“Manning Up”? Speaking the truth with courage and conviction
Guest post byCamillus
Camillus, a former Republican Party officer in his home state in the Northeastern United States who was involved in campaigns at both the local, state, and federal levels during the 2010 elections.
Disclaimer: All guest posts are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration. M-H
Joe Scarborough, a former Congressman who is now a conservative television host on MSNBC, recently called on national Republicans to “man up” and confront Sarah Palin. I want to propose something rather different. The real need is for people of good will across the political spectrum to “man up” and speak honestly about the movement that supports and sustains both Palin and other similar politicians such as Carl Paladino and Sharron Angle- the Tea Party- and the broader cultural forces that have given rise to it and that continue to fuel it today.
Although I agree with some positions held by the Tea Party movement, and share many of its concerns regarding the direction of the country, I am convinced that its emergence represents a real danger to our common future. Indeed, I am persuaded that its course runs inevitably to a dystopian tomorrow.
Why? Because it is marked by anti-intellectualism, hostility to established institutions, resentment, and, most significantly, fear and anger. This fear is inchoate, but ever-present. At its base, I think it is a fear of the future- of the economic, demographic, and cultural changes sweeping both our nation and the globe. In other words, it is a fear of the unknown. And being fearful, it is brittle. As a result, it is intolerant of dissent and the open discussion and debate of ideas. This intolerance is expressed in naked hostility towards opponents- they are not merely wrong, they must be demonized. Above all else, it is marked by the utter absence of love, by which I mean that love of brother- agape- that is for me always truth’s handmaiden.
Devoid of love, and animated by fear and resentment, it is not surprising that another defining characteristic of the Tea Party is anger. Of course, many of its defenders will argue that this anger is the natural outgrowth of legitimate frustrations, of the perception held by many that they do not have a voice in affairs, or an understandable reaction to what they perceive to be the mismanagement of the country. I disagree. Anger is a very dangerous thing- it corrodes, it pollutes, it distorts and it twists. It is ultimately more destructive to its bearer then to its object. In a political sense, there is a difference between anger and a thirst for righteousness, or a hunger for justice.
It would be a mistake though, to believe that the political manifestations of fear and anger are uniquely the province of the Right. The Left has been marked by this as well- it evidenced a similar rush to demonize and vilify opponents, the same withholding of trust and respect, the same incivility, the same propensity to put counting partisan coup over serving the common good, during the Bush years. Indeed, it is remarkable how quickly we went from comparisons of Bush to Hitler, and dire warnings about our descent into right-wing fascism, to comparisons of Obama to Hitler, and dire warnings about our descent into left-wing socialism. Hatred and fear, apparently, can turn on a dime. As one author has aptly noted, “[i]f you only object to the president of your party being compared to Hitler, then you’re part of the problem.”
More broadly, globally, our modern world is marked by the rise of intolerant extremism in various guises and forms. As Prime Minister Razak of Malaysia noted in remarks to the United Nations, “we have inadvertently allowed the ugly voices of the periphery to drown out the many voices of reason and common sense.” This is as true here at home as it is abroad in distant lands.
Given the fact that these proclivities are present across the political spectrum, they must speak to broader problems within our culture, within us. This begs the question- what is it that we are afraid of? Why are we, at this moment in our history, so lacking in hope and faith in the future? Why are we so ready to believe the very worst about each other? These questions call for much further reflection, but I have some initial thoughts. I think it goes back to the depersonalization, the atomization of the individual, that is the hallmark of modernity. That and anomie. We feel alone, beset by forces more powerful than ourselves, lost in a trackless waste unmarked by any path. We sense danger approaching. And we are most fearful of the unknown when we are alone. Finally, we must also admit that many among us have become, in a political sense, extremely selfish, and beset by resentments.
As a result, we become desperate for the semblance of any solution, for some safe harbor. Thus, we flee from “the desert of the real” to the illusive comfort of a false certainty. A world marked by good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains, and a clear narrative, a simple story line that we can take hold of and use to orient ourselves and make sense of the confusing static and noise that surrounds us. The problem here is that the Tea Party narrative, while perhaps psychologically comforting, is not a safe harbor. It is in fact a trap. The success of the Tea Party is not a transformative event promising a better tomorrow but rather a step towards disaster.
A public discourse dominated by an “us versus them,” litmus-test oriented, story line focused on ideological purity that views the political process as a zero-sum game cannot advance the common good. It is not conducive to fostering the type of open and honest debate we need in order to find solutions to the problems facing us. It is not conducive to building coalitions, and to working together. It inflames divisions, and expands the crevices forming in society separating us from each other.
As a nation, our only hope is to cast off fear, and to face reality, the world as it is, with courage, and conviction. I am convinced that most of us want a future in which we, and our children and grandchildren, can reach their full potential as human beings. One in which, as much as is practically possible, opportunity and prosperity are open to all. One not marked by grave inequalities in the distribution of wealth and resources. One in which essential human rights are recognized and respected. One conducive both to the development of our intellects and to the formation of our consciences.
Most of all, the key to avoiding a dystopian future is agape. Love speaks to dignity, it speaks to solidarity, it speaks to the common good. It speaks to how we interact with one another, especially when we disagree. It is a bridge across whatever chasms divide us. It is an equalizer, a leveler of distinctions among us. It binds us together in the common project of securing a better future. It replaces atomization with brotherhood, anomie with purpose and meaning. Fear fuels anger and resentment, but love is the kindling for hope. It is the invitation to something better. Our love for each other is the key to everything.
It is agape, then, that, to paraphrase Prime Minister Razak, “will save us from sinking into the abyss of despair and depravation.” It is agape that holds within it the opportunity to “bring hope and restore dignity for all.”
The problems we face are profound, the perils are real. The Psalmist says that when we were children we spoke as children- but now we are at childhood’s end, and so we must put away the things of our youth in order to go forward, and thrive. It is impossible to safely navigate the precipice of the present if we are at each other’s throats. So there can be no more us versus them; there must rather be all of us together. Avoiding a dystopian tomorrow is the life’s work of our generation- it is our common project. And everything turns on our love for one another – that is the great truth that I have enough courage still to say.
