Ron Paul and Sarah Palin presumably characterize the two seemingly opposing factions within the Tea Party movement: the libertarians verses the social conservatives. The libertarians are for a more non-interventionist foreign policy whilst also supporting the repeal of various government laws infringing on peoples’ right to do as they wish (which includes activities such as recreational drug use). The social conservatives, however, are typically in favor of an interventionist foreign policy (particularly with regard to lending a hand to Israel and other key allies) and may not be in favor of the repeal of certain laws (such as those that illegalize marijuana use).
What we saw at the Tea Party Summit, however, is that these are largely family feuds as opposed to real barriers for political unity. This is largely because all the factions in the Tea Party – indeed, this may be the essential characteristic that deems them a part of the Tea Party movement – are united on the single most important major issue of today: national debt.
The amicable exchanges between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin made it clear that despite the media’s attempts to – rather egregiously – categorize the movement as a “bunch of racist, bigoted, angry white people,” the Tea Party Movement is a legitimate political association constituted by different groups who all agree that government is too big, the country has too much debt, and the way Obama is running the country is unsustainable. This political alliance is strong because the Tea Party movement realizes what is at stake – not political power, but our ideals, people’s very livelihoods, and the future of the United States.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I'm Libertarian and I want small government more than anyone, but I've just seen too many bad apples to want to associate myself with the Tea Party. And no, I didn't see them on MSNBC; I saw them in my home town, with my own eyes, no media slant or editing.
ReplyDeleteI saw hardly anything about the debt. All I saw were misspelled signs, birthers, truthers, conspiracy theorists, Hitler mustaches and Joker smiles. It's clear they're angry, but I don't think they're clear on WHY they're angry; they just jumped on a bandwagon. They're united by a common enemy (Obama) and not a common cause (less spending).
Yes, the SPOKESPEOPLE of the Tea Party movement, like Paul and Palin, have a clear idea of what issues they consider important and what policies they advocate. But the individual partiers don't necessarily have that in mind.
Here's my point. In order to get the healthcare bill passed, ALL the democrats had to do was say, "Look how crazy the opposition is! Don't you want to be on our side, with the sane people?" They didn't have to tell anyone what was in the bill, what it would cost, what would be implemented, whether we needed it, what the problem is with our current healthcare, or how it was supposed to help. All they needed was to run a few clips of rednecks ranting about a "Muslim from Kenya" to convince people that the opponents of the bill didn't have a leg to stand on. There WAS a solid case against it, but no one could hear it underneath all the noise.
If the Tea Party wants to cast itself as a legitimate political movement and not some slobberfest of racist paranoia, they would do well to kick the nutjobs out of their ranks. Even Bill O'Reilly said that some of the teabaggers made the movement look like "loons." Being all-inclusive and letting anyone who dislikes Obama (for any reason) hang out at the protests just gives ammo to the opposition. Set some standards for what you endorse... and what you DON'T.
I love John Stossel. I love Lee Doren. I love Penn Jillette. Why? They're rational. They have evidence. They can make a solid case for what they advocate. But Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are emotion-driven, reactionary garbage only succeeds in sullying the name of the party I love. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Dear poster,
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you say. The Tea Party movement needs to be firm in what it believes in for it to be a properly defined political movement and for it to have a real effect on the political climate in the United States.
That being said, that doesn't mean that we need to be overly concerned with fringe elements (just as the center-left liberals do not concern themselves with communists). The Birthers and the rest of those kinds of people have got nothing to do with our platform - however - if they believe that the national debt is a problem in this country, then that is something we agree on. Whether they have unfounded views about where President Obama was born is their problem - and the Tea Party movement should not be overly concerned with such talk. What we should be associated with, and what is of REAL concern, is that of national debt and fiscal responsibility, civil liberties and size of government.
I disagree with your conception of Sarah Palin as emotionally driven and reactionary. You can see from the rest of the show (of which I only posted a clip) that her points are well-thought out and she knows what she is talking about. Every point of disagreement she had with Dr. Ron Paul was well argued (although I agreed mostly with Paul's views). We shouldn't pain Sarah Palin as reactionary just because the fringe elements of her crowd maybe; nay, she is a powerful political figure who's endorsement greatly helped Rand Paul get elected in Kentucky.
I welcome your thoughts, I hope you reply and write on the rest of the blog. Please keep in touch,
Pat