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

[padren]

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.

We don't need a plan to entirely revolutionize the federal government, but for libertarian values to be applied to legislation, the legislation has to be thought out and planned out well with the impacts considered. By "considered" I don't mean "pacify big government liberals" but simply come out as expected. If it has an unpleasant side effect, then it was a planned unpleasant side effect or a flaw in the plan.

 

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 am not concerned whether this or that generates poorer performance, just that poorer performance is not unexpected. My main concern is that the positives and negatives are considered, estimations are made, and the theory's predictive qualities can be tested. Some things will be totally hard to predict, but they can be labeled as such going in, and the theory can be tuned as the unexpected creeps in. The important thing is to set up the plan and expectations in the first place so meaningful reflection and refinement can occur as it unfolds.

 

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.

Personally I don't see any differences between big government and big business, but that's an honest difference we have. The thing is you may be right and I may not like the side effects of the sort of government you would want, but the important thing is to be able to make that assessment based on a realistic model of what that society would look like. Then, if the model is implemented, it is done in a manner that can demonstrate if it's predictions are proving out or not as it's being implemented. We really should demand that of all political strategies... especially after how much we've been burned by the "try it and trust me" approach.

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.

 

That's fine and admirable, but it's also very absolute. If you are certain that "Individual freedom is the only way to get there." is an absolute, then you'll pursue it with a "hell or high water/do or die" level of commitment. What do the risks matter if there are no other options? It parallels "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither" which is something I strongly agree with. I'd rather risk dying in a terrorist attack than sacrifice the civil liberties terrorists would exploit. If I am too cavalier with that attitude I may say "damn the consequences" instead of figuring out how to mitigate the risks in a manner that doesn't sacrifice civil liberties. The things I come up with may not produce numbers that would satisfy the "security at all cost" crowd, but that wouldn't be the purpose - the goal would be to model real world expectations of risk and lower it as much as possible given the need to preserve civil liberties, and try to propose those with the hope that they actually matter to most people too. However, even if civil liberties do matter to most people, simply saying "a free society is the only way" does not produce any tangible strategies or new information. Plans of action, whether minor or major need to be conceptualized and their impacts measured.

That's my main beef with libertarian economics - it tends to fall back on the high level principles as "truths" that explains it'll all work itself out in the end, but doesn't offer anything than the belief the world works that way. All parties are guilty of this to some degree for sure, it just seems to come up more often with libertarians.

 

 

 

BTW: Do you have any tax revenue vs. rate stats that support Hauser's Law? I find that pretty interesting and would love to dig into those numbers, see how dramatic the effect is. If it's pretty tight I'd have to reconsider a few thoughts on taxes.

[ParanoiA]

That's fine and admirable, but it's also very absolute. If you are certain that "Individual freedom is the only way to get there." is an absolute, then you'll pursue it with a "hell or high water/do or die" level of commitment. What do the risks matter if there are no other options? It parallels "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither" which is something I strongly agree with.

 

Well it's no more absolute than any other principle we freeze into place, like equality or free speech. We say absolutely that our republic hinges on free speech and without it, we can't possibly be a free state or even a republic for that matter.

 

Well, how else can man shed the need for government unless that end is actively pursued? Generally, as our children get older, we reduce their rules and increase their responsibility don't we? We understand, intuitively and by experience, that to negotiate freedom they must have freedom, in some form, slowly and cautiously introduced throughout their first approximately 18 years of life.

 

I'm suggesting the same on a societal level. To design governments symmetrical to our current evolutionary disposition, actively pursuing total liberty as we evolve "fit" to negotiate it.

 

And my qualifier, albeit located in the final paragraph, is an appeal to pragmatism. I wouldn't pursue my ideal government at the expense of the ostensible purpose of government to begin with - to regulate the misgivings of man until he can do so himself. Law and order.