Apparently the author does not actually know or is not involved with any actual Tea Party groups. People have spoken up honestly about the Tea Party. It is a movement, comprised of everyday Americans, that are fed up with “business as usual” in the federal government, and on a lesser note, local government.
It is a movement that has transcended angry protests and moved onto political action, based upon the basic principles of this country. Lets break this down. Might not be able to do it in one post. Have a VA appointment.
Because it is marked by anti-intellectualism, (Members of the TEA Party tend to be better informed than the general public, read political philosophy, and are willing to debate)
hostility to established institutions (like what for instance? The Constitution, the traditional mores of America, the ideals of the Founders?),
resentment (Yep. Guilty. We resent the hell out of arrogant, corrupt politicians)
, and, most significantly, fear and anger (Fear of the direction the country is headed – Yep. Over spending, unconstitutional mandates, abrogation of responsibility by Congress.)
This fear is inchoate, but ever-present. (Inchoate: 1. In an initial or early stage; incipient. 2. Imperfectly formed or developed: I’d say that we’re past the initial stages. And this fear is reasonable and fully developed. See the results of the last election. My question is why you don’t have the same fears.)
At its base, I think it is a fear of the future- of the economic, demographic, and cultural changes sweeping both our nation and the globe. (Duh. One should always fear a future that looks bleak. Then work to change it. Demographic? Really? Where do you see this in Tea Party information? Because of our insistence on immigration law and border enforcement that the fed’s ignore. And the cultural changes sweeping this country are…what? At the moment, other than the Tea Party and 2nd Amendment rights, the culture is changing much, unless you mean an influx of immigrants. The culture is in flux just like it always is.)
Please point to this brotherly love that exists in any other political arena in this country. Demonize OUR opponents? Have you seen the lies and filth directed towards the Tea Party movement? Some of it by Republicans? The Tea Party is going to fail because its fearful.
Ok. Lets examine something. Why isn’t the “mainstream” GOP fearful of the direction this country is going? Why isn’t the “mainstream” GOP fearful of always compromising and enacting Democrat programs? Why isn’t the “mainstream” GOP fearful of always moving to the “left?” Fear is healthy. Fear causes one to examine the surrounding and change actions.
You disagree that the Tea Party has legitimate reasons to be angry. Very well. Please expound on this. Why do you agree with everything that has happened to this country that we object to? What should the Tea Party do? Send form letters to the unrepresentative Congress? How is our anger not a “thirst for justice?” In a few sentences, you arrogantly determine that the entire Tea party has no reason to be angry and that we are not seeking justice or righteousness.
It was the realization that we are NOT alone and that we DO have allies and a collective voice that gave rise to the Tea Party. We realized that the current narrative that the country leans left (to put it in a simplified nutshell) and that we were powerless and outnumbered, was wrong.
“The success of the Tea Party is not a transformative event promising a better tomorrow but rather a step towards disaster.”
This is the last sentence you write before going into the idea that “all we need is love.”
What disaster are you alluding to? For whom? How is facing a runaway government with courage and the faith that the people still have input to this great nation and its government, running away from reality? What is your reality in this?
Your entire diatribe sounded pretty. You put the Tea Party into the same category with violent extremists. You talked about agape love, a love that is nowhere to be found in American politics. Ever. You talk about fear, yet do not state why you, as a Republican, didn’t find the course of America to be fine. In fact you disregarded the entire idea that the Tea Party might have valid fears and concerns and any right to be angry.
You then attempt to paint the Tea Party as seeking a safe harbor or illusive destination. NOTHING in anything that the TP has done or said relates in any way to that idea. The Tea Party is a movement that seeks the battle of ideas. It seeks a return to hard decisions. It seeks a return to honorable government.
“political process as a zero-sum game cannot advance the common good”
The political process can be a zero sum game, if, your ideas and goals are never advanced. The common good is always determined by the few that win that political game. Just look at the current arguments about economics. When the political opponent seeks your destruction and the destruction of your ideas/ideals, then yes, it is a zero sum game.
The more power we give the government, the higher the stakes. The TP is the only movement seeking to reduce that power.
The only thing that comes out of your article is that you don’t like the fact that some citizens got angry at their representatives, organized, and then voted them out of office.
I understand that you want us to all come together, that you don’t want us at each other’s throats. I get it. But, go talk to the guys that LOCKED YOUR PARTY OUT OF THE VERY HALLS OF CONGRESS. If the very people that need to come together have mutually opposing ideals, then what do you do? Your idea that we need to work together works. Except that you ruined it by completely insulting the very people that you want to work with you. You want to avoid a dystopian future. That’s funny. So does the Tea Party. And we feel that its people like you that act as enablers for the ones causing that future.
You want us to come together. Ok. The door is open. Hey liberals and progressives. Come on over. Join us.
To bad these forums don’t support an I LIKE button/feature. 🙂 Thanks Cargo.
If to give offense requires ill will, then read this again, for none is present. If to give offense requires merely disagreement, well, then that’s another matter.
And disagree we do.
First, believe it or not, I actually went to the first Tea Party rally in my area back in the spring of 2009. I did not go as some passive observe or to gather sociological data, I went because I was upset over President Obama’s agenda. Anyway, rest assured I know the local Tea Party organizations very well. Anyway, remember, this is not a critique of the actions or motivations of individual Tea Party members, but rather of the movement as a whole. And it is not merely a criticism, it offers what I believe to be a better path forward.
Now, that said, I’m just going to pull out a couple of points by way of response.
“Please point to this brotherly love that exists in any other political arena in this country.”
You are correct, it does not, and that’s why I wrote this.
“The Tea Party is going to fail because its fearful.”
Nope, America might fail because we are to fearful. We, as in, all of us.
“It seeks a return to honorable government.”
Through the election of, say, Carl Paladino? Rich Iott? And when did the government cease to be honorable?
“….and enacting Democrat programs?”
Do you mean things like cap and trade, a bill that is premised on what was originally a Republican market-based solution? Do you mean the bailouts of GM and Chrysler?
