Is there absolutely any reason to take the "Tea Party" seriously?

[Pangloss]

"Why yes, officer, that IS a bag of tea."

[padren]

Well that's a great question and I'm glad we've moved on from the ridicule and started addressing it. I took a shot at that question yesterday in this post

 

Does it strike you as odd that we have to take shots at figuring out what they want done? The reason I find this question so pertinent to the issue of the ridicule factor is without a clear message they end up spoken for by whomever talks to the media the loudest - usually the crazier ones at these rallies.

 

 

I just found this guy today, John O'Hara has written a book and just showed up on The Daily Show defending the Tea Party movement.

 

The only other discussion I found was on

in January this year. Otherwise it looks like the odd Fox News appearance and his book and blog. I don't find his arguments that compelling, but he does try to engage in the discussion and argue for the movement - honestly he's the first carrying the Tea Party label that I've seen do this. Otherwise to date, really all I've seen is rhetoric from any self declared Tea Partiers.

 

To that extent, you can't really blame liberals for smear the Tea Party image... other than a few "pot stirrers" they've simply conveyed what little image the movement has managed to convey, many of those images are so fringe any apt description borders on ridicule by it's very nature.

 

 

All that said - I am definitely interested in moving towards talking about what we find the Tea Party does want in terms of policy. I just wanted to clarify that I find their lack of a coherent platform as the main reason they have such a bad image by default.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just to add: I do fault the media in general, and think journalism has become far to sensationalistic and prefers to paint stories in simplistic dramatic polarities. I think the Tea Party Movement has genuinely suffered due to this, as have almost all multifaceted political movements. I don't think they have suffered any more than anyone else, just they've failed to account for this sad condition by failing to make their overall vision clear in a rational, thought out contribution to the national political discussion.

[Pangloss]

Does it strike you as odd that we have to take shots at figuring out what they want done? The reason I find this question so pertinent to the issue of the ridicule factor is without a clear message they end up spoken for by whomever talks to the media the loudest - usually the crazier ones at these rallies.

 

Sure, and it seems like that's what ended up happening. Without clear goals and leadership they ended up being subverted by traditional grassroots elements of conservative politics.

 

 

To that extent, you can't really blame liberals for smear the Tea Party image... other than a few "pot stirrers" they've simply conveyed what little image the movement has managed to convey, many of those images are so fringe any apt description borders on ridicule by it's very nature.

 

What I was doing was pointing out that tea party smearers were participating in a game, not making an astute and helpful observation. Also, The Daily Show is no trivial "pot-stirrer", it's a substantial media franchise, and that's just one example.

 

Politics is a multiplayer game. What I mean by that is that it takes at least two players to render a mass judgment -- a target and a spinner. So when one accepts the spinner's spin, one is participating in this game, whether one realizes it or not. The art of politics is making the spin not seem like spin, but instead look like a simple, factual observation (or more recently, comedy).

 

That doesn't mean the observation is inaccurate, but remember -- the spinner doesn't stop there. They leverage the spin to suggest a political conclusion. And therein lies the dilemma. Now you don't just have a simple observation or a decent joke to tell at the water cooler tomorrow. Now you have a helpful nudge informing your next decision at the voting booth.

 

But hey, that's politics for you. I just think it worth noting that the tea partiers aren't the only ones being lead around by the nose.

 

 

Just to add: I do fault the media in general, and think journalism has become far to sensationalistic and prefers to paint stories in simplistic dramatic polarities. I think the Tea Party Movement has genuinely suffered due to this, as have almost all multifaceted political movements. I don't think they have suffered any more than anyone else, just they've failed to account for this sad condition by failing to make their overall vision clear in a rational, thought out contribution to the national political discussion.

 

I agree.

[ParanoiA]

Excellent post, Pangloss. Totally agree.

 

All that said - I am definitely interested in moving towards talking about what we find the Tea Party does want in terms of policy. I just wanted to clarify that I find their lack of a coherent platform as the main reason they have such a bad image by default.

