"There's trouble brewing between the Ron Paul libertarians who staged the the first modern tea party in 2007 by dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and the neocon war hawks led by Sarah Palin who are furiously trying to hijack their message."I am currently less sanguine about the prospects of a Ron Paul style libertarian regime solving our country's problems than I was in 2007. But I am convinced that Dr. Paul is principled to the core and really is trying to help the country. And I am MUCH less sanguine about the prospects of a completely unprincipled neocon style regime effecting any real change. That is a recipe for Bush 2.0.
The Tea-Party movement casting out Ron Paul? The guy whose followers started the Tea Party movement a few years ago?? This is a great example of the Republican establishment putting the kibosh on an effort at real change.
Posts
10 comments:
Poo poo on Sarah Palin.
I've decided I need to use the word sanguine more often.
ah, the benefits of studying for the GRE:-) Still looking for an opportunity to use the word nadir. I really like that one for some reason...
While I can see your irritation at as you say, “the hijacking of their message.” I don’t really see the problem. If anything it should be considered a real boon to Libertarians, as their message is getting out and perhaps the first real influence they have ever really had. It is incredibly rare that a group of idealists can leave one of the major parties and have any positive change for their ideals. If they leave the party and take with them all the people that really care about an issue, than the major party has less people in it that care about that particular issue.
Hmmm...that might make sense IF the GOP was promoting the same message as the libertarians. The problem is they don't. One of the major points of contention between libertarians and R's is foreign policy. Libertarians don't like the wars or the global police force. But global warfare/policing is a key tenet of the current Republican message (I say current because this is actually a relatively new phenomenon in conservatism).
Libertarians are trying to reform the party to the libertarian ideals. The Tea Parties started as a movement to pursue that end. The fact that traditional GOP'ers are hijacking the movement is certainly oppososed by libertarian types who are diametrically opposed to many of the principles espoused by Repubs. All this means is that their message is being marginalized yet again.
I disagree that it is a new phenomenon, so would the Koreans, the Philipeano’s, and the Vietnamese, as well as many others. But that is beside the point. My point is that if the Libertarians want there message to be adopted, they need to embrase the Republican Party and effect their change from within. The original TEA Party in the Boston Harbour may have been organized by Libertarians, I honestly don’t know. However, the TEA Party movement is not a Libertarian movement. As far as I can tell never was. Especially if the important poliocy is foreign affairs. The TEA Parties are about taxes and government expansion. Everything else is secondary, and divisive to the entire movement. Both of which most Republicans and Libertarians agree on.
Wikipedia compares political parties, on 10 pretty common political ideologies, and while you claim Republicans and Democrats are the same, they agree on only 2 out of the 10 issues. While Libertarians and Republicans agree on between 3 and 5 issues, and Libertarians and Democrats agree on 2. The Parties don’t have a definate stance on all the issues, which is why they don’t add up right. But on the 4 issues where Republicans and Libertarians disagree, I am with Republicans on 3 out of 5 of the issues, and they are more important issues:Abortion, Legalized same-sex marriage, and Iraq. While the issues I agree with more of the Libertarians are not nearly as important: Immigration laws, and drug liberalization. So out of 10 issues, I only agree with Democrats on 1 issue, Libertarians on 5 issues, and Republicans on 7 issues. It hardly seems they are the same.
The TEA Parties have never been about the issues where Republicans and Libertarians disagree, so I still don’t see the problem with one of the two major parties picking up the momentum of what the people are showing that they obviously want and running with it. That should be a good thing if you believe in those issues, because it shows that it will be taken seriously, instead of looked at as some strange fringe movement that will never amount to anything.
Nate,
the Korean and Vietnamese war were started by Democratic presidents (Truman and Johnson). It is very much in the Republican tradition to be in favor of an anti-interventionist foreign policy. In fact Republicans won elections in the 50's and 60's based on that opposition...so it is a relatively new phenomenon for the Republican party to be the pro-war party.
The Tea Parties I am talking about are the modern Tea Parties, and it was started by Ron Paul supporters..very much of a libertarian bent. And anti-interventionist is at the heart of the libertarian message...it is impossible to separate that message from the anti-tax, small government positions.
Nate, the Republican party has ridden into power on a wave of small government power rhetoric enough times by now to know they are utterly useless. The congressmen are beholden to special interests, and every time they have been in power they have failed miserably. Government has grown, we have started new wars, things have gotten worse. And now the mainstream Repubs are embracing the Tea Party movement and I am supposed to think that is good thing? What makes you believe anything will be different this time around?
I reached my personal nadir shortly after dropping out of med school (and that's not to say it was a mistake to drop out). I'm doing a whole lot better now. Life is great. Sometimes you've gotta pass through deep valleys to get to the highest peaks.
Guess who's getting married? Carl LeSueur! You remember him, right?
'atta boy Carl! Was post med-school your personal nadir or was it post Megan 1.0? I seem to remember that being a rough spot:-)
Hmmm, that's an interesting question and I'm not sure I know the answer! Let's just say they were both very nadirish. :)
Post a Comment