I'm curious - explain how a 'tea party' would govern.

[rdean]

If you're black, it's pretty clear how they would "govern". Remember all that rhetoric about "inclusiveness"?

 

[Coyote]

Looking at the politcal spectrum as the face of a clock, the Democrats and Republicans might be placed on the top, D's to the left of '12', R's to the right. Moving further left one might find liberals and progressives; moving further right conservatives.
Liberals and Progressives seem to buy into Social Contract Theory, and believe in the power, synergy, of the many working towards change, in a hurry; Conservatives seem to believe in the power of the individual to make change slowly, methodically and with respect for tradition.
As we move left to the '7' we might place revolutionaries, those who hope to remake society/political institutions immediately, and by whatever means necessary. Going right, as we approach the '5' are the reactionaries, those who are resistent to change and/or hope to return the ways of the past.
Where would you place the Tea Party?

I'm not sure lets try a different way.

Say you have a straight line, on the far left of the straight line is complete government control on the far right of the straight line is complete anarcy.

The tea partiers are a few shades to the left of total anarchy, the minimal amount of government possible with very limited powers...just enough to protect us from foreign threats.

The Progressives are a few shades to the right of total government, basically the government will do everything for you and take care of any needs that might arise for one.


Maybe a picture?

See the progressives are up at the top with the likes of stalin and hitler (no im not calling progressives nazi's i'm just saying they like a government with a lot of authority and power over the citizens) You have the conservative progressives (hitler) and the liberal progressives (stalin) but both are facist in nature.

Tea partiers are in the lower right quadrant of the picture and would be down low but above total anarcy and slightly to the right of the center line.

Did I help you?

That graph is far from accurate...

The political compass does not define the far right as "neo-liberal", nor does it define extremes as communism, fascism etc.

The far right would be "fascism" if anything and the far left "communism" with both having the potential to become authoritarian.

"Progressives" is so broadly used as to be meaningless here.

Tea Partiers seem below and further than slightly right of the center line with their fiscal views and conservative social views.

hmmm...maybe I'm wrong.

I wasn't sure what "neo-liberal" was...so I looked it up.

"Neoliberalism is a left of center ideology, formed by writers that mostly centered around the political journals Washington Monthly and The New Republic.[1] The term was coined by the founder of the magazine Washington Monthly, Charles Peters in the late 1970s.[2] In Charles Peters’s 1983 article, A Neoliberal’s Manifesto, Neoliberalism is an ideology that asserts social progress can occur as a result of economic liberalism.[3]"

Interesting....but doesn't seem left of center. Confusing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not sure lets try a different way.

Say you have a straight line, on the far left of the straight line is complete government control on the far right of the straight line is complete anarcy.

The tea partiers are a few shades to the left of total anarchy, the minimal amount of government possible with very limited powers...just enough to protect us from foreign threats.

The Progressives are a few shades to the right of total government, basically the government will do everything for you and take care of any needs that might arise for one.


Maybe a picture?

See the progressives are up at the top with the likes of stalin and hitler (no im not calling progressives nazi's i'm just saying they like a government with a lot of authority and power over the citizens) You have the conservative progressives (hitler) and the liberal progressives (stalin) but both are facist in nature.

Tea partiers are in the lower right quadrant of the picture and would be down low but above total anarcy and slightly to the right of the center line.

Did I help you?

That graph is far from accurate...

The political compass does not define the far right as "neo-liberal", nor does it define extremes as communism, fascism etc.

The far right would be "fascism" if anything and the far left "communism" with both having the potential to become authoritarian.

"Progressives" is so broadly used as to be meaningless here.

Tea Partiers seem below and further than slightly right of the center line with their fiscal views and conservative social views.

hmmm...maybe I'm wrong.

I wasn't sure what "neo-liberal" was...so I looked it up.

"Neoliberalism is a left of center ideology, formed by writers that mostly centered around the political journals Washington Monthly and The New Republic.[1] The term was coined by the founder of the magazine Washington Monthly, Charles Peters in the late 1970s.[2] In Charles Peters’s 1983 article, A Neoliberal’s Manifesto, Neoliberalism is an ideology that asserts social progress can occur as a result of economic liberalism.[3]"

Interesting....but doesn't seem left of center. Confusing.

Yes, it is confusing, and understanding becomes much more difficult when labels become nothing more than pejoratives.
Kudos to you, you're in a select group simply by being curious and seeking a definition.