 

They're conservatives. They want conservative policy. I don't know why anyone is scratching their heads about this. Their platform is modern conservatism. Small government and a balanced budget are the logical ends of their complaints about government expansion of power and out of control deficit spending. They're freaking the hell out. And so are a lot of us.

 

Hypocrites? Well of course. They're conservatives. No need to wrestle with the logic of how they could oppose government intrusion economically, while they simultaneously support government intrusion socially. That's just the right wing of the federalist party for you.

 

There is that small percentage of libertarian leaning folk, but they are outnumbered and I'm not sure how many of them find a camera.

 

The "Tea Party" is more about "enough is enough" than it is about ideological consistency. The only consistent "message" to be found really is that they're sick of all the BS, and the numbers we're throwing around willy nilly are way too big to be throwing around willy nilly. Conservatives getting nervous.

 

Good, then I expect they'd like to see the Controlled Substances Act overturned.

 

Not a chance. About 30% might believe that - based on the 28% polled that endorsed Ron Paul. This is nothing new with conservatives.

[bascule]

What I was doing was pointing out that tea party smearers were participating in a game, not making an astute and helpful observation. Also, The Daily Show is no trivial "pot-stirrer", it's a substantial media franchise, and that's just one example.

 

Given Fox News's intimate involvement, sponsorship, and mindshare at the tea party, I think a response from the Daily Show is only fitting. According to an NYT/CBS poll, 59% of Tea Party attendees have a favorable opinion of Glenn Beck, versus an 18% figure nationwide. In fact, of all questions asked to members of the tea party, Glenn Beck ended up being the single thing attendees agreed on most.

 

I am actually somewhat surprised by Nate Silver's language in that article...

 

This does not necessarily mean that the tea parties have become an offshoot of FOX News -- an allegation that liberals throw around a bit too loosely. But FOX, and particularly Beck's program, have become intimately intertwined with the movement. Indeed, once one begins to think of the tea parties through this paradigm, everything else starts to fit together. The tea-partiers skew older and college-educated: that's basically the cable news demographic.

 

...I would've chosen harsher rhetoric.

[jryan]

Debt increased nearly eight times as much under Republican Presidents since 1978 as opposed to Democratic Presidents since 1978.

 

Again, I ask you, can you not concede this point Jryan?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Jryan re-read my last post, I corrected it before you responded, I knew that number was too good to be true.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I guess that is a no?

 

No, I'm not going to concede your point, Womble, as this president is set to be the one to bankrupt us. It makes no difference what previous presidents spent when the current one is determined to spend ever penny they did more than twice over.

 

I don't think you fully get my point. This president is spending like we haven't maxed out our credit, while I am arguing that we most likely are on that brink. In a way he is making the same mistake that Wall Street made in the years leading up to the credit collapse (See: The Formula that Killed Wall Street), that is, he is taking our ability to take on debt for granted. But when that credit dries up, and it will, everything falls apart.

 

All the well meaning social programs in the world don't mean anything at that point.

 

It reminds me of a funny story that Donald Trump told once about he turn rebound as a business man from a big spending 80s dufus to a more resonable real estate tycoon. As he tells it he had just gone bust, and was $1 billion dollars in debt. After hearing this he got in his car and headed home. As a red light he saw a guy washing windows on the street corner and realized that that guy had $1 billion more than he had.

 

We are headed to where he was as a nation. We will be flat dead broke, and realizing that Somalia has $25 trillion more dollars than we do.

 

We can argue percentages all day long, if you want. But at some point, as I would guess you know, a geometric debt growth stops be feasible. The president shows no willingness to reduce spending other than crazy spending plans to lower spending. That is a shame too as he successfully ran for president partly on the crazy fiscal strategy of the previous president... only to show that we hadn't seen real crazy yet.

[Mr Skeptic]

The "Tea Party" is more about "enough is enough" than it is about ideological consistency. The only consistent "message" to be found really is that they're sick of all the BS, and the numbers we're throwing around willy nilly are way too big to be throwing around willy nilly. Conservatives getting nervous.

