Why the tea parties don't matter

[bovil]

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.

Comments

[bovil.livejournal.com]

What was WWII if not massive government spending?

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

WWII for the US was spending to win the war. The economic effects of that were nice but entirely secondary to the necessity of winning that war.

The things which made a difference for the US and made for lasting economic growth from that period were the hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of _foreign_ governments spending in the US. This, back when a billion dollars was worth something.

That was money _added_ to our economy and not simply dropped into the loop by the Treasury Department.

Further, the US economy could only _but_ grow after the war if for no other reason than the economies of all our former competitors were utterly shattered by that war. And I'm talking about England, primarily, here and not the economies of the countries we physically shattered.

If government spending to win a war as a bona fide means of making a nation's economy better than it wouldn't have taken Britain and the rest of the world a quarter century to catch back, economy-wise, up to the US after WWII. And that massive government spending on defense wouldn't have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union either.

With the current fiscal "policy" coming from the White House and Congress we're not even getting anything as priceless as national security. Instead, it's a multi-TRILLION dollar exercise in partisan spending, pork spending, and government growth.

And that's just in the past three months. Looking ahead, Obama is promising even _larger_ deficits.

That's something worth protesting alright.

Madoc

[bovil.livejournal.com]

"Pork" is just the opposite of "nimby."

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

Noope, pork spending is pork spending. Period.

If you were against the Bush administration's pork spending, if you were against the Bush administration's fiscal restraint failures, then you should be outraged at the Obama administrations pork spending extravaganza.

Hell Andy, if you were consistent about such things, you'd have been down there amidst the Tea Party folk shouting your support for their cause.

Instead, you've gone out of your way to attack and dismiss the civic protests.

What ever happened to that "dissent is patriotic" bit?

Or is that only true when the dissent is coming from the left?

Madoc

[sarcasm-hime.livejournal.com]

It's the hypocrisy of the right that's getting me here. These people didn't say boo when it was Republicans doing the irresponsible spending and removal of civil liberties, but now they're screaming "government oppression" just because it's the other party in power. Anybody that criticized Bush's policies was tarred as "unpatriotic", "un-American" or even "traitors", but now that the shoe is on the other foot they can't handle it?

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

SH,

Actually, quite a few Republicans took Bush and his administration to task for their civil liberties antics. Quite a few others looked at the actual effect of those policies and measured them against the threat we then faced and found those policies acceptible - with proper checks and balances.

You'll note how it's Republican appointed judges who were formerly taking the Dubya to task for his violations are now taking Obama to task for the same antics.

As to the spending, there were no few "traditional" conservatives who were outraged at the "blank cheque" approach the GOP had come to take during the Bush years. They quite accurately forecast the defeat at the polls such negligence would entail.

It's been interesting to listen to some folks criticizing the Tea Party protests who have gone on record as stating them to be "racist." The hypocrisy runs deep indeed.

Madoc

[sarcasm-hime.livejournal.com]

Clearly there is no middle ground here. I'm not saying that Obama is perfect, but the huge outcry that is coming from the right (and the completely outrageous claims of 'tyranny' and 'oppression', which are utterly hilarious in light of Bush's regime) is a major overreaction and blaming Obama for a lot of things that are not his fault. You'd think Obama is the friggin' Antichrist or had taken over the country in a military coup, the way people are screaming.

But if you want to believe that a few moderate and non-corrupt Republicans balance out the sheer insanity of the past 8 years, while anybody who wants to wait a bit longer and put a little trust in the very new President - instead of fearmongering and spreading misinformation (like the all-catastrophe-all-the-time Fox News) - is a hypocritical loon, there's obviously nothing I can say to change that.

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

SH,

No, I'm not buying into the "tyranny or oppresion" stuff. I've not heard such claims being made from rational folk on the right. Claims coming from the irrational folk - be they on the right or the left - are generally pretty easy to both spot and to discount immediately.

I'm gauging Obama by his actions and the scale for that gauge is where his predecessors were at roughly the same time they'd been in office. By that guage and scale, Obama is charging hell for leather off the edge and he's driving the nation there ahead of him.