 

[Samson]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

Well since we have such shitty governance now anything the Tea Party did would be an improvement. We've been through decades of administration ignoring the danger on the borders. I would hope that would be the very first project they tackle and solve.

Not sure if ANYTHING would be an improvement, but I like the spirit of the answer:

How would any party govern? Agree on a platform upon which to elect representatives, and have representatives that are responsive to their electorate?

These are pretty bizarre concepts for anyone that supports the status quo.

 

[Samson]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

I'll ignore the ignorant responses you got and try to give you a representative one.

What would a tea party govern like?

1. Reducing the size and scope of government programs. This would mean cutting back all entitlement programs and eventually eliminating them. We would still keep programs in place to help people in emergencies, such as temporary unemployment benefits.
2. Reducing our global military footprint. This basically translates to no more foreign wars unless we are being directly and outwardly threatened. It also translates into removing many military bases from countries around the world that dont need our bases there, such as Germany.
3. Reducing the tax burden on americans of EVERY income level uniformly. This will be accomplished after slashing entitlement programs, government budgets, and government payrolls (read government workers will get a big benefits cut)

There are 3 changes you would see.

If you want more I can think up some for you.

You did read, "All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?"

Then you answered with what was already anticipated: "Reducing the tax burden" and "Reducing the size and scope of government?"

Wry needs something "beyond empty promises:" Something more like............

What?

***I wonder if he has any idea***

 

[Wry Catcher]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

I'll ignore the ignorant responses you got and try to give you a representative one.

What would a tea party govern like?

1. Reducing the size and scope of government programs. This would mean cutting back all entitlement programs and eventually eliminating them. We would still keep programs in place to help people in emergencies, such as temporary unemployment benefits.
2. Reducing our global military footprint. This basically translates to no more foreign wars unless we are being directly and outwardly threatened. It also translates into removing many military bases from countries around the world that dont need our bases there, such as Germany.
3. Reducing the tax burden on americans of EVERY income level uniformly. This will be accomplished after slashing entitlement programs, government budgets, and government payrolls (read government workers will get a big benefits cut)

There are 3 changes you would see.

If you want more I can think up some for you.

You did read, "All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?"

Then you answered with what was already anticipated: "Reducing the tax burden" and "Reducing the size and scope of government?"

Wry needs something "beyond empty promises:" Something more like............

What?

***I wonder if he has any idea***

I would like to hear something substantive from those who identify with the rhetoric. I do believe that those who identify with the 'tea party' movement are caught up in emotion and have been manipulated by special interests (those who do not put country first) motivated by the lust for power and avarice.
If my premise of emotional involvment is accurate, asking those caught up in the moment and forced to think, my actually begin to 'listen' to their own opinion(s) and begin to see the absurdity of and potential for unintended consequences if their rhetoric were actually acted upon.
As for my idea, here's one I've advocated for years. Sadly five ninths of the Supreme Court disagree.
1. Federal Elections must be publically funded. No one, may give any candidate anything - tangible or otherwise (promises, etc.)
2. No elected or appointed Federal Official may accept or be offered anything.
3. No former elected or appointed Federal Official may work in the private sector to influence any current elected or appointed official.
4. The POTUS should have the line-item veto, such veto maybe overridden as provided for in the Constitution.
5. The media using the public domain, radio, television and the internet will provide fair and balanced reporting on issues UNLESS the reporting is clearly labeld as Editorial or Opinion. Then equal time will be allowed for a rebutal.
6. No person, corporation or other such entity shall dominate a media market (yes, this is pointed directly at FOX).
7. Libel and slander protection will be provided to all elected and appointed federal officials, and both civil and criminal penalties shall apply when violations alleged are proven in the Federal Trial Court of the Jurisdiction the offense is alleged to have occured.

 

[Samson]

I do believe that those who identify with the 'tea party' movement are

A. caught up in emotion and
B. have been manipulated by special interests (those who do not put country first) motivated by the lust for power and avarice.

A. Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)

B. Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement?

Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice."

In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?