“When the political opponent seeks your destruction and the destruction of your ideas/ideals, then yes, it is a zero sum game.”
Who do you believe is seeking your destruction? President Obama? Harry Reid? The local Masonic Lodge? And based on what evidence? It’s one thing to say, for example, that the Health Care Reform bill was a bad law, or suboptimal, and another thing entirely to say it was an intentional move with the object of destroying… you, or America. I’m not a Democrat, or an Obama supporter, because from a policy standpoint I think they are wrong more often then they are right- but that does not make them evil, or bent on my destruction.
I’ll close with this, you mention the ideals of the Founders. Now the Founders were a diverse group, there were profound disagreements among them, especially in the years after the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution when they set about the task of governing. If you want a sense of how the Founders might have reacted to the Tea Party, I think your best guide is their reaction to the formation of the so-called “Democratic Societies” after the French Revolution- you know, Citizen Genet and all that?
“the culture is changing much,”
This should read ‘the culture isn’t changing much,”
Having never been to a Tea Party I can’t speak first hand, but I do agree with many of the principles they support. I don’t share your optimism about agape being our collective salvation; I believe we’ve already crossed the Rubicon.
Reading this, however, reminded me of two books I’ve recently been re-reading that I would recommend highly:
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1292019627&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-William-Strauss/dp/0767900464/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292020098&sr=1-1
Cato, I agree there is a Rubicon, just not that we’ve crossed it yet. Though I do think the river is in view.
Principles are easy- we can all nod our heads in agreement when someone says “I support the constitution”- it’s translating principles into actual policy that is the hard part. And when it comes to policy, I see the Tea Party as a bit of a desert. There is a lot of invictive and heated rhetoric, but little in the way of policy proposals. And I can’t reconcile the central message- “taxed enough already”- with the reality that we already do not fund what we expect government at all levels to actually do. But I digress….
To return to the river, the Rubicon…
I would say that there are a number of troubling vectors abroad in the world today that have the potential to severly restrict authentic human development in the future. They are present in the economic, political, and moral speheres. These vectors run across a continuum- they are not all equally dangerous, nor are they necessarily intrinsically evil (some have the potential to do great good for the world, if managed properly). Some would only marginaly restrict us; others have the potential to literally destroy us. However, they lead all lead to dystopian tomorrows of one sort or another.
And I think there is a limited window of opportunity to navigate this safely. I think we will soon be at a tipping point- perhaps what you term the Rubicon- a moment beyond which our choices narrow, and our best case scenerios become attaining what we might call “least negative alternative outcomes.”
America’s future as a global leader and her historic role as a beacon of hope in the world is inextricably entwined with that limited window of opportunity I mentioned- we cannot attain best case scenerio outcomes if things go sideways here at home. We’re literally the Atlas holding up the world. God forbid Atlas drops his burden.
And I do think the key to the whole thing is love- agape. Love does not mean we won’t disagree- people of good will will always disagree about how best to attain the common good (or even about what the common good may be in a given situation). But… if our public discourse is poisoned, then this, I think, is the antidote.
ps- the first book you mention is an excellent read.
Actually, Camillus, I think what you are speaking of is really a widespread and negative populist reaction against a political class which has forgotten how to listen to and communicate with the people. I spent nearly 30 years in the federal government and knew pretty well how much of it functioned. Now, after retirement and being away from “ground zero”, so to speak, that government has become almost a foreign entity to me (and to others) in some ways.
Never in my many years had I ever heard a Speaker of the House announce that we would not be allowed to know what was in a very major and game-changing bill until said bill had actually passed. Never did I expect that a Senate would acquiesce to the usurpation of its own Advise and Consent powers by meekly accepting a series of “czars” who would not pass through legislative scrutiny. Moreover, I have lived through the eras of some might feisty politicians in both parties; but some of the language I had started to hear on the Hill was simply going into the realm of ranting on the elementary school playground.
Both those houses on the Hill were in need of a cleansing; and, unfortunately, the cleaning job is not yet complete, in my opinion. Instead of focusing on the sins of the people, perhaps we ought to focus instead on the sins of those who actually started this dustup by forgetting just what “The People” means. This whole sequence of events started with some promises of “transparency in government.” We did not get that. We drifted off into the almost total opposite. “The People” then woke up from their slumber, I would say.
wolverine, fine about throwing the bums out…..but many of the tea party “replacements” are extremely unacceptable to much of the population. It’s one thing to replace but not with some of those people. They were just embarrassingly unqualified.
“I would say that there are a number of troubling vectors abroad in the world today that have the potential to severely restrict authentic human development in the future. They are present in the economic, political, and moral spheres. These vectors run across a continuum- they are not all equally dangerous, nor are they necessarily intrinsically evil (some have the potential to do great good for the world, if managed properly). Some would only marginally restrict us; others have the potential to literally destroy us. However, they lead all lead to dystopian tomorrows of one sort or another.”
Actually I completely agree with the above statement. Between the backwardness of certain religions/political system, to the expansion of nanny state interference, to the resurgence of statism in general, to the chaos now being committed by non-state actors and the over reach of corporatists, we are in A LOT of trouble. Of all of these, the central tenet is restriction of free thought. Either by government or by religion. Both will kill you to keep you inside the control zone.
In England, the rise of Public Safety councils actually prevented a police rescue because of lack of gear and arrested the man that jumped in the water, broke the glass of the submerged car, and rescued the girl in time.
In Saudi Arabia, …well, anywhere there is fundamentalist Islam, need I say more?
The rise of the Bureaucrat in the US and in Europe stifles risk taking, ingenuity, and self reliance.
You get my point.
“There is a lot of invictive and heated rhetoric, but little in the way of policy proposals. And I can’t reconcile the central message- “taxed enough already”- with the reality that we already do not fund what we expect government at all levels to actually do”
For one thing, not much “proposal” is needed to say “Repeal ObamaCare.” and “Cut Spending.” or to do it. The Tea Party wants to stop the spending. For one thing, Paul Ryan’s plan is a good start. That’s the most indepth spending reduction plan out there. Now, since none of the new electees have taken office and do not know just how bad it is, it would be premature for the Tea Party candidates to put out proposals yet.
