Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Tea Party: Drink Up, Democrats!
Andrew Levison at the "Democratic Strategist" sees hope for his party in the Tea Party phenomenon. He sees some straight-up GOP apologetics and some kookiness, but more than that he sees something else:
the on-the-scene reports by citizen journalists...suggest that probably the largest single group within the tea parties were neither corporate Republicans, single-issue protestors nor conspiracy theorists. Writing in the Washington Examiner, Byron York offered a particularly empathetic view of their attitudes which he portrayed as a mixture of bewildered patriotism, fear of the unknown and nostalgia for traditional, “old-fashioned” economic values and attitudes. For Democrats, the key to understanding the outlook of this “small-town traditional” group is to recognize that it is not the expression of the standard, “institutional” conservative ideology of the Heritage Foundation and University of Chicago. On the contrary, it is an authentically “grass roots” perspective rooted in a “common sense” understanding of economic affairs that arises from practical experience in the world of small business.
Levison then I.D.s, pretty well I think, the five major ideas animating the Tea Partiers, and identified them as a classical American "pre-Keynesian" view of the relationship between the workin' man and the Feds:
1. Government spending to create jobs simply does not work. It can only create phony “make work” or “leaf raking” jobs and not “real” jobs that need to be done....
2. Government simply should not go into debt; it should maintain a permanently balanced budget. This idea, which in previous generations was called fiscal responsibility or “sound finance,” is based on making an analogy between an individual household and the government....
3. Banks are visualized as essentially profit-seeking businesses like any other and not as an abstract “credit system” that provides “finance” or “liquidity” to the economy. In this view, the fact that banks’ particular business happens to be taking deposits and lending money does not entitle them to any special treatment.....
4. Government regulation is seen from the perspective of a small businessman. As such it appears as a maze of annoying paperwork, licenses, permits, inspections, and so on....
5. Taxes are seen....as money that is simply taken away from individuals by the government -- and not visualized as part of a larger circular flow...The “common sense” notion simply is that “Taxes are my money, not the government’s money”.
He then rightly points out that many of the business elites that he thinks are GOP handmaidens are perfectly Keynesian in their belief in large-scale government demand management.
In terms of Democratic strategy, there are two key implications of this analysis:
First, while these voters are unlikely to support Democratic candidates, their distrust and hostility to Obama and the Dems can be significantly moderated, reducing the number who move on to become committed anti-Democratic activists in hundreds of communities around the nation. The key is to reject the assumption that people who do not accept a Keynesian view are necessarily doctrinaire conservatives or committed Republicans. As we have seen, there is good evidence that they are not. Democrats can moderate the opposition of these voters by communicating with them in their own distinct “common sense” and “small business” framework.
He also thinks Dems should point out that many elements of the larger Tea Party-pushing coalition, from Dick Armey to Ron Paul to Objectivists, in fact have connections or beliefs that might frighten the decent old-fashioned angry Americans who make up the majority of Partiers.
All true. But for this to work to the Dems advantage in terms of dampening hostility toward them (not even Levison thinks they can win these Partiers votes), they will have to stop doing all those things that the Partiers don't like, from taxing to deficit spending to regulating to bailing out banks. And that isn't happening, nor is there a single force or figure within the Democratic Party power structure who wants or intends it to.
Morris|5.11.09 @ 6:56PM|#
In other words, encourage people to cherish reason's favorite right-wing fantasies. Sounds like a winner to me.
|5.11.09 @ 7:01PM|#
But for this to work to the Dems advantage in terms of
dampening hostility toward them (not even Levison thinks they can
win these Partiers votes), they will have to stop doing all those
things that the Partiers don't like, from taxing to deficit
spending to regulating to bailing out banks.
Sounds like the man has a grasp of the obvious that is rather
unusual for the left side of the Ruling Party.
To get the Tea Party vote, the Democrats have to go back to being
the party of Thomas Jefferson.
-jcr
|5.11.09 @ 7:02PM|#
The same way anti-war protestors were recruited to progressive
and socialist causes in the past few years via protest groups, the
Tea Parties are a good way of introducing mainstream voters to
libertarianism. I suspect the decent old fashioned Americans may be
more receptive to the beliefs of Ron Paul or Ayn Rand when they
observe the effect that the huge budget deficits and economic
manipulations are having on them.
