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

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.