![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Why the tea parties don't matter
The "Tea Party" movement is a symbolic failure.
The original tea partiers engaged in criminal acts and risked arrest and imprisonment to destroy product from a company being propped up by unfair reduced taxes by the government, at the expense of what, at the time, amounted to "small business:" the domestic importers of tea who competed with the East India Company.
The current teabaggers are buying tea and throwing it around. That's it. When the DC teabag crew showed up with a truckload of tea bags (yes, I'm serious) to dump in Lafayette Square (because dumping in the Potomac is illegal, can't do that, after all) they were informed that they didn't have the correct permits to dump their load.
So they took it away. They're a bunch of pussies. "Civil disobedience" and "protest" are just words to them. They'll always cave in to authority rather than take a risk for their alleged principles. Samuel Adams would have dumped the tea right then and there.
If they wanted a real symbolic connection with the original Boston Tea Party they would be stealing Chrysler and GM cars and trucks from distribution centers and dumping them in the drink.
But they're not.
Pussies.
The original tea partiers engaged in criminal acts and risked arrest and imprisonment to destroy product from a company being propped up by unfair reduced taxes by the government, at the expense of what, at the time, amounted to "small business:" the domestic importers of tea who competed with the East India Company.
The current teabaggers are buying tea and throwing it around. That's it. When the DC teabag crew showed up with a truckload of tea bags (yes, I'm serious) to dump in Lafayette Square (because dumping in the Potomac is illegal, can't do that, after all) they were informed that they didn't have the correct permits to dump their load.
So they took it away. They're a bunch of pussies. "Civil disobedience" and "protest" are just words to them. They'll always cave in to authority rather than take a risk for their alleged principles. Samuel Adams would have dumped the tea right then and there.
If they wanted a real symbolic connection with the original Boston Tea Party they would be stealing Chrysler and GM cars and trucks from distribution centers and dumping them in the drink.
But they're not.
Pussies.
Re: Guilt-Free Democrats
Are you equating representing constituents and getting federal tax dollars (that those constituents pay) back to the district as corruption, then?
Re: Guilt-Free Democrats
You brought up the whole "flip-flop" thing and how the Republicans place greater value on consistency. You also made the point that Democrats have less guilt about being inconsistent.
I linked that with their ethical failures and political corruption.
Politicians who happily and readily give up their "principles" for the sake of "pragmatism" are also the most corrupt or corruptible.
Yet, you praise this in Democrats and chastise Republicans for insisting on consistency.
To you it matters not where a Democratic politician stands for you're perfectly fine with their changing their stance if it's expedient.
How's that saying go Andy? You know the one: "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything."
From what I'm reading in your posts, you view it as a praiseworthy thing that the Democratic politicians stand for nothing. Sorry, but I don't want to join you in falling for that.
Madoc
Re: Guilt-Free Democrats
Do you suggest that consistent equals ethical. Or is it ethical equals consistent?
For the first, let's look to G.W. Bush. He isn't just consistent, he's consistent in the way only an "I'm doing God's work" man of faith can be. Does that consistency make him ethical? I would consider him ethically bankrupt. He's surely consistent in his betrayal of conservative ideals, and he sold his party and his voters a bill of goods if that's what they held him up to.
So no, consistent does not equal ethical.
For the second, I've got to break the question down.
Do positions equal principles, and does changing position equal betrayal of principle?
Let's say I'm a strong, principled environmentalist. I'm shipping things by water because it's very fuel efficient. I learn that cargo ships are horrible polluters in spite of their fuel efficiency, so I switch to rail transport where I can because it's fuel efficient and less polluting.
So is it a betrayal of principles to change to rail shipping because it's not as fuel efficient, or is it a betrayal of principles to keep shipping some product by water because it's the only way? Or is it a betrayal of principles at all?
Let's still go with the strong, principled environmentalist theme. I support plug-in hybrids, but I realize that there's a pollution cost in coal powerplants and plugging in just moves the pollution. I've always been a strong anti-nuclear activist, but I hear about new nuclear technology that's lower-cost, lower-waste and lower-risk, so I change my position on nuclear power.
Is that a betrayal, an expedient shift, or a smart evaluation of the situation? (Yes, I believe it's the last, I grew up near a nuke plant, I was never scared of nuclear power, and I keep up on the new technologies.)
So here are two difficult ones:
Let's say I'm a state legislator. I've got some strong principles that I know the majority in my district are in conflict with.
Is it a betrayal to vote my principles, or is it a betrayal to vote my constituents wishes?
Let's say I'm a small-state official, elected on small government and conservative principles. I need a few hundred million to pay for a highway and bridge project, but local coffers could never cover it. I campaign heavily for a federal appropriation to pick up the tab. It's a valuable project for the community, but my own party turns it into a symbol of government waste, so I lie and claim I was always against it. I still take the highway money and build the road, even though nobody will ever drive on it.
OK, that last example is a trick, but it's less hypothetical than the first three.
Getting back to the question then, of whether ethical equals consistent, it's a strong "not necessarily."
Changing positions may be as ethically sound as maintaining positions. Maintaining positions may be entirely ethically unsound.
So, no, I don't believe Democratic politicians stand for nothing. A foolish consistency is still the hobgoblin of small minds, though. I do believe some loudmouth Republicans and conservatives have painted the Republican party into a corner with regards to consistency and what the party stands for.
Re: Guilt-Free Democrats
Oh, I agree that we should indeed avoid Hobgoblins. And please note what I said about responding to facts.
Changing your views based on changed facts is one thing, changing your views for simple political gain is another. This, much like a pro-lifer suddenly embracing choice because he knows he'd not get elected otherwise. It's the hypocrisy of it that I'm pointing to.
And it's that sort of hypocrisy which you praise the Democrats for. This, with their guilt-free inconsistencies all rendered in the name of political expediency.
A politician who promises one thing in the election yet wastes no time once elected to break those promises is a politician not to be trusted with anything. This, let alone be trusted with the fate of the nation's economy. Yet, that's exactly what we've done with Obama.
That's nothing to praise, celebrate, nor be "comfortable" with.
Madoc