Rather than "frighten" them, they might just become curious and
interested. Isn't that the point?
|5.11.09 @ 7:03PM|#
And that isn't happening, not is there a
single force
Perhaps a "nor" was meant for that spot?
jester|5.11.09 @ 7:03PM|#
The only tea party a statist understands is the kind involving
frilly dresses and an impossibly tiny tea set.
Yes the tea party phenom shows that some Americans have some
inkling of what made America great: small gov't & low taxes.
But in the end, they'll line up behind the statist GOP or the
statist Dems.
|5.11.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Ah, fixed while was I still dithering about whether to insult Morris' tiny, flaccid "pseudo-penis" or the shriveled filberts the doctors insisted were "technically" testicles.
The Chad|5.11.09 @ 7:07PM|#
But in the end, they'll line up behind the statist GOP or
the statist Dems.
I hope for all our sakes that you are wrong there. I know I will
never fall into line again.
jester|5.11.09 @ 7:08PM|#
In the end the Dems will adopt and essentially already have that Tea Party participants are all right-wing crazies. Reductio ad Ronpaulum et Aynrandum.
jester|5.11.09 @ 7:14PM|#
Justin, I was expecting SugarFree's tea party, so I am disappointed. You know, one with characters like Barney Frank getting teabagged and perhaps a third installment of the DiFi sexcapade chronicles.
Morris|5.11.09 @ 7:17PM|#
"But in the end, they'll line up behind the statist GOP or the
statist Dems."
You should hope so. It's all fule for your pathetic little cult.
Let's face it, no social arrangement will ever live up to your
irrational doctrinaire demands. Relax, true- believer market
fundies. You have that advantage enjoyed by all
fundamentalists--reality can't touch you.
|5.11.09 @ 7:17PM|#
Keynesian economics would have been laughed to death long ago if it didn't provide cover for politicians to funnel public funds to their friends.
|5.11.09 @ 7:25PM|#
Keynesian economics would have been laughed to death long
ago if it didn't provide cover for politicians to funnel public
funds to their friends.
Keynsianism is to economics as Lysenkoism is to biology.
-jcr
jester|5.11.09 @ 7:29PM|#
Morris,
One of the things that exposes your ignorance is your insistence
that some sort of cult of free-market thinkers even exists. Uh,
fuck, I missed my meeting and lost my ID card.
What marks you as a freak is that you feel the need to stamp out
even the slightest dissension from the belief in the grand
benevolence of the State.
There have been many control freaks in history and most of us in
this loose association of a 'cult' count them as some of the most
vile people that ever lived. The very same people you
hero-worship.
Cult
|5.11.09 @ 7:29PM|#
Morris!
Hey, great to see you. I wondered what you'd been up to since you
lost that commercial gig. Doesn't it suck when you can't get anyone
to take you seriously?
-jcr
|5.11.09 @ 7:30PM|#
insistence that some sort of cult of free-market thinkers
even exists.
It's rather like the way that bible-thumpers accuse atheists of
worshipping Darwin.
-jcr
Mad Max|5.11.09 @ 7:31PM|#
Levison:
'Writing in the Washington Examiner, Byron York offered a
particularly empathetic view of their attitudes which he portrayed
as a mixture of bewildered patriotism, fear of the unknown and
nostalgia for traditional, "old-fashioned" economic values and
attitudes."'
I read the York article, and it does not convey anything near the
attitude of condescension Levinson suggests. The term
'old-fashioned stuff' is used (confusingly enough to me) in
reference to a Citizens Against Government report citing the
spending record of Thad Cochran (R-Miss). But the stuff about
bewildered patriotism and fear is Levison's language, not
York's.
I suppose that if York had reported someone saying that the failure
to adopt Tea Party policies would lead to 'catastrophe,' that might
be an example of fear-mongering. But York doesn't report it. In
fact, it was Obama who used the c-word in warning about the dire
fate awaiting the nation if Congress didn't do what he told them
right away.
Levison seems to be *trying* to understand these bizarre citizens,
acknowledging that they might have some kind of political impact,
but unlike Yorke, he is baffled by them. He is like that character
in the cartoon Kudzu who talks about how progressive have to reach
out to the stupid, reactionary hillbillies.
|5.11.09 @ 7:32PM|#
Basically, he wants the pre-FDR Democratic Party. So do I! The
GD/WWII was when everything changed. The Dems used to be the small
government party looking out for the little guy, and the Reps the
small government party looking out for business. But the Dems
became the big government party under the FDR years. The
Republicans were out of power for so long that it took them a while
to catch up. Nowadays both are big government parties.