 

But if we don't pursue that principle, at all, and instead put our hopes in government and evolve and grow that system instead, then man is destined to always need the threat of force and exploitation of power over others. History demonstrates incredible abuses and institutionalized bigotry and shame when force is the ruling tool. Even without history repeating itself, it still ultimately that means people will be forced to live their lives counter to their own will, lowering the quality of life and full potential of happiness.

 

Plans of action, whether minor or major need to be conceptualized and their impacts measured. That's my main beef with libertarian economics - it tends to fall back on the high level principles as "truths" that explains it'll all work itself out in the end, but doesn't offer anything than the belief the world works that way. All parties are guilty of this to some degree for sure, it just seems to come up more often with libertarians.

 

Maybe it's because many of us fall back on the idea that we strike down certain, major laws that we feel infringe rights and then observe and absorb the results. Then on to the next one.

 

For instance, instead of making believe that we can accurately predict the result of total drug legalization in America, we back off on marijuana and some designer drugs and then observe and absorb that change. If it's too much, and it threatens the basic function of law and order, then we roll it back in. If we prove to have handled the freedom generally well, then we can take another step.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know exactly how much freedom we can handle and still function as a country. I don't believe we can know really. We are so fully invested in the opposing direction, that any prediction would be a stab in the dark.

 

As far as libertarian economics, I think it's more a question of expectation in performance than high level truths that claim it will work itself out in the end. Sure it will work out, it always did, even in the free banking era. But if your expectation is a bumpy free economy, then I think it's unrealistic. You don't get that with a centrally managed and planned economy either. And look how much it costs to do this, together with the - once again - power, exploitation and corruption components of consolidated power into small groups of men.

 

I think that's a bit down the road though.

 

 

 

 

I think the main reason why we talk past each other (and why I still feel like I'm not answering your points very well) is that we see economic and social liberty similar to how you might view equality. Consider slavery. Do we really care about the economic cost of freeing the slaves, if that institution still existed today? Would we make appeals to "planning and mitigation" as the result of emancipation?

 

I think we would only consider such things in the most extreme of results - total collapse and chaos of the country. But if it caused life to suck and be hard on more people as the result? No.

 

Because the principle matters more, even if it costs us superpower status. That's how libertarians think about our principles. The bad results we may get, are all worth it, because the morals and ethics are more important.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

BTW: Do you have any tax revenue vs. rate stats that support Hauser's Law? I find that pretty interesting and would love to dig into those numbers, see how dramatic the effect is. If it's pretty tight I'd have to reconsider a few thoughts on taxes.

 

I don't, but I'm working on it. I want this too. I'm sure it's tied to the introduction of the income tax and the shift from majority of taxes going local, to national. That shift happened throughout the 20's and 30's, which coincides with the world wars and federal response to them.

[padren]

Large post

I'll try to respond to the whole post in a few short paragraphs, not to trivialize your thought out response but to try and avoid the "series of quotes" effect that often comes up in forums.

 

On the points of free speech and abolition of slavery - yes, the consequences are not going to outweigh the moral imperatives. But when you say "Do we really care about the economic cost of freeing the slaves" I would argue we should try to understand the impact and and failure to do so can only cause those problems to be worse. No matter how morally imperative the task at hand may be we must always try to understand the shape of things our actions bring into being. In such an example the good can't help but to outweigh the bad but we should always strive to anticipate the bad because it's going to effect people's lives and the world we live in. On top of that, it allows us to discuss, debate, and refine the mechanisms, and even win people over. It's very hard to discuss a topic without a full picture.

 

On the topic of drugs you hit the nail on the head. There is a tongue in cheek quote that seems to often follow people who take on and make great progress on moral initiatives "If I knew how much trouble it was going to be when I started I would have waited for someone else do it."

It's tongue in cheek as I said, but I think there is a genuine fear that if we know the full scope of a problem we may be too timid to tackle it, and I think that works against us. We may find the war on drugs morally abhorrent, but less so than slavery, therefore we don't have to oppose it "damn the consequences" and can afford to extrapolate the possible costs and refine our approach. I'm just saying that should be the case regardless of the imperative.

