Can the Tea Party Deliver?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Blessing on September 1, 2010 at 2:49pm

I'm more worried about January, 2011 — let's say that the Tea Party movement does put enough Republicans into the House and Senate to regain the majority they held from 1995 to 2007. What happens after that?

1. Will those Republicans stick to the Tea Party message of Constitutionally-limited government, individual rights, and fiscal responsibility that got them elected?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is "No," will the Tea Party retain enough enthusiasm for the message to give those Republicans the boot when they come up for re-election?

Based on what I saw after 21 January 2001 (George W. Bush's inauguration), I'm guessing the answer to both questions will be a resounding "No."

I would love to be proven wrong here — only time will tell, in the end.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lee Kershner on September 2, 2010 at 8:30am

Anthony Gregory addresses the propensity of the Tea Party to embrace republican themes. Read his article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory200.html

" . . . . . . . . . Then we had the Bush years. The conservative movement became almost completely enthralled with the very worst of what government is capable of: mass murder. The American right began to take on the character of a truly totalitarian movement. Calls for deporting dissenters, shutting down the press, nuking tens of millions of people, banning Islam and other such despotic proposals were heard all over talk radio. At the height of Bush’s power and prestige, it almost looked like liberty was doomed in America, thanks primarily to the same crowd that gave us Reagan, the Contract with America and the defeat of Al Gore. Lew Rockwell’s "The Reality of Red-State Fascism," as well as many other works by him and by others on this site and elsewhere, perfectly summed up the problem of the time.


Things have swung back somewhat. Conservatives now talk about the Founding Fathers again. They have put up a noble resistance to Obamacare, Cap and Trade and the rest of the administration’s truly terrible domestic schemes. Unfortunately, they fail to go all the way in condemning domestic socialism, but it is a start. Conservatives have even taken an interest in nullification and other radical doctrines of classical liberalism. At times, it seems like they are all that is standing between our imperfect state of freedom and the total socialization of America. Rightwingers are even becoming skeptical of "nation-building" in Afghanistan. Ann Coulter of all people has become a qualified dove, all the while Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the other leaders of progressivism have become fixated on demonizing the tea parties, hysterically prophesizing the rise of racist militias, and championing the national security state.

But, tragically, the rightwing is still locked into its post-9/11 mentality – which is to say its Cold War stance or even its classical attachment to the ancien régime. It is as Hobbesian as ever. It is dedicated to domestic freedom in theory but with more than a huge blind spot on questions of social order and especially national security. While today’s conservatives are in substantial areas better than the managerial progressives on the left, they are hardly a welcome alternative overall. Every indication suggests that when they regain power, they will be even worse than they were under Bush."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank DuBois on September 2, 2010 at 12:19pm

From the Washington Post yesterday, saying federal spending is up a record 16%:

Overall, the largest chunk of federal spending - about 46 percent of the $3.2 trillion - went to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, entitlement programs that are projected to swell as the population ages.

And in Toxic Tea for the GOP? Bobby Eberle writes about Bush's former speech writer Michael Gerson:

For some strange reason, Michael Gerson, former speech writer for President George W. Bush, used his space as an editorial writer for the Washington Post to send a warning to "the GOP." I used the quotes there because he's clearly not talking about the grassroots conservatives that make up the base, heart, and soul of the party. Perhaps he is talking to the stuffy insiders that are more concerned about simply gaining and holding onto power rather than those who actually advance the Republican/conservative agenda. The premise of this op-ed is simple: "Tea Party populism is just as clearly incompatible with some conservative and Republican beliefs." This statement is completely and utterly false. His op-ed is built off of three ridiculous "questions" that he then matches to particular candidates in order to make his point. Starting with Social Security and Medicare, Gerson basically states that it's better to be a big government conservative than to stand up and demand that these programs be reformed or eliminated...

All of this highlights Buchanan's main point - will they have the guts to cut benefits for over a 100 million people? It also highlights the difference between Big Government and Limited Government conservatives. Personally, if they are for Big Government I don't consider them to be a conservative at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank DuBois on September 2, 2010 at 7:07pm

This item from today's news shows how dicey it can get:

Vets group wants GOP ex-senator fired from debt panel over benefits. A group of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans called on President Obama to fire Alan Simpson from the White House fiscal commission for suggesting that veterans getting federal medical benefits are adding to the country’s debt problem...

• ▶ Reply