You say you want a revolution?
Image via Wikipedia
Giving the keynote speech at the Tea Party convention in Nashville last night, Sarah Palin informed her audience that “America is ready for another revolution!”
Judging by the standing ovation, Governor Palin’s fellow Tea Party participants wholeheartedly agree.
But here’s the deal. If The Tea Party wants me -or the rest of centrist America – to take it all seriously, they are going to have to convince us that they have an adequate grip on the history that brought us to where we are today and a legitimate grasp on where it is they want to take us.
I say this because a revolution is more than a bunch of people screaming in the streets. To succeed, it must be based on an alternative, workable form of government loyal to a fundamental principle. Failing that, this revolution is nothing more than a bunch of folks walking around drinking beer, wearing silly costumes and looking more like Comic-Con than a political convention.
I believe most exponents of the Tea Party agenda would agree that the movement is fundamentally about honoring the requirements of the Tenth Amendment which requires that power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people.
This is not such a bad starting point for an alternative point of view on American government. There is no question that the history of the federal government is one of constant ‘power creep’ resulting in an overblown central bureaucracy that was likely never intended by the nation’s founders. For that matter, it was probably not even intended by those who participated in bringing about the ever compounding growth.
But a revolution founded on misinformation and misunderstanding is a very dangerous thing. It is also one that is likely to have a very unhappy ending.
While the ‘heart’ of the movement may present us with a legitimate political philosophy well worth exploring, it will come to no positive result if the effort is drowned out by the sounds of nonsense and the lack of a plan.
With that in mind, here are a few things the Tea Party might want to consider if they hope to be more than a fringe group available for exploitation by politicians looking for a short cut into public office.
Thou shall not worship false idols.
This weekend’s Tea Party convention happened to coincide with what would have been the 99th birthday of President Ronald Reagan, a true hero of The Tea Party movement. I’m told many a toast was raised in Nashville in tribute to our 38th President.
Yet, history tells us that President Reagan fell well short of delivering on the promise suggested by the Reagan rhetoric that is so irresistible to today’s Tea Party movement.
As president, Reagan expanded the size of the federal government and saved Social Security, two concepts that are highly antithetical to the movement. And while Reagan did give us a major tax cut in 1981, he followed that cut with two large tax increases.
In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people.
Via New York Times
As the Governor of California, Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in the state’s history. It took a liberal Democrat, Jerry Brown, to bring down the state’s tax rate upon succeeding Reagan. And, if you’re a tea bag toter, it gets worse. While serving as governor, Reagan signed The Therapeutic Abortion Act into law, a liberalization of abortion that led to a huge increase in the number of abortions in California.
I’m not knocking Reagan. At the end of the day, I think Reagan often successfully used his conservative rhetoric to enable him to do pragmatic things that needed to be done. I’m saying that if you are going to set up someone as your spiritual leader, you need to know the true history of that individual or you’re building your movement on a foundation of sand. Political movements must be careful to vet all of its motivating forces lest they be caught with their political pants down.
If you’re going to rely on the philosophy of The Founding Fathers to drive the new American Revolution, you can’t pick and choose what you do and don’t like about their concept for American Democracy.
The Tea Party suggests that what we need is to get back to the architecture of America as originally conceived by the nation’s Founders.
Not a bad argument – however, when you do your level best to inject God and Jesus into the functioning of the government, you turn your back on the Founders’ directive regarding the separation of church and state.
If you want to base a movement on staying true to the Founders then you are obligated to actually stay true to all their ideals – not just the ones that work for you.
A serious revolution requires serious leaders.
While I expect that this will irritate and anger many supporters of the Tea Party, it has to be said – Sarah Palin is not a serious leader. Try as they will to turn away from every signal Palin sends out in this regard, eventually, the Tea Party folks will realize that Governor Palin is using them for her own purposes and will not be someone to be counted on when it matters.
Being a leader is all about character. A year ago, The Tea Party understood this. In the early rallies, politicians – no matter what their party affiliation- were not welcomed. There was a recognition and understanding among the movement’s followers that our leaders lacked the character to stand up to the special interests and work for the people who elected them.
That early message of The Tea Party seems to have been forgotten. If this movement is to progress, they will need to recall the importance of character in those who would lead – and Sarah Palin clearly does not possess the character to be a legitimate leader of any political movement.
This past week, Governor Palin took a stand in defense of her young son, who was born with Down Syndrome, and others like him. While I, admittedly, have never held Sarah Palin in high regard, and while I thought she got a little carried away when calling for Rahm Emanuel’s resignation over his use of the word ‘retard’, I admired her standing up for her son. That’s the sort of thing that reveals character.
When Palin failed to respond to Rush Limbaugh’s crass use of the same word, I was genuinely -if naively – surprised. Surely, her concern for her son would trump any political concerns she might have in calling out Limbaugh’s behavior.
This morning, Palin appeared on Fox News where she went to bizarre lengths to insist that Limbaugh’s use of the term ‘retard’ was just fine because he was doing so in the role of a political humorist. In describing the people that Limbaugh was calling retards, making it okay to use the word according to the Governor, Palin said-
They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire … . I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards,’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there.”
