|
InvisibleBlack -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 4:35:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
Who are the true heirs to America's founders?
Given the vast changes since the 1700s, I suspect that the Founding Fathers may not have any "true heirs" these days, anymore than Cicero or Charlemagne or Hammurabi do. Also, you have to bear in mind that the Founding Fathers weren't a monolithic goup - they disagreed with one another and so if one is, for example, a "true heir" to Thomas Jefferson one would automatically be opposed to many of the doctrines espoused by Alexander Hamilton.
For all the rhetoric and blather filling the ether on the "Tea Party" it's not really a coherent political philosophy anymore than the "Anti-War" movement was or any other such inchoate (good work, that) group.If I was to try and take a stab at the common views shared by all members of the "Tea Party", something they all could agree on, it would be something like:
1) Taxes should not be raised
2) The Federal government has accumulated too much power and needs to be reduced in size and scope
3) Deficits are too large and so the Federal government should spend less
...and I'm not even too sure about that last one. While I have no doubt that every member of the Constitutional Congress would agree with #2 (it's way beyond the vision they held in 1789), I couldn't even argue that every one of the framers of the Constitution had similar ideas on the maximum amount taxes should be nor how large a deficit should grow.
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
What do you do when "the people" seem to want one course of action, and you believe another course to be in the national interest?
If you're an ethical politician (I know, an oxymoron) you do what you believe in the best national interest. The concept behind a representative democracy is not following "the will of the people" but that the people will choose leaders whom they know to be of sound judgement and good character - trusting them to make wise decisions on important matters - not expecting them to willy-nilly poll the public opinion every time something comes along. If it turns out that the elected leaders aren't able to make sound judgements and good decisions, then they'll be replaced at the end of their term.Quite often the correct decision will turn to be an unpopular decision and it's only over time that the wisdom of a particular decision becomes apparent. Many leaders who are well-regarded historically were reviled in their time.
This concept, of choosing the best person and letting them make complex decisions, has been lost over time - morphed into more of "do what the people want" mindset - which is exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Were you as bothered about this before the other January, or is that something you've only started to fret about since Obama was elected, though? The number of people who've suddenly decided that their government has to practise fiscal responsibility, despite the fact that they'd spent the eight previous years cheering on Bush's decision to fight a war on hire purchase funding, is a bit depressing.
Bearing in mind that I didn't like Bush's presidency and was opposed to a great deal of what he did (and that so far I view Obama's Presidency as not radically different than the Bush Presidency):
When Bush took office, the Federal debt as a percentage of GDP was about 55%.
When Bush left office, the Federal debt as a percentage of GDP was about 68%.
That's an increase of about 24% over eight years - so say 3% per year.
When Obama took office, the Federal debt as a percentage of GDP was about 68%.
Currently, the Federal debt as a percentage of GDP is about 95%.
That's an increase of about 40% in two years - so say 20% per year.
I think this is what has people so alarmed. Whether you say that the vast increase in Federal spending was necessary, or a legacy of the Bush administration, or not Obama's fault - I think that the sheer impact in the changes in government spending have shocked a lot of people.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Why is it that the same people who were 100% behind Bush and the Iraq War, which has cost us far more than any social program, are now for fiscal conservatism when they supported financing a needless war?
Because many people simply take on the opinion they are told to take on by someone they regard as "credible". Because many people are solely politically motivated and so have no overall "ideology" or "value set" to adhere to. This isn't limited to the neo-cons or the Tea Party. It's across the board. Hypocrisy knows know political affiliation.
Why were people so opposed to the invasion of Iraq and so involved in the "anti-war" movement when it was Bush doing it, but giving Obama a pass on illegal attacks in Pakistan, on use of unmanned drone weaponry on civilian targets, on renditioning of prisoners, etc. etc. etc? Because it's not in their political interest to do so. Why was Cindy Sheehan a heroine for protesting Bush but a "nut" when she protests Obama? Why were some people upset when Obama used snipers in a rescue mission against the Somali pirates but would have cheered if Bush had done so? Why weren't right-wingers cheering when Clinton reformed welfare?
The mindset of "my side can do no wrong" and "their side is evil no matter what" is a sad fact of life.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
The government just wasted a record sum for little or nothing and must somehow justify defying the people and being massively wrong.
"Uh. Hi. I just spent 10 trillion dollars of your money and it was a mistake. I wasted it. Oops. Sorry. Bad call. Won't do it again." doesn't go over that well. You have to try and make it sound like it worked. It's just like "Uh. Hi. You know how I told you we had to invade this country right away? Well. I was wrong. Sorry. Wont' do it again." doesn't fly either.
I think that underneath all the talk and the media spin - there's a lot, a whole LOT, of anti-Establishment anger out there right now. Left. Right. Middle. Republican. Democrat. Independent. Whatever. It comes out in weird ways. I think the huge clamor behind Obama when he was running for office was that people believed that he honestly would bring change. Part of the anger is that things didn't change appreciably - that in fact, it's not only more of the same but a LOT more of the same. The disconnect between the Washington insiders and those outside has gotten so large that people an't even pretend that their leadership is paying any attention to them. I expect this to only get worse as the last thing any incumbent or anyone benefitting from the status quo wants is someone to come in and overturn the applecart. I've said before that I expect we'll see violence at political rallies.
I think the Tea Party is a symptom of something much larger, and that it's going to get much worse before it gets any better.
|
|
|
|