 

 

 

To use an example from the "Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law" thread:

 

As a civil libertarian, I find that law abhorrent, where they passed a law to address a real immigration problem at the cost of civil liberties. I could argue against it purely from principle (we must protect liberties, damn the consequences), but the core problem isn't one of civil liberties - it's illegal immigration. Restating well known principles does not address that issue.

 

Instead, I considered the problem from my perspective as a civil libertarian... one of the corner stones being personal responsibility: You should be allowed to buy a gun but if you shoot yourself in the leg, you have to take responsibility for doing something careless and not blame the government for "letting someone as careless as me own a gun."

Starting from the point of personal responsibility, my first consideration was to the reality check that we all benefit from low wages of illegal immigrants if we buy from companies that employ them, and it really is our problem even if we don't condone that behavior. The next thing is the employer - they create this issue, benefit from it, but don't want to be responsible for their employees as required by law and that cost gets pushed off to the public.

My suggestion as a specific way to attack the problem was thus that we are responsible for passing laws that make employers responsible for hiring immigrants. If they hire illegal immigrants - okay then, they'll be responsible and get stuck with the bills and risks just like anyone else who sponsors an immigrant.

 

I probably didn't need to go into that much detail here, but I just want to convey concisely how when an issue is encountered, and laws are passed that go against one's principles, that simply pointing out the moral imperative of the principles does not address the original problem. It says "that action is wrong" but leaves the problem that inspired it just as bad as before. By applying those principles, and attacking the problem from that perspective, one can then come up with possible solutions to that problem that are inline with one's principles. The costs can be weighed, the problems it may encounter, and it's merits debated. It may be a bad idea, or an idea that someone else improves upon greatly.

But the important thing is it goes from advocating a direction to discussing solutions that move in that direction.

 

 

I hope I didn't miss any key points, let me know if I did.

[iNow]

On the points of free speech and abolition of slavery - yes, the consequences are not going to outweigh the moral imperatives. But when you say "Do we really care about the economic cost of freeing the slaves" I would argue we should try to understand the impact and and failure to do so can only cause those problems to be worse. No matter how morally imperative the task at hand may be we must always try to understand the shape of things our actions bring into being. In such an example the good can't help but to outweigh the bad but we should always strive to anticipate the bad because it's going to effect people's lives and the world we live in. On top of that, it allows us to discuss, debate, and refine the mechanisms, and even win people over. It's very hard to discuss a topic without a full picture.

Further, this approach allows good ideas to be brought to the table which could help to mitigate the adverse effects and risks which (by default) come with the implementation of the imperative. In your example above, the discussion might lead to the ability to both end slavery AND find a way to minimize the negative economic impact.

 

My reading of your well-written post, and what I seek here to reinforce with my own, is that discussion of moral imperatives and discussion of the impact of implementing those imperatives are not mutually exclusive, but we tend to focus far too often on only on one or the other. It's not either/or, yet that's how our discussion so frequently frames itself.

 

 

 

I just want to convey concisely how when an issue is encountered, and laws are passed that go against one's principles, that simply pointing out the moral imperative of the principles does not address the original problem. It says "that action is wrong" but leaves the problem that inspired it just as bad as before. By applying those principles, and attacking the problem from that perspective, one can then come up with possible solutions to that problem that are inline with one's principles. The costs can be weighed, the problems it may encounter, and it's merits debated. It may be a bad idea, or an idea that someone else improves upon greatly.

But the important thing is it goes from advocating a direction to discussing solutions that move in that direction.

 

And, to bring this back into context of the thread, one of the problems with the tea party (IMO) is that it's quite easy to understand and relate to their principles, but they have yet to offer reasonable non-absolutist solutions based on those principles... they have yet to offer a well-reasoned consideration of the costs of implementing their principles coupled with plans to mitigate those risks... and they (as a broader movement) have yet to move beyond decrying that what is happening "is wrong" into the realm of "here are some alternatives along with the costs and benefits of moving them forward." Additionally, they have yet to demonstrate any signs of a willingness to compromise or to find middle ground with those who espouse a position contrary to their own.