Via Huffington Post
The thing is, Limbaugh was precisely calling a group of people he disagreed with ‘retards”! Rush just left out the “f-ing”, an easy choice since he said all of this on his radio broadcast.
So dreadfully inartful was this attempt to cynically get around her shameful and cowardly behavior, that even the most devoted Palin supporters cannot convince themselves that this is anything more than the mumbo-jumbo of a self-serving politician –pure and simple. These are the words of a woman who would sell out the interest of her own child and all the others with developmentally challenged children who rely on her to stand up for their families, in order to avoid offending an important political voice.
Can you imagine the founders of this nation caving to a Rush Limbaugh or anyone else? These were people of extraordinary courage and conviction for whom Sarah Palin professes undying admiration. Yet, when called upon to take a stand that I believe would have shown true character, she folded like a cheap suit.
Sarah Palin will break the heart of those who believe in her. The sooner they realize it – and seek out serious leaders for their movement who truly have their interests at heart – the sooner they will begin to have a legitimate impact on the direction of the country. Because when the chips are down, Sarah Palin will not be there for them.
Tell us how you are going to take us where you want to go.
Anyone can stand up in front of a large crowd and mouth the words the crowd wants to hear just as anyone can carry around a sign.
But leadership is about telling us how we are going to get where a movement wants us to go.
So far, we know that the Tea Party wants to return to smaller government with powers residing to the state. Fine. But dismantling a huge federal government takes some doing. After all, it took quite a while to build it into the monolith it is today.
So, how’s it going to be done? What’s the plan? Where are the policy papers telling us how this can be achieved without destroying the operations of an entire nation in the process?
A movement based on complaint without workable alternatives may succeed in upsetting the status quo. But when we upset the status quo with no plan for replacing it, we end up with the same kind of empty leadership we already have – or worse.
The Founding Fathers had a plan. They weren’t just about throwing off the British yoke. They knew where they wanted to go and they had ideas on how to get there. They published those ideas in an intelligent and meaningful way so as to persuade their fellow colonists. So where are The Tea Party policy papers? Where’s the plan to replace big government with small government?
So you say you want a revolution? Then tell us how you propose to make your ideas reality.
If you want to be more than a small footnote in American political history, it’s time to get out of the silly Paul Revere costumes and begin presenting policy explaining how you would bring your vision for America to fruition.
Failing that, we’re all just wasting so much digital ink writing about you.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“an alternative, workable form of government loyal to a fundamental principal.”
Well, that sounds lofty and clever.
But in practice, I think revolution just takes enough people fed up with the status quo. More taxes than they can afford, for example. And their everyday lives not working as expected.
If you’re looking for a fundamental principle that people would like to see in politics, I would suggest trust. You can explain things all you want, in great detail. But it all comes down to trust.
It’s impossible for ordinary people to follow all the issues. There’s not enough time for that, when you have to earn a living. So what you want is someone representing you who you can trust.
I don’t believe revolution is just for those who are clever. Clever is what has got us to where we are today. Trust is the operative word. Most people aren’t impressed by clever. They want politicians they can trust.
Do the majority of people trust Sarah Palin more than Barack Obama? Well, they might be willing to give Sarah a try, given that Mr. Obama has not brought change, but has continued war for empire, has left no insurance company behind, and proven to be a lackey for Goldman Sachs.
I appreciate you making my point.
In response to another comment. See in context »You had lots to say – the one thing you don’t seem to have anything to say about is what the plan is? What’s the purpose and the plan for the revolution? You appear satisfied just to have discord for the sake of discord. I wonder if you can point to even one moment in history where that has had a happy ending?
Im confused. What discord? I wanted to see the RINO’s purged and replaced with conservatives, that’s happening. I wanted to see the political discussion and agenda direction move to the right, that’s happening. I wanted to see Obamacare fail and that happened. I wanted to see Brownwin in MA and derail the democrat’s liberal agenda and that happened. I wanted to stop Pelosi’s VAT nightmare: stick a fork in it that happened. I wanted to kill Cap’n Tax: done stick a fork in it. I wanted to see the political class run from global warming: done and done. I wanted to get rid of one party rule in America: done. I dunno Rick that doesn’t look like chaos to me. As for discord…not sure what you are getting at. In business it is all about outcomes. People’s feelings are important but success is measured by the delivery of outcomes. Right now I’m pretty happy with the way our little plan is working. On a personal note had Obamacare passed it would have had a disasterous affect on my family for both my elderly parents and my wife who has a chronic disease. Either version house or senate that would have passed would have dumped us in a so called donut hole in California where not only would she be uninsurable but she wouldn’t have qualified for any state or federal program. The state people also actually pointed out to me that if she were an illegal alien vs a legal immigrant like she is that she would have qualified for the State’s high risk pool and would only have had to pay $300/month or less for complete coverage…real nice. When I discussed this with my worhtless conggressional democrat’s office: Anna Eshoo’s. I was told it was unfortunate but that they couldn’t cover everyone. That was infuriating since they were psuhing us into that point where but for Obamacare we’d be fine and have a reasonable premium with our current insurer. Needless to say I called Anna Eshoo’s office after the MA win to point out exactly why I was going to work to defeat the current agenda…just like I’d worked with millions of others to do with Obamacare and the rest of their nutty agenda. It’s all about outcomes and I’m also not a perfectionist. I can’t win’em all but then I don’t have to. I learned in the military that when you face a stronger and better supplied opposing force the last thing you want to do is to rush headlong into the field of battle on their terms in a place of their choosing. You let them come to you, you get them to over extend you get them fully committed then you decide the terms. Let’s face it I am not well represented by a government that would destroy my family’s ability to get at high quality healthcare, raise my costs and then take my tax dollars to provide better unlimited services to illegal aliens. You can argue with me abotu that if you want to and run with an Obama talkign point but I lived that 1st hand for the last year and am more than happy to hook you up with the crew over at Bill Monning’s and Anna Eshoo’s office to straighten out any misunderstanding you might have that illegal aliens get a better deal in California than a legal resident or citizen gets under Obamacare if they have a chronic pre-existing condition. Oh and the lie through omission dealio with Obamacare is that these peopel are covered: wrong they made some token adjustment for some children but adults were going to fall into a 4 year hole. So I worked like a dog to kill it and did. Why should a citizen like me have to do that, that’s crazy no? But at the end of the day it’s outcomes: look Rick regardless of what left leaners think abotu the greatness of socialism or centralized command and control we don’t need some grandiose 5 year plan to win, never have never will, that my friend was the USSR. The plan is a very simple statement to government: do our will not our, and when we ask: leave us alone or we will rise up and throw you out.
