Doesn’t matter, we can always switch word.
I think the tea party movement is largely splintered already, personally. I feel like the “movement” began largely with Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, and the RP revolution. Since then, however, the “tea party” has been split; some have been siphoned off by the republican neo-con establishment, siding with the likes of Palin (lol)… while the true grassroots, original movement has stayed largely loyal to libertarianism and RP. So, I think some of the “tea party” are certainly allies, while others are just those who have allowed themselves to be conned by the neo-con establishment as they move to take advantage of the situation in opposition of the democrats.
True, but that sort of starts the movement back at “square one” in the name recognition category.
I preferred it when the Establishment detested libertarianism and none of the talking heads in the media would align themselves with it in any way.
It’s nice in a sort of masochistic sort of way, but I like the fact that these ideas are picking up stem, even in a watered down sort of format.
The movement is not its recognition, it is the organization of its members.
When anarchists switched their name to libertarians in the 19th century, it was because the government had banned anarchists. It didn’t slow them down one iota.
As long as libertarian does not get as unrecognisably distorted as the word “liberal”, I guess things can’t get too bad. I would still prefer to use the latter term, if it wasn’t for the disgusting current connotations it brings, e,g, having myself associated with the likes of the UK Liberal Democrat Party eugh!
Friends.
For some reason I feel compelled to defend them at every debate.
Read the label to find out.
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN ASSORTED FRUITS AND NUTS.
I have a NeoCon cousin who calls herself a libertarian now. She pisses me off when she accuses me of not being libertarian. Luckily for me however, her politics have become largely irrelavant in the midst of our faimly members (like the NeoCon establishment) and very few people actually waste their breath at the dinner table in dealing with her. Although, they certainly don’t share my views, most of them recognize that she is in fact far from a libertarian.
With that being said, I would certainly approach with caution when people associate themselves with the Tea Party movement, because a good portion of them have nothing more to cotribute than anti-Obama polemics (but they LOVE Sarah Palin!).
When will people learn that both the GOP and the DNC are both talking heads from the same party?
I keep trying to explain to people that solutions have not and never will come from the government, but I get dismissed right off the bat, like my argument isn’t even legitimate.
The Tea Party is a joke and they make me mad because they serve the state because the media will say “haha look at these crazy libertarians waving their flag and loving the constitution, what are they anarchists” and it conflates a whole set of contradictory philosophies into one and besmirches all the best of them.Not only that but I’d say most of these people are anti-obama not anti-state.
“As long as libertarian does not get as unrecognisably distorted as the word “liberal”, I guess things can’t get too bad. I would still prefer to use the latter term, if it wasn’t for the disgusting current connotations it brings, e,g, having myself associated with the likes of the UK Liberal Democrat Party eugh!”
I proudly declare myself as a liberal, & if asked I just say that the lib dems are not really Liberal at all. That said the lib dems do have a small faction that self identifies as libertarian or classical liberal. The so called ‘Orange Bookers’. One promenent one, Mark Littlewood just became head of the IEA. Liberal Vision (which Littlewood founded) is their blog.
Check it out, they also have a interesting little area on Liberal philosophy.
Friends, friends, friends, friends, friends. Whenever a liberal criticizes the Tea Party, they always say, “The Tea Party is so selfish.” I ask if they’re more selfish than people who steal involuntary handouts, and they don’t understand.
I have to agree with this. Even though I disagree for the most part with most neoconservatives when it comes to foreign policy, they’re much less likely to spend and raise taxes than the Democrats. I think it’s a simple ideological problem, but the Republicans are definitely the lesser evil to me, especially in regards to the economy.
Did you guys see the Colbert Report the other day where he said, “Supposedly, as our Tea Party friends have been saying lately, the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery! [excessive laughter].” Pissed me off.
Nooooooooo…Ahhhhhhhh…screeching tires followed by sound of train wreck. This thread was dead, but now that it’s been revived…
Republicans less likely to spend? Less likely to raise taxes?
The Bush era Congress set the record for inflation adjusted DOMESTIC spending (excluding the wars they started).
They did not make tax cuts permanent (I think that was just sham anyway, they never really intended to), two undeclared wars (as required by the Constitution THEY swore to uphold), bailouts. The Republican Treasury Secretary (Paulson) demanded Congress give him and Bernanke carte blanche power to do anything they wanted to do. (That request was shot down, and it was transformed into TARP). That is the Republican short list.
The lesser of the two evils is still evil (I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new).
Your choice is between interventionists and socialists, and interventionism leads to socialism. So, there is no choice. Big, ever expanding government is the only choice. And expanding government eventually leads to…liberty, peace and prosperity?
Vote for me, I’m the lesser of two evils. I will confiscate your wealth and destroy the economy, maybe just a little more slowly than my opponent .
I don’t have a whole lot of faith in the movement as of now for a number of reasons. They have some good arguements on economic grounds, but they are filled with too many war mongering foreign interventionist types.
The movement is being infiltrated by neocons plain and simple. When Rush Limbaugh and Hannity start glorifying the movment you know you are in trouble. I think the Tea Party is looking to change Washington which is their fatal flaw. You aren’t going to change that place and the people in it. Even sending new fresh faces there will not work. Did we not learn anything in 1994 when the Reps took over Congress again? I suggest people read the headline article on the homepage about the kind of people drawn to political power. They are sociopathic type people who feel they have some inherent right to dictate to us seemingly lesser men and women. If the Tea Party really wanted to be useful they would be bettter off focusing on local elections putting people into office who would take a non compromising stance against the feds.
I do think many of the Tea Party have potential though. I think we as Libertarian/Austrians can get to some of them unlike the leftists who I think are hopelessly lost as they seem religiously devoted to the state.
jdp,
I agree the tea party movement was either created by, or has been taken over by, the neocons. Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, et al infiltrated it.
I just step back and watch the whole thing unfold for amusement purposes only.
Once the Republicans regain power, the tea party will vanish. Tea party supporters will realize that they have been duped. They will have poured out their time and money for what? To see Big Government of the Republican variety restored. Shrug.
Which one? The one started by us Paulites in 2005 or the one made by NeoCons?
Gipper,
I’ve probably stepped in it a little bit.
If there is a Paulite movement, then it is commendable. It’s just that I never hear anything from a Paulite movement, it’s always “Sarah Palin is speaking at the Tea Party…” or the neocon’s are talking up the tea party. I assume the Paulite movement is not the one I hear about in the mainstream media.
Because I do not believe government can be restrained, I am skeptical that any movement, even a Paulite movement, could slow the growth of government, much less reduce the size government.
Paulite movement is really just the campaign for liberty.
I think the TEA party movement has been successful in replacing establishment Republicans with more liberty minded Republicans, like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle. That is a success in my book. I also think they will persist at least until after the Presidential Election in 2012. I think the TEA party will reject Republicans like Mitt Romney and support those like Ron Paul. Primaries are VERY important.