A Political Insurrection Has Begun ... It's happening whether people wish it to or not. Beginning with TARP, the Beltway elite rubbed enough salt in old wounds to stir a Tea Party revolution of libertarian flavor. Mark Twain's famous words that "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress," rings true in the people's ears. More Americans are questioning the role of government in their lives than at any point (at least) in my lifetime.
But not everyone is happy about it.
Kathleen Parker: Tea party's purity tests could damage GOP
No one doubts the sincerity or power of the tea party movement anymore. We get it: free market principles, limited government and individual liberty.
Those are the three fundaments of the tea party's "Contract from America," to which any serious Republican must subscribe, nay, sign in blood.
Tea partiers mostly upset about subsequent spending have cast a wide net, and any incumbent is liable to be snared -- even the good ones, such as Bennett, who is widely respected in Washington and has been endorsed by establishment Republicans Newt, Mitt & Karl (Gingrich, Romney and Rove).
But in their rush to banish all but the purest fiscal conservatives, tea partiers risk losing some of their strongest voices and diminishing their power in an arena where relationships matter.
[I]n purging impure Republicans from the ranks, tea partiers ultimately may manage to further shrink the GOP by alienating those repelled by purity tests. Nothing dissuades like righteousness. And though tea partiers pledge allegiance to no party, Republicans clearly are more aligned with their principles than Democrats.
Parker's thoughts can be summed up like this: The GOP and "what's good for you" doesn't lie in your principles, but in those "brave souls" who supported TARP and the subsequent bailouts.
This is not a new opinion either, but one as old as the hills. Alexander Hamilton expressed the same thing many moons ago.
Take mankind in general, they are vicious--their passions may be operated upon... Take mankind as they are, and what are they governed by? There may be in every government a few choice spirits, who may act from more worthy motives. One great error is that we suppose mankind more honest than they are. Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest; and it will be the duty of a wise government to avail itself of those passions, in order to make them subservient to the public good. (1787)
Can a democratic assembly who annually [through annual elections] revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and changing disposition requires checks. (1787)
Your people, sir, is a great beast. (1792)
The battle between Jefferson's Republicans and Hamiton's Federalists has never ended. In fact, it's just picking up steam.
Americans are blissfully clueless about the nature of their unhappiness: for conservatives and libertarians, the cause is usually the dreaded State; for most Democrats (and quite a few Libertarians) the cause is usually Republicans — those vile, racist (authoritarian) creatures! I have to laugh at the theological handwringing that goes on about “purity of doctrine.” Really, who has time for this? Those kinds of maniacal, pointless discussions are interesting at college, but won’t win a lawsuit or a woman’s hand in marriage — not to mention national elections. I don’t mean to be cruel, but it needs to be said: the United States is not (yet) run by ideology, nor, in fact, is genuine conservatism an ideology. The folks who try to make these things ideological are not necessarily friends of America. Late night caffeinated harangues? Sure. Churchmen declaring who is conservative and who is not? Are you kidding me?
I advocate the Old Right, that loose band of traditionalist and libertarian brothers and sisters who tirelessly fought against the state. Is this nothing but handwringing over "purity of doctrine?" Or is it acknowledgement that the conservative movement has "not, and never has been, univocal?"
Does the history of ideas even matter? Are we to simply adopt the stated mantras of the status quo? Are we better to question nothing "with boldness?"
What is it that threatens so many people about the plea for austerity and our original, limited form of federal government? Does it perhaps threaten their own ideological doctrine?
I'll leave it for you to decide.
Is it really true that Tea Partiers, traditionalists and libertarians are "not necessarily friends of America?" Or does this just add more evidence to my theory that politics creates conflict, ripping even the best of friends apart?