 

I think that makes them similar to the environmentalist movement, or like the folks who want to cut spending but can't agree on which program. They're mad, they want change, they just don't have a single leadership and can't agree on what the change should be. As individuals they could be very consistent and have a good plan, but as a group they're just complaining in all directions about everything and not accept, as a group, any of the possible solutions. Which makes ignoring said groups the only possible action, since any action possible will by default ignore them.

 

"A person is smart; people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."

— Agent K, Men In Black

[bascule]

The "Tea Party" is more about "enough is enough" than it is about ideological consistency. The only consistent "message" to be found really is that they're sick of all the BS

 

"I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

 

There are certainly a multitude of similarities between Howard Beale and Glenn Beck

[ParanoiA]

Isn't that what you get from "normal" folk though? Most people aren't all geeky about politics like we are, or bound by some thought out, consistent philosophical code. So you would expect exactly this kind of "non focused" message - diversity in "enough is enough".

 

I don't think this is a good reason to discount them, or decide that they're too stupid to be important enough to listen to at all, or that their concerns are rubbish.

 

And interestingly too...isn't this an example of "nuance"? Wasn't that considered an asset when Obama was running for president - that he had nuanced positions? But it ain't cool for tea partiers?

 

They want a deflated government and they want massive reductions in spending, lower taxes - that's the nuance we get from them - a complete withdraw of what we're doing right now. They may not be consistent person to person on any detail, but I doubt they'd be out there holding rallies and protesting if that general philosophy was realized in some form.

[bascule]

They want a deflated government and they want massive reductions in spending, lower taxes

 

Yeah, here's what I get from the Tea Party:

 

Concern about the national debt:

 

Concern about taxes:

 

that's the nuance we get from them - a complete withdraw of what we're doing right now. They may not be consistent person to person on any detail, but I doubt they'd be out there holding rallies and protesting if that general philosophy was realized in some form.

 

The problem is that the solutions to these problems are mutually exclusive. It's like complaining that our country's proverbial house is on fire, but the fire department is using too much water. Tax cuts will make the deficit worse. These are not problems we can effectively work on at the same time.

 

The issue is that their "platform", if you can call it that, is very much internally inconsistent, not "nuanced".

[ParanoiA]

Love those pics. Especially the little girl, that one really makes a terrific point.

 

The problem is that the solutions to these problems are mutually exclusive. It's like complaining that our country's proverbial house is on fire' date=' but the fire department is using too much water. Tax cuts will make the deficit worse. These are not problems we can effectively work on at the same time.

 

The issue is that their "platform", if you can call it that, is very much internally inconsistent, not "nuanced".[/quote']

 

Nope. They're not mutually exclusive at all. I think I know why you missed it though, you just completely dropped and ignored the smaller government nuance. Probably because it ruins your "mutually exclusive" argument.

 

Even if they weren't demanding a smaller government and eviction from the private sector, the right tax cuts in the right places increase revenue, and the right spending cuts in the right places decrease spending. You just have get a little deeper than specious surface level conflicts. Funny how these silly tea partiers get that...

 

I'm in complete agreement with their nuance. Of course, we'd disagree on details and overall philosophy, grossly. But smaller government, cutting spending and taxes? Yes to all of that, just to get started.

[bascule]

Nope. They're not mutually exclusive at all. I think I know why you missed it though, you just completely dropped and ignored the smaller government nuance. Probably because it ruins your "mutually exclusive" argument.

 

*facepalm* yay, someone else making the argument that if we just cut spending we can lower taxes and the deficit simultaneously!

 

That doesn't change the fact that lowering taxes is still harmful to the deficit, and will continue to be until we're running a budget surplus.

 

We're nowhere close to running a budget surplus. Only when we are running a budget surplus can we cut taxes without harming the deficit.