We don’t fund government at levels that POLITICIANS want. Tea partiers are fine with cutting out entire departments and returning to the Constitution. You don’t get it. WE don’t WANT gov’t to do what it is doing. We know that we don’t need the extraneous BS that Congress wants to push. We don’t have the money. 100% of tax money is going to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Everything else is borrowed. AND ITS THE GOP AND DEMOCRAT’S FAULTS. Instead of acting like adults, and cutting spending to apply it elsewhere as needed, you guys just borrowed it. At least the GOP doesn’t get any blame for the 2009 budget. The Democrats did that one with GOP help and didn’t even present it to the President, wanting to wait until January so the new President would sign it without complaining or vetoing it.
I can tell that you are worried about the big picture. I see where this could come off the rails in many places. And that’s without bringing in Glenn Beck…..
I forgot to ask. What parts of the Tea Party ideas do you agree with and what concerns do you share? And if you do have matching concerns, why aren’t you angry?
Anger comes from love. Anger is a tool. One becomes righteously angry when something cared for is injured. According to you, though, that is unacceptable. So how do you propose that we stop the injury from continuing, motivating others, etc. We already have love. Love of this country. Are you suggesting that the citizenry “turn the other cheek” and “love the enemy?” For that is what some of these political opponents are, whether you think so or not.
“Principles are easy- we can all nod our heads in agreement when someone says “I support the constitution”- it’s translating principles into actual policy that is the hard part.”
Except that the only reason that translating Constitutional principles into policy is because politicians chafe at and refuse to accept the limitations placed upon them.
You may have more experience in dealing with the “real world” of politics and are most certainly more educated than I. But you seem to be missing the target. You decry the Tea Party and its “heated rhetoric” yet you don’t seem to notice that the TP rose in defense of the people and in reaction to the rhetoric and actions of the other side. Agape is all well and good, along with civilized discourse. Except that those that disagree with us think that we are racist, evil, violent, ignorant, fascist thugs and say those things without evidence. And THAT’S FROM THE REPUBLICANS. Kinda like you. Yet YOU want us to have AGAPE and civilized discourse with the very people that want to shut us down and ignore our arguments.
In the gun blogging world, that’s called “Reasoned Discourse”.
Since I could go on forever about this……I’m done.
Anger almost always masks fear.
Courage means using your real name when you speak out.
Love your neighbor.
So, are you insinuating that Moonhowler doesn’t have courage? Or Wolverine? Or perchance myself? We all have reasons to use blog pseudonyms.
Anger can be caused by fear. Anger can mask fear. Anger can fester. Anger can provide energy to right wrongs. Anger is nothing more than an emotion and a tool to be used. How you use anger is the important thing, not the anger itself.
And I do love my neighbor. Its that pesky kid down the block……….
Moon, specifically by whose standards of qualification? Do those standards encompass a committee chair who announced that his committee had no rules, that they just made them up as they went along? Do those standards include another committee chair who claimed that he should not be expected to actually read a major bill on which he was about to cast his vote? Do those standards include the Chair of the House Finance Committee who acts as if he did no wrong whatsoever when video tape shows him vehemently denying that Freddie and Fannie were in deep trouble and about to blow? How about the Committee of Taxation with a chair who has been in the limelight for more than a year under an accusation of cheating on his own taxes and still cannot admit that maybe “The People” might have a right to be pissed off just a little bit? And, if you want to cross party lines here, do those standards include people who cannot keep their damned flies zipped up or their cotton picking hands off their own staff people? This isn’t a party thing for me, Moon. This is a case of having lived and worked in this town and its environs for a long time and seeing what are supposed to be our legislative houses turn into what looks like a juvenile hall. In my opinion, the last session of Congress was nothing short of chaos fit for featuring on the Jon Stewart show, except that Jon would have had to have a bleeper in hand to cut off the likes of Alan Grayson in mid-rant.
As for finding some of the newcomers “unacceptable” — Don’t you think that particular judgement is coming just a tad early? Or is it really ideological leanings which drive the criticism from “much of the population” even before the people being judged are allowed to demonstrate their worth through actual performance? Let’s go through the next session. Then we can talk.
The author of this guest post has much personal experience with Republicans in his home town. I would hope that fellow Republicans, instead of reacting defensively, would take heed his words.
I love it when I find common ground with those who on the surface may appear polar opposite to me. I have formed a new friendship with a Palestinian Muslim, a small business owner. I don’t care what his religion is and nor does he care about mine. He is just a decent human being. We use our differences to form protective walls around us, and to that end, we will all pay the price.
In the end, we all want peace, security, comfort, and a sense of well being. If we could recognize that basic principal in each other, what an amazing world this be.
Wolverine, I was remarkably brief, for me, and still got in trouble. Obviously the American people didn’t feel some of these people were qualified. To be more accurate, I should have said the people of their respective states. Take it beyond that level…some of those people because national icons for ‘not qualified.’
Cargo, the TP got off to a rough start. By the time the general public took notice, a good first foot wasn’t being put forward. What got people’s attention and what actually generated the birth of the coffee party was the pictues we all had of people yelling and screaming at politicians at town hall meetings and people stomping around in period clothing and dangling tea bags from their hats and clothing screaming they were tea baggers.
Then there was the Glenn Beck effect factored in and that Faux News woman waving the crowd on at DC.
To someone like me, those aren’t real good qualifiecations.
Do I think that the Tea Party notion has refined and become more acceptable? Yes. I would prefer to see some more centralization. That way when people like Corey Stewart try to jump on the band wagon, there is some place to point to say NO.
Just saying…beginning were rough. Respectibility might very well come if leaders emerge and the costumes and shed, poor candidates are ditched, and there is some leadership. So far there has been way too much ‘we are a grass roots organization and anyone can join.’ That is no excuse to have jackasses representing you.
I think that is how grassroots organizations begin though. And they have to shake down. Actually they accomplished a lot for a new movement. Glass is half empty, glass is half full. You chose. There is an argument for both.