Obama is this century's first Carter and if you'll remember what Carter led to you to would share the outrage about him now.

Madoc

[bovil.livejournal.com]

During the primaries I mused that Obama might be another Carter; a charming young liberal Christian who goes down in flames for his ideals.

I doubted it then, and I doubt it now. He's a canny Chicago politician with skills Carter wouldn't develop until long after his presidency. I expect that he's going to be the Democrats' Ronald Reagan instead, a charming teflon-coated pragmatist who will compromise when he must but hold to his ideals every time he can.

Obama = Carter

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

Obama a "canny Chicago politician with skills Carter wouldn't develop until long after his presidency?" Um, okay. So, uh, like, what are the super mad crazy skilz Obama has?

Let's see now, choosing nothing but tax cheats and lobbyists for all his cabinet? Groveling up to Putin by promising to can the European part of our BMD? A groveling that was both spurned by Comrade Czar and also pissed off the Czechs and Poles who went out on a limb for that defense? Oh yeah, that's some mad crazy skilz alright.

Oh, and let's not forget Barry showing what a true leader of free men he is by his rushing to mash his nose into the Saudi King's bejeweled sandals. Yeah, that was a proud moment for the Republic alright.

We'll have to see if Obama has any Teflon in him. He does have a well known skill for throwing folks "under the bus" when they become inconvenient for him. His white grandmother and his former pastor - the man who led him to Christ and was "the father he never had."

Yeah, that's some principles and ideals he's holding to.

You think this might explain why so many folk have such low confidence in his economic abilities that they'd take to the streets about it? But then, what's to worry here? Obama's got that Wall Street stooge and tax cheat, Geithner, in charge of the economic show.

Lotsa confidence there alright.

Isn't Geithner the same guy who made sure to negotiate and specify in the Bank Bailout the protections for all those executive bonuses? The bonuses which Obama now piously carries on about them being so wrong?

Teflon coated indeed. Yeah, we'll see how long that lasts.

Madoc

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I don't have to be consistent. I'm not a consistency fetishist. Never have been. I like thinking things over and changing my mind if compelling new evidence comes to light.

You miss the point, though. I'm talking about definitions. Pork is very malleable. "Pork" is only pork when it's being spent somewhere else.

Take a look at Senator Inhofe, screaming about how the entire defense budget is being gutted and how America is being put at risk when, in fact, the overall defense budget is being increased. Look a little further, and you'll see one of the cuts in the new defense budget is an expensive "weapons of the future" program that's being developed in his state. Some people might call that spending pork. I might look at the budget and project realignment that Secy. Gates is proposing and think as a whole it's actually increasing Defense's readiness.

Say we've got a sewer project that we haven't got the money to fix locally, and our rep is looking for a few million out of the federal budget to make up the difference. Is that pork? The folks who have screwed up sewers and who are paying local, state and federal taxes probably don't think so. The folks in Oklahoma who want that big weapons program might have a different opinion.

I feel comfortable being conflicted about the bail-outs. Really, I do. Part of me would love to see GM and Chrysler and AIG go under, and see their management suffer for their screw-ups. Part of me looks back at the Chrysler and S&L bail-outs which were expensive but produced a net profit for the government in the end, and thinks it's not all that bad. Part of me looks at what would happen if Chrysler and GM do fail, and thinks not just of all the skilled union jobs in the Midwest that will be lost, but also all the skilled at-will jobs that would be lost around the country when the dealership networks fall down with it (in interest of full disclosure, none of my mechanic or car-sales friends work for Chrysler or GM dealerships).

I also feel comfortable criticizing the tea party movement. There may be some real grassroots upwelling there, but it's been heavily astroturfed by Dick Armey's lobbying/consulting business and Fox News and exploited by GOP speakers (who, I hear, were booed at some events by the tea partiers for their hijack attempts) to get a boost for the party. I hear a lot about how this was the conservative movement's (or the Republican's, depending on reportage) great embracing of the internet to catch up to the Obama campaign's online prowess, but I don't see that in the results. They aimed high, going for a strong symbol of American history, but they didn't figure out how to translate it effectively to their issue. Hell, they embraced "teabagging" and then wondered why people laughed.