 

In short, they seem stuck in the "identification of a problem" phase... stuck in the "pointing out of a problem" phase... and they seem thus far unable to successfully advocate alternative directions based on reasonable discussions of their underlying principles and imperatives, or to work with others to achieve them.

 

I acknowledge a degree of generalization above, as there are certainly a handful of individual exceptions, but as a party or movement? I think the above is rather accurate.

[ParanoiA]

On the points of free speech and abolition of slavery - yes, the consequences are not going to outweigh the moral imperatives. But when you say "Do we really care about the economic cost of freeing the slaves" I would argue we should try to understand the impact and and failure to do so can only cause those problems to be worse. No matter how morally imperative the task at hand may be we must always try to understand the shape of things our actions bring into being. In such an example the good can't help but to outweigh the bad but we should always strive to anticipate the bad because it's going to effect people's lives and the world we live in. On top of that, it allows us to discuss, debate, and refine the mechanisms, and even win people over. It's very hard to discuss a topic without a full picture.

 

I probably didn't need to go into that much detail here' date=' but I just want to convey concisely how when an issue is encountered, and laws are passed that go against one's principles, that simply pointing out the moral imperative of the principles does not address the original problem. It says "that action is wrong" but leaves the problem that inspired it just as bad as before. By applying those principles, and attacking the problem from that perspective, one can then come up with possible solutions to that problem that are inline with one's principles. The costs can be weighed, the problems it may encounter, and it's merits debated. It may be a bad idea, or an idea that someone else improves upon greatly.

But the important thing is it goes from advocating a direction to discussing solutions that move in that direction.[/quote']

 

But see, we do. This always gets discussed when libertarians share these principles. People start with the "what about fire departments?" , "what about drugs?" "what about homemade grenade launchers?" - and we always share what we believe the impact will be. On the drug issue there are examples in key places in the world we can relate to, such as the Netherlands and their practice of tolerance and the social result of such policies.

 

On the health care issue

, which included an end to protection for the american pharmaceutical industry from international competitors, changes to medicare and the crucial central role it plays in inflated costs soaked up by insurance companies, and tax deductions for health care costs. And to understand how much good that stuff will do, you have to wade through the supporting logic, which means criticizing the current situation.

 

We weigh into threads on the various issues and criticize and provide our versions of solutions and argue them out. I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do. Libertarians are out there and sharing their ideas, so by all means, debate with them. It's not just core philosophy vaguely interfaced with reality, it's quite practical when applied in a rational manner.

[Genecks]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0XXmVts1y0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0XXmVts1y0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Eye Movements and Electroencephalogram Activity during Sleep in Diurnal Lizards
Tauber, E. S.
Nature, Volume 212, Issue 5070, pp. 1612-1613 (1966).

IN a recent study of the sleep behaviour of a reptile (tortoise) it has been reported that a paradoxical or rapid eye movement stage was not observed during extended periods of sleep1-2. Eye movement patterns of the turtle family are not so prominent as are those of certain other reptilians, for example the chameleon, a diurnal lizard. Assuming that the organization of eye movements in the waking state might be reflected during sleep, and because the lizard is phylogenetically more advanced than the turtle, we studied the sleep pattern of two species of chameleons: Chameleo jacksoni and C. melleri. Not only are their eye movements of extraordinary range, but their visual acuity is also superb. Retinal structure is claimed to be superior to that of man3,4.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QkBT0uke4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QkBT0uke4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Edited April 26, 2010 by Genecks

[padren]

But see, we do. This always gets discussed when libertarians share these principles. People start with the "what about fire departments?" , "what about drugs?" "what about homemade grenade launchers?" - and we always share what we believe the impact will be. On the drug issue there are examples in key places in the world we can relate to, such as the Netherlands and their practice of tolerance and the social result of such policies.

