United Liberty
The tea party movement is a response Barack Obama (Bruce McQuain’s wrong)
Sat, 04/03/2010 - 8:23am | posted by Jason Pye
Recently, former Vice President Dan Quayle offered his two cents about the tea party movement:
Like many influential causes before it, the “tea party” movement appeared on the scene uninvited by the political establishment. Democrats in the White House and in Congress recognize it for what it is — a spontaneous and pointed response to the Obama agenda — but some Republican leaders still aren’t sure what to make of it, as tea partiers have risen on their own and stirred up trouble in GOP primaries.
Over at QandO, my friend Bruce McQuain takes issue with Quayle’s comments and defends the tea party movement:
The tea party movement is not exclusively a reaction only to “the Obama agenda”. And if the GOP buys into that, they’re buying trouble. Quayle even acknowledges that without knowing it when he talks about trouble in Republican primaries.
This grass roots movement didn’t begin when Obama took office or in reaction to his specific agenda, but instead began to form during the Bush administration as government continued to expand. About the time TARP found its way into the political lexicon, it went public. It was the size of the crisis and response – the trillions of dollars thrown around like confetti – that finally spurred people into the streets and birthed the official “tea party movement”.
I really wish that were true, Bruce, but Quayle is right.
The problem is that tea party types did not organize protests to the economic policies of George W. Bush, and TARP was not the first example of fiscal impropriety of his presidency. He cut taxes, so most self-identified conservatives don’t ask questions. Nevermind that he didn’t cut spending, resulting in massive deficits that will cause huge tax increases in the future.
The first protests were prompted by Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC in response to the Obama Administration’s $75 billion Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan that was a bailout for both irresponsible borrowers and lenders.
Bruce continues:
[T]his isn’t a movement of right wing disgruntled Republicans. This is a movement of small government fiscal conservatives – almost libertarian in leaning. Her discussion of the demonization of business, the necessity of allowing businesses to fail, getting out of the way of the markets and let them take the lead in recovery were on target and well delivered.
At the beginning of the movement, yes, I think that would have been a true statement. The first Atlanta Tea Party (2/27/09) was a mix of libertarians, like myself and Eric Von Haessler, and fiscal conservatives. There was an authenticity about it as 300 people were huddled together on a cold, wet day at the state Capitol.
Even then, no one was talking about past fiscal recklessness, even though Barack Obama had been in office for just over a month, though everyone was slamming him. I don’t have a problem with that because Obama is spending our country further to insolvency but by what was being said, you’d think Bush never existed.
The day Newt Gingrich got involved was the day I walked away. Gingrich is no fiscal conservative, after all he supported TARP and entitlement expansion. He is a political pragmatist that will endorse any movement or political idea that will advance the Republican Party.
It was even more obvious at the Tax Day Tea Party where Sean Hannity, the Republican cheerleader, showed up to broadcast his show. By this time, libertarians began to take a skeptical eye to the tea party as it seemed that Republicans were successfully co-opting the movement.
And finally, Bruce says it:
[Tea partiers are] not looking necessarily for Republicans. They’re looking for principled small government fiscal conservatives who will return sanity to government and scale down its size, scope and cost. Sen. Olympia Snowe would not qualify. Sen. Lindsey Graham most likely wouldn’t qualify either. And I’ll venture to say, neither would Sen. John McCain. These are the type people they’re promising “trouble” for in Republican primaries.
What are the qualifiers for a “tea party” candidate, rhetoric or actually putting their words into action? For example, J.D. Hayworth, McCain’s primary opponent, isn’t exactly a fiscal conservative, though he may be more so than the incumbent.
I sumbit to you that Hayworth’s tea party support, sans Sarah Palin, isn’t because of fiscal concerns, it’s because McCain doesn’t hate brown people.
Personally, I don’t believe the tea party movement as principled as many of promoters and leaders believe it is. For example, during the health care debate, tea partiers echoed Republican criticism of ObamaCare, including the line that it would cut Medicare. If you’re complaining about Medicare cuts, are you endorsing tax increases in the future? Medicare has to be cut to avert a fiscal crisis.
Bruce gives a picture of what the movement is supposed to be, but it’s not and it hasn’t been for a while. But that’s just my personal observation as a disgruntled former tea partier.
“I sumbit to you that Hayworth’s tea party support, sans Sarah Palin, isn’t because of fiscal concerns, it’s because McCain doesn’t hate brown people.”
Yes, of all the comments and assertions you made this is the one I choose to point out. I suppose Hayworth is opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants? I heard you make a similar comment in mixed company once before regarding how the right “hates” brown people. What a truly silly assertion. One that completely disregards any good reasons that one may have for wanting the current immigration laws enforced. Being a “brown” person myself and knowing many “brown” people and having a father who ministers to illegal “brown” folk and is thereby finely tuned to their plight I suppose that I and he too “hate brown people” since we aren’t for open borders and giving these folks blanket amnesty. Yup, I’m a hater cause if it was me running against McCain and espousing similar views, what you wrote would read “”I sumbit to you that Gonzalez’s tea party support, sans Sarah Palin, isn’t because of fiscal concerns, it’s because McCain doesn’t hate brown people.” I submit to you, Jason, that this a bald assertion predicated on your own biases with little factual support, i.e. your comments regarding the right’s “hatred” of brown people is an unfounded extrapolation from a part to a whole.
Capitalism encompasses many different issues, including immigration. While I’m not advocating open borders, I am saying promoting a free society with an open market means allowing individuals to come to this country, provided they are not a security or health risk.
I don’t doubt that you share that belief, but many anti-immigration activists, including many inside the tea party movement, are nativists with a preconceived opinion of immigrants.
