Skip to comments.What the Tea Partiers Really Want (Best Essay on American Values I've ever read)
Posted on 10/16/2010 9:50:44 PM PDT by 11th_VAEdited on 10/17/2010 8:17:35 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The passion behind the populist insurgency is less about liberty than a particularly American idea of karma.
...the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it’s just a law of the universe, like gravity.
...suppose you learned that politicians were devising policies that might, as a side effect of their enactment, nullify the law of karma. Bad deeds would no longer lead to bad outcomes, and the fragile moral order of our nation would break apart. For tea partiers, this scenario is not science fiction. It is the last 80 years of American history.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
He must be the one and only psychologist who hasn’t lost his mind while getting a degree of such questionable worth
ref for later
Ping for a great article.
as one with 2 psychologists for neighbors, I would agree.
they are both looney tunes.
Ignorant. Without the social conservatives, you would have no TEA Party.
Pretty good article. The description, while not 100% correct, is fairly accurate. One caveat - I don’t think you can throw people into distinct “libertarian”, “liberal”, and “conservative” categories. Well, maybe the liberal category stands alone, but there are gray areas where the libertarian and conservatives overlap. I know that I sit somewhere between the two, and lean towards not just economic liberty but to a certain extent, social liberty as well.
I thought they were the same thing. (Scratching my head.) I mean, set aside the rosy rhetoric of the liberal, and you have a government engaged in coercion and repression. How is one to achieve their full potential without overcoming the challenges of life? Without the freedom to develop competence and wisdom? There is no wisdom in governments.
I’m a TEA Partier, Bozo, and VERY conservative. I pray to God the energy builds and we take our country back to its founding principles. Those founding principles are socially conservative.
The only one I’ve heard (or seen) ranting about the views of others in the movement is you. Get with the program or get out of our way.
The original Tea Party knew that a virtuous society was the only way to be a free society....they go hand in hand and if we drop the virtues, it is not possible for the "economics" to be successful.
My Nigerian professor said that moral relativism always will lead to chaos and more regulation and bribes as in his country. Moral Absolutes was the foundation that united this country and made it great and created the underlying trust that all economic systems, especially Capitalism needs. All the Founders knew that a religious and virtuous people were needed for this government and the Tea Party is trying to get back to the original intent of that document. You are saying that the Tea Party ignore the main item which made this country the best in the history of man.
Perhaps I’m confused, but I don’t see anything about social regulation in the constitution. Can you point out to me where the government gets the authority to tell me what kind of life I should lead, who I have to work with, who I have to hire, etc...?
Social issues have no place on the floor of congress, period. If it is doing things that influence social behavior one way or the other, it is way out in the weeds and likely should not be doing it.
We want the government off our backs and out of our wallets, not in our faces with a different spin.
“Social Conservatives will be the downfall of the Tea Party Movement.”
The tea party institution in congress will have to be protected, and cleansed from time to time. I will hate seeing a “Tea Party Caucus” in congress. Status quo politicians (your Social Conservatives) will worm themselves into any official caucus for their own ends. Watch how may of their ilk suddenly start calling themselves Tea Party Caucus members once they see where the power is shifting. When I hear people like Hatch and McCaine start claiming they are Tea Partiers, I will violently expel the contents of my stomach onto the ground.
I’d prefer to see any admission into the soon to be elite group carefully guarded. I’d also like to caution that the “T” and “P” should remain lower case.
Right on !
I would really take issue with that. The vast majority of Americans didn't show any care whatsoever as freedoms were eroded over the past 20-or-so years.
The reality is that the Tea Partiers have been kicked out of their debt-subsidized comfort zones and they want back in. They've been forced to swallow the blue pill when they really just wanted to keep taking red pills.
The real dose of cold water for them was when they realized that socialized medicine was going to disrupt our case of national hypochondria. That was accompanied by another dose when family members started being hit in the wallet by the poor economy.
In years past I've stood shoulder-to-shoulder with other Freepers to protest the loss of freedoms - and we were always woefully-outnumbered by our opponents on the left. Where were all these "sons of liberty" then?
I don't think most Tea Partiers are too concerned with their freedom - they just want their red pills back. Red pills that they can no longer continue to pay for with money loaned to them by the third world.