You are describing a high level discussion about the principles of the philosophy. Those responses come when people say things like "Government does a lousy job at taking care of things that the free market should" (rebuttal fire departments) "Individual liberties need to be respected and if someone isn't hurting anyone else..." (drugs) "The second amendment is important and these gun laws are affecting the legal gun owners who have never committed a crime..." (grenades) but how would they come up discussing a specific issue like catching Wallstreet crooks selling fraudulent packages before they explode? Or how to balance taxes to for the best revenue and grow the GDP? Those are problems of a mechanical nature and as long as your philosophy is good you really don't have to sell it - the solutions sell themselves because they make sense and work.

 

On the health care issue

, which included an end to protection for the american pharmaceutical industry from international competitors, changes to medicare and the crucial central role it plays in inflated costs soaked up by insurance companies, and tax deductions for health care costs. And to understand how much good that stuff will do, you have to wade through the supporting logic, which means criticizing the current situation.

Well, he doesn't address the most important factors in that video (getting dropped from insurance providers, line-item 'no coverage'), but it definitely is a bit of a side topic. Really it's the "supporting logic" that I'm going on about (and I can understand if he can't go into any of it in a short youtube video) and it's fine to criticize the current situation - it's what everyone does unless they think it's the pinnacle of perfection.

 

We weigh into threads on the various issues and criticize and provide our versions of solutions and argue them out. I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do. Libertarians are out there and sharing their ideas, so by all means, debate with them. It's not just core philosophy vaguely interfaced with reality, it's quite practical when applied in a rational manner.

 

No, that's exactly right. It's just when economic turbulence gets described as "it may be really rough sometimes, but that can't be helped in a free society" it only disrupts the discussion. Some analysis of the turbulence and what individuals will need to do to avoid it, and what to expect if they don't is more useful.

[ParanoiA]

...but how would they come up discussing a specific issue like catching Wallstreet crooks selling fraudulent packages before they explode? Or how to balance taxes to for the best revenue and grow the GDP? Those are problems of a mechanical nature and as long as your philosophy is good you really don't have to sell it - the solutions sell themselves because they make sense and work.

 

See, that's exactly what I'm saying though padren - all of these problems you listed are a combination of expectation and assumptions based on them. And that is where the problems are at in this country. It is our belief, that we have to re-sell the liberty belief because we're wholesale trading liberty for security, and have been for about 100 years. So all of our solutions seem weird or neglectful - largely because we shrug at your insistence that they are government problems to begin with.

 

We think differently than you. We never make the assumption that one should be dreaming up ways to interfere in every problem we have - but you do, in comparison.

 

On: "specific issue like catching Wallstreet crooks selling fraudulent packages before they explode" - if they're fraudulent, then that's that - it's fraud. You think fraud means something different to a libertarian than everyone else? Yes, we're against that. And if that package is fraudulent, then we would be for punishing them for it. What laws do we have against fraud? Bunches. Do any of them cover this fraud? If not, why not? It's just simple logic, we only ask to work within the confines of the constitution.

 

On: "how to balance taxes to for the best revenue and grow the GDP?" Here's where we have a different expectation than you. We would ask the question, what is the fairest way to obtain sufficient revenue for our government? We don't ask, oh gee, how can we maximize the property we confiscate from the people. WTF is that? We don't assume it's the government's role to centrally manage and manipulate the GDP - we say WTF to that too.

 

This is what I was trying to convey earlier. Our solutions and our message is largely about questioning your goals to begin with, the motivations for those goals and how they reconcile with larger, more important philosophical "truths" like personal liberty, equality, government subordinate to the people. We see more fatal danger with thinking around those "anachronistic" principles based on what history has taught us and what our founders warned us about.

 

This is where many say we're not practical or current, and only have lofty ideals to share - because they reject our assumptions. Well, we reject your assumptions, and that's why you don't understand us or perceive that we don't share real solutions for a real world. We do, but we don't think like you, so it's not readily obvious.

