This post is a direct response to Raj Patel's DC Libertarian Examiner article "The crack in the Tea Party teapot"
There have been some libertarians particularly critical of the growing Tea Party movement as of late. The general criticism is that the Tea Party cannot reconcile its new social conservative face (in the form of Sarah Palin) with its deeply philosophical libertarian foundations (that started with the Ron Paul 2008 campaign). Many of these criticisms, however, fall short of revealing any substantial political problem; I argue that the antagonism between social conservatism and libertarianism, in the context of the Tea Party at least, is nothing more than a family feud that will be set aside for the sake of pragmatism given the current state of the American right.
I think it will be helpful to answer the criticisms, set out in a preliminary form rather helpfully here, one by one. First, Patel writes,
Implicit in the argument is the assumption that a disagreement over which level of government should handle the abortion issue is a divisive matter and a divergence of opinion with regard to it would preclude any sort of political unity whatsoever. This would be gross overestimation with regard to the nature of the incongruity between the camps. Indeed, the Tea Party represents a political coalition constituted by a broad range of interests that may differ over sensitive issues such as abortion; what must be understood, however, is that the immediate political goal remains the same for both the social conservatives and the libertarians. This is why both Sarah Palin and Ron Paul stated, during the Tea Party Summit, they were for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade: this is the common immediate political goal despite the difference in philosophical background.
Second, Patel argues that Ron Paul is for the legalization of marijuana and Sarah Palin is not. It is telling that Patel selectively chooses to quote the parts of Palin’s speech where she is giving the reasoning for her position; what she goes on to say, however, is that police officers should not be focused on breaking door’s down to arrest an individual who is smoking marijuana and not harming anyone else. Again, common political ground: Ron Paul and Sarah Palin realize the need for prioritization of policing efforts nationwide.
Thirdly, Patel writes,
This is perhaps the most powerful criticism that Patel makes of the Paul-Palin coalition. Again, however, Patel neglects what Palin goes on to say after she says that America should lead in a “global peace effort”. Ron Paul helpfully points out that this discussion about whether or not we should be leading global peace efforts, or engaging in this war or that war, or helping this nation or that nation, is irrelevant because of the current economic climate. Sarah Palin agrees with Paul’s economic determinism and realizes that all efforts will be forced to scale down because of the current economic climate. The fact that she agrees that we cannot spend money we don’t have is a far sight better than Obama’s basic understanding of economics.
What we must understand is that to be a broad political coalition – like say that of the democratic or republican coalition – we must be able to agree on pragmatic political goals in line with our fundamental principles. The Tea Party’s principles are in favor of fair and low taxation, small government, and fiscal responsibility; these basic political goals give us a common ground – whether social conservative, libertarian, or other – to move forward and save our country from the path it is going right now. I say it before and I’ll say it again: the Tea Party is here to stay.
I think it will be helpful to answer the criticisms, set out in a preliminary form rather helpfully here, one by one. First, Patel writes,
During the Tea Party Summit, we got a glimpse of some of these cracks. Sarah Palin argued that the federal government should be involved in the reproductive rights of women (regarding abortion). Ron Paul, who is pro-life, thinks the federal government should stay out of the issue and supports states deciding where they fall on abortion (he argues that abortion is an act of violence and acts of violence should be dealt with on the local level).
Implicit in the argument is the assumption that a disagreement over which level of government should handle the abortion issue is a divisive matter and a divergence of opinion with regard to it would preclude any sort of political unity whatsoever. This would be gross overestimation with regard to the nature of the incongruity between the camps. Indeed, the Tea Party represents a political coalition constituted by a broad range of interests that may differ over sensitive issues such as abortion; what must be understood, however, is that the immediate political goal remains the same for both the social conservatives and the libertarians. This is why both Sarah Palin and Ron Paul stated, during the Tea Party Summit, they were for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade: this is the common immediate political goal despite the difference in philosophical background.
Second, Patel argues that Ron Paul is for the legalization of marijuana and Sarah Palin is not. It is telling that Patel selectively chooses to quote the parts of Palin’s speech where she is giving the reasoning for her position; what she goes on to say, however, is that police officers should not be focused on breaking door’s down to arrest an individual who is smoking marijuana and not harming anyone else. Again, common political ground: Ron Paul and Sarah Palin realize the need for prioritization of policing efforts nationwide.
Thirdly, Patel writes,
Thirdly, Sarah Palin adopts a preemptive strike attitude to “America’s enemies” around the world. She is also for protecting Israel, as our only ally in the Middle East, at any cost. At the Tea Party Summit she said that America should “lead” in the global “peace effort” and that it is “responsible for us to be engaged in other areas of the globe.” Presumably she doesn’t realize the dualism between having a large military presence around the world and being pro-small government.
This is perhaps the most powerful criticism that Patel makes of the Paul-Palin coalition. Again, however, Patel neglects what Palin goes on to say after she says that America should lead in a “global peace effort”. Ron Paul helpfully points out that this discussion about whether or not we should be leading global peace efforts, or engaging in this war or that war, or helping this nation or that nation, is irrelevant because of the current economic climate. Sarah Palin agrees with Paul’s economic determinism and realizes that all efforts will be forced to scale down because of the current economic climate. The fact that she agrees that we cannot spend money we don’t have is a far sight better than Obama’s basic understanding of economics.
What we must understand is that to be a broad political coalition – like say that of the democratic or republican coalition – we must be able to agree on pragmatic political goals in line with our fundamental principles. The Tea Party’s principles are in favor of fair and low taxation, small government, and fiscal responsibility; these basic political goals give us a common ground – whether social conservative, libertarian, or other – to move forward and save our country from the path it is going right now. I say it before and I’ll say it again: the Tea Party is here to stay.