So you see the discord aspect in my opinion is only in the minds of the entrenched elites and leftists. For those of us average Joe’s like me and mine looks like the plan is working fine.
In response to another comment. See in context »“On a personal note had Obamacare passed it would have had a disasterous affect on my family for both my elderly parents and my wife who has a chronic disease. Either version house or senate that would have passed would have dumped us in a so called donut hole in California where not only would she be uninsurable but she wouldn’t have qualified for any state or federal program. The state people also actually pointed out to me that if she were an illegal alien vs a legal immigrant like she is that she would have qualified for the State’s high risk pool”
You are going to have to explain this one.
What insurance do you have now?
Why would your insurance have changed if the legislation had passed?
If your parents are elderly, how would the legislation have negatively affected them as I assume, if they are elderly, they are on Medicare?
Sorry for being skeptical, but I”m pretty familiar with the California safety net and I know that illegal aliens do not qualify for any state program beyond emergency room care.
In response to another comment. See in context »You asked me to explain the part about illegal aliens qualifying for the high risk insurance pool while legal immigrants get the run around and/or get disqualified. Here you go:
Start here in the State site: http://www.coverageforall.org/finder/outcomepage.php?idx=4&st=
after reading eligibility call them and ask what you need to provide by way of proof to qualify. Ask them if you need to show an SSN. There is no hard requirement for the applicant to provide proof of citizenship and no requirement at all for the State to deny services for lack of proof. However if you are a citizen or legal resident and you donj’t provide an SSN or proof of qualifying circumstance and they figure it out later you can be terminated and charged. If you are an illegal you face no such penalty. They say they do this because they “don’t want to discriminate”. This is pretty much exactly how Obamacare would have worked from a verification standpoint.
You can also see that illegal aliens can and do come to California for ogan transplants at US taxpayer expense. There are literally millionsof examples of illegals getting care far outside ER’s in California your assertion here is just laughable dude:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-get-free-organ-transplants
Illegal aliens get at hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in healthcare services in California annually and legions of them are on Medi-cal. Let me know if you need some links or want some State numbers on that.
I just don’t have time to keep pointing out that up isn’t down or black isn’t white over and over again. People see what they want to see I suppose. The important thing is that 80% are now saying that Obama and Congress are going so far in the wrong direction that they are angry with both. Obama’s agenda is finishedas is Obamacare, cap’n tax and most of the rest of the high tax and spend left’s checklist.
In response to another comment. See in context »You are like the King of the Straw Man BTW.
In response to another comment. See in context »And you appear to be fixated on straw men as I’ve yet to see where any point I’ve made falls within the meaning of the same.
In response to another comment. See in context »Purpose and plans? Do you suppose the Roundheads knew the details of Cromwell’s proposed government when they decided to take up arms against Charles I ? The plans were to get rid of the oppressor.
Discord according to who’s standards? Who is it that experiences discord and unhappiness when change occurs? George III was no doubt troubled by the changing times. At the height of the British Empire, one fourth of the British population worked as domestic servants. They probably didn’t share his opinion.
Sure, the Founding Fathers had plans. But what moved the common folk was Tom Paine’s Common Sense, which raised people’s self esteem by informing them that they didn’t have to live under tyranny, that law is king in America, and that the origin of a king is far from divine–just some ordinary man who’s ancestors managed to beat others into submission.
Do you think the French aristocracy and Louis XVI had any idea where things were headed when they decided to convene the Estates General? Do you think the bees know that in the course of their work to gather honey that they are pollinating all of nature?
When the wind of history blows, it moves people through passion, not through some clever plan of action in some person’s head.
And who’s happiness is our concern? The few that rule the empire? The Romanoffs? the Bourbons?, the House of Hanover? The corporate heads who jet from estate to estate? The million or so killed in Iraq because they happen to live on the periphery of rival empires? The American managerial class that profits from empire building?
