US politics has a history of movements gaining rapid momentum and then fading away. Whether it is the Reform party victories in MN with Jesse Ventura, the law and order Republicans from the Nixon Era or the hippie movement that counter-revolted against the Nixon zealots. In the end all of these movements withered and devolved (or evolved depending on who is talking) into various other groups.
Hippies have merged into factions of the Green Party, Democrat party or simply rejected politics altogether. Many hippies also become disillusioned and joined the Republican party. The reformers that Ventura brought out in MN have gone their separate ways too. Some leaning towards the progressive nature of the Democrat party while others embracing conservative ideals.
Many of these followers of Ventura also find another leader they could admire, someone who was different, vocal and aggressive. That person was Ron Paul.
Paul has been a vocal advocate of small government, transparency and less military intervention (empire building) across the globe. Many people, liberal and conservative, can agree with these issues. That is what makes Paul so appealing.
Paul makes the libertarian message seem not so strange and based in anarchy.
Sure, some libertarians believe that police and fire should be controlled by private companies. Could you imagine having to pay money to put out a fire while your house was burning? This could lead to a multitude of problems.
The good thing about Paul is he is not this extreme. He realizes that government does serve a purpose. But, currently the government is bloated and has been severely mismanaged. Does anyone disagree with this? I don’t think so.
When the Tea Party started to gain momentum during the health care town hall mettings I was hoping to see a rise in the libertarian principles of small government, limited foreign interference, civil rights for the people, less government interference in daily lives, less military spending, less taxes and better fiscal management. Most people agree that these should be goals to strive for.
However, in the previous 25 years we have seen Republicans and Democrats spend like crazy and fight wars all over the globe.
Here are some of the countries we have bombed in the past 60 years.
Ron Paul has an interesting argument to make and he has a very different take on many issues. The anti-thesis of Ron Paul would have to be Sarah Palin.
She is the quintessential George W. Bush Neo-Conservative and has taken control of the Tea Party movement. She is in favor of expanding the American empire, which costs a lot of money. So, we would have to continue to increase our military spending and our debt. Palin also maintains the current Republican stance of being against Social freedoms, take the Patriot Act or illegal wiretapping as an example of that.
Palin will lead the Tea Party to failure, any Democrat loves the fact that she is taking lead of the movement. Remember, more then 60% of Americans find Palin completely unfit for office. How will she do in a national campaign, like for President in 2012? It is clear that she would be a miserable failure, I doubt she would pick up one state against Obama. Not even one.
On the flip side of this scenario is the possibility that Ron Paul takes the leadership role that this movement is sorely lacking. Ron Paul, like I mentioned above, is a unique individual. He represents the individual and believes that government is corrupted. He may not be able to win in a national election either. But, he best represents a message that is getting watered-down and buried by old neo-con ideologies. No longer is the Tea Party a movement of substance, but rather a movement based on sound bites from a feeble leader (Palin).
Only time will tell if it is Palin who will sluggishly lead the Tea Party to failure or Ron Paul who will lead them into the history books.
From CNN.com By John Avlon, CNN contributor:
As the National Tea Party Convention concluded this weekend, it’s clear that the Tea Partiers are propelled by two competing claims — a principled commitment to fiscal conservatism and a serious case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
The first group remains true to the roots of the movement as it emerged almost one year ago amid bailout backlash. They feel like modern Paul Reveres, warning their fellow citizens about the unsustainable nature of our government’s deficit spending and unprecedented debt.
They still have an important civic role to play in our national debate.
The second group reflects the overheated, hyperpartisanship that emerged over the August town halls and the 9/12 march on Washington.
Oddly enough, this group embraced the tactics of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and applied them to the conservative cause, with angry confrontation and street theater protests. They ascribe to Obama every sinister characteristic imaginable — often a secret plot to undermine our constitutional republic and put in a socialist, one-world government in its place.
This is the crowd that carries the signs comparing Obama to Hitler and communists, while proclaiming themselves patriots. Their extremism will ultimately lead the movement to self-destruct unless it is clearly repudiated.
The weekend’s controversial and much-covered Tea Party ended up being more of a conference than a convention. It offered speeches and seminars to a relatively small group of attendees. While Tax Day 2009 Tea Parties attracted some 300,000 people nationwide, this convention accommodated just 600 people, who paid nearly $500 each for the privilege of attending the populist conference.
While the crowds at 2009′s protests were generally angrier than the speakers who climbed up onto platforms at last weekend’s conference, the dynamic was reversed. The crowd was generally more civil than the selected speakers.
Former congressman Tom Tancredo accused the president of being a “committed socialist ideologue” and proposed a civic literacy test for voting.
WorldNet Daily founder Joseph Farah used his post-dinner speech, covered by C-Span, to repeat inane “Birther” claims.
Alabama gubernatorial candidate and former state Supreme Court chief justice Roy Moore said Obama had “ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation.” He also compared Obama to King George III by quoting the Declaration of Independence: “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Sarah Palin was the most cautious by far, saying simply “America is ready for another revolution.”
Where will the Tea Party movement go from here?
The for-profit conference organizers declared that “we absolutely do not support a third party” and instead announced the creation of a new corporation and concurrent PAC to support conservative candidates, primarily in the South. This is still very much a leaderless movement with divergent tributaries. There’s no shortage of anger at the GOP for starting the path of deficit spending last decade and then backing the first round of Wall Street bailouts under Bush.
There is a rejection of politics as usual, the feeling that both parties are captive of their respective special interests — big business and big government.
What’s your take? Share your thoughts on the Tea Party movement
For the Tea Party momentum to continue in a constructive way, it will need to take at least two further steps: First, repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes.
With a growing number of conspiracy entrepreneurs trying to profit off populist anger in a recession, it’s also worth keeping the conservative virtue of healthy skepticism in mind.
Remember what the author Eric Hoffer warned in his book “The True Believer:” “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
What do you think?
Loading ...