 

It's about as simple as accounting gets. You cannot help the little boy and the little girl at the same time until we're in a very different situation from the one we're in today. Helping one will hurt the other until the budget is balanced.

 

Even if they weren't demanding a smaller government and eviction from the private sector, the right tax cuts in the right places increase revenue

 

And the Laffer Curve rears its ugly head yet again. Sorry, this is the very argument that created our national debt. Reagan made it. George H.W. Bush made it. George Bush made it. These three guys basically bankrupted our country. This approach has been tried. The result is the overwhelming majority of our present national debt.

 

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

[padren]

Nope. They're not mutually exclusive at all. I think I know why you missed it though, you just completely dropped and ignored the smaller government nuance. Probably because it ruins your "mutually exclusive" argument.

 

Even if they weren't demanding a smaller government and eviction from the private sector, the right tax cuts in the right places increase revenue, and the right spending cuts in the right places decrease spending. You just have get a little deeper than specious surface level conflicts. Funny how these silly tea partiers get that...

 

I'm in complete agreement with their nuance. Of course, we'd disagree on details and overall philosophy, grossly. But smaller government, cutting spending and taxes? Yes to all of that, just to get started.

 

ParanoiA, I understand this argument but you are stuck on arguing about the abstract merits of a strategy that we all get - what we don't see is any tangible implementation plan for how to apply that strategy. The idea of "smaller government reduces deficit" is perfectly fine, but who has a strategy to do this in a manner that won't backfire and bite us?

As for the "right tax cuts" increasing revenue is another great abstract idea, but where is a single example of how cutting x specifically can help increase y over time? We can't afford to ideologically hack and slash as libertarians anymore than we can afford to just randomly throw money at the poor as liberals.

 

After all the sh!t that has hit the fan in the last decade, if there's one thing that's clear is that we have to be very conscientious and deliberate. Promoting the merits of a specific deregulation strategy and how it would help is fine - that is a good thing for the "deregulation bucket" but it's not good enough to carry around an empty bucket just because you like the label.

 

 

If we can get past the macro-philosophy and into literal examples of how to apply it were we can see and weigh the cost/benefits the macro-philosophy will prove itself in the pudding. I'm happy for any progress from any side should it prove itself effective and worth implementing.

[jryan]

The problem is that the solutions to these problems are mutually exclusive. It's like complaining that our country's proverbial house is on fire, but the fire department is using too much water. Tax cuts will make the deficit worse. These are not problems we can effectively work on at the same time.

 

The issue is that their "platform", if you can call it that, is very much internally inconsistent, not "nuanced".

 

They're not mutually exclusive, bascule. It is quite possible to cut spending AND taxes. And they don't even have to be equal... you can cut spending by MORE than you cut taxes. Amazing stuff, huh?

[iNow]

Screw the constitution... god does not compromise... and Lindsey Graham is gay.

 

Y2MCXjkS8cc

L5b-KrD61o4

 

 

Give me a beak. You think this is a message which deserves respect? Go frak yourself...

[ParanoiA]

*facepalm* yay, someone else making the argument that if we just cut spending we can lower taxes and the deficit simultaneously!

 

*facepalm* yay, someone else pretending as if they don't know what libertarians stand for. And double yay, bascule still conveniently ignores the smaller government detail again, to protect his crumbling argument.

 

Yes, bascule, we can cut taxes, cut spending and SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT DOWN to constitutional size, which of course, is another dynamic of cutting spending dramatically. As long as you insist on centralized, bureaucratic micro and macro management of the population you'll need to rob them of all of their property to balance your books.

 

Your philosophy won't allow such individual accountability, so it appears impossible to you. That's fair. But it's not my philosophy and thus I am not bound by it.

 

And the Laffer Curve rears its ugly head yet again. Sorry, this is the very argument that created our national debt. Reagan made it. George H.W. Bush made it. George Bush made it. These three guys basically bankrupted our country. This approach has been tried. The result is the overwhelming majority of our present national debt.

