt that blacks were...
by Credence2 7 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by Doug Hughes 9 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last...
by EPman 9 years ago
Would the same outrage still exist? Or did Obama's presidency ignite the flame?I tend to think that Obama being elected certainly was fuel on the fire -- that is to say, the Tea Party would not be as big or popular if John McCain was president. Much more people would be too complacent simply...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|