I'll take the 1920's version of either party...
|5.11.09 @ 7:38PM|#
for jester
Barney's cleft palate takes teabagging to a whole new level as he
wheezes and gulps Rahm's hot-sagging balls into his sinuses. Nancy
plays the frantic chicken while Dianne tries to tie her enormous
labia around a touch lamp. Flickering on and off and dim and bright
as it shakes back and forth, the lamp shows in a slow strobe Rahm
struggling to break free of Barney's gagging embrace. Rahm shits a
frightened little turd on Barney's neck. Barney, startled and
finally erect, kicks out at a squawking Nancy who is masturbating
furiously with a loofah sponge attached to a cordless drill. Her
leg shatters like a cheap epiphany.
Athiest|5.11.09 @ 7:40PM|#
"It's rather like the way that bible-thumpers accuse atheists of
worshipping Darwin."
I could so suck his dick right now.
|5.11.09 @ 7:43PM|#
Hey, did anyone see where I put my...
Rahm shits a frightened little turd on Barney's
neck.
OH MY GOD
grimaldius mensch|5.11.09 @ 7:57PM|#
Morris | May 11, 2009, 6:56pm | #
In other words, encourage people to cherish reason's favorite right-wing fantasies. Sounds like a winner to me.
obvious troll is obvious
|5.11.09 @ 8:09PM|#
If the Dems want to become the party of low taxes and small government, sure they have my vote. But, I ddoubt they could do that without alienating every party activist and elected politician. This whole thing seems a bit absurd. If the Dems don't stand for high taxes, big spending and lots of government control, there really isn't much left of the current party.
jester|5.11.09 @ 8:26PM|#
What the country really needs is a Kool-Aid party. We could
impress into people just how status quo their perception of change
is.
I'll hold the first one: Rootin' Tootin' Cherry (laced with
cyanide.)
|5.11.09 @ 8:48PM|#
So... is the strategy to shift the Democratic party more
Libertarian? Or to pretend to?
I don't see how it's going to work, but I'd like to see them try
either, if only to see the GOP's inevitably hilarious response.
MNG|5.11.09 @ 9:13PM|#
Dude's, seriously, regarding the Tea Parties, you should not even care. The most remarkable political facts lately are the GOP getting the 21% identification number, the Dems looking like they will win that seat in NY 20th, spector's switch, and Obama's positive's. You can meet and yell about tea all you want, the Dems are in control dudes. Your tea parties only make you look loonier and make the Dems stronger, however much I personally admire the protests...
MNG|5.11.09 @ 9:16PM|#
If people here were hard working libertarians, they would start
to work WITHIN the Democratic Party (which is much, much more open
to outside influence, why do you think LaRouche ran as a Dem so
much?) to move it towards libertarian ideas. In a two party system
that party is going to be in power quite a bit fellas...
The NRA smartly worked within the Dem party, and now gun control is
wishful thinking on those people's part...That's sucess boys...
|5.11.09 @ 9:17PM|#
Your tea parties only make you look loonier and make the
Dems stronger
Sort of the way anti-war protestors made the protestors look like
loons and make the Republicans stronger in 2003, I guess.
Giant puppets anyone?
|5.11.09 @ 9:18PM|#
If people here were hard working libertarians, they would
start to work WITHIN the Democratic Party (which is much, much more
open to outside influence, why do you think LaRouche ran as a Dem
so much?) to move it towards libertarian ideas.
Yes, you can change your man, if you just keep nagging.
|5.11.09 @ 9:20PM|#
The NRA smartly worked within the Dem party, and now gun
control is wishful thinking on those people's part...That's sucess
boys...
The Democratic Party decided it couldn't win without Southern and
Mid-western electoral votes. The NRA had nothing to do with it.
Hugh Akston|5.11.09 @ 9:39PM|#
If people here were hard working libertarians, they would
start to work WITHIN the Democratic Party (which is much, much more
open to outside influence. The NRA smartly worked within the Dem
party, and now gun control is wishful thinking on those people's
part.