Cargo, one last thing…get rid of the religious right. Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell both had that in their campaigns. Someone’s religious beliefs should not be public policy.
No one is arguing against a basic safety net to care for our fellow citizens in need. But there is tremendous debate about the size and cost of the safety net. The biggest example is Obamacare. A bill was voted on that no one had seen and parts remained to be written. So there will be no agape from me toward anyone that voted for this.
And the bill could not stand on its own, which is why political paybacks such as the Louisiana purchase and the Cornhusker kickback took place. So yes …. there was tremendous opposition to this power grab, but the government bought the votes that were needed and forced it down our throats anyway. It may be possible that this behavior contributed to the animosity and disdain for the government we are seeing right now.
And lest you think anything has changed since the election, consider this: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/12/more-cornhusker-kickbacks-and-louisiana.html
Here is another stunning fact of our entitlement society that reduces old-fashioned agape toward our free-loading brethren. A single head of household with three kids who works for minimum wage has more disposable income than a family with an income of $60K. Here are the calculations:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak
How’s that brotherly love thing workin’ for ya’, Camillus?
Kelly, I don’t think that is new. Those figures might be new but there have always been ways to game the system. I just heard about college kids on food stamps on bulls and bears. Now…give me a break. There is just something wrong about giving someone in college food stamps.
I guess I would make exceptions for people in college with kids…not so much as an approval but because kids shouldn’t go hungry because their parents were too stupid or selfish to use contraception.
kelly – these are just numbers to make someone’s point, but is not based in fact at all. For instance, the Medicaid and CHIP value ($16,500), is not, repeat not, money in someone pocket. And what is the cost of healthcare without Health Care Reform – it has been the stealth tax for the past number of years, increasing way above inflation (ask you HR department if you have one). The cost of not reforming healthcare is out of control. I do not like all that is in there, but much of it is for the good of all of us.
First, thank you everyone for your comments- I can’t reply to each item, but I want to draw out a couple key points.
First, I would disagree with the idea that “the people” woke up. The Tea Party has a restricted demographic appeal and membership (older, and white- in my experience, it draws predominantly from lower middle class/blue collar individuals). That may be different elsewhere but in my home state it is accurate. And the Fox News demographic isn’t synonymous with the people.
Second, although one of the mainstream media’s “themes” for the election cycle was populist rage against incumbents, if you look at the actual numbers, incumbents did about as well as could be expected given that this election was a mid term in a Presidents first term. In fact, if you look back over the past decade, I’d say the real theme is volatility- a volatility born of desperation, fear, and despair. 2010 is no more a permanent tectonic realignment than 2008 was- again, the real theme is instability/volatility. Thinking through the long term repercussions of that was one of the reasons I wrote this article.
Cargo, you mention repeal of Obamacare and reducing spending. With respect to health care reform, assuming merely for the sake of argument that HCR could be repealed (it can’t be in the foreseeable future)- what would we replace it with? Would we take away coverage from those with preexisting conditions? What would we do to address spiraling costs and the large numbers of uninsured? In the end, doesn’t every person have a right to access to adequate healthcare in the modern world? How would we effectuate that?
With respect to spending- it’s all well and good to talk about cutting spending- it gets fuzzy when we delve into the specifics. Something like 70/80% of federal spending is on defense and entitlements. You are not going to make a dent in the budget unless you cut that, and in a big way. And is it a wise move to cut defense spending with a more militant North Korea, or a soon to be nuclear Iran on the global stage, to say nothing of the challenges we are facing from China? Nor is cutting entitlement spending a panacea- is it wise to cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security on the very cusp of a demographic explosion in our elderly population? I think not.
In the end, we do not adequately fund the services we expect gov’t (at all levels) to provide. This leads to debt. You cannot balance the budget or reduce the deficit without tax increases- this is an difficult truth realized by many behind closed doors, but rarely if ever, spoken in public. “Cutting spending” will bring you cheers, until you start naming programs- it’s all well and good in a general way, but try touching someone’s program!
Look, historically, there is a correlation between severe economic problems- and the dislocations, resentments, and anxiety they produce- and political radicalization. This is problematic by itself, but it is occurring today against the backdrop of an already poisonous public discourse, and sharp divisions in society. It as also occurring in parallel with two massive demographic changes, either one of which standing alone would cause instability by itself: (1) the movement of America towards being a “majority minority” nation here in about 35/40 years time (almost 1/2 of babies born today are minority- reaching this point is inevitable- the question is “when” not “whether) and (2) an explosion in the size of our elderly population. It is against this backdrop that the emergence of the Tea Party must be viewed.
Let me address this first: Would we take away coverage from those with preexisting conditions? What would we do to address spiraling costs and the large numbers of uninsured? In the end, doesn’t every person have a right to access to adequate healthcare in the modern world? How would we effectuate that?
HCR’s programs are an overkill for “saving” those with pre-existing conditions. One, insurance companies are dropping policies completely. Two, forcing companies to accept those with PE conditions will make it unprofitable, therefore, see #1. The spiraling costs are not being affected by HCR. In fact, it may make it worse by lessening supply. And health CARE is a commodity, not a right. For someone to have a right to healthcare, you have to take away a provider’s rights. What they do have is a right to health care access. The “right to healthcare” is like the 2nd Amendment. Everyone has the right to be armed. One does not have a right to get the gun you want. Same with health care.
Your take on spending is why the Tea Party is targeting GOP members like yourself. You see no other option than to spend, spend, spend. In the above, you completely ignore the ADDITIONAL spending that has happened since 2009’s budget. You seem to think that the we can’t survive without more spending because of “pick your crisis.” Our demographic are the very reason why the Tea Party is rising. You say that they are older. Well, the additional spending will put THEIR paid for SS and Medicare in danger.
I don’t see any creative thinking on your part. As a Republican, YOU are supposed to be thinking about how we can accomplish things WITHOUT using government. Is there ANY government spending that you would rein in? Repeal of the Stimulus bills? Close any departments? Fire some government workers?