Sarah Palin may just be another corporate puppet. But she seems less predictable than those we’ve seen so far.
Maybe she’s an agent of change, a catalyst of history; whereas it is demonstrable up to now that Mr. Obama is not.
In response to another comment. See in context »Nice speech. Again, I ask – how do you plan to dismantle the federal government and return the power and responsibility back to the state? Until you actually answer this, you’re just blowing smoke – and lazy smoke at that.
In response to another comment. See in context »RE:They published those ideas in an intelligent and meaningful way so as to persuade their fellow colonists.
I don’t think Palin intends to over throw the government…..the best thing about Palin: the media can’t talk about her and obama in the same breath…..which means less obama
Where might I find these publications?
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, Rick, Rick…
I like you because you are honest with yourself about what you believe to be true. You also seem honorable in your positions and their operations. Like all of us though you are sometimes wrong. Respectfully: First in this article you call yourself a centrist. Sorry but you are clearly on the left. Your positions a-l-w-a-y-s veer left as do your arguments supporting them. I personally think you don’t realize what you are doing and see yourself and your leftist views as “mainstream” and therefore rationalize that if your views are “mainstream” and “mainstream” means “most Americans” and “most Americans” means centrist then it must follow (to you) that Rick = centrist.
I’ve been in corporate America for a long time. And I’ve learned in business on a large scale if the desire is to promote and maintain status quo when you are confronted by change then you ask for a plan. The more you want to resist the change agent, the more details questions and revisions you ask for in a plan. Not that details are bad mind you they are key to any successful tactical or strategic operation. However they can also be used to throw a boat anchor over the side to cripple change. It’s tough to argue against the need for a “plan”. I’ve learned through hard experience though that if you have a good plan simple or complex that some people just want to maintain their current direction. Sometimes it’s because they believe it’s best and sometimes because thy have a vested interest in the current direction whether or not it’s good for an operation or enterprise. The UN IPCC is a perfect example of the latter. In the former as in the latter those resisting positive change rarely can be persuaded by plan or detail. That’s called a failure of leadership.
Obamacare is a perfect example of that. Don’t get me wrong I think most democrats participating in the house and senate and certainly the president arrogantly felt entitled to showcase their personal corruption and take bribes, payoffs, sweetheart deals and kickbacks and they’ll pay a price for that for a political generation. However some like probably Steny Hoyer really believed that at the end of the day there was some good to be had in the bill. Again in either case failed leaders simply ignore anything that doesn’t lead to their personal goals and they vigorously resist change in any direction away from their desired outcome.
Corporations are far simpler to change than governments. Unless they are controlled by governments corporations are most simply creatures of the market and wholly under the power of the market’s forces. If they pursue plans or policies against the direction of the market any leader steering his ship against the market will end up on the rocks or at the bottom. Also people of talent will not tolerate boorish self serving or ignorant leaders in business for long despite the nonsense shown on TV every day to the contrary. Poor business leaders shed talent faster than Ron Jeremy would shed his back hair inside a 3 mile island reactor…
When you have a complete failure of leadership of the kind we have in Washington amongst the corrupt democrats and disconnected and bloated GOP Moderate wing, you simply have to have a revolution (queue Beatles now please). That doesn’t have to mean blood in the streets of course but it absolutely means: Storming the Bastille and the Barricades. In Politics the failed leaders generally get a choice at the surrender table: retirement or jail. Note the abnormally high number of democrat retirements this year and the tales they are telling on the way out the door…takes me back to those ole dot com days. Sort of warms my heart.
I was also a little surprised at your paragraph where you reference “real” revolutions:
“I say this because a revolution is more than a bunch of people screaming in the streets. To succeed, it must be based on an alternative, workable form of government loyal to a fundamental principal. Failing that, this revolution is nothing more than a bunch of folks walking around drinking beer, wearing silly costumes and looking more like Comic-Con than a political convention.”