No, wishful thinking is the hope that the unprincipled powermonger pragmatist-in-chief is as
gullible and insecure as those frat boys you used to lure back to
your dorm room with the promise of a "case of beer I just can't
finish."
The only difference is that it is the libertarians who believed the
Democrats' promises who would wake up the next morning feeling
deeply shamed and a little sore.
MJ|5.11.09 @ 9:44PM|#
"The "common sense" notion simply is that "Taxes are my money,
not the government's money"."
It's interesting that he writes that as if it were a completely
foreign and incomprehensible viewpoint to his target audience.
戈氜|5.11.09 @ 9:49PM|#
Love the patronizing tone he takes in the five points. Like that people think the government should not go into debt because they are confused by the difference between international finance and their own home finance.
Mad Max|5.11.09 @ 9:58PM|#
Conspiracy theorists take note:
Check out the *umbrella* in the lower left-hand corner of the
photograph accompanying
Byron York's article.
John Tagliaferro|5.11.09 @ 10:10PM|#
Mad Max,
Conspiracy confirmed. "Umbrella" is gone after your pointing it
out.
John Tagliaferro|5.11.09 @ 10:21PM|#
The Democratic Party decided it couldn't win without
Southern and Mid-western electoral votes. The NRA had nothing to do
with it.
Yes, that is the right take.
The NRA smartly worked within the Dem party, and now gun
control is wishful thinking on those people's part...That's sucess
boys...
Such quaint lunacy.
Those sneaky NRA commandos stealthy crept inside of the Democrat
party and destroyed all of the anti-freedom talking points memos,
leaving nothing but pro-assault weapon notes . . .
alan|5.11.09 @ 10:26PM|#
What? A Democrat who seems to get it? Bag and Tag it, and send it into research, pronto. A rare specimen, indeed. Calls for Champagne.
alan|5.11.09 @ 10:36PM|#
kicks out at a squawking Nancy who is masturbating furiously
with a loofah sponge attached to a cordless drill. Her leg shatters
like a cheap epiphany.
Great stuff. I had to add in a few details, Nancy's big ass 60 plus
old titties plopping from side to side to really pop one out,
though.
|5.11.09 @ 10:37PM|#
--== Cougarster.Com ==-- It's where Cougar (women who are mature, rich and experienced) and men who like them can meet.
alan|5.11.09 @ 10:50PM|#
babara | May 11, 2009, 10:37pm | #
--== Cougarster.Com ==-- It's where Cougar (women who are mature,
rich and experienced) and men who like them can meet.
Good God, that little porn bit I did about Pelosi didn't attract a
bot, right?
|5.11.09 @ 11:53PM|#
Don't forget reason no. 6 why tea parties exist:
"We teabaggers don't like that uppity nigger president, but we
can't say that openly."
The Angry Optimist|5.11.09 @ 11:56PM|#
"To a liberal, every day is Selma, 1965."
Mark Vaughn, no one likes a race-baiting toolbag. Fuck off,
Jack.
Orange Line Special|5.11.09 @ 11:58PM|#
Help!!!! Reason just broke my BSMeter!
Here's the truth about the "tea party"
movement. Click each link for more, and especially see the
picture
here.
For a mini-example of how dumb those pushing the "parties" are, see
this.
|5.12.09 @ 12:02AM|#
In other words teabaggers are low-information voters. I'll even
grant that they're not unwitting pawns of FOX news (ministry of
truth for the GOP), not devoted partisans or fundamentalist
Christians. They have serious complaints and a voice that deserves
to be heard. They are furious at both parties for the anxiety they
feel. I'll even overlook any racist undertones and gut reactions
against a black liberal democrat as president. But I think the five
points in this article seem a reasonable summary of teabagger's
grievances, and they're all bullshit. In reality even massive debt
is less scary than the alternative; in reality the rules of
household common sense and fairness don't apply because the
economy's collapse was set to cause massive long-term pain, and
emergency measures were necessary.
And in reality I'm still not convinced that teabaggers are any
different from the usual FOX news crowd, and that if McCain were
elected, assuming he continued to pander as hard as he did during
the campaign, there would be no teabagging parties but only the
flip side of today's paranoid reaction to major change--vicious
jingoism.
|5.12.09 @ 12:02AM|#
So... is the strategy to shift the Democratic party more
Libertarian? Or to pretend to?