Its not like the we didn’t see this coming. Oh no, the baby boomers need their medicare and SS! Well, if we had done the reforms on both years ago as we fiscal conservatives had insisted, we would have less of a problem. But politicians, such as yourself, apparently, from your above writings, wanted to kick it down the road.
Well, Mr. Camillus. The bill is due. We are now printing money to buy our own debt. Other countries are leery of lending us money. China…CHINA! is telling us to be more capitalistic. Businesses are refusing to hire, banks refusing to lend, industries are moving overseas. And its all because of government demands, spending, regulation, and over-taxation. We could double our taxation and do nothing because DC has a spending problem. Haven’t you realized that? They will always spend more and more and more, in the name of the children, the elderly, whatever they think will get them votes. A perfect example is the current argument about unemployment extensions. Certain politicians want to pay for it out of existing stimulus money. Others want to print money to pay for it. Why? Because that stimulus money, which was emergency funding, AND STILL HAS NOT BEEN USED, is a slush fund to get re-elected.
Its time to pay the bill. And you guys have left your wallet at home. Perhaps the Tea Party members will fall to DC disease. Perhaps they will try to force some hard decision on Congress.
We. Do. Not. Have. Any. Money. And its politicians like yourself that did it.
I forgot about the demographic changes concern.
I already addressed the aging. The HCR scam, to me, seems to be more of a smokescreen to lower GOV’T costs in medicare by transferring the cost to mandated insurance coverage.
As for the minority demographics, I feel that they truly shouldn’t matter.If the GOP would stand on principle, learn to articulate the philosophy behind those principles, and stop being Democrat-lite, we would attract more minorities. I see too many Republicans that seem embarrassed about taking certain stands, usually on immigration and spending. I don’t automatically assume that race equates to political party. I know too many “minority” conservatives. They are in the 🙂 “minority” but they are there. Either we convince others of the value of our principles or we don’t. If we don’t, and we won’t if we continue to use the above spending arguments found in your post, then we lose the country and fall into decline.
I’m not a politician- I’ve never run for elected office (unless you count like student council in high school), and I’m a lot younger then you may think. I have worked on policy and elections at a fairly high level for a few years though.
“As a Republican, YOU are supposed to be thinking about how we can accomplish things WITHOUT using government.” Haven’t you essentially eliminated the difference betwen Republican and Libertarian with this one?
You speak of over taxation- actually, our proportional tax burden is less then that born by citizens in almost all our industrialized peer competitors.
Of course there is spending I’d reign in, I’m just observing that it gets rather messy when you get down to line items in the budget. DC does have a spending problem; but we also have a funding problem as well. “Pay for what you get”- collectively, that is a more honest motto.
I would also say it is rather Darwininian to say health care isn’t a right in the modern world.
“If the GOP would stand on principle, learn to articulate the philosophy behind those principles, and stop being Democrat-lite, we would attract more minorities…”
Can’t we assess the accuracy of this hypothesis by measuring, say, the appeal of Palin, DeMint, or Tea Party candidates like Paladino to minority voters? (spoiler/hint- they don’t have any).
Paladino was a very poor candidate. Palin and DeMint do have some appeal. However, I don’t expect to see the TEA Party attract large numbers of minorities at first. We just started. Its up to the Tea Party, over time, to learn how to reach minorities. I was talking to someone at the Richmond Tea Party last night about that. He felt that our message does resonate among minorities. We just have to get it out there through the interference of the popular media. As for thinking you a politician, I misread the short bio. The Tea Party is attracting minority voters to the GOP faster than the mainstream GOP has. Many have told me that the GOP didn’t seem to stand on principle, was advocating much of the same thing that the Dems did, only seemed to be doing it to pander. So why vote for them? Also, many have told me that they didn’t vote GOP because they believed what the media said. When they actually met and “hung out’ with the Tea Party and GOP, they found that their ideals matched ours. Its just that they had not previously seen any other way out than what the Dems had told them. And of course, the Dems had never talked about the downside of spending and over-regulation.
I commend the author for putting into words what Republicans who were involved in politics BEFORE Sarah Palin became a household name are feeling. I share the frustrations expressed and also the compassion for people who are made to live in a constant state of fear and anger, which I think detracts from their quality of life. I also think it threatens to sink the Republican party.
Cargo, I expect the Tea Party will never attract minorities because, fairly or not, a widespread public perception has taken root that the Tea Party is an angry, and indeed paranoid response to the fact that minorities are beginning to vote in greater numbers and acquiring the political power that comes with that.
It stems from a tactical decision to exploit the kind of fears that, yes, add a lot of energy to a movement, but also will feed into a them vs. us attitude. This becomes so all-consuming and powerful that it’s difficult to control. And, inevitably, people start turning against each other.
Perhaps. However, if we extrapolate the viewing membership of Fox versus say, MSNBC we arrive at something like a 2:1 ratio. This fits rather neatly with Gallup polling which indicates self-described conservatives as 40% and self-described liberals at 20%. If by “people” we mean “plurality” I think there’s an argument to be made in Fox’s favor.
I completely agree with your thesis on this point. We see this everywhere, not just in electoral results. It shows up in our financial markets and geopolitical relationships. And it is here to stay. It is here to stay because humans are reactionary creatures and technology has forever changed the way we receive and absorb information and will continue to do so. In physics we call this “information velocity.”
No, it is not a right. Saying something is not a “right” is not saying that we shouldn’t make best efforts to provide it as part of the social contract. However, this argument sounds like a Hobbesian revision of natural law, in which case I will take the side of Locke.
Actually, you could close the deficit without tax increases (almost): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=mx5ph018
With respect to tax “increases,” I’m all for closing loopholes and ending subsidies which distort true supply and demand (like mortgage deductions). On the spending side of this, line up the sacred cows and break out the BBQ sauce because we need to get to somewhere in the vicinity of 15% of GDP which in nominal terms would be 2.2 trillion. Failure to do this, and soon, will bring the bond vigilantes to our doorstep.
Do I believe the political will exists for this? No. Do I believe that we are rapidly approaching an inflection point where voters will be ready to listen to some difficult truths? Yes.
