While it’s true that there are a lot of ‘tea partiers’ that want real liberty in the social realm, the populist movement will be directed based on what the pop-leaders (Sarah Palin) says; and we all know which direction she wants to take the country when it comes to this issue.
No, we don’t. Tell us what direction Sarah Palin wants to take the country.
No, we don’t. Tell us what direction Sarah Palin wants to take the country.
A socially conservative sector of America that can survive (in the public sphere) only resorting to scary reactionism. Sarah Palin probably doesn’t know what direction she wants to take your country, but the means, the people and the passion for “it” is there.
I would like to know more about the Tea Party. What is it?
A) If not a simple proxy of the GOP to gain leverage after the Dems snatched the biggest cornerstone of American Politics: the placing of the Obama in the executive, then what are they?
B ) The gestation of a third party, one that could win? How scary is that? A third position destroying the fragile balance of demockery. The elephant in the room would cease to be ignored and excreta would hit the fan.
C) An undefined movement? The last cry before America finds her new place in the new homogeneous globalied World?
D) Something more benevolent but necessarily populist like the Moral Majority back in the 80s?
Please clarify this phenomenon for this poor foreigner.
I would like to know more about the Tea Party. What is it?
It is a meta-party. It is an organized interest group for pushing the entire political spectrum rightward by encouraging one of the parties to be more ideologically dedicated to freedom, lower taxes and less government. It is a necessary counterpoint to the Democratic Socialists of America who have engineered the takeover of the Democratic Party on behalf of socialism without themselves running high profile candidates.
It is a meta-party. It is an organized interest group for pushing the entire political spectrum rightward by encouraging one of the parties to be more ideologically dedicated to freedom, lower taxes and less government.
So, I can take off my mind the possibility of it being a proto-party. Then it is in a relationship with the GOP in which the Tea Party can be its proxy, or as you say, the other way around.
Do you believe they can have enough popular support by explicitly excluding social issues traditionally and unfortunately (but I’m sure intentionally) married with lower taxes and less government?
So, I can take off my mind the possibility of it being a proto-party. Then it is in a relationship with the GOP in which the Tea Party can be its proxy, or as you say, the other way around.
If the Tea Party ever runs candidates it will fail its purpose. Bill Clinton was elected president twice because of Ross Perot’s third party candidacy. The Libertarian party strengthens socialist philosophy because they ghettoize and isolate themselves into a third party that can be safely ignored as impotent.
Do you believe they can have enough popular support by explicitly excluding social issues traditionally and unfortunately (but I’m sure intentionally) married with lower taxes and less government?
Different parts of the country are different, “enough” will vary from state to state so will actual support levels. It would take a professional politico to sort that out and I am not one. What we already see is different versions of the Tea Party in different states.
I see. Thanks for clarifying it a bit for me. At least I realize now that the movement is smart enough to want to reform the GOP and not create a new party. It goes in the lines of libertarian Ron Paul running as a Republican. But in that same example we can see how this rather puritan libertarianism within the GOP can splinter it as seen in the last Presidential Election.
On the other hand if the Libertarians among, or outside but influencing, the Republican Party don’t want to remain in divisive minority it seems they have to compromise on certain individual liberty restrictions that apply to most Conservatives.
These social issues might mascarade a more dangerous and taboo subject among some Conservatives who say “for life” “for family” “against ILLEGAL immigration” instead of saying things that would ruin their public lives.
I’m sure those conservative extreists are as rare as those libertarians influencing the Republican party. Realistically but optimistically speaking, can we hope for a balance between the two to create something like the Reagan Revolution? A new thrust of semi-Capitalism and a silent victory over the current enemies of freedom?
Or if even that is too much to expect; what is the worst we can?
Or if even that is too much to expect; what is the worst we can?
More “Hope” and “Change.”
:lol: - pwnt
… we can see how this rather puritan libertarianism within the GOP can splinter it as seen in the last Presidential Election.