The Ruling Party always pays lip service to liberty. It's pretty
clear to me that we're not going to get back our Republic without
fixing at least one of the franchises of the ruling party, and the
current weakness of the Republicans after the WGB debacle presents
an opportunity that we haven't had since Ford got a shellacking by
Carter.
As for the Democrats, they're hopeless. Those idiots are taking
turns to repeat every line of New Deal bullshit at any opportunity,
with occasional breaks to make up excuses for Obama's failures on
the civil rights front.
-jcr
|5.12.09 @ 12:04AM|#
teabaggers are low-information voters.
I haven't surveyed anyone in that subculture myself, but I guess we
can take your word for it. Do you speak from first-hand
experience?
The tea partiers on the other hand, tend to know rather
more than the pinkos expect them to. They won't be easily
co-opted.
-jcr
|5.12.09 @ 12:06AM|#
"To a conservative, every day is Memphis, April 4, 1968."
The Angry Optimist, no one likes a racist teabag. Fuck off,
Jacques.
The Angry Optimist|5.12.09 @ 12:10AM|#
that comment doesn't even make sense. what did I say that was racist?
|5.12.09 @ 12:11AM|#
I haven't surveyed anyone in that subculture myself, but I
guess we can take your word for it. Do you speak from first-hand
experience?
I was using the findings reported in the article. Granted it's from
a Democratic strategist. Care to deny them?
|5.12.09 @ 12:13AM|#
"We teabaggers don't like that uppity nigger president, but
we can't say that openly."
Right, because you can't dislike taxes or fiscal insanity without
being a racist.
|5.12.09 @ 12:14AM|#
I was using the findings reported in the article.
The article was about Tea Party participants. You seem to have them
confused with some other group of people.
-jcr
The Angry Optimist|5.12.09 @ 12:14AM|#
Tony, I only saw you (barely) address one of the five points with any substance at all. Care to refute the other ones? Oh, and do a better job with the one you did "refute".
|5.12.09 @ 12:15AM|#
I think the five points in this article seem a reasonable
summary of teabagger's grievances, and they're all bullshit. In
reality even massive debt is less scary than the alternative; in
reality the rules of household common sense and fairness don't
apply because the economy's collapse was set to cause massive
long-term pain, and emergency measures were necessary.
Ahhh, yes, the "reality based community" response.
|5.12.09 @ 12:18AM|#
Right, because you can't dislike taxes or fiscal insanity
without being a racist.
You paid taxes under Bush; there was definitely fiscal insanity
then too. Why the late arrival to the party? I know it's not
because you're on gay time.
|5.12.09 @ 12:21AM|#
Tony, as usual you don't know what you are talking about.
Libertarians HATED Bush's spending policies. We were absolutely
OUTRAGED by the bailouts.
Do some research.
The Angry Optimist|5.12.09 @ 12:23AM|#
You paid taxes under Bush; there was definitely fiscal insanity then too. Why the late arrival to the party?
Is that a refutation of the points? That some people are late to
the party?
I mean, how does that diminish the points any?
Oh yeah, it doesn't.
|5.12.09 @ 12:23AM|#
Yet no tea parties. Only now when the consequences of deregulatory zeal and free market worship have been borne out and the succeeding government is having to pick up the pieces is your movement mobilized. I even generously granted a mulligan for all the racism and Hannity ass licking present at these events.
|5.12.09 @ 12:28AM|#
Yet no tea parties.
In case you didn't notice, there was no April 15th in between the
time that TARP was passed and the election.
Not to mention the additional $700 billion that went to the
stimulus and the bloated $400 billion budget.
You act like the only thing that changed between last year and this
one was Obama's election. Interesting take that. Isn't it just
possible that the candidate of "change" has made come "changes"
people don't like?
The Angry Optimist|5.12.09 @ 12:30AM|#
- 1 for trolling, Tony.
Anyway, I'm still not seeing a refutation. Even if it's
true that a lot of this Johnny-Come-Lately is
because there's a D in the White House, you still haven't
demonstrated how that fact logically refutes anything said.
Because you can't, of course.
The sad part is, is that you're right that a lot
of this is just partisan shenanigans and the people who were
outraged now (note, Tony, that doesn't include us, try as you might
to lump us with them) weren't outraged previously.
But, again, so what? What's your point? How does that refute what's
being said?
|5.12.09 @ 12:38AM|#
But, again, so what? What's your point? How does that refute
what's being said?
