Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Tea Parties, Cont'd.

My buddy Hu had some comments re: my mild defense of the Tea Party movement. Essentially, he couldn't believe that I would say anything mildly positive about a movement pitching nothing more than a "hissy fit," and he felt that they lacked ideas. I responded as follows:

Here are some ideas:

--stop spending so much of my money
--stop raising taxes
--stop regulating, bailing out, or outright taking over businesses to the point where they won't hire anybody

Notice I said all of that without throwing a hissy fit or making personal insults. Those are the basics of the tea party. The fact that they are angry (many months of unemployment might do that to me, too, but still) is a big reason why I'm not joining any damned movement.
To which Hu responded:
Who could argue any of those points?

...but change just a few words and those concepts get incindiary, and elitist.

-- only spend money on what I want
-- make me lose weight, but not in a way that I can notice
Firing back...
Well, I'd rather they just spent less, period, but that's just me. Again, no hissy fitting required. And it's very difficult to act politely toward a president who displays ostentatious luxury in a time of high unemployment and speaks disdainfully of large numbers of his fellow citizens. As with the Tea Party, so too with the president: it's how they say it.

So there ya go: my little discussion on the Tea Party. I'm not that gung ho to convert anybody. I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from in the current political mix. Does this mean I'll vote for a Tea Party nominee in my district? If they're the Republican option, yeah. If my local GOP candidate is an "establishment" type, I'll vote for them. As Haley Barbour puts it, "When the Republican voters of a state choose a party nominee in an open process like a primary, we Republican leaders must support the nominee."

We shall see what we shall see. The point is to stop the current government-centric, high-tax, increased-regulation policies currently enacted. I shall calmly and rationally exercise my voting franchise without throwing a hissy fit or wearing a tri-corner hat. Such things are still possible in America, despite what you might have heard.

1 comment:

lin said...

Democrats try to persuade the public through ad hominem attacks because doing so has been successful. Perhaps this reveals that most of their constituents are susceptible to emotional appeals that ignore reason. They direct attention away from their failed statist experiment by trying to discredit those who offer alternatives that they simply cannot refute logically and truthfully.

This sleight-of-hand deception names those who expose them and identifies them as hated others. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao favored this diversionary tactic; they used it to prevent the masses from recognizing that those in control were responsible for their nations’ problems.

Tea Party members have taken a page from their opponent’s play book. Taking to the streets in peaceful (and violent) protest has been used to advantage by Obama’s ideological soul mates for many years. It seems as though they chafe when they are treated as they have treated others.

The goals expressed at Tea Party gatherings have been consistent. They have asked for equality of opportunity and responsibility under law for all; a balanced budget except in time of war; secure national borders; a bare minimum of federal intrusion into individuals’ lives; and strict adherence to the federal Constitution

Democrats’ object to these requirements because they hinder their attempts to continue bloating the numbers of their permanent entitlement constituencies.