If I may be so bold, please allow me to imagine:

1. Federal Elections must be publically funded. No one, may give any candidate anything - tangible or otherwise (promises, etc.)
2. No elected or appointed Federal Official may accept or be offered anything.
3. No former elected or appointed Federal Official may work in the private sector to influence any current elected or appointed official.
4. The POTUS should have the line-item veto, such veto maybe overridden as provided for in the Constitution.
5. The media using the public domain, radio, television and the internet will provide fair and balanced reporting on issues UNLESS the reporting is clearly labeld as Editorial or Opinion. Then equal time will be allowed for a rebutal.
6. No person, corporation or other such entity shall dominate a media market (yes, this is pointed directly at FOX).
7. Libel and slander protection will be provided to all elected and appointed federal officials, and both civil and criminal penalties shall apply when violations alleged are proven in the Federal Trial Court of the Jurisdiction the offense is alleged to have occured

Apart from the necessary destruction of free media market principles and growth of government bureaucracy to enforce #5, 6, 7, I'm at a loss to understand how these are in difference to "those who identify with the 'tea party' movement."

 

[midcan5]

TPs are not against growth. They love growth in the programs they benefit from.....Medicare, Social Security, Veterans programs.

They oppose growth in programs that they don't benefit from....Healthcare for other Americans, welfare, aid to dependent children

In a nutshell, you hit the nail on the head. Power and privilege corrupt.

 

[kwc57]

It appears from the few answers provided a Tea Party White House and Congress would fortify our borders with armed troops, lay-off government workers in mass, cut government services and income taxes and engage in a neo-isolationism, bringing our troops home.
Each American citizen would be personally responsable for their health care and retirement, and with little government regulation would need to make sure their water was clean, their food safe and understand that caveat emptor was the only rule in the land.
[now, I know this is a straw man, but listening to the debate, I wonder why TBers would want us to become a large North Korea.]

I honestly don't intend this to be insulting, but you sound like you have a Michael Jackson/Peter Pan mentality of never wanting to grow up. Just who do you expect to provide for YOU and your family? The government or YOU? Why is it the government's job to provide you health care or retirement? Where are they going to get the money? They get it from the people who are attempting to take care of themselves to give to the people who feel entitled to it. Where in our government's founding documents has that ever been the role of government. I'll assume Wry that you are male. If you have a wife and I don't, would you freely and willingly turn her over to me so I can have the same amount of sex you do with her? I mean......I'm just as entitled to her as you are, even if I didn't date or marry her. Right?

 

[Coyote]

If you peel away the wingnuts, I think the core of the Tea Party movement is strongly Libertarian, so you would see those values expressed in governance. But I also tend to think that, like any ideology - it works better in theory than in practice.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If you're black, it's pretty clear how they would "govern". Remember all that rhetoric about "inclusiveness"?

Your ignorance knows no bounds

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqDRlT0JTmc]YouTube - Are Tea Party People Racist? - NO![/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDSqI18_AK0]YouTube - Puerto Rican Patriot @ NYC Tea Party[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bLq3vvdGvM]YouTube - cnn - tea party racist? not according to lloyed marcus - true black american[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=124geu01qFk]YouTube - Pastor Speaking at the 9-12 DC Tea Party Protest[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAXDh807gZI]YouTube - Black Speaker at the Boston Common Tea Party, April 14th 2010[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWAJwYKl9W0]YouTube - Tea Party Speaker Responds to Allegations of Violence and Racism[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZqcHobg6UY]YouTube - Lenny McAllister at the Charlotte Sweet Tea Party April 4 2009 - Part 1[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC9X5moico4]YouTube - Tea Party Patriots Invite Janeane Garofalo for America's Tea Party on July 4, 2009![/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiyzZd0wO2g]YouTube - Black Speaker at DC Rally Mocks Obamas Teleprompter Dependence[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

I do believe that those who identify with the 'tea party' movement are

A. caught up in emotion and
B. have been manipulated by special interests (those who do not put country first) motivated by the lust for power and avarice.

A. Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)[B]Likely true. And if one is caught up in emotion, isn't it also likely that rational thought is surpressed?[/B]
B. Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement? Manipulation is all around us, as you suggest. But knowing this to be true, wouldn't a rational response be to examine the untested propaganda before adopting it as a truth and marching to the band?/B]

Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice." The TP movement is not a grass root movement. For an example of a true grass root movement see the green movement in Iran.

In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?Expect? I would hope reasonable, which is why I posted the thread as a question. I've yet to read a reasonable response. Lots of anger, blame and noise, i.e. emotion; but, very little of substance - Coyote had the best response.