You mean the Democratic strategist's research? I don't think it's
not legitimate, I just think it's misinformed.
The Angry Optimist|5.12.09 @ 12:42AM|#
Nooo, Tony, you said this:
But I think the five points in this article seem a reasonable summary of teabagger's grievances, and they're all bullshit.
So far, I've seen two "points" that supposedly refute the five
points given:
1. "in reality the rules of household common sense and fairness
don't apply because the economy's collapse was set to cause massive
long-term pain" and
2. Your other argument seems to be that it doesn't matter anyway
because IF McCain were President THEN there would be no Tea Parties
(which is not a refutation of the points).
So, refute the points. If they're "all bullshit" it shouldn't take
you long.
JB|5.12.09 @ 12:46AM|#
Democrats can moderate the opposition of these voters by
communicating with them in their own distinct "common sense" and
"small business" framework.
They do that all time, it's called lying. Obama does it every time
he opens his mouth.
|5.12.09 @ 1:00AM|#
If there's no racism involved with the tea parties, how come so
many of them refer to the president as "the Kenyan" and "homey
don't play dat" and other not-quite-so subtle references to his
heritage?
And "states' rights" is code for "The South Shall Rise Again And
Strike Down Them Niggers Who Demand Equal Protection Under The
Law."
The Angry Optimist|5.12.09 @ 1:08AM|#
No one said there was "no racism" involved. Like any large
group, you get fringe elements who try to latch on. You should see
the "Fallacy of the Hasty Generalization" or maybe the "Fallacy of
Composition".
But, clearly you don't have any interest in being intellectual;
you're just being a fuckhead and a race-baiter.
Brandon|5.12.09 @ 1:10AM|#
Whew, I'm so glad Mr. Levison is here to ease my anxiety before
I go to bed. I might have had another sleepless night. Here I was
under the impression that the appropriations of ignorant and
corrupt politicians might not stimulate demand and put people to
work, that incomprehensible additions to an already
incomprehensible public debt were unwise, that nationalization and
heavy-handed regulation might delay recovery and stifle long term
growth, and the money I earned every two weeks belonged to me and
not a "large circular flow".
Good thing people like Mr. Levison are there to know what's best
for old fashioned, ignorant rubes such as I.
jester|5.12.09 @ 1:17AM|#
"Barney's cleft palate takes teabagging to a whole new level as
he wheezes and gulps Rahm's hot-sagging balls into his sinuses.
Nancy plays the frantic chicken while Dianne tries to tie her
enormous labia around a touch lamp. Flickering on and off and dim
and bright as it shakes back and forth, the lamp shows in a slow
strobe Rahm struggling to break free of Barney's gagging embrace.
Rahm shits a frightened little turd on Barney's neck. Barney,
startled and finally erect, kicks out at a squawking Nancy who is
masturbating furiously with a loofah sponge attached to a cordless
drill. Her leg shatters like a cheap epiphany."
This has been a reprint of earlier blog material. If you skipped
over this, you owe your thanks. Now get over yourselves. Nothing
valid has been posted sin ce.
jester|5.12.09 @ 1:24AM|#
Like I said earlier, Political Parties like Kool-Aid. Kool-Aid
is sweet. Easy on the palate.
Fuck off, all other commentary...because, Kool-Aid is sweet. Easy
on the palate.
jester|5.12.09 @ 1:27AM|#
Here is racism: Barack Obama. Some individual so sorrowfully fucked up that he forgot that he is an individual. Obama! Please! Accept me as your friend on FaceBook!
Bruce majors|5.12.09 @ 1:34AM|#
Florida/Georgia/Alabama tax protest in Tallahassee
tea party tax protest on May 16.
http://tallytea.ning.com/main/embeddable/list
jester|5.12.09 @ 1:47AM|#
Is it a green tea party, an assam tea party, a jasmine tea party, or an oolong tea party? Please specify.
Elemenope|5.12.09 @ 1:55AM|#
Ah, that is what happened to Dr. Marcus!
Knifed in the gut by Klingons on the Genesis planet?
Hugh Akston|5.12.09 @ 4:21AM|#
the consequences of deregulatory zeal and free market
worship have been borne out
What the fuck are you talking about? If you take a second to read
deeper than Jacob Wiesberg's Newsweek column, you'll find that
there was nothing deregulatory or free market about the last
decade.
|5.12.09 @ 4:35AM|#
I'll take the 1920's version of either party...