But Rick is this not p-r-e-c-i-s-e-l-y what occurred in the 1st American Revolution. Was not the Revolution born in the pubs and town halls of colonial America by a bunch of folks walking around in silly costumes and drinking…dare I say…beer…and coffee too (not Tea) you know why they weren’t drinking Tea right? You know where the whole Tea Party thingy got started c’mon Rick, okay I’ll tell you. You see in response to meddlesome Royal governance (like Obama) and an insufferable level of crushing taxation (actually far far lower under the crown than today by the way) the silly beer swilling American colonists dressed up as Red Indians and stormed onto merchant ships in Boston’s harbor and threw the cargo of Tea over the side in to the sea water and called it a Tea-Party. The Elites were none too pleased and condemned the ignorant beer drinking pub dwelling rabble rousers. The royalists (just like today’s leftist elites) were outraged by the ungrateful, unwashed and uneducated actions of a “mob” and vowed to set things “right”. Those silly beer drinking revolutionaries sure did get set straight in their thinking after that didn’t they…
The plan today is the same as the plan then. Why is that so hard to see? The Tea Party today is just a manifestation of the normal American exercise of liberty that arises organically in response to bad and oppressive governance. Our papers and our plans have already been published. Our flags have been flying for over 235 years. You don’t need to listen for the fife and drum in Yorktown just listen to the clicking of keys and the shouting of The American People and their vain and corrupt legislature this last August. Notice how they hide now and stay in the capital as much as they can, that’s music to my ears. Like any revolution when the elites lock the gates you know the people are on the move. Look at Washington today: Nancy Pelosi is running $100,000 Booze cruises for Democrats on private jets and confiscated Air Force plans to Copenfrauden (say didn’t India just drop out due to complaints of corruption at the UN, dude when India complains about corruption it’s bad). The American people are experiencing high unemployment, crushing taxes and the loss of their homes and democrats are spending like drunken sailors on back room deals for their buddies and trying to by executive jets faster than 3rd world thugs, c’mon the jig is up. America has had enough our plan is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the thousands of pamphlets, books and speeches from those early days. Those resources and plans live on. I don’t see how you can question the impact or affect to the degree you seem to in this piece (I could be overstating that and if I am then I am at fault). AS an example the Tea Party have moved the dialogue in this country to the right, destroyed a bad healthcare bill, derailed a liberal agenda in Washington, ended the careers of many congress people and Senators and purged the GOP candidate for the most part of RINO’s (sure an occasional one will get through but even those now understand that they need to Tea Partiers). All of this was accomplished almost overnight. That seems like a pretty effective agenda. There was no plan for this by the GOP and it was certainly against the plans of the DNC. Both the DNC and GOP do nothing it seems to me BUT plan.
Ronald Reagan wasn’t perfect but it is inaccurate to set up the straw man argument you do about him. He delivered tax cuts, a complete victory in a war that could have ended humanity (the cold war) and a great economy. I can’t see how arguing to a conservative that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a real or perfect conservative is going to get you very far with anyone outside of a liberal echo chamber.
While we are at it just what precisely has Obama accomplished? He told us he was going to do a lot of stuff…in the vernacular of the ‘80’s “Where’s the beef?” He said he’d end the wars we are currently fighting, nope. He said if he got $787,000,000,000 (now $862 Billion BTW) he’d keep unemployment under 8%, Obama said he’d deliver Healthcare…failure. He said a ton of stuff none of which anyone any longer sees as true. In fact he just stands there and lies (C-SPAN), Healthcare for illegal aliens (yes without requiring proof of citizenship as he did they get it. Obama also promised to pass Cap’n tax, NADA…the list goes on but my wife wants me to do the laundry. Hey what happened to closing GITMO?…I guess my old pal Stuart Smalley was right after all: Lies, and the lying liars who tell them.
I do see your points but if I were to agree with you about the plan thingy, effective revolutions or whats makes an effective leader I’d have to simply blot out everything that happened during the last 250 years in America. I’d also have to somehow forget what happened more recently in: 1980, 1982, 1988, & 1994.
Finally as always I do respect you and enjoy your work. My comments are merely editorial and are meant to provoke thought and make you laugh a little: even if it is only AT me which s perfectly reasonable too!
spqurus-
Okay! it took a little work to get through your comment, but after a few reads, I think I’ve got it.
1. Let’s remove me from the equation. While I think I’m a bit more centrist than you may think, let’s just take me out and plug in the ‘average American.” Doing so, I don’t think my point is in anyway damaged.
2. While I in no way disagree with your point about corporate America having spent some time there myself, I don’t see how this speaks to your point. You are, in my opinion, absolutely right that those in power will always resist change.But this hardly supports the notion of reforming government without a plan – this simply highlights the difficulty in doing so and why I believe that simply complaining won’t get it done.
3.This is not at all what happened in the American revolutionary war. For starters, the ‘costumes’ they were wearing at the time were not silly – they were the dress of the day. They are only silly now! More substantively, while i agree that it took the support of those you refer to in the taverns, etc., they had true leadership and, as witnessed by the First Continental Congress, they did not throw around talk of revolution lightly. Much time and planning went into the decisions and plans to launch a new nation. While it may have taken the support of the folks in the tavern, without the leadership and planning there would clearly have been no United States of America. Where is that leadership and planning now? Attempting to say that I am referring to those who followed the founders of the nation as silly, beer drinking people is not what I am saying and I know you know that. So we’ll chalk that one up to being provocative (which, as you know, I appreciate!)
3. There is no plan for the tea party today. While you can list all the offenses of existing politicians – and I will wholeheartedly agree with you on most, if not all, of them – suggesting that anything changes because of what we’ve seen so far from the Tea Party is just wrong. Our circumstances are not the same as they were when the nation was founded. The objective of The Tea Party is to roll back the size of the central government and return the power they believe rightfully belongs to the states. That’s fine. Frankly, I think they’re right. But you carefully avoid telling me how you do that in the era in which we find ourselves. We aren’t starting from scratch. Dismantling the largest government on earth is going to take a plan, don’t you think? Assuming you are right to want to do this, how are you going to do it?
4. I don’t know why people always want to ” talk around” Ronald Reagan. There is absolutely nothing ’straw man’ about the point I make. So, respectfully, you either don’t understand what a straw man argument is or you just want to present an argument that may sound good but it completely off point. If you are going to choose him as the model of political behavior upon which to build a movement, don’t you think there is some benefit to actually understanding what he actually did and where he is at wide variance with the movement that relies on him for motivation? There is absolutely nothing I said in this piece about President Reagan which is dishonest. I certainly challenge you to show me otherwise. I’m listening.