 

Maybe someone should introduce you to Hauser's Law. Empirical evidence kicks ass.

 

You want to increase revenue? Increase the GDP. You want to increase the GDP? Lower freaking taxes. Not eliminate, but lower. Thoughtfully.

 

As for Regan and company, I find it curious. I've always heard that it was the spending. I guess it just depends on which ideologue you're talking to and what they're currently promoting or ridiculing.

 

The republicans have never shrunk government. Ever. They grow government as much as the taxocrats, err, democrats do. With Reagan I'm a bit more forgiving. I appreciate waging economic war instead of bloody war.

 

ParanoiA, I understand this argument but you are stuck on arguing about the abstract merits of a strategy that we all get - what we don't see is any tangible implementation plan for how to apply that strategy. The idea of "smaller government reduces deficit" is perfectly fine, but who has a strategy to do this in a manner that won't backfire and bite us?

 

We just see things 180 degrees different. You say you "get" the strategy, but it's not been tried. Parts of it are tried, here and there, but every administration and legislature grows the government and its power and responsibility. Your idea of backfire and bite us, probably is my idea of a homecoming. When government actually gets smaller, then we may just have something to track.

 

To me, the american people have made a grave mistake, generations ago. We were warned by our framers, and my second sig spells it out, but we've taken on these moral roles at the federal level while eroding the sovereignty of the states, further centralizing a collective government that offends the rights of the individual. We're seeing that more and more - personal choice being "judged' and then taxed or some such nudge by the citizenry to dissuade behavior through law.

 

So for me, I feel more compelled to argue personal choice to people and challenge their assumptions and impulses to judge each other's behaviors, from homophobia to hating the rich. We rationalize so much rotten treatment.

 

That's the only strategy I can get my hands around for such an ominous, impossible doom. In my opinion, of course.

 

Give me a beak. You think this is a message which deserves respect? Go frak yourself...

 

What a classless post. You'll get no respect from me, ever.

Edited April 23, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jryan]

Screw the constitution... god does not compromise... and Lindsey Graham is gay.

 

video

video

 

Give me a beak. You think this is a message which deserves respect? Go frak yourself...

 

You do realize that you are just stereotyping millions of people based on anecdotal evidence, right?

 

It is no different than anyone here posting "Kill Bush" posters at a G8 protest and then assuming it was a massive rally to kill George Bush.

 

or labeling the environmental movement any time Al Gore says something stupid... or an environmental protest has "Kill Bush" signs.

 

Seriously, you and I don't see eye to eye on almost anything but you are smarter than that.

[iNow]

[Mr Skeptic]

the right tax cuts in the right places increase revenue

 

And where would that be? Which tax can we cut to increase revenue?

 

I think it's more nuanced than that. I think it's pretty clear that some taxes are worse than others, even if they account for the same amount of revenue. So switching from one to another could increase revenue even with a slight decrease in tax rate. Likewise, some spending can increase economic growth, although not all spending will. Some spending (both government and private) simply redistribute wealth rather than create it, and such spending won't increase revenue.

[The Bear's Key]

Love those pics. Especially the little girl, that one really makes a terrific point.

It sure does...

 

Rush contributes socially, more than politically, in my opinion. This is where I find value in him. One of my favorites is his refusal to cave in to the "victim advocate". And he's been assailed so many times for this. It's a chickenshit technique to trot victims out in the political arena, taking a particular side, and then acting all shocked and offended when Rush takes them on for being "wrong". As if these victims can't be expected to be taken to task for their position - like we're all supposed to just shut up and let them talk without countering them - or if we do, we have to walk on eggshells beginning every sentence with some spill about how sorry we are that they're a victim.

 

Rush takes the heat for that. Globally. And I thank him. I appreciate that someone out there is willing to stand up to these traditional, offensive political techniques.

I doubt he'll ever call them out for placing signs on (eventual victim) kids. And did he call out Bush's political gimmick of talking about a "culture of life" while a ladies holding a child mouthed "Amen" on stage behind him?