If I may be so bold, please allow me to imagine:

1. Federal Elections must be publically funded. No one, may give any candidate anything - tangible or otherwise (promises, etc.)
2. No elected or appointed Federal Official may accept or be offered anything.
3. No former elected or appointed Federal Official may work in the private sector to influence any current elected or appointed official.
4. The POTUS should have the line-item veto, such veto maybe overridden as provided for in the Constitution.
5. The media using the public domain, radio, television and the internet will provide fair and balanced reporting on issues UNLESS the reporting is clearly labeld as Editorial or Opinion. Then equal time will be allowed for a rebutal.
6. No person, corporation or other such entity shall dominate a media market (yes, this is pointed directly at FOX).
7. Libel and slander protection will be provided to all elected and appointed federal officials, and both civil and criminal penalties shall apply when violations alleged are proven in the Federal Trial Court of the Jurisdiction the offense is alleged to have occured

Apart from the necessary destruction of free media market principles and growth of government bureaucracy to enforce #5, 6, 7, I'm at a loss to understand how these are in difference to "those who identify with the 'tea party' movement."

The 'free' media market is not. It is controlled by a small minority of owners, hiding behind the principle of a free press. A discussion on that issue is as important as a discussion on campaign finance reform and the reform of the initiative process which has been taken over by special interests.

 

[rikules]

I'm curious - explain how a 'tea party' would govern.

If the teaparty were to govern, they would still create laws...

...with the only caveat being that the law could not hinder or hamper any individual, business, or corporation from doing anything and everything that they want to do.

the law could not hamper any CONSERVATIVE/CHRISTIAN
individual, business, or corporation from doing anything and everything that they want to do...

because besides UNFETTERED FREEDOM for conservative christians we ALSO need to make sure that feminists, atheists, homosexuals, liberals, pot smokers, muslims, wiccans, evolutionists, environmentalists etc...are NOT GETTING AWAY with doing something that might offend us....

i don't know about you but MY FREEDOM and RIGHT to NOT BE offended by any form of liberalism is under attack by all those forms of liberalism....


and MY FREEDOM and RIGHTS are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the freedoms and rights of any America hating liberal.....

 

[driveby]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

Voting NO to the kook left agenda is an accomplishment ........

 

[Wry Catcher]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

Voting NO to the kook left agenda is an accomplishment ........

?

"Voting NO...is an accomplishment"? I wonder, really, are you to lazy to answer the question (how would they govern) or haven't the willingness or intelligence to see the consequences of such governance? (I know, the false choice isn't fair or logical, but sometimes it's appropriate).

 

[driveby]

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

Voting NO to the kook left agenda is an accomplishment ........

?

"Voting NO...is an accomplishment"? I wonder, really, are you to lazy to answer the question (how would they govern) or haven't the willingness or intelligence to see the consequences of such governance? (I know, the false choice isn't fair or logical, but sometimes it's appropriate).

I would hope they'd govern like Chris Christie ( New Jersey Governor ) and not like Obama. The only consequences i see so far against Christie are a bunch of panty waste unions and democrats demonizing him, calling him fat and saying they hope he dies.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Voting NO to the kook left agenda is an accomplishment ........

?

"Voting NO...is an accomplishment"? I wonder, really, are you to lazy to answer the question (how would they govern) or haven't the willingness or intelligence to see the consequences of such governance? (I know, the false choice isn't fair or logical, but sometimes it's appropriate).

I would hope they'd govern like Chris Christie ( New Jersey Governor ) and not like Obama. The only consequences i see so far against Christie are a bunch of panty waste unions and democrats demonizing him, calling him fat and saying they hope he dies.

Too lazy, huh? Tell us what policies Chris Christie has employed which are consistent with the TP agenda (the agenda being my intial question).
Gov. Arnold in California ran on cutting taxes, cutting waste and spending and fraud. After a full term and one half he's done nothing but exacerbate the problem. Now he wants to cut spending on the poor, aged and ill - are those the values you support?

 

[driveby]

?

"Voting NO...is an accomplishment"? I wonder, really, are you to lazy to answer the question (how would they govern) or haven't the willingness or intelligence to see the consequences of such governance? (I know, the false choice isn't fair or logical, but sometimes it's appropriate).

I would hope they'd govern like Chris Christie ( New Jersey Governor ) and not like Obama. The only consequences i see so far against Christie are a bunch of panty waste unions and democrats demonizing him, calling him fat and saying they hope he dies.

