Fighting the Culture of Dependence

[unixronin]

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, writes about what the Tea Parties are really about.

(Hint:  It doesn't involve hating anyone, hunting wolves from helicopters, funding from the Bavarian Illuminati, or any of the other smears you've heard.)

Comments

Part 2

[rain-manpnw.livejournal.com]

- - -

- The loudest, most vociferous and most identifiable portion of the shaky TEA Party coalition is what the (first article I linked) calls the "Palinites", which are (IMO) essentially a rebranding of the white supremacy militia of the 90s and the religious reich of Falwell & Robertson from the '00s.

While I could agree with some of the positions of the "Pauline" TPer's (and will require further analysis to define those points of agreement), the anti-science, anti-civil liberties, and inherent contradictions of wanting smaller government - while at the same time insisting that that smaller government be MORE intrusive into peoples' private lives - stand of the Palinites disgusts me. I will make the following distinctions:

The Pauline bloc of the TEA Party I will refer to as TEA Partiers, or TPer's for short.

The Palinite bloc of the TEA Party I will refer to as "teabaggers". They started the use of the term in reference to the Democrats ("Send a tea bag to Washington before the Democrats teabag you"); the fact that it has rebounded to become a term of mockery for them is, IMO, poetic justice.

- - -

I stand by my original analysis that the TEA Party is a loose coalition of people drawn almost exclusively from the right end of the political spectrum, who base their platform on ideological grounds while trying to project those biases as being representative of the country as a whole.

I maintain that while some of the points the TEA Partiers raise - the outrageous growth of he national debt, the continued deficit spending, etc. - are valid and definitely should be fought - their attempt to blame said debt and deficits on Obama and the Democrats is not driven by true populist anger, but rather ideological biases.

I further claim that the attacks on Obama by the TEA Partiers are not simply because he's in the hot seat as the latest president who happened to have the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the country went into a financial meltdown, but rather that he is being attacked because he's the latest DEMOCRAT president in the hot seat.

I state that if John McCain had won in '08, you would not see this sort of vitriolic backlash, even if (IMO) the country were in worse financial shape as a result.

You might see a backlash against taxes, the debt and deficits, but it would be driven by the Pauline/libertarian portion of the current TEA party, while the Palinite/Republican portion would be silent, or would be in their element blaming everything on the Democrats.

I finish by stating that I feel the analysis I have provided is more balanced and accurate than the original article, which, in my opinion, is essentially a fawning hagiography.

Be well, Alaric

Re: Part 2

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I can entirely see the viewpoint of a "Paulite" libertarian wing and a "Palinite" Republican-splinter wing. In fact, I rather like that label usage. For the record, file me firmly with the Paulites. :)

That said ... while I see your point as regards Tea Party/Republican compatibility vs. Tea Party/Democrat compatibility, and am not greatly surprised by it, I'm not sure your conclusion from it that the Tea party is not truly populist is valid. I would put it to you that the Republican and Democratic parties have so polarized the country with their "Us vs. Them" politics that it is probably not possible to have a platform that would appeal both the the majority of generally-conservative voters AND the majority of generally-liberal voters. In short, I think you're trying to set a standard of populism that just is not possible in the current political landscape of the US.

I state that if John McCain had won in '08, you would not see this sort of vitriolic backlash, even if (IMO) the country were in worse financial shape as a result.

You might see a backlash against taxes, the debt and deficits, but it would be driven by the Pauline/libertarian portion of the current TEA party, while the Palinite/Republican portion would be silent, or would be in their element blaming everything on the Democrats.

Or perhaps the Tea parties would have a smaller Palinite element and a larger Democratic element. But since he didn't, all one can do is speculate.