 

(Among the countless instances of politicizing victims that Rush ignored because it came from the right-winged universe)

[padren]

We just see things 180 degrees different. You say you "get" the strategy, but it's not been tried. Parts of it are tried, here and there, but every administration and legislature grows the government and its power and responsibility. Your idea of backfire and bite us, probably is my idea of a homecoming. When government actually gets smaller, then we may just have something to track.

You missed my whole point. I really do understand the strategy and I understand it hasn't been "tried" to any proponent's satisfaction. My point however goes to what specifically would be tried. I understand in principle how all the mechanics are expected to operate on a macroscopic scale, but this only explains the general outlook.

 

What I don't see is any plan to ease us from here to there in a deliberate, thought out way that can adjust and respond to unexpected side effects. Just a few mid-step strategies that can be weighed, considered, expectations laid out, and impacts measured going forward. Without that all we have are some vaulted ideals with no concept of how to apply them in a practical sense. Without practical application, I don't see how to fit them into our current system to improve conditions, and that's what it's all about.

 

To me, the american people have made a grave mistake, generations ago. We were warned by our framers, and my second sig spells it out, but we've taken on these moral roles at the federal level while eroding the sovereignty of the states, further centralizing a collective government that offends the rights of the individual. We're seeing that more and more - personal choice being "judged' and then taxed or some such nudge by the citizenry to dissuade behavior through law.

 

So for me, I feel more compelled to argue personal choice to people and challenge their assumptions and impulses to judge each other's behaviors, from homophobia to hating the rich. We rationalize so much rotten treatment.

 

That's the only strategy I can get my hands around for such an ominous, impossible doom. In my opinion, of course.

 

 

Honestly I agree very much with you on a lot of these points. The only difference I see is I have as much skepticism of private industry as I do public institutions, and see them both as tools to keep each other at bay. On civil liberties I'm exceptionally libertarian minded. I would love to have a small government system with far more private options that all worked smoothly. However, when the only assurance to avoid "boom and bust" economics is "those problems will magically become manageable by reducing government" all I hear is a tenant of a philosophy - I need to see the case made as to why that is expected. Philosophical tenants aren't a bad thing when they lead to ideas that can provide viable solutions to complex problems but they don't replace those solutions. Until they lead to some real solutions, there's not a lot they can do in practical reality.

 

Can you understand why this is a problem?

[Sisyphus]

Saying "cut spending" is all well and good, but pretty meaningless on its own. Of course you want to to spend less. But cut spending where? Apparently not social security, medicare, or the military, so where? "Waste?" That's just as vague.

 

This is why I agree that the Tea Party is not actually saying anything. "Smaller government," without elaboration, is not a position.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Sisyphus

[john5746]

As for the "right tax cuts" increasing revenue is another great abstract idea, but where is a single example of how cutting x specifically can help increase y over time? We can't afford to ideologically hack and slash as libertarians anymore than we can afford to just randomly throw money at the poor as liberals.

 

Its really supply and demand. A store lowers the price of an item, yet makes more profit. In the same way, lowering capital gains taxes on say those who make 200,000 or less may spur a big enough investment demand to actually overcome the initial loss.

[ParanoiA]

I doubt he'll ever call them out for placing signs on (eventual victim) kids. And did he call out Bush's political gimmick of talking about a "culture of life" while a ladies holding a child mouthed "Amen" on stage behind him?

 

(Among the countless instances of politicizing victims that Rush ignored because it came from the right-winged universe)

 

Oh well sure. We see (or hear rather) this on his show daily. Cherry picking when to follow principle and went to think around it' date=' based entirely on his ideology.

 

But noting his hypocrisy misses the point, in this case anyway. He still, as far as I know anyway, is virtually the only commentator willing to step so firmly on victim advocates and reject the notion they are somehow too precious to be assailed, despite whom they may be assailing themselves.