It is absurd to blame what happened to the Republican Party from 2006-2008 on anything other than the Republicans themselves. They were corrupt, indolent, spendthrift, almost lost a war, and just generally deserved to be voted out en masse. In other words, the same as we have right now. There was no libertarian faction to blame. There is no libertarian influence in politics at any level. The “Losertarians” may as well not exist for all the impact they have. Calling the Tea Party libertarian is just another attempt to hijack it but by libertarians rather than social conservative or machine Republican party types. Tea Partiers are basically people against taxes, bureaucracy and the federal debt, the exact same issues as motivated the Ross Perot people. They’ve learned their lesson and this time there will be no central personality to fail them.
It is absurd to blame what happened to the Republican Party from 2006-2008 on anything other than the Republicans themselves. They were corrupt, indolent, spendthrift, almost lost a war, and just generally deserved to be voted out en masse. In other words, the same as we have right now. There was no libertarian faction to blame. There is no libertarian influence in politics at any level. The “Losertarians” may as well not exist for all the impact they have. Calling the Tea Party libertarian is just another attempt to hijack it but by libertarians rather than social conservative or machine Republican party types. Tea Partiers are basically people against taxes, bureaucracy and the federal debt, the exact same issues as motivated the Ross Perot people. They’ve learned their lesson and this time there will be no central personality to fail them.
Very well, we wont use the L word anymore. So I’ll rephrase my previews question:
Can the Tea Party be big enough and still be solely (at least explicitly) motivated by the Conservative side of individual freedom?
As/If/When the movement grows, but let’s begin with right now: as the movement is growing, can anyone say these people are all just for the economic side of individual liberties such as taxes, debt and the upkeep of a huge bureaucracy?
Just as Ayn Rand taught me, every man either conscious of it or not, has a philosophy. Not even to mention the L word, I’d love to know what percentage of the people that rally like Democrats or Frenchmen, are Objectivists, or even close to having a philosophy that respects all of the individual’s holes, not just his/her pockets as sacred private ownership.
I’m sory it’s not a percentage I’m looking for, but a reaction from Objectivists: I’m asking you whether you see ANYthing potentially, not wrong, but distastrous with this yellow movement.
Otherwise it seems even so super better than the Moral MAjority, and the Reagan Revolution: and just as superlative unlikely.
Something’s gotta give. Either they identify with the Libs, or they will admit they are not Libertarians, but Fiscally Conservative Conservatives - same old, same old, as tempting as it may sound among all these Hope and Change.
Of course any Tea Partier could reply, that they never pretended to be Libertarians on the first place.
But in that case I ask Objectivists then what are they if not just as socially conservative as they are fiscally?
One of their leaders or spokesman, an ex-junkie Mormon convert with a visible attention deficit, is respected almost unanimously pretty much only among that TP crowd.
Some ugly sides of it (for the lighter side of it, just google Teabonics) have come to light.
I’m sure some honest intentions are there, and even more honest people; but so was the case in so many regrettable episodes of History when a strong country faces a major socio-economic conflict.
Very well, we wont use the L word anymore. So I’ll rephrase my previews question:
- Can the Tea Party be big enough and still be solely (at least explicitly) motivated by the Conservative side of individual freedom?
Doesn’t matter, anybody can vote for any candidate and Tea Party is to solve the problem of getting better candidates. During its first election cycle it has been erratic in achieving that, but there have been real successes to offset the failures which is far more than the Libertarians ever achieved.
- As/If/When the movement grows, but let’s begin with right now: as the movement is growing, can anyone say these people are all just for the economic side of individual liberties such as taxes, debt and the upkeep of a huge bureaucracy?
If you insist on looking for the imminent take-over of America by a new fascist movement, you are being silly. Obama is the closest thing yet since Woodrow Wilson’s war socialism, so look to the Democrats for the real threat from intent and conscious design. Social cons are heedless of individual rights in many of their views but they don’t add up to anything except “but we’ve always done things the old way”.
I’m sory it’s not a percentage I’m looking for, but a reaction from Objectivists: I’m asking you whether you see ANYthing potentially, not wrong, but distastrous with this yellow movement.
Ineffectiveness is its greatest danger. I don’t understand the reference to “yellow” movement.
You’ve really cleared up some issues. I still believe there is a religious element in there but I might be underestimating Americans’ tolerance. Likewise, the only real threat I could see in this movement is the possibility of a Third Party, but now I’m a bit more convinced that’s very far from their intentions - might be underestimating American’s grassroot politics as well.
