Sipping Tea
By Amit Singh | Friday, February 5th, 2010 | Policy, PoliticsThe First (and probably not the last) National Tea Party Convention is being held in Nashville, TN this weekend and despite the $500+/person price tag, the convention is sold out. I have mixed feelings about the Tea Party. On one hand, I’m excited there is a concerted effort to highlight and challenge our government obesity. On the other hand, I’m sad we have even gotten to this point and perhaps even sadder that the GOP helped us get here.
While the movement is technically not partisan, it is definitely fueled by Libertarians and disenchanted Republicans, which is why it floors me that Sarah Palin is being paid $100,000 to be their headline speaker. I assume the organizers jumped at the chance to get her to give the convention a sense of legitimacy but in my book Palin is a social conservative not a fiscal one and therefore the wrong spokesperson for the convention. Perhaps the silver lining is that more Republicans will return to fiscal conservative roots for fear of losing office by alienating their base.
Regardless, the focus should stay on government spending. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties will have to contend with the KEG (Keep Enlarging Govt) Parties which will likely result in everyone having a bad hangover.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
I'm left handed but right brained.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
14 Responses to "Sipping Tea"
Tea parties vs. Keg parties?! I love it!
Totally agree. And, while I love the fact that there are motivated Americans gathering in Nashville over the Tea Party – I am also glad to see Republicans taking note of their calls for limited government, lower taxes, and greater personal responsibility (the old GOP platform). The reality is that we are and will remain a two-party system.
We have been a two party system since Washington’s second term and will remain that way for a very long time, unless there is a true crisis of identity.
We had such a crisis in the mid-1800′s, but that crisis had been brewing since the inception of this nation.
Today, we are again arguing about the primacy of federal government on a whole myriad of mandates, not the least is mandatory national healthcare. But the difference between the mid-1800′s and today is that a party that can do something about it (in this case the Republicans) are, indeed, taking action (the Whigs of the 1800s did nothing).
IF – and this is a big if – Republicans are given the keys to the car at the national level again, and totally FAIL at heeding the limited government mantra – I not only think, but expect, the GOP to go the way of the Whigs.
The TEA Party will gain traction. Democrats will win. The GOP will dissolve and we’ll have a new second party based on limited government, personal responsibility, etc.
Amit,
I agree with you that the TEA Parties should pull the Republican Party back to its limited government roots. I don’t think that the TEA Parties necessarily need the Republican Party to get there.
However, I must disagree with your premise concerning fiscal and social conservatism, the two are not inconsistent.
“…Palin is a social conservative and not a fiscal one and therefore the wrong spokesperson for the convention.”
This attitude is not helpful for the TEA Party movement. According to a recent WaPo poll, only 15% of Republicans and Republican leaning independents are fically conservative to the exclusion of social conservatism. Are we going to be so petty as to put everyone into two camps? You will either be a social conservative or a fiscal conservative-that is the message that some would like to send.
Just to let you know, I believe we should audit or eliminate the FED, I’ll take that a step further and say that we should institute a definite metal standard for our money, I also believe that the government, not state or federal, is given the power to redefine an institution like marriage, I also believe that government’s role is to protect the people, including unborn people. So Sarah Palin is not a suitable speaker because she believes in applying the concepts of “life, liberty, and property” to social issues as well as fiscal ones?
personally I don’t think Palin actually understands why a gold (i.e. commodity based) standard is a good idea and the Fed Reserve is a bad one.
if marijuana was to be decriminalized and save the govt tons of money in prison and other efforts, she would not be in favor of it.
I’m pretty sure she is anti-gambling which basically forces the tax revenue off-shore
she would sign a constitutional amendment to define marriage so how is she protecting “liberty” for gays?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531945.shtml
I also do not think she has the resolve to reduce our bloated military footprint which is costing us obscene amounts of money (granted this is more of a neocon than social conservative thing).
anyway, I still do not think Palin is a good spokesperson for the convention. Personally I would have preferred a Gary Johnson or Jeff Flake but I don’t think they have the name recognition the convention organizers wanted.