5. While you may want to talk about the failure of Obama – and where you might be surprised to find more agreement on my part than what you expect – that simply is not what this piece is about. I’m not suggesting you have no reason to want to revolt against what you spend some time talking about. I’m saying that if you mean it, you have a lot more work to do to sell it and make it work if you accomplish it. So far, I think this movement has been lazy. Again, with all respect, you prove my point in your comment. I want to know what the plan is to reform this government that you believe needs reforming (as do I) and what I am getting is warned over ‘why I hate Obama’ and ‘nobody else ever had a plan.” Nonsense. History is crystal clear that our founders very much had a plan! Spend a little time reading the history of the Continental Congresses onward and you will be unable to come to any other conclusion.
OK. Your turn!
In response to another comment. See in context »imho, spqrus needs to start his own blog. those were pretty long comments.
i found this diary on the Tea Party interesting.
and this is the best way, imho, to deal with health care in this country. i understand that there are those who don’t think health care is a right — as a (retired) nurse, i think it is a right.
and having a dad, brother, and uncles who served in the military, i was sure glad they had “socialized medicine” to take care of them when they needed it (the government is both payer and provider of care to the veterans).
In response to another comment. See in context »peg1 – very interesting – and highly disturbing – piece. thanks for the reference.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick…dude…I’ll grant you a handicap. I know you remember your early American political history. That history makes today’s spats look like love fests…
Benjamin Franklin ran around at polical rallies with a beaver skin hat (for show only he thought it was silly). He did this here and in France where they expected to see a “rough and ready”rugged country scientist and philosopher impart wisdom clothed as what they expected to see a fur wearing colonial roughneck. Ben pulled it off much better than Hillary was ever able to squeak out. Of course Ben was a full on genius…
My favorite pamphlet of Ben Franklin’s during that period was in 1781: Fart Proudly. It is a short read but perfectlycaptures the true American disgust with european or cultural elitist crap, Where’in he wore a big bushy Beaver skin hat Haven’t you seen any of this? You should spend the 3 hours you need to understand how an average Tea Partier views Obama’s elites and Europe today. Not a perfect lens but useful. I could list a ton of others but this one is quick and easy.
How about Ole’ Hickory, Tipacanoe and Tyler too!, Davey Crocket, or the Chief justice of the supreme court who served at the same time as General Washington was serving as President. He once complained that; “I can travel the whole of the American nation north to south at night light only by my own burning effagies….General Washington (an excellent Leader) Would not have been politically correct with his costumes either especially those worn by his house and body servants. Don’t forget the hundreds of surviving plays and pamphlets and tavern acts that survive to the day. King George was treated far less kindly than Hitler was generally in the second world war. Basically there was little foul left that they hadn’t thought of and already published. THey show King George on posters and pamphlets as a mad man in league with the devil and the list goes on and on. Just during the revolution they pulled out all the stops. Many of the veterans that fought in the war fought inthe French and Indian wars. Tose were brutal total wars and the custumes were on display as well for recruiting. THere wwer press gangs even in pubs. all of this is easily available tosee and as our country grew we did it more. Dude who do you think UncleSam is? Where did he start?
My family was here long before ther ewas a revolution and we’ve flown under 6 flags. Every single generation as taken time to serve our nation usually under arms since the start. What’s happening in the Team Party today is far more mild than the original tea party where they dressed up as red indians and did the deed. What they did in the past was at 11. What we do today is at 4. At thsi point ther eis no need to crank it up. Since communications and analysis are better today than during the revolutionary period and we can faster judge our progress towards a particular outcome in almost real time. The revolutionaries tended to overshoot politically early in the conflict at times and underreact at others. Our funny costumes today serve the same purpose as did theirs however.
Respectfully,
Like Thomas Jefferson (would have been a great guy to meet) I had 2 glasses of wine before bed. So blame my incompetance on that. Hope you aren’t ready to smack me you re a good honorable man that I just have a tough time agreeing with sometimes.
In response to another comment. See in context »spqrus,
In response to another comment. See in context »If you think going back to the failed Bush policies would leave us in a better place than Obama has, you would clearly never have made it in business. Unfortunately for all of you Mad Hatters and March Hares, the rest of the world stands in clear evidence of the emptiness of your ideals. Which countries have come through the global recession in the best shape? Countries a little to the left of the US. The evidence is out there, but who are you going to believe: Sarah Palin or your lying eyes?
[...] the original here: You say you want a revolution? – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page … Share and [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by lewisdvorkin, rickungar, moochiemac, Tweets Tube, Billy McKee and others. Billy McKee said: You say you want a revolution? http://bit.ly/aoIo6Q [...]
The Founding Fathers had a plan for after the war? Really, don’t remember reading much about that. Many of the pamphlets for the war were running screeds about on par with the Tea Party. Even the Declaration of Independence was a list of complaints, not prescriptions. The war ends in 1783, a good seven years after it started. In the meantime, the Second Continental Congress sent out the Articles of Confederation for review and acceptance. This final draft of the Articles served as the de facto system of government used by the United States until ratification on March 1, 1781. It was hardly a grand design for government and was attacked almost immediately by the Federalists as inadequate. If the Articles represent a plan, it wasn’t much of one.