Ineffectiveness is its greatest danger. I don’t understand the reference to “yellow” movement.
I hope you’re right.
By Yellow I mean I see more Yellow Don’t Tread on Me flags in those rallies than Old Glory. It’s always scary when nations change their national colors for drastically new ones (blue and gold for bleu blanc rouge during the French Revolution - Blue white and Red for RED and Yelloy for Russia, and White, Red and Black for Red white and Black for Germany.
That’s all.
It’s always scary when nations change their national colors for drastically new ones …
But the Gadsden Flag is very traditional and predates the red, white and blue. It is a Revolutionary War banner and so is conservative in the ordinary sense of a throwback to the past. It is only new to you. See http://www.gadsden.info/history.html and the 3 associated pages.
But the Gadsden Flag is very traditional and predates the red, white and blue. It is a Revolutionary War banner and so is conservative in the ordinary sense of a throwback to the past. It is only new to you. See http://www.gadsden.info/history.html and the 3 associated pages.
There aren’t too many subects I consider myself somewhat well-read but History of Western Civilization is one of them.
I was just clarifying the Yellow comment. America is a very unique country with many paradoxes (most scientific-technological country with highest church attendance; just as one example). It is very difficult (luckily) to picture a scenario of a Tyranny in America. Foreigners have been studying the possibility since de Tocqueville. It should be regarded as a praise.
In that context a Constitutionalist movement, heck it’s called after an even that predates both Old Glory and the Constitution, could ONLY PARADOXICALLY, represent a potentially dangerous political shift.
Most likely however - I hope - it’s just a Conservative movement in response to what the Democrats have been doing since Clinton.
volco, look at the message on the Gadsden Flag: “Don’t Tread On Me.” This is why it is being used. For too long, political hacks have been ignoring the very people they represent. This does not mean that it is being used to replace Old Glory, but that it being used as a unifying symbol, with historical ties to the Revolution
The message on that flag is so simple and so powerful. It’s really an awesome flag. I’m gonna have to get one someday and hang it with my Canadian flag. Then all I need to do is start a Tea Party-like movement up here…
The message on that flag is so simple and so powerful. It’s really an awesome flag. I’m gonna have to get one someday and hang it with my Canadian flag. Then all I need to do is start a Tea Party-like movement up here…
I like that flag a lot. Used to love it indeed, specially before the Tea Party movement took place. I realize its background (back to the cartoon by, possibly Ben Franklyn? Really like its message.
Excuse my French, but the Swastika was a typical symbol of good luck in Western Europe in the 1920s.. who could have imagined how the connotation would change. Granted the Gadsden Flag is a bit more specific with a more recent history and a clearer message. But it’s still striking when you see masses using the same colors. The “masses” part is a lot scarier than the color part.
Basially we’re discussing a claryfying argument of a very small part of my post. Ridiculous.
volco, look at the message on the Gadsden Flag: “Don’t Tread On Me.” This is why it is being used. For too long, political hacks have been ignoring the very people they represent. This does not mean that it is being used to replace Old Glory, but that it being used as a unifying symbol, with historical ties to the Revolution
All is good and fine, up to the bolded part. My “Worst Case Scenario” concerns (I don’t think it probably though, but I am aware of it) the rise of a Third Party or the REAL radicalization of either major one. Obama is not terrible radicalization but the continuation of somethin that it’s debatable how far back it began.
I want to know, and I don’t claim any of you (anyone) has the answer yet, but it’s worth exploring, whether the Tea Party could be the seed to either.
I don’t think it’s going to become a Third Party (or reinforce one of the existing ones)
But I am concerned that it might (little chance) paradoxically influence the Republican Party into a very dangerous force (powerful enough to counter-rest the Democratic political AND ideological triumph) that MIGHT take the shape of “loophole legal” totalitarianism. This can only happen if this “grassroots” (who here believes that?) movement uses a lot of sensitive social issues to package deal the economic issues taking an extreme stance.
America is unique. The Democrats don’t make America unique, the Republicans do. America is not losing, but could lose its uniqueness (soon more people will get out of America as expats, than get in. Already all those who get out are either Libertarians or “apolitical”. Already most of those who enter are automatically Democrats).