Too lazy, huh? Tell us what policies Chris Christie has employed which are consistent with the TP agenda (the agenda being my intial question).
Gov. Arnold in California ran on cutting taxes, cutting waste and spending and fraud. After a full term and one half he's done nothing but exacerbate the problem. Now he wants to cut spending on the poor, aged and ill - are those the values you support?

Nice strawman attempt, when you're spending twice as much as you can afford, i support those values indeed. Arnold "ran on it", Obama "ran on it", Christie is doing it and in a state almost as fucked up as California. I haven't went over the spending budget line by line ( before you demonize me, neither has Obama ) but when you're running these kind of deficits that continue to increase, you MUST cut spending. Especially in a state like NJ where they've been over taxed for a long time. Taxing the middle class to death to support lazy folks, are those the values you support ? ........

 

[Wry Catcher]

I would hope they'd govern like Chris Christie ( New Jersey Governor ) and not like Obama. The only consequences i see so far against Christie are a bunch of panty waste unions and democrats demonizing him, calling him fat and saying they hope he dies.

Too lazy, huh? Tell us what policies Chris Christie has employed which are consistent with the TP agenda (the agenda being my intial question).
Gov. Arnold in California ran on cutting taxes, cutting waste and spending and fraud. After a full term and one half he's done nothing but exacerbate the problem. Now he wants to cut spending on the poor, aged and ill - are those the values you support?

Nice strawman attempt, when you're spending twice as much as you can afford, i support those values indeed. Arnold "ran on it", Obama "ran on it", Christie is doing it and in a state almost as fucked up as California. I haven't went over the spending budget line by line (before you demonize me, neither has Obama ) but when you're running these kind of deficits that continue to increase, you MUST cut spending. Especially in a state like NJ where they've been over taxed for a long time. Taxing the middle class to death to support lazy folks, are those the values you support ? ........

"lazy folks"? The poor, aged and ill are now lazy folks? Or did you mean someone else, but choose to speak in code?
As for deficit spending, do you? I've noticed many complaints about spending on credit from self-described conservatives and I'd be willing to bet most of them carry a credit card balance and pay interest every month [btw, my wife and don't, we pay as we go on everything but the mortgage - which we never borrowed on].
I have no problem with Obama spending to fix what boooooooooosh fucked up. Consider it putting new shingles on the roof to save a house the previous occupants neglected.
Cutting spending is code too, is it not? Screw those without and call them lazy, but reward those with by cutting their taxes. It'll all trickle down in the end, correct?

 

[driveby]

Too lazy, huh? Tell us what policies Chris Christie has employed which are consistent with the TP agenda (the agenda being my intial question).
Gov. Arnold in California ran on cutting taxes, cutting waste and spending and fraud. After a full term and one half he's done nothing but exacerbate the problem. Now he wants to cut spending on the poor, aged and ill - are those the values you support?

Nice strawman attempt, when you're spending twice as much as you can afford, i support those values indeed. Arnold "ran on it", Obama "ran on it", Christie is doing it and in a state almost as fucked up as California. I haven't went over the spending budget line by line (before you demonize me, neither has Obama ) but when you're running these kind of deficits that continue to increase, you MUST cut spending. Especially in a state like NJ where they've been over taxed for a long time. Taxing the middle class to death to support lazy folks, are those the values you support ? ........

"lazy folks"? The poor, aged and ill are now lazy folks? Or did you mean someone else, but choose to speak in code?
As for deficit spending, do you? I've noticed many complaints about spending on credit from self-described conservatives and I'd be willing to bet most of them carry a credit card balance and pay interest every month [btw, my wife and don't, we pay as we go on everything but the mortgage - which we never borrowed on].
I have no problem with Obama spending to fix what boooooooooosh fucked up. Consider it putting new shingles on the roof to save a house the previous occupants neglected.
Cutting spending is code too, is it not? Screw those without and call them lazy, but reward those with by cutting their taxes. It'll all trickle down in the end, correct?

Many of the poor are just lazy, hell there are well off people that are just as lazy also. Most, if not all of the aged have already paid a ton into the system and should be "paid back" but the sooper dooper gubment has spent and continues to spend their money. While i do sympathize with the ill and think they should get some help if they have nowhere to turn to, my problem is many of these "ill's" are self inflicted ( drug addicts, alcohlics, etc...), how much help should we really give them ? Furthermore, if you think your libby yo yo politicians really want to help these people and aren't in it strictly for their own personal gain, you're quite naive......