 

 

 

In short, we don't make the assumptions that you make. You may see a "problem", and we see "oh, you don't like the way that guy is using his freedom...gee, that's sad for you". We follow through on the hippy message, and the modern conservative message of free thinking and personal choice. Stop with the drama. Stop with the empire. Stop with the international domination.

 

Scale it back to manageable size, rediscover the value and quality of life when individuals can live it the way they want. Stop actively interfering in everyone's business with this drama queen act, appeals to imperfection to justify cancelling personal choice.

 

Here's the crux: In the face of modern politics and assumptions, our positions are more effectively argued as principles since many problems are either A) not for government to fix B) not improvable without a cost to liberty. Otherwise, our positions and solutions will come across as dismissive and overly simplified. This is because we value liberty over performance and problem solving, since it's more important than performance or problem solving.

[bascule]

For those of you who are still unclear on the taxes/debt dichotomy, perhaps I can put it this way:

 

1) Obama cut taxes. The overwhelming majority of Americans are seeing the lowest rate in decades

2) Obama cut taxes by increasing the deficit

3) The tea party is still complaining that taxes should be cut more, while simultaneously lambasting the bill which decreased taxes (it's one of "the bailouts!"), and insisting that the deficit is a problem too

 

So tea party members oppose bills that decrease taxes, think taxes should be decreased, and think the deficit should be decreased... all at the same time

 

I think the concept of "priorities" escapes these people.

 

Want to permanently decrease taxes? Focus on decreasing the deficit, until you run a surplus. Pay down the national debt. This will reduce the amount of interest we are paying on the debt, and when that happens we can reduce taxes accordingly.

 

In the meantime, cutting taxes is counterproductive.

Edited May 1, 2010 by bascule

[iNow]

A nice article about the tea party. Explores some of the more hypocritical areas we see from the movement. Worth the read.

 

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904

 

Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn't a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.

 

"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."

 

A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.

[lemur]

Could the tea party produce a third candidate divide the right the way Nader did to the left, supposedly, which some people blamed for keeping Bush in office?

[iNow]

Could the tea party produce a third candidate divide the right the way Nader did to the left, supposedly, which some people blamed for keeping Bush in office?

I suspect this is going to happen rather soon now, myself. A Ted Cruz or Rand Paul versus a Jeb Bush or a Chris Christie.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Everybody,

Please note that with the exception of iNow's last post, the thread is already 3 years old. Not all participants may be active on our forum anymore. And in addition, links and references in old posts may no longer be working.

 

We encourage members to open a new thread if they wish to discuss the topic of this thread, or any parts of it.

[iNow]

I'll just add this:

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx

[overtone]

A short comment that also belongs here: There is no such Party as the Tea Party The people who call themselves Tea Party members are Republicans, and the label refers to a vague and shifting faction of the the Republican Party. They gave themselves the label in order to put distance between themselves and the consequences their policies and recommended actions, as enacted by their former hero and much beloved President George W Bush.

 

If you have amnesia and need evidence of that, I invite you to review the past ten years of speeches and behaviors of Tea Party leader and chief Congressional spokesman Michelle Bachmann, R MN (founder of the Tea Party Caucus in the House). Note the changes in content and focus from before Republican policy and Republican executive action resulted in exactly what the reality based community said they would result in, and then afterwards - the three years since the OP provide excellent examples.

 

If you want a third Party, you'll need something else. The Republican Party already exists.

 

As far as the three year old OP, of course we should take powerful, dominating factions of the Republican Party seriously - these people have done a whole lot of damage, and they are well advanced in the project of doing much more.

Edited October 11, 2013 by overtone

[moth]

Surprising!

 

The opening speech left me with the general feeling I get about the tea party: what exactly are they protesting?

 

Regarding the gun rights activists, I am left to wonder why this guy feels his gun rights are threatened when the current government has done nothing of the sort.

 

Should I be surprised no one is protesting against the government asking us to quarter soldiers?

I apologize for my previous contribution to this thread. I wasn't allowed in english class when I was in high school.

I just couldn't let this pass unnoticed:

 

quarter sodiers