The current form of government, the US Constitution, was not adopted until September 17, 1787 and not operational until June 21, 1788, a good five years after the end of the war and nearly a decade of operation under the old government form. Even then, arguments in its favor didn’t come rolling out until the end of 1787, a good dozen years after the call for revolution.
If the Founding Fathers had a plan for after the war, it was certainly not any more specific than what the Tea Party is putting out now. Worse, that plan clearly didn’t work out too well and had to be replaced. The plan of the Founding Fathers, if that is what you want to call the Articles of Confederation, made it about five years after the end of the war.
This is not to say I approve of what the Tea Party favors or exposes. They strike me as a bunch of whiny cry babies pissed off they lost an election. They strike me as cowards on defense, lunies on taxes and spending, and an all around bunch of racist retrogrades. However, revolutions rarely have a working plan for what comes next and few revolutions are fought on that basis. They are fought to for freedom, liberty, down with Ceauşescu, out with the Czar, and the like. Afterwords is messy, often much worse than what proceeded, and plans rarely last past the first shot.
Man plans, God laughs.
Stephen – with all due respect, what a bizarre comment.
“Man plans…God laughs’. Yes, we all know that the best laid plans don’t always go as scheduled, but you appear to use this as the basis for just letting life happen, trip gleefully from day to day, no planning, no looking down the road…obviously, you aren’t a guy with a family.
While the founders were indeed spending a lot of time arguing, the fact is they were gathered for the precise purpose of planning out our union. Yes, some were in disagreement! So, you’re arguing that they shouldn’t have bothered at all because not everyone was on the same page?
In your entire screed, I didn’t see one word that tells us how you would go about taking apart the federal government and returning that power to the state. I guess you think God will do it for you.
Sorry – but this is a lazy comment. You want to upset the status quo and you have no idea what to do then. And your answer is that nobody else had any idea of what they were going to do either.
Honestly, based on your earlier comments, I thought you were far smarter than this.
In response to another comment. See in context »I was replying to your thesis statements. You suggested revolutions go best when there is a workable plan or alternative to follow (“To succeed, it must be based on an alternative, workable form of government loyal to a fundamental principle.”) and, as an example, you suggested the Founding Fathers.
I challenge both your thesis and your supporting example. I think almost all revolutions are without any real plan for what comes after and, as an example, the Founding Fathers were also lacking in that capacity. I think to plan for what follows the chaos of a revolution is futile and the Founding Fathers didn’t do so. Additionally, the plan they did make, which followed the announcement of the revolution by some time, wasn’t well thought out or last very long.
You indicated the Tea Party movement would fail for this lack of a plan (“it will come to no positive result if the effort is drowned out by the sounds of nonsense and the lack of a plan.”) I suggest revolutions succeed or fail for many reasons, but a solid plan for what is to follow is not one of them and sounding somewhat silly is also not one of them. As for sounding silly, I think that is in the ear of the listener. I agree the Tea Party people sound silly, but I am not sure Palin’s, “I will die for this country” is any more over the top than Nathan Hales, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” I think Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis is about as much of an over-the-top rant as much of what I hear from the Tea Party.
I do not wish the Tea Party success. I think their ideas are foolish and silly. I think most of the members are ignorant, myopic, and racist. Their leadership reflects the membership. You suggest I am lazy because I don’t have a plan for them (“You want to upset the status quo and you have no idea what to do then’). I don’t particularly want to upset the status quo of American government. I like a strong, central government and think the balance of power between the states and the Federal government is fine. If anything, I would give the Feds more power. I believe in big government and taxes. If anything, I wish the current system was followed a bit more closely, particularly the part about not locking people up without charge or trial, but, on the whole, I am rather fond of our system.
If I was to change anything, I would stop the whining about paying taxes and cut the military. I believe we are undertaxed in this nation. I don’t believe the wealthy and corporations pay enough. I think we maintain vastly too large a military for our security needs and we rely on military force far too often. If I were in charge, there are four SCOTUS justice that would be looking for work.
So, I am lazy in the sense I don’t have a plan for people I don’t want to succeed to do so and I think any success they have is likely to harm to our nation.
In response to another comment. See in context »So, what were the Continental Congresses all about? The first did proceed the revolution and was the site of the debate and planing for what they wanted to do as an independent nation.
In response to another comment. See in context »Stephen – just an additional thought – isn’t what you are suggesting far closer to anarchy than it is to revolution? So, you stage the revolution. You succeed. You end the income taxes. You close up most of the departments in the federal government except the Pentagon. Now what?
Because if you want anyone to actually buy into this, don’t you think we might want to know what the hell is going to happen next?
All those old folks no longer getting Social Security…no more Medicare to pay for the health care. What is going to happen to them or is it “f-’em” revolutions are for the young.”
In response to another comment. See in context »History seems to suggest that the founding fathers did have a plan for a government and it was largely, if not entirely based on the government they used in their state or colonial houses. From that basis creation of the United States was a reform of the British system of government with a strong influence from the French regarding individual citizen rights and ridding the influence of royalty. Big Reforms that were bitterly debated.
The creation of a strong central government was no accident but a pragmatic solution to the problems of interstate commerce and expansion.