That same force that makes America unique is rather fragile, and under attack it might become a monster.
While I’d love some feedback, please compare the numbers I used the verb might with can or will. I’m probing the subject as it just seems to be “too good to be true”. <_<
I think you’re worrying unnecessarily. There is no danger of the rise of a Fascist element here as happened in Germany in the 1930s, which seems to be where you are going. The citizenry, the real ones that form the Tea Party base, love individual freedom too much to be coerced into such a movement. Your outlook seems a bit too European, and cynical.
Re: the Swastika. It is a sun symbol, and appears in many cultures worldwide.
I think you’re worrying unnecessarily. There is no danger of the rise of a Fascist element here as happened in Germany in the 1930s, which seems to be where you are going. The citizenry, the real ones that form the Tea Party base, love individual freedom too much to be coerced into such a movement. Your outlook seems a bit too European, and cynical.
Re: the Swastika. It is a sun symbol, and appears in many cultures worldwide.
I’m not worrying about a Fascist movement as it was created politically in Italy, economically in England, in the 20s and spreaded to Spain (Franco), Austria (Dolfuss), Slovakia (Tisza), Bayern (the Catholics), Argentina (Peron), the United States of America (FDR), Singapore (LKY’s PAP), China (KMT and post-deng xiaopin PRC). Japan never ceased to be what by Western Standards could only be described as Natonalistic and economically Corporativist, Fascist to the point of some unimaginable intrusions to private life, by the “Company” not the State. So I’m not worried about *that* happening in America as italready has and it doesn’t concern me more than it did before: Fascism, in spirit not ink, is the most popular, most productive, shall I say “best?” political system there is in existence. Akin to how Democracy was described by Churchill. Democracy be the ink, Corporativism the spirit.
I’m not worried either that Fascism will be hijacked by Socialists, or Religious Fanatics as it happened in Germany in the 30s, and in Japan respectively; or what some accuse of Iran of being. That we call “Nazi” and is characterized by being an indigenist, nativist movement. True Germans, True Yamato. That’s so different from Mussolini or FDR’s multicultural corporativism.
What I could be worried about
But I might be worried about is that, let’s say this word again in all caps, PARADOXICALLY the Tea Party could affect the fragile balance that exists in America.
As it seems to me now it’s either CORRECTING the Reps course back to where they should belong to counter-act the Dems. That is to the right.
OR
The Reps have no interest in moving to the right, and want to become a competitive party to the Democrats. This is where the question of whether this is grassroots, or a proxy. In that last case the force and momentum of the Tea Party could dangerously be diverted into something completely NEW, non comparable to previews movements. Dangerously yes, but not necessarily bad. I again point out American exceptionalism as a desirable trait, but but for the ´Tea Party I haven’t seen much of it this current century.
As a non-American (Euro if you want) I see concentrations of people as automatically a bad thing. But I guess Martin Luther King had a big rally some decades ago with honest intentions and rather admirable results.
I of course personally resent the cynicism comment and I rebutt it with the question that has never been answered to the extent of my knowledge: Is Objectivism appliable only within the United States of America?
and the other one: Do you Americans (and Canadians and Mexicans btw) realize how DIFFERENT it is, specially politics, in America than in the rest of the World?
Ók, that was a desorganized rant and for that I apologize to the reader.
The message I try to convey here is that we should, not cynically but almost scientifically, study this phenomenon before reaching conclusions and action such as support/ignore/attack.
Btw, thanks for all the aclarations.
@Torontoguy, I understand there is a Homestead group in Alberta Or Saska, that wants to secede from the Queen of England and join the USA. Is it still alive/active?
Re: the Swastika. It is a sun symbol, and appears in many cultures worldwide.
Sun symbol? Black Sun? I had no idea about that. To early XXc Western culture it was simply a good luck omen, like a shammrock or a chickenbone.
To Western Culture in the last 4000 years it has adifferent meaning.Not Luck but God. Epistemologically related concepts.
And if I go further I’d say that symbol hasn’t appeared in many but in most cultures worldwide.
I believe that’s enough, let’s see how this develops.