Consistency Fetish

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

Ah, okay, I get it! The lack of consistency is something you damn in others but hold up for praise in yourself. Hmm.... You know, I think there is a consistency there. Somewhere. :)

Also, that's a nice touch with the Astroturfing reference there - considering just how many miles of Astroturf Obama has laid down. This, even _after_ he got into office.

But then, what else should we expect from a guy who took his lessons from Soros. That man is a pro at Astroturfing and he's been spending more money at it than Armey has even dreamed of.

You also gotta admit Andy that there are precious few Democrats who would've caught the "teabagging" reference either. It is a rather... esoteric... thing.

Madoc

Re: Consistency Fetish

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I expect people to follow their own rules, that's where I expect consistency. It's part of the reason I despise religionists who pick and choose their rules based on what's convenient and what supports their desired position.

So, yeah, I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't carried through on some of his campaign promises, but there's still time for many of those to be met. I'm not disappointed that he's made some pragmatic choices and changed some of his positions, because the Democrats haven't enshrined consistency as a leading principle. Obama changed positions during the election cycle. It's not a surprise that he's doing it now. I'm not going to like all of them, but I may like some of them better than the original positions.

Republican talking points, whether campaign or during a term, do enshrine consistency. Whether it's Bush's "flip-flopper" charges against Kerry, "weather-vane" charges against Clinton's love of polls or Caribou Barbie's "I never supported the Gravina Island Bridge" lie, consistency (or at least apparent consistency) has been a cornerstone.

Deficit hawks are deficit hawks, not just sometimes-deficit-hawks. Small government advocates actually advocate for and vote for small government, not for huge spending and program increases. Pork-busters don't cart the pork home to their own district.

Only we both know that's not how it works.

Representatives that don't bring projects (dollars) back to their tax-paying constituents in their districts don't last long.

Democrats just don't feel as guilty about doing it. And that, there, is consistency.

Re: Consistency Fetish

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

Well, that sounds like some highly rationalized waffling to me.

I have no problem with someone changing their views when faced with fact. I have no problem with a politician stating one thing and then, when the situation has changed, changing their policies in accordance with the new reality.

I do have a problem - a substantial problem - with politicians who state one thing in order to "play to their base" and gain political power only to turn right 'round and do 180 degrees the opposite.

That isn't Obama simply being "pragmatic" it is instead Obama lying through his teeth. A couple of times is one thing. Particularly for a guy with _zero_ executive experience and a political horizon no bigger than Cook County. But as frequently, as deeply, as widely, and as shamelessly as Obama has been doing it? No, that's not some naif becoming learned in the ways of the world. It's an oily lying hypocritical politician "doing it the Chicago way" writ large.

And it worries me deeply that this same glibly lying sleaze is putting those same "principles" to work with his economic policies.

Madoc

Guilt-Free Democrats

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

"Democrats just don't feel as guilty about doing it."

The more I think about that the more I see the problems with it.

Politics brings together power and money. Whenever that happens corruption soon follows. That's an inevitable fact of life the supersedes party and ideology. The only way to fight corruption in politics and government is to choose politicians of the highest ethical character and then hold them to it as much as possible.

This, while recognizing that it is a losing battle over time.

The fact that the Democratic politicians are less likely to feel guilty about corruption is not a thing to celebrate.

That so many Democratic politicians are so guilt free as to their lack of ethics and lack of political consistency explains much of the ethical morass that is the Democratic party. This, particularly so in Illinois where the corruption is about the most deeply rooted of all the Democratic state operations.

Considering that Obama got his political start in such a political sewer that to is nothing to celebrate. I wonder just how "guilt free" he is. Considering his actions thus far, he seems right up there with his states recently deposed governor. We might ask the good Mr. Rezko about that...

Madoc

Re: Guilt-Free Democrats

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Nice out-of-context snip and run-away.

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

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

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

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Ah, the deep philosophical questions. Now we're getting into fun.

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

[madoc62.livejournal.com]

Andy,

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