Manifest Destiny was about money and land and how does one create states in the first place and how does one capture and defend land. Pragmatism used to be the foundation for survival in this country. Sort of principals in action.
Our current big government is a result of such a philosophy in a response to the depression and a world war and deep seated social problems.
If the tea baggers want a revolution it should begin with a serious debate, one run by statesmen not politicians who frankly benefit from the current system.
We need a new group of federalist papers.
The right loves to bring up the historic federalist papers but that was then and this is now.
There are some serious problems in the way of reform. States would have a great deal to give up. The federal government accounts for thirty per cent of our economy, maybe more. To make it smaller Senators would have to forget all those earmarks for their states. The Midwest corn belt would have to forget farm subsidies and we would have to move social security and medicare obligations to the states. States would have to pay for their education systems and their hospitals and infrastructure themselves not to mention their own unemployment insurance without federal aid. Not that any of that is wrong, it pretty much the norm before FDR, it is just that all state taxes would have to rise dramatically. Another serious problem is one that was fundamental to the federalist debate namely how to deal with the national debt. Wars have to be paid for.
It seems to me that right now the country is seriously hurt by the world economy and war but as every doctor in the ER knows nothing can be done until the patient is stabilized.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
I can never tell by your writing which side of the party line you fall on, but your arguments always fall into the line of reason and general intelligence – this piece is something that I’ve been considering writing myself, or waiting for someone with more power than me to write, and you’ve really outdone yourself.
Without being condescending to the Teabaggers, which I am incapable of doing because of who they are, you express how, why, where, and when they will fail because of the very essence of their “movement”.
Fantastic job.
–Kyle
Kyle-
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks. Particularly for the part where you can’t tell on which side of the party line I fall. For me, that’s pretty much the ultimate compliment. As you will note from other comments, not everyone agrees with your assessment!
By the way, when it comes to writing, no such thing as someone having “more power” than you. If you think it…write it!!!
I suppose fighting prejudice and fear with logic and patience and forgiveness is the civilized way to go. However, I ask sincerely: what is the way to go when prejudice and fear kneel before (are manipulated by) a voracious greed for power?
This post brings up the very point of my confusion about this Tea Party; What do they actually stand for in specific terms? The answers I hear most are; return to the constitution, smaller government, stop the out of control spending, provide better security, and less taxes. Something almost anyone could agree with, but are very broad answers.
The questions I had for some members of a local chapter in a recent message board exchange, were met with a wide variety of answers. But the tone I was met with was mostly one of anger and divisiveness, for raising questions like;
-If you don’t like “Obama Care”, what is a good solution to a major problem?
-What specifically can be cut from the Federal Budget in order to reduce taxes? No more wars? No more Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid? VA Care?
-How do you reduce taxes and maintain/increase homeland security?
I was called everything from a Obama loving Nazi, to a Rachel Maddow watching leftist lunatic; while merely trying to understand what they stood for, and questioning their motives.
The point I was trying to make is that a lot of people have the same concerns; but shouting down what should be civil conversations is a big part of the current problems. Our 2 Party system seems to have become mired down in the ‘my way or no way mentality’. I just don’t get the sense that the Tea Party is going to be any different, especially after the speeches by Tancredo and Palin.
I am no Constitutional Historian, but I have to believe that in order to get documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution accepted by everyone, it required a large amount of civil discussion and compromise. Unless this is a revolution demanding a return to those principals of problem solving, I think at best we are merely going to become mired in a system of three disagreeing parties.
The Tea Party movement is chock full of beliefs that cant coexist. They want little or no taxation, yet dont want government programs like medicare cut. They want less government intrusion in business, but way more intrusion into your private life (theocracy anyone?). This is the paradox that is Sarah Palin. It shouldn’t be possible, but yet there she is.
Sarah Palin is a user, so in that point I agree with you, Rick. I also agree that there is no real leadership for the movement. But, I agree with Steven in that the original American Revolution there was no real plan going into it, just a lot of pissed off people.. but, that is all history and that seems to be of little interest to you. In the fact that there is no big plan for the current tea party, I see that as a bigger problem than it was for the colonists, they were severing ties, current tea party-ers are not wanting to sever, just reduce ties between the fed and state and individuals for that matter.. so yes, here i am doing as spqrus did in highlighting the fact that the tea party faces a major problem reforming the gov’t. I think that the plan for the core membership of the tea party movement should be to pull a leader from within their lower ranks, a hard working, but educated, average Joe. Someone who knows politics and cares greatly for the movement, but has no high profile name to uphold or exploit (like palin)..
Strawman…here’s what lead to my conclusions:
1) Reagan: you said no false idols. In your analysis you state that conservatives should not “idolize” Reagan as he wasn’t essentially a pure conservative. Strawman: Conservatives demand purity and idolize Reagan. Reagan’s record shows many cases where he acted in opposition to conservative “purity” standards so he was unworthy of being an idol. You created an argument based upon a strawman construct of both Reagan and conservative appreciation of Reagan’s work IMHO.
2) You stated I wanted discord for discord’s sake and upon that dimissed my support for the Tea Party movement. I never in my argument or general statements have stated that explicitly or implicitly. you are the only one who did that.