In the 1920s, they were both pretty evil. The Republicans were the
home of the "progressives", and the Democrats were lousy with KKK
cretins.
-jcr
|5.12.09 @ 4:46AM|#
there was nothing deregulatory or free market about the last
decade.
Truth to tell, the last significant round of deregulation was the
abandonment of Nixon's wage and price controls. Before that, you
pretty much have to go back to 1946 when the New Deal and wartime
price controls were lifted.
-jcr
John Tagliaferro|5.12.09 @ 5:13AM|#
JCR,
presents an opportunity that we haven't had since Ford got a
shellacking by Carter.
Shellacking? Might want to look that one up. Carter won,
barely.
|5.12.09 @ 5:32AM|#
Who the hell refers to Obama as "the Kenyan"? So many people that I've never heard it before.
John Tagliaferro|5.12.09 @ 5:52AM|#
Who the hell refers to Obama as "the Kenyan"? So many people
that I've never heard it before.
Liberals, when they need to make something up about people who will
not follow them.
Bingo|5.12.09 @ 6:13AM|#
I don't like the Tea Party movement because it means libertarian fiscal ideas being co-opted by the social conservatives. And we all know how great that turned out when they elected one of their own as president.
Bingo|5.12.09 @ 6:24AM|#
GOP Strategy:
1. Pay lipservice to small government
2. Get elected
3. Try to implement national bans on gay marriage, immigration
(specifically: Mexicans), and obscenity. Ratchet up the war on
drugs and the expansion of the police/surveillance state. National
control of the public school curriculum in regards to sex education
and intelligent design.
4. Do fuckall for the cause of liberty and smaller government while
waving a flag and talking about freedom
5. ???
6. Profit
Er, maybe step 5 should read "get trounced by Dems the following
election" and 6 should read "Set the libertarian movement back 50
years by giving small government policies a terrible public
reputation".
Bingo|5.12.09 @ 6:50AM|#
And one more thing:
This is "libertarianism" based on it being an American Tradition.
The Tea Party folks are simply conservatives that are doing their
best to protect what they view as another traditional institution.
There is absolutely no grand moral philosophy or logical reasoning
behind this movement, it's intellectually dead. Not only that, but
fiscal conservatism will go out the window when social
conservatives feel like a traditional institution is being
threatened. For example, many of these folks see maintaining Cold
War-era military spending as another American Tradition that must
be protected.
MNG|5.12.09 @ 8:01AM|#
TAO
I think Tony did address the point about debt, that generally
that's correct but in the emergency situation it's allowable (I
mean, you're in debt right now [law school], right?).
As to the other points I might suggest:
1. "It can only create phony "make work" or "leaf raking" jobs and
not "real" jobs that need to be done" If you are the one who was
unemployed but now is getting a paycheck for leaf raking it's not
so phony.
2. "Government regulation is seen from the perspective of a small
businessman." Most people are workers and consumers, not small
businesspersons, and those regulations are seen as protecting them.
In elections majority wins.
3. "Taxes are seen....as money that is simply taken away from
individuals by the government"
Yes, everyone hates taxes, but people hate not having government
services more.
4. "the fact that banks' particular business happens to be taking
deposits and lending money does not entitle them to any special
treatment"
But since all other businesses and consumers use banks there is an
interest in not seeing them fail.
Gilbert Martin|5.12.09 @ 8:16AM|#
"All true. But for this to work to the Dems advantage in terms
of dampening hostility toward them (not even Levison thinks they
can win these Partiers votes), they will have to stop doing all
those things that the Partiers don't like, from taxing to deficit
spending to regulating to bailing out banks. And that isn't
happening, nor is there a single force or figure within the
Democratic Party power structure who wants or intends it to.
"
Exactly.
The Dems can try all the phony "common sense" talk they want.
There is no way to convince all those folks that you believe in
their set of principles when you continue to do exactly the
opposite.
|5.12.09 @ 8:33AM|#
The reaction by the left to the tea parties should serve as a historical reminder. Not every citizen supported the American revolution. Today's Democrat loyalists would have been supporting team red over the lawless tax evaders of two centuries ago. Also, Democrats are fags.
Mad Max|5.12.09 @ 8:45AM|#
'There is no way to convince all those folks that you believe in
their set of principles when you continue to do exactly the
opposite.'