Despite the fact that they are descendants of immigrants themselves. Apparently that’s only a blessing we allow for descendants of Europeans, I guess.
Anyone who denies that the tea partiers have a strong racial, nativist (to use Jason’s less loaded term) and hateful undertone just need to go visit the rallies. One look at them will show that it’s not the Campaign for Liberty crowd, it’s the crowd you find at the Nascar rallies and rodeos.
“Philosophy, despite the best obfuscatory intentions of philosophers, occasionally seeps out of the ivory towers and informs our lives.”
and if I’ve visited the rallies and not come to your same astute conclusion? because….I have and I ain’t feelin ya there. Nor do the crowds seem like the NASCAR types to me either though there are some of there too. I guess I must be a nativist.
You are just as biased as I am.
We’ve gone through this before. I’m not rehashing the same old argument with you, Jorge.
what bias? i don’t recall you ever arguing to my biases nor mentioning them.
Jason
Continuing to twist the tea party movement into a political “they hate brown people” pretzel aligns yourself with the desperate propaganda attacks of the progressives…strange bedfellows for a libertarian.
Current immigration laws not enforced and openly subverted by the very government that enacted them makes a mockery of The Rule of Law, further eroding the foundation upon which our nation stands. Legal immigration and control of our borders is a policy based in common sense, not in the color of one’s skin.
As to your “disgruntled former tea partier” status, you come across as loving the tea party only when the tea party was ‘cool’ -when you and your huddled authentic 300 stood for something, before the great unwashed patriots of America rose to the occasion. Until you get over yourself, thank you for your step away from the tea party - Elitism in libertarian clothing is best left on the pages of your posts for all to see.
Current immigration laws not enforced and openly subverted by the very government that enacted them makes a mockery of The Rule of Law, further eroding the foundation upon which our nation stands. Legal immigration and control of our borders is a policy based in common sense, not in the color of one’s skin.
My comment was directed at the current situation in the Arizona Senate primary between Hayworth and McCain. The tea party is backing Hayworth, not because he is more fiscally conservative, it’s because McCain sponsored immigration reform.
Immigrants should prove that they are not a health risk or security threat, I don’t disagree. However, the most immigration rhetoric is based in something more than just policy. There are individuals who genuinely care about the issue and are truly concerned about national security, you may well be one of them, but it seems that you are in the minority.
As to your “disgruntled former tea partier” status, you come across as loving the tea party only when the tea party was ‘cool’ -when you and your huddled authentic 300 stood for something, before the great unwashed patriots of America rose to the occasion.
This an absurd statement. The tea party is at the height of it’s popularity right now. If I wanted to be part of it because it’s “cool,” why not now? Really, think about what you wrote for a moment.
It’s not about me, it’s about principle, and many of the people protesting now were silent when Bush was expanding government and spending us further into debt. I’m merely voicing my dissatisfaction.
For me, principles matter when you’re in a majority just as much as when you are in the minority.
When things become ‘at the height of their popularity’, they lose the cache that attracted the elitist to them in the first place. All that is left is to discredit those with the gall to agree with you -most certainly a bad taste left in such a principled mouth.
When it became less about free markets and more about advancing Republicans, that’s when I lost interest. I believe in advancing ideas, not parties.
I’m not an elitist, I just believe in core principles that exist no matter who has power in Washington.
“I believe in advancing ideas, not parties.”
Again you shy from people and prefer to hide in the idea-thicket of principles. Ideas do not hold seats of Government. The time is now to stand shoulder to shoulder in the fray, to educate Republicans-to steep them in the tea of liberty-in order that they may carry the burden of conservative, principled government forward, firmly rooted in the Constitution and in accordance with the consent of the now wide awake governed.
The RINO’s and the Dems could use the time off - scraping off the last vestiges of their pernicious progressive proclivities (alliteration hat trick!) could take a while.
I’m a libertarian, not a conservative.
There are aspects of conservatism, such the authoritarian side of social policy, that bother me as much as the fiscal side of progressives.
I remember trying to educate Republicans and conservatives on the Constitution during the Bush Administration. They weren’t willing to listen then, and in many cases they aren’t willing to listen now.
“There are aspects of conservatism, such the authoritarian side of social policy, that bother me as much as the fiscal side of progressives.”
I would argue that the ‘authoritarian side of social policy’ has no place in conservatism - nor should it be construed as one of the enumerated powers of government to socially engineer a free man’s life.
Herein lies common ground, libertarian Jason.
Why would you obfuscate these important truths with racist smears and embittered criticism of the teaparty’s timing? Is it really so shocking that it took the progressive bombshell of Obama to rouse the sleeping giant?
May we have the strength and the sense to learn from the mistakes of history and recapture a clear vision of the meaning of limited government.
Check out this article and my friend Cindy’s comments that expound on this very subject -
http://iconicfreedom.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-is-limited-government.htm…
Racism? No, it’s xenophobia and nativism.
After observing the tea party movement over the last year, I remain convinced that they are more interested in promoting Republicans, who paved the way for Barack Obama, than free markets.
Your insistance on describing the teaparty movement as, using your phraseology, xenophobic nativists that hate brown people, takes us right back to what provoked me to respond to your offensive post.
After observing your reasoning throughout, I remain convinced that:
Bruce McQuain is right.
Jorge is right.
You are not part of the solution.
You don’t have a right not to be offended. The truth hurts. The movement has co-opted by other groups and allowed itself be define by them.
The tea party movement promotes a party that expanded entitlements, increased spending and generally grew government. That’s not a solution either, it’s exacerbating the problem.
There are more libertarians, that is individuals that follow the philosophy, like me that will not get involved with the tea party movement for similar reasons.