I’m not sure quite how to characterize the problems that the Republicans are having with the "Tea Party". The Tea Party was obviously started as a Republican publicity stunt, a fake grassroots movement to take on the Democrats and delude the public into thinking that there was a popular uprising to reinstate the same policies that led to the economic disaster of 2008.
Somewhere this Frankenstein of a party developed a life of its’ own, and rather than rampaging across the countryside it has instead gone after its’ master.
In some ways the Republicans are victims of their own success. They wanted to create some arms’ length organization that would have an affectation of being run by concerned citizens and it wound up being too arms’ length.
That should not be taken as meaning that I in any way believe that the politicians purporting to follow the tea party line are sincere.
The idea that waving tea bags and pork chops can solve any real problems is asinine.
The right wing promises to increase expeditures (usually military), reduce revenues (taxes) and balance the budget all simultaneously, while bad math and a logical impossibility, have been strong right wing selling points for some 30 years.
If the tea party were to reconcile the right wing financial platform so that it were no longer internally inconsistent I suppose that would be an improvement. Quite apart from the financial issues one might question whether several hundred billion per year to kill people for being different than us and stealing their resources is money well spent. I hope that the faction of the tea party vaguely associated with Ron Paul gets the upper hand as they are most likely to create improvement in these areas.
The tea party itself has become a victim of it’s own success, with its’ inclusive approach unfortunately leading to inclusion of dubious persons, including racists and loonies. The debate on that should not however be framed in terms of the party being racist as an either/or option. My guess is that it probably has a disproportionate number of activists that are for racism and that are against racism. Asking if the tea party is racist is a bit like asking if the internet is racist.
Although the members of the "movement" appear to be mostly white trash, they do have a remarkable interest in reducing the taxes of the ultra-rich who hosed everybody in 2008. That is rather an odd stand for populists.
I prefer to distinguish what I think of as pure libertarianism from corporate libertarianism, because corporate libertarianism is libertarian for the rich and for corporations but little more than slavery for everybody else. I do not believe that laws creating a privileged class that dictates to everybody else are libertarian. Whether that privileged class is referred to as Fortune 500 CEO’s or the Politburo is a distinction without a difference. No class can have such liberty that nobody else has any. That isn’t libertarianism, it is authoritarianism or worse. The libertarian objective should be to ensure that every person is as free as possible to live their life as freely as is practically possible without the interference of anybody else. Government interference is a necessary evil to the extent that it facillitates rather than detracts from this freedom.
The key issue for the tea party will be, what do they stand FOR? Government is mostly about administration, not politics. You still have to connect the dots. If you decrease taxes now it will generate more debt and lead to inevitable and longer tax increases in the future, as always happens. If we’d been taxed properly in the first place there’d be no debt to service and a much higher standard of living. Having taxes chase expenditures doesn’t make any sense, it is like trying to sell your home by following the market down in a falling market, it always fails, but people keep on doing it for psychological reasons.
If you are going to reduce expenditures, there are some things where I imagine that I would wholely agree with some tea party members, such as eliminating imperialist wars. Such wars represent two way imperialism- the war profiteers conquer both nations.
Here’s some reference points:
So get out your knife, and show where you’d cut. No populist crappola in defence of it either, just hard economics.
For instance, one recent so-called boondoggle that came under fire was for improvements in the Napa valley that would help avoid far more expensive flooding problems. Eliminating preventative maintenance tends to cost more in the long run. Think "Minnesota bridge". Move on.
Cut social security for all the people that paid into it and toss them in the street? I don’t know, that sounds a little harsh for those who’ve paid their dues. Maybe claw back money from people that don’t need the assistance. Having Grandma go to workfare and grab a pick or shovel and go out to build highways sounds a little repulsive too. There might be some things to cut here, but those would likely be in administration. Move on.
Medicare?
I think that if done right that can be vastly improved, but not by the means that either the Democrats or Republicans seem to be pursuing, and certainly not by random cuts.