Exactly - it's not even working with the Republicans any more.
|5.12.09 @ 8:54AM|#
Interesting, for the Dems to curry favor from the Partiers means that the Dems can not be Dems. That should work.
ed|5.12.09 @ 8:56AM|#
For Democrats, the key to understanding the outlook of this
"small-town traditional" group is to recognize...
...that the Democrats outnumber these groups and are therefore
intellectually superior to them, paving the way for the nightly
cable-news schadenfreudefests in which Rush Limbaugh and Dick
Cheney are roasted by witty lefties. The Dems finally feel safe to
vent their true hatred of the opposition. They're very poor
winners, but what goes around comes around, eventually.
|5.12.09 @ 10:07AM|#
In reality even massive debt is less scary than the
alternative; in reality the rules of household common sense and
fairness don't apply because the economy's collapse was set to
cause massive long-term pain, and emergency measures were
necessary.
And people call *us* dupes.
|5.12.09 @ 12:20PM|#
Morris | May 11, 2009, 6:56pm | #
"In other words, encourage people to cherish reason's favorite
right-wing fantasies. Sounds like a winner to me."
As if Keynesian economics were not simply a left wing fantasy
propped up to rationalize an activist state.
|5.12.09 @ 12:22PM|#
If there's no racism involved with the tea parties, how come so many of them refer to the president as "the Kenyan" and "homey don't play dat" and other not-quite-so subtle references to his heritage? [citation needed]
|5.12.09 @ 12:39PM|#
"Interesting, for the Dems to curry favor from the Partiers
means that the Dems can not be Dems. That should work."
The writer specifically claims that is not the point. He states,
"First, while these voters are unlikely to support Democratic
candidates, their distrust and hostility to Obama and the Dems can
be significantly moderated, reducing the number who move on to
become committed anti-Democratic activists in hundreds of
communities around the nation."
The goal is clearly not to turn Tea Party participants into
democratic voters but to find a way to demonize the Tea Party
movement in order to intimidate OTHER people from listening to
their message or joining their forces AGAINST the democratic
party.
Bingo's comment above, "Bingo | May 12, 2009, 6:13am | #
I don't like the Tea Party movement because it means libertarian
fiscal ideas being co-opted by the social conservatives. And we all
know how great that turned out when they elected one of their own
as president."
Bingo provides a beautiful example of the divide and conquer tactic
they plan to employ.
wayne|5.12.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Barney's cleft palate takes teabagging to a whole new level as he wheezes and gulps Rahm's hot-sagging balls into his sinuses. Nancy plays the frantic chicken while Dianne tries to tie her enormous labia around a touch lamp. Flickering on and off and dim and bright as it shakes back and forth, the lamp shows in a slow strobe Rahm struggling to break free of Barney's gagging embrace. Rahm shits a frightened little turd on Barney's neck. Barney, startled and finally erect, kicks out at a squawking Nancy who is masturbating furiously with a loofah sponge attached to a cordless drill. Her leg shatters like a cheap epiphany.
Sugarfree, DAMN! that is good writing!
Alice Lillie|5.12.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Good writing?? LOLOL!!!
Anyhow, on subject again,I have reviewed some Rothbard works on
monetary policy on my blog, the listed url.
Please check it out and weigh in yourself!
|5.12.09 @ 2:50PM|#
Real world translation: we need to bamboozle these teabagging yahoos by using the same kinda language they use. Of course will never change our policies one iota.
|5.12.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Just two quick comments:
1. Keynesian policies just don't work... sorry but they just
don't...
2. I attended the tea party in Boston and a lot of sentiments
harkened back to a Jacksonian view, might be a place of common
ground to start on...
|5.14.09 @ 5:06AM|#
Keynesian policies just don't work... sorry but they just
don't...
If by "work", you mean "improve the general welfare and promote a
healthy economy", you're correct. However, improving the economy
isn't the purpose of Keynsianism: its real purpose is to provide
the appearance of sophistication to incompetent, ham-fisted power
grabbing, and it accomplishes that purpose very effectively.
-jcr
|5.14.09 @ 5:47PM|#
It's fun to see all the former Republicans hide their former
identities under a vale of Libertarianism. I'd want to hide too...
:)
Enjoy your stay in the 'compound'. lol
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245