What will it take to move the voters to a place where they will be ready to hear what must be done? Well, a cataclysmic and perhaps exogenous event or series of events. There’s another shoe out there yet to drop, the financial crisis was just the catalyst for the current cycle. Whether that will come in the form of massive sovereign defaults, currency crashes or a war in Iran or on the Korean peninsula which sucks the U.S. and/or China and Russia into orbit remains to be seen.
Do I believe that Republicans can deliver difficult truths and solutions to people? Again, this is unclear to me. I confess to being rather disenchanted with our current party leadership as I perceive them as being unequal to the task. I see very encouraging young faces but wonder to myself how long they will remain so. Perhaps a man like Daniels is just what the doctor ordered but it’s difficult to see a path to victory in the primary. Moreover, as a student of cycles I’m keenly aware of the principle that the true “bottom” must be found before a new base can form that will result in a new ascendancy, and I don’t feel like the GOP has yet found that “bottom” yet here we are back on the cusp of power having learned nothing. This disturbs me.
To circle back to the original point, we must move swiftly to address the debt issues. If we fail to do so, our creditors will make these decisions on their timetable, not ours. And that will be very ugly for everyone involved.
The hour is late. If the Tea party folks can serve as a catalyst to advance this debate, I’m not going to spend time analyzing their demographics or questioning their motives. I can live with an imperfect messenger.
Cato,
your math adds up to 60% being Conservative or liberal. There are 40% of us out there floating around who would not classify themselves as either. I have a real problem that people like me don’t see to exist.
I stand by most people really being in the middle. It bothers me to be invisible.
Moon, can you remove me from moderation hell? Thanks in advance 🙂
@Cato, removed. Sorry it took me so long. I wasn’t around. But you are free now.
Ken,
That’s an interesting thing to say since nothing in the Tea Party says anything about race. The widespread perception happened because that was the false narrative that the media spread. In what way is the Tea Party showing paranoia about minorities? Please show me one statement by the Tea Party that says anything other than “Welcome.”
If the Tea Party is threatening to sink the GOP, well, you could not tell that by the last election. It was the Tea Party that pulled the GOP kicking and screaming into the fray this time. It was the Tea Party that was fighting back. The mainstream GOP had given up and believed the premise of the media and the liberals that the GOP was dead and a conservative message would not win.
Well, look what happened. Oh, my. Record GOP wins. If the us vs them by the Tea party was all consuming, we would not have supported Scott Brown.
Politics is always Us Vs Them. Either your ideas win or theirs does. Compromise can be a good thing except when that compromise is always leaning towards one side. Which is what happens. The GOP always spends more money and always grows more government.
@Cargo, if there is no national spokesperson, then it is difficult for anyone to ever assume responsibility for anything about race. Probably Paladino had a few things to say. Wasn’t he the tea party candidate? All I am saying is, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have ‘tea party candidates’ who are perfectly unacceptable and then claim the high road. It isn’t going to work.
Who is ‘we?’ I finally realized, if there is no head of the snake, then no one ever has to take responsibility for anything.
You did win, in the people’s house. But can you keep it? The election of 2008 should serve as a mighty serious warning. Easy to get, hard to hold on to, especially when everyone has feet of clay.
Btw, I forgot to add. If you feel that the Tea Party is a reaction to the growth of “minority” population, and that the Tea Party will never gain minority members, what has the GOP done to attract them any better, even with the pandering? Wasn’t Bush II supposed to be the Republican candidate that was going to win the Latino vote because he was pro-illegal immigration amnesty and spoke spanish?
Moon, that would mean that you are one of the 40%. Also, we have to define “middle.” To me, you are left of center. Some of your principles make you seem very leftist. To you, I’m probably far right. I believe that the country is “center-right”. Middle is in the eye of the beholder. 40% undefined sounds about right. That percentage can swing elections. Look at the difference between 2008 and now. I believe that the country is primarily conservative. It was only because Obama was “historic” that he received such a plurality.
@Moon-howler
Just numbers, Moon. 40% conservative, 20% liberal and 40% moderate. So you’re not invisible, Gallup just captures you as moderate. Using more aggressive polling methodologies would probably yield moderates declaring one way or the other, but Gallup doesn’t push people very hard.
Generally speaking, I think the moderate vote is just trying to figure out who would be least damaging to the country.
@Cato,
I think that is a pretty fair assessment, Cato. The more extreme either right or left gets, count on the less exteme capturing the hearts and minds of the murky middle.
Extremes should never grab that much power.
“You can’t have ‘tea party candidates’ who are perfectly unacceptable and then claim the high road. It isn’t going to work.”
Of course we can. It works for the Democrats all the time.
As for keeping the House or gaining more seats, well, that’s the test, isn’t it. I’ll be happy if the new electees just stay clear of DC disease. Don’t forget that a huge number of wins, especially for the TP was at the State level. Unprecedented was the term I heard.
@Cargo,
BS. The Democratic Party is a recognized political party with leaders, etc, just like the Republican Party. Like them or not, there is a heirarchy–something the tea party cannot …or more specifically, will not claim.
Like I said, I will grant that the tea party was probably instrumental in the house win…but can you keep it. I am asking that old flash in the pan question.
Partisanship sure stops all dialogue, doesn’t it?
Partisanship starts dialogue. It is because each side wants to win. The question is, dialogue with whom. One cannot have “bi-partisanship with partisanship.
I agree. Can the Tea Party or the GOP keep the House or gain more seats in the Senate? We’ll find out.
We don’t claim a hierarchy because there is no one leader. Paladino can be an ass. Its HIS fault. The Tea Party can point that out. And many did so. Even I did so. However, the points that he supported that tallied with the Tea Party movement are not what made his detractors upset. So the Tea Party’s ideas are not discredited.
Beside, why is having a hierarchy something that allows a party to get away with having horrible candidates or supporters? I’d think a centralized party that approves its candidates would be MORE responsible for the message its candidates put out. Besides, I think the Tea Party is pretty well recognized now…. 😉
I’d say that the TP did pretty well for itself for a group of un-organized, non-political, de-centralized protesters that were supposed to be an angry flash in the pan that came into being only a little while ago. Remember when the “experts” totally dismissed the Tea Party?