I’ll believe that people really accept the consequences for drastic, across the board cuts when they can go to a black or hispanic American dying of a treatable illness and say that he has to die so that taxes can be lowered so that some billionaire can buy another boat or club membership [like a kind of satanic "make a wish" foundation]. If you can do that, I’ll believe that you really believe what you’re saying. If not, you need to look in the mirror.
The list goes on. It is always easier to talk about cutting expenses when you can be nebulous and wave teabags or pork chops and don’t have to deal with a specific person whose life could be destroyed by your decision. That isn’t to say that there are choices that aren’t hard. Running up debt creates hardship as well. Any decision that is important enough that a politician should consider it, will cause hardship to a large number of people who are in some sense innocent, regardless of which direction is chosen. Anybody that believes that there is a magical way to make decisions for which there will be no consequences, does not have the maturity to hold public office.
I think that the west, and the US in particular, suffers from something of a Star Wars complex. You look at the basic plot line of Star Wars, and it is automatically assumed that a rebellion by underdogs is the good guys. We don’t have any idea what anybody stands for, other than authority is automatically evil and rebelling against authority is automatically good. But we don’t know anything about the policies of the empire or the rebellion. The empire is evil because it is an empire.
In the end, you defeat evil, are surrounded by dancing ewoks, and everybody lives happily ever after.
Except that real life is the exact opposite.
Defeating the death star is easy. It may be powerful but it is conceptually simple. The goal is simple. You have clear criteria for success and failure that a child can appreciate in an instant. There are clear good guys and bad guys. The outcome is binary.
In real life, as Obama and every other major leader finds out, winning is the easy part. Until then all that is required is endless chatter and staying on message. Then when you win, you inherit all the problems of those before you, and not infrequently, those problems continue to be problems. Endless chatter is no longer enough, you’ve promised solutions. If a tea party person were to become president, waving tea bags would be old after the first month.
And to the victor goes not the spoils, but rather the mantle of the evil emperor, because in western mythology, if you inherit authority and cannot dispel all problems with the wave of a hand, it isn’t because the problems are real, but rather you are in authority and ergo evil per se.
I am a libertarian, small "l", but I do not agree with the modern corporate apologist libertarianism that only government is capable of oppression. These days corporations are at least as bad. Anarchy leads to despotism by whoever is strongest and a correct libertarian should be a strong defender of a minimalist social order for that reason. That means acknowledging that some authority is necessary. Even some arbitrary authority is necessary. We cannot have people individually deciding which side of the road to drive on. We cannot have people that would otherwise be good citizens having to decide between their family starving and committing a crime. A certain minimum of order, which in my view includes many social programs, is necessary for stability in which everybody can individually thrive.
Libertarianism should be integrated with empiricism. No philosophy, libertarian or otherwise, makes the real world disappear in a puff of smoke. The world is as it is.
One must also be careful to not unduly either attack or defend the status quo and in particular be wary of attacking legal precedents.
I know that many people that are likely now involved with the tea party have said in the past that the creation of the Federal Reserve was unconstitutional. I agree. Having read the constitution I agree without reservation that giving control over currency and currency policy to an agency that is technically a private agency is unconstitutional. Having government appointees present on the Fed is not enough to save it.
That said, what do you do about it? There comes a point where a bad decision becomes so entrenched that it is not possible to undo it. My general view on legal precedent is that where there is an issue of interpretation the judicial interpretation should stand even if it strictly speaking is probably wrong, so that settled things stay settled. You can’t have each generation of judges tear up what the previous generation has done, it would promote endless litigation.
On the other hand, where a decision expressly contradicts the constitution there is a lack of jurisdiction.
That said, you don’t destroy the world economy by making any order that would prevent the Fed from functioning, in order to prove your brilliance. So yes, there was a constitutional violation, it is well entrenched, and there is a question of what, if anything, could be done about it.
So even where the people raising these kinds of issues are right, there is a lack of a workable game plan.