Amit,
Homosexual marriage is not “liberty” it is license. Show me in the Constitution where the Federal or State governments are given the authority to redefine an institution like marriage. And before someone suggests that marriage is a right, it is not. If marriage is a right, anyone could marry anyone, there are laws against incestuous marriages and there are other boundaries for said institution. If marriage was a right then the state of Deseret would have entered the union with a state constitution legalizing polygamy. If you look at the nations that have legalized the redefinition of marriage, you will see that liberty has been inevitably decreased.
The TEA Party is a coalition, and a large number of TEA Partiers are socially conservative, as is the majority of our country. There are statistics that show that 98% of social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. If you truly place a priority on fiscal conservatism then you will not have a problem with social conservatives joining you in a TEA Party coalition. And yes, many of the leaders will be socially conservative, and yes, the TEA Parties will reflect some social conservative principles(i.e. “death panel” opposition), but as a libertarian, the only way you will be able to see an end to the FED or the gold standard is to see these “full-spectrum conservative” folks elected.
show me where in the Constitution the Fed or the State are allowed to define marriage. Marriage should have nothing to do with the govt, it is none of their business. You say marriage is not a right, but is choosing my religion a right? if so, I do believe marriage is a religious designation and there for marriage is a right.
I do not have a problem with social conservatives joining the TEA party movement but I want the movement to stay focused on fiscal objectives and not become a rejection of the Republican party. to that end, I do not think Palin is the spokesperson who has championed fiscal responsibility. I think this clip of her supporting the bailout says it all:
I am a member of the Tea Party Movement.
There is no ONE Tea Party.
This member of the Tea Party Movement believes in fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, and the Constitution of the United States. I am willing to talk or negotiate on anything else.
Party like its 1773
Amit,
Why sign over the great term “keg party” to liberal Democrats? Republicans should be able to drink the MoveOn crowd under the table any night of the week.
@Henry, I think the VA GOP is more into hard liquor than beer. what else would explain the privatizing of the ABC stores?
Um why is the federal government involved in marriage at all. There should be some time of civil union license for tax purposes but really marriage is a religious sacrament and the government shouldn’t be involved in church. The whole purpose for any government to be involved in marriage is the idea that a middle class base of people who have investments in property / family obligations would not be prone to rise up and overthrow said government. It’s a mechanism of control of a populace. Lets recognize it for what it is.
Amit,
As long as I get Jack Daniels out of it, I’m happy.
Lee,
I see what you are saying, however, marriage licenses were being issued in the early days of our country. I don’t think that our founders were looking to control the populous.
The point is that the institution of marriage predates the United States, or any nation for that matter. No government is given the role to redefine an institution like marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, however, it has legal ramifications. That is a reality that predates the United States. The marriage license that is issued represents an union between one man and one woman, that is the definition of a marriage and that is all that a marriage can be.
Consider, that if the government has the right to redefine the definition of a marriage license, what other power will it be able to take upon itself.
If federal and or state governments affirm the already true fact that marriage is between one man and one woman, then it will limit itself from interfering in the traditional religious institution.
The case has been made that pulling government out of the marriage process will help preserve the sanctity of marriage, and I am sure that, if done correctly, that may be true. However, I am also aware that if done sloppily, then we could see phony “religions” set up that will quickly define marriage as something other than the standard definition for over five thousand years. If “marriage” then takes on several different definitions, the confusion will demand some order, and who do you think will be there to provide “order”? The Government
If government wouldn’t be involved in marriage, then they wouldn’t be involved in divorce.
Wait a minute….there might be something to this idea!
@Osborne, the only legal ramifications of marriage are due to the govt. whether it is hospital rights, wills, taxes, etc. your concern of “phony” religions is strange to me given that I could go to Las Vegas today and get married by an Elvis impersonator in a drive-thru chapel.
by getting the govt out of marriage, the only people willing to go through the trouble of actually getting married would be those who respect and care for it. or for green cards
Leave your response