@Moon-howler
Remember, its always the other side that defines “extreme.” Well, in most cases.
I feel that Obama is an extreme progressive ideologue. I’m sure Nancy Pelosi would disagree. In many ways, you could be considered an extremist on some of your points of view.
My question is: Is that middle where its at because its informed and actually moderate, or just because it can’t make up its mind on the value of the ideas presented? I think its some of both. Remember, some are moderate because they can’t be bothered.
“I’d say that the TP did pretty well for itself for a group of un-organized, non-political, de-centralized protesters that were supposed to be an angry flash in the pan that came into being only a little while ago.”
It’s amazing what money from the Koch brothers and Dick Armey, and a major media outlet- Fox- can do.
@Camillus, totally amazing, isn’t it!
Oh yeah, I got my paycheck right here. The Democrats have huge funding and all the other networks. Of course, the narrative is that this HAS to be astro-turf. The politicians COULDN’T HAVE ticked off that many people. The peons don’t know how to organize.
You guys keep believing that. Have Freedomworks jumped on the bandwagon? Have the Koch bros apparently financed some stuff? (Probably, since I’m not as up on them as I probably should be.) Oh no! Shadowy rich people supporting groups of people demanding more liberty and less government spending and limited government. Oh no! Rich people might be supporting more constitutional government!
I’m sorry, you keep talking about constitutional government… so I must ask, are the courts no longer open? Does the judiciary no longer function? Because the last time I checked, the arbiters of the constitutionality of any federal legislation was the US Supreme Court, and not conservative radio personalities. Remember, not all bad legislation is unconstitutional legislation. TARP, HCR, the auto bail outs, cap and trade- I’m not aware of a Supreme Court decision holding that either the legislative or executive branches violated the Constitution with any of these measures. I’ve found that many Tea Paty constitutional arguments are based on a rather mistaken interpretations- arguments formerly found on the fringes of our politcis being advanced by extreme libertarian types (see collected works of Paul, Ron). Take the 10th Amendment, for example. Listening to conservative talk radio discussions about the 10th Amednment, one can’t help but notice that they are conducted as if McCullough v. Maryland was never decided. Indeed, its ironic that those who attempt to claim the mantel of the Founders seem so ready to dismiss the jurisprudential legacy of one of teh brightest stars in that entire luminus constellation- John Marshall.
my apologies, I meant “Tea Party,” I don’t want anyone to leave with the mistaken impression that the “Tea Paty” is some sort of splinter cell.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Hmm, seems clear cut to me. I did a quick look at McCullogh on Wiki. Not the best source, but….
Seems to me that this may be the court case that allows Congress to say that the ends justify the means. Of course Marshall would agree that the Constitution IMPLIES Congress can make any law that lends itself to a supposedly constitutional goal. I’ve noticed that many early decisions, especially by Marshall, gave more power to a central government and power to the courts. Marshall is a bright light because he was so dominant for so long. To the victors goes the written history. However, those early decisions, which were probably needed to stabilize a fractious governing system (though we’ll never know if the result any better), those decisions have placed the groundwork and structure for future Congress to build upon until now we have a towering edifice of government control. EVERY little thing that citizens do now has a federal law involved. Because its ok for Congress to pass anything that might have a passing sniff of the Constitution because, in the end, it suits some clause of general welfare or commerce.
It is the purpose of politicians to seek more power, if only because they want to “help.” Government is a cancer. No….its Kudzu. Like kudzu, it has a purpose. Kudzu was planted to stop erosion. Like kudzu, government has not had a natural enemy to keep it in check. Politicians have gamed the system to get around the checks and balances. Congress depends upon the courts and regulatory agencies to make law and provide cover to Congress.
Throughout this post, I have seen only that we need more government, that we need more spending, because everything will go to hell without government helping. Social Security, Defense, etc. More and more spending. More and more authority by the gov’t.
And you’re supposed to be part of the party that spouts limited government and more self-reliance. No wonder the Tea Party wants to thin the herd. Republican in name only……you know what? I’ve always thought that that term was mistaken. Republicans…mainstream republicans, as defined by the popular narrative, like to increase government power too. That’s the problem.
Your dystopian society would be dystopian in what way? Not enough power in the hands of “experts”? The same experts that have bankrupted the country, pandered to the citizenry, lied about the actual costs of programs, refused to cut spending, and indebted us to China?
What do you suggest we do to address these problems? Do you have any ideas besides more continued spending?
I understand that the Northeast is home of “moderate” Republicans and that the GOP may have problems elected conservatives. But why tear down those that brought the GOP back from the brink of irrelevancy? Don’t want to elect a Tea Party member? Don’t vote for them. But, first, you should convince the primary voters that your ideas will do better than ours.
Lets return to that case. McCullogh expands on the Necessary and Proper clause. The government is all about the Necessary part. However, the “Proper” portion would be a limiting effect on the scope of lawmaking.
This comment from Legal Insurrection sums it better than I can:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/12/neither-necessary-nor-proper.html
My argument was that “proper,” as in “appropriate” was a limiting term to the expansive term “necessary,” and their use in conjunction with each other reflected a balancing of interests. Specifically, “proper” should mean “within the powers of the government (either enumerated or not-prohibited),” because the use of an ultra-vires means to effectuate a potentially “necssary” struck me as, by definition, “innappropriate” for the government to do.
The greater the necessity of a law to effectuate an enumerated end, the more attenuated from the Constitution could you stray in terms of the means to reach that enumerated end. Conversely, the more your means could find no grounding in the Constitution – either due to distance from an enumerated power or from running afoul of broad readings of the vague language in the prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights, the higher level of actual necessity you would have to prove. This usage actually conforms very nicely to what judicially made-up, textually baseless rules (e.g. intermediate scrutiny) result in.
THIS is what the GOP should be concentrating on, since your supposed opponents want to continually expand the government’s reach, especially the progressives. Shouldn’t THEY be the ones that Republican Party officers should be worried about?