I have never seen such a muddled mess as what has become of the Tea Party/Libertarian/Republican discussion. Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake.com, and Huffington Post, takes that confusion to new levels. She’s just all beside herself that Tea Partiers aren’t totally enamored with an avowed Libertarian, mainly in her mind because a Neo-Con supported the Libertarian Tea Partier’s son who’s running “strong” as a Republican in a Democrat state. You can read her stuff at FireDog, or the slightly different version at Huffington. Now, without spending one second trying to figure out what Ms. Hamsher’s politics are, she’s making the exact same mistake the Democrats have made for 20 years, the liberals have always made, and the media has tried desperately to convince everyone. She’s assuming that all Republicans are exactly alike and therefore should be one or the other. She’s assuming there is some sort of ethical right or wrong and one will win out because of that. She’s also assuming that they all believe in the same philosophical end-game. That seems to be a common theme on Huffington, and DailyKos, MSNBC, and The White House as well.
The simple answer to how wrong that thinking is, is, well, rather simple. If they were all seeking the same result, and therefore pursuing the same people, then there never would have been the separations in the first place. Muslims, Christians, and Jews believe in the same God, but they don’t believe at all in the same way to be with him. Same here.
Neo-Cons are the ethical branch of the conservatives. They’re the ones concerned with abortion, and enforcing laws that punish people who do bad things. Tea Partiers think the federal government has gone too far in controlling our lives. See an inherent conflict there Jane? Libertarians basically believe in stripping the entire country down to the very basic concept of the Constitution, and limiting the Constitution in the process. They used to be called Anarchists back when the Republican party stood for something other than it does now. OK, so some believe in using government to dictate social norms, some believe in a limited government, and some believe in basically no government. Somehow, Jane Hamsher and a lot of others don’t see a conflict with those three philosophies. So, what they do is look at their overt words and ignore the over-all picture. Sarah Palin is not a Tea Partier, and she is not a Libertarian. She is a Neo-Con to the core. Ron Paul is not a Neo-Con, and he is not a Tea Partier, he’s Libertarian to the core. Now, where it gets real confusing to the Jane Hamshers and Kospeeps is the concept that there is no 100% Tea-Partier at this time. So, what is happening is actual candidates are vying for the support of the Tea Partiers by offering the concepts they believe in that more closely mimic the philosophy of the Tea Partiers. If a Tea Partier wants less government, then it’s going to get completely out of the abortion issue entirely. That bothers Libertarians because it doesn’t say abortions are legal, and it bothers Neo-Cons by not saying abortions are illegal. And to this point in time, not one politician has had the balls to simply state abortion is not an issue the federal government should be dealing with. That’s what the Tea Partiers are looking for right now. That’s what confounds Jane Hamsher, that’s what confounds Ron Paul, that’s what confounds Sarah Palin, it confounds Obama, and it most certainly is confounding the media.
And, the reason we’re discussing this now is it most definitely is confounding the Republican Party at this time as well. And, the reason the Republican Party is in the position it is right now is that WAS the philosophy of the Party when it was conceived. By losing site of that philosophy, it has allowed the Neo-Cons, the Libertarians, and the Tea Partiers, to split the party repeatedly and try to make it what they want it to be. Neither Ron Paul or Sarah Palin represent the philosophy of the Tea Partiers. From what I can tell, their values right now are basically what the Republican Party intended to be in 1840. The very nature of both of these people is that they can never be true Republicans, or Tea Partiers, so long as they expect their party to have some ethical judgments regarding society. It’s just real damn hard to be a politician and say its none of my business. And, until both of these people are willing to put states’ rights above their own ethical judgments, they won’t represent the Tea Partiers. Or me.
Comments
Comments:
Leave a Reply
spinnikerca on 02.11.2010
It is odd that you say that Ron Paul is libertarian to the core, then say libertarians are for keeping abortion (presumably in all instances) legal, when Ron Paul is pro-life. The question isn’t a political one, it is a question of when life begins, because there is no choice allowed to murder. If you think life doesn’t exist until some date after conception, you have room and flexibility on abortion. If you think life begins at conception, you don’t.
spinnikerca on 02.11.2010
Sigh, and Ron Paul is all about state’s rights. Even on abortion, he thinks it, like murder, should be regulated by the states.
You really might want to look into him, a little more. You are confused about his positions if you don’t know how STRONGLY he is for representation at the most local level where individuals, rather than special interests, can impact policy.
Moonage on 02.11.2010
You’ve missed the entire point of the abortion issue. A true Republican, and a true Libertarian, would have no opinion regarding abortion in regards to the federal government. So, arguing about the conception of life in the context of this discussion is meaningless. It doesn’t matter since it would be a purely state issue and you could make your argument over whether your state chose to allow it, fund it, or whatever. Being as Ron Paul is a Representative to the United States government, and not the Texas government, he should state in his capacity as a Congressman, he has has no opinion on the issue. No politician can do that though. And that is the problem I’m complaining about. That is the heart of what the Tea Partiers are saying, but can’t seem to put their finger on it. They’re tired of the feds usurping their rights. Through taxes and laws, people are no longer allowed to be Texans or Kentuckians, they’re medicaid recipients, social security recipients, taxpayors, and anything but a citizen of their state. That’s what’s causing this country to lose it’s identity, and crushing the individual spirit that made this country a world power. So, Ron Paul saying he is for representation at the most local level, but wants abortion banned, just proves he is completely clueless what a Republican used to be, and what a Libertarian is now.