Tea Party reveals its true face

[Formaldehyde]

Well they've come around to the notion (which has been true since at least 1981) that republicans have abandoned fiscal conservatives to pursue neoliberal economic policies.

The Republicans have almost always been hypocritical about this. Most of them only advocate fiscal conservatism when their own party isn't in control of the executive branch. When they are in control of the administration, they typically drastically cut the budgets of any "social" programs while increasing military expenditures and federal subsidies to their rich friends who got them elected.

What really changed in 1980 was the notion of literally buying the election by giving the middle class a tax break along with the rich. This worked so well that they have made it an integral part of their platform ever since.

 

[Cutlass]

Well they've come around to the notion (which has been true since at least 1981) that republicans have abandoned fiscal conservatives to pursue neoliberal economic policies. I don't see a lot of intellectual horsepower coming from their camp, and won't expect any soon given who they chose to chair their big national meeting. I would love to see a truly liberal counterpart to the tea party movement - one that recognizes this health care bill is really just a suit of the emperor's new clothes. Liberals should be up in arms over this joke legislation, which goes far enough to piss off the right, but not far enough to actually solve the problems it set out to solve. The truly liberal members of congress (I think there are about 15 total) who backed down and voted for this crap are spineless cowards, willing to cave into the system to maintain campaign funding from a party that has abandoned liberalism for neo-liberal economic policies. Choosing between a republican and a democrat is like choosing whether the guy raping you is going to use a condom.

In all honesty, I still don't see where that would give you sympathy for the Tea Party. The Tea Party are not, despite what they claim, fiscal conservatives. They are reactionaries. But I don't see anything in their platform which is fiscally conservative. Demanding low taxes is not fiscal conservatism. It is fiscally irresponsible. A fiscal conservative would be demanding higher taxes until the deficit is gone. They would also be fighting spending. But at this point fiscal conservatism must also include Universal Healthcare.

It has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of Neoconservatism or lack of it. It has to do with you simply being wrong.

You have yet to show any area in which I was wrong about anything.

 

[mariogreymist]

In all honesty, I still don't see where that would give you sympathy for the Tea Party. The Tea Party are not, despite what they claim, fiscal conservatives. They are reactionaries. But I don't see anything in their platform which is fiscally conservative. Demanding low taxes is not fiscal conservatism. It is fiscally irresponsible. A fiscal conservative would be demanding higher taxes until the deficit is gone. They would also be fighting spending. But at this point fiscal conservatism must also include Universal Healthcare.

The problems are not the policies themselves, but the system we have all tacitly endorsed for the past 100+ years. It's been that long since voters took a third party candidacy seriously. Most liberals know that democrats aren't liberal. Most conservatives know the Republicans aren't conservative. Yet we keep voting these lackeys of corporate interests into office out of fear that the other lackeys of corporate interests might win. It's a joke.

I've given up voting, it's just too painful to watch people vote for the lesser evil and congratulate themselves when their demons overcome those devils.

 

[Cutlass]

The problems are not the policies themselves, but the system we have all tacitly endorsed for the past 100+ years. It's been that long since voters took a third party candidacy seriously. Most liberals know that democrats aren't liberal. Most conservatives know the Republicans aren't conservative. Yet we keep voting these lackeys of corporate interests into office out of fear that the other lackeys of corporate interests might win. It's a joke.

I've given up voting, it's just too painful to watch people vote for the lesser evil and congratulate themselves when their demons overcome those devils.

OK. In a sense I can see where you are coming from there. But big money campaign contributions aside, the system is simply stable with 2 parties. So I think it makes more sense to try to change the party than replace it. It may be true that the Republicans are currently weak enough for a challenge from the right. But it is the center than ultimately wins elections.

 

[mariogreymist]

Stability is not an ideal condition for a democracy. Your standards are deeply flawed.

 

[Cutlass]

It's not about my standards. I'm simply stating that the winner take all system we have strongly favors 2 parties. But as to stability, neither of those parties is in the same place they were 20 years ago. Much less 100 years ago. So why do you think they'll be in the same place 20 years from now?

 

[mariogreymist]

The thing is most americans don't particularly agree with either party. A lot of my friends tell me "you can't vote for (insert genuinely liberal third party candidate here), that's just a vote for (insert republican candidate here)!" When I ask them if they agree with the Democrat's handling of labor, health care, taxation, corporate responsibility, foreign policy and social positions they usually admit that most of what the democrats stand for is pretty much against their beliefs. They are simply so afraid that not voting democrat will result in republican leadership, that they vote for people they know to be corrupt tools of special interests. My friends who vote republican do so for similar reasons.

If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you have chosen evil. The tea party people, for their many flaws, are not insane(or evil) in this particular way.

 

[Cutlass]

Well they are, but we've drifted from that topic.

I understand the frustration with the 2 parties. Neither really represents me. But there's still the practical issue of what to do about it. The fact is that one of the main parties has to screw itself pretty badly before a 3rd party has any realistic chance. The Republicans may be borderline on that. The Dems are not.

 

[Karalysia]

The Single Member District Plurality system combined with the electoral college and campaign finance laws precludes the possibility of there ever really being a third party no matter what. It's next to impossible.

 

[Cutlass]

Not entirely, no. We had a couple parties that existed and then didn't. But while it does not entirely exclude 3rd parties, it very severely disadvantages them. But for a 3rd party to come to prominence, one of the others has to fall.

 

[Karalysia]

Not entirely, no. We had a couple parties that existed and then didn't. But while it does not entirely exclude 3rd parties, it very severely disadvantages them. But for a 3rd party to come to prominence, one of the others has to fall.

Thats what I'm saying. Our system is set up in such a way that it allows for only two parties, and the current laws that exist, create tremendous advantages for the two existing parties particularly campaign finance laws and ballot registration.

 

[Cutlass]

Seeing more of these people on tv, they have no grasp on reality at all...

 

[Tristan_C]

Now that we have hindsight on this, it turns out that the teabaggers had the presence of mind to video the congressmen walking through the crowd. They knew the media would be compliant with whatever story the congressmen came up with, so this footage has been needed to defend against the congressmen and media's claims. The claims, of course, have no basis other than what the congressmen say. Rather than take the tunnel, the congressmen may even have taken the front steps on that particular day in an attempt to goad the protesters into doing something they could capitalize on. Lacking real evidence, though, they could still make the CLAIMS and uncritical media support since it makes a juicy story. One outbreak of violence or even offensive language, and the "righteous anger" component could win sympathy for this bill.


Strangely my first response in this thread was, "I'm glad they insulted Barney Frank." It turns out that was the only incident that can be corroborated. Barney Frank deserves whatever he gets.