 

It's the social commentary that I find more value in. His hypocrisy, and most of the politicians in the single party dual-wing system we live under, is something I've had to learn to live with. I don't accept it, but I live with it.

 

You missed my whole point. I really do understand the strategy and I understand it hasn't been "tried" to any proponent's satisfaction. My point however goes to what specifically would be tried. I understand in principle how all the mechanics are expected to operate on a macroscopic scale, but this only explains the general outlook.

 

What I don't see is any plan to ease us from here to there in a deliberate, thought out way that can adjust and respond to unexpected side effects. Just a few mid-step strategies that can be weighed, considered, expectations laid out, and impacts measured going forward. Without that all we have are some vaulted ideals with no concept of how to apply them in a practical sense. Without practical application, I don't see how to fit them into our current system to improve conditions, and that's what it's all about.

 

I apologize if I'm still missing your point. Maybe I'm just thick headed (my wife certainly wouldn't disagree with that).

 

I think you're talking about a carefully laid out plan of action to implement my dream libertarian federal level government. I think that would require a level of expertise and experience that I and most of us here don't have.

 

And I really thought I spoke to your point, but maybe it didn't seem so obvious. When you say "...can adjust and respond to unexpected side effects" it seems to imply - and correct me if I'm wrong here - that as we eliminated government programs for instance, that we must "do something" if we get poorer performance here and there.

 

And that's why I was trying to explain in my previous post that I'm not as concerned about performance of government. I accept the advantages and disadvantages of intense individual liberty and the natural compliment of free market economics. For instance, if we wiped out Social Security and that resulted in an inflated quantity of destitute seniors, I don't believe that is for government to fix. If I understand your point at all, it means to fix such a thing through government predicated on an "unexpected side effect" resulting from eliminating SS.

 

I have no interest in evolving government and growing it to fit around us to solve our problems. Centralized external force is a need produced because of our imperfection, and is something to be ashamed of, not to be invested in and proud of.

 

My philosophy focuses on the human. It's the human that should evolve, not the government. It's the human fault that causes us to need government in the first place, thus it should be the human that undergoes the change. The onus for evolution is on us.

 

Individual freedom is the only way to get there. Maximizing individual freedom empowers the individual and the absence of force, itself, forces humans to cooperate more fully to reach expected ends and goals. It better polarizes tolerance, forcing us to respect each other, because we cannot discount each other's beliefs by appealing to a central coersive power forcing compliance, creating resentment and failing at changing hearts and minds - fails at improving the human.

 

The ultimate end is self governing. To eliminate the corruption and malice of human nature to the point that humans don't need government - in its ideal of course, which will likely never be reached inside of a trillion years. Just like we aim for zero crime, we should aim for zero government. When humans don't need laws to be decent to one another, I believe we will have maximized quality of life and ultimately happiness. Everyone does as they please, and they hurt no one. Beautiful.

 

All of that is why I really don't care about the unexpected side effects, short of total national chaos and destruction. We resembled this framework before, and we had side effects and foolishly let those lead us down a path of eliminating individual liberty incrementally over time. We fought off the greatest army on earth - twice - and built a superpower of the world in about 150 years or so. We know what to expect. What we don't know, is how in the world we suddenly decided that those side effects were worse than freedom.

 

Saying "cut spending" is all well and good' date=' but pretty meaningless on its own. Of course you want to to spend less. But cut spending where? Apparently not social security, medicare, or the military, so where? "Waste?" That's just as vague.

 

This is why I agree that the Tea Party is not actually saying anything. "Smaller government," without elaboration, is not a position.[/quote']

 

Tea partiers are probably talking about the health care bill. I'm talking about all those you just listed, including the health care bill.

[ewmon]

A recent New York Times/CBS poll shows that 18 percent of America supports the Tea Party movement.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/us/politics/18tea.html

 

Some scientist determined (and I think Richard Feynman mentioned it in one of his books) that a subgroup exceeding a 1/2[math]\pi[/math] proportion (~16%) of a population has a significant influence/sway on that population.