>>Social Conservatives will be the downfall of the Tea Party Movement.<<
So, according to your statement, Social Conservatives are diametrically opposed to Fiscal Conservatives. Huh, bold statement, but wrong on many levels.
I am sure that I am one of many Conservatives - both Social AND Fiscal. Limited government means exactly that - LIMITED. Constitutional law MUST prevail. The “Commerce Clause” is NOT the entire Constitution, nor does it allow government to wield total control.
Abortion is murder; as much so as all the borrowing and spending.
Same sex “marriage” is as destructive as the redistribution of wealth.
“Immigration Reform” will destroy America as surely as appeasing Mohammedans.
No, RINOs would be the downfall of the Tea Party - and we plan to remove them one by one if necessary. Don’t forget that the majority of Americans are still Conservative - and yes that means even those horrible Social Conservatives that you seem to despise. You are the one in the minority here...
America! It's about
Summarizing (badly) what Fischer goes on to say, in Roman culture, "people were born into a condition of prior restraint, to which liberty came as a specific exemption or release " (a privilege); in contrast, the Norse, Icelandic concept was " this prior condition of freedom was a birthright" meaning "the rule of law, the freedom to choose one's own chief, and the right to be governed by a local assembly."
He presents a table, which format I can only approximate:
general idea:Mediterranean World (MW): liberty, libertas(separation/release).....North European(NE): freedom, Freiheit ( kinship to free people)
legal possessions (MW): privileges, privilegium(that which may be given)....(NE) right, folcricht(that which must be given)
religious belief (MW) liberty of conscience(released from restraints)...(NE)soul freedom(becoming one with God)
social obligations: (MW)to use one's independence responsibly, i.e. not as a libertine...(NE)to serve and support a free folk, and to respect the rights of others who are free
[Attributing Armey's or any tea party member's construct of liberty or freedom to Mill is snarky and reveals a real lack of knowledge, the concepts are much older.] Fischer cites a number of examples of the interplay of liberty and freedom in the forging of America, but I'm done.
Good post. The author distills a lot of inchoate feelings floating around these days. I depart a bit in what seems to be his implication that Tea Partiers mostly want revenge.
I think there is a strong notion that a lot of Baby Boomers were confronted by stark choices in the 60s and 70s and beyond and they were warned that good or bad consequences would follow those choices. Parents, teachers, mentors and pastors all reinforced the idea that your choices then would largely determine your future happiness. Drop out of school or slack off on studies and a drudge job was your future. Loosen your morals and no one would respect you. Get pregnant and you ended up married to someone you didn’t even really like with a houseful of kids at age 25. Gamble or make risky investments you really couldn’t afford and you might lose everything.
Today those warnings have, as this author has noted, been turned completely upside-down. Drop out of school and the government would pay you to go back. Your drudge union job was more protected than any other career. Abortion changed the pregnancy warning. Loose morals are not considered enlightened but respectable. And, probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, the bailouts and stimulus was being funneled to extreme risktakers and the politically-connected in addition to, and perhaps even in priority to, those who really deserved some help.
There is plenty to make a kid of that time angry that now he or she is being demonized for having stayed in school, built a stable family and invested prudently in a home, which were supposed to be a solid investment, as a primary nonliquid asset. But, I can add that, to me anyway, it is less karma against the kids who made fun of the “nerds” or “sweebs” or “brownnosers” than it is a real concern that morality can no longer be taught effectively to the coming generations because of the topsy-turvy incentives these days. The story of the ant and grasshopper has been totally flipped and today it is the ant who is considered foolish.
That has consequences far beyond the idea of individual hopes of karma for those we know or suffered today. With religion either discredited or seriously watered down for a large majority of Americans, our society is grasping for ways to teach principles and morals inherent in maintaining a long-term viable community. Destroy the notion of social physics: action engenders predictable reaction and the world does fly apart, if not now then in the very near future.
You probably need more info to make that statement. It is a blanket statement that you should be able to do ANYTHING if it doesn't infringe on others.
That might be construed to say that homosexual marriage/use of heroin and other socially immoral (at least until liberalism became so prominent) and repugnant behavior.
That's the trouble with polls and other statements - there is no discussion to determine WHY folks chose as they did.
The statement judged sounds more like a liberal mantra of "tolerance" only with no rules to define what is allowable.
It is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects — military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden — that is what the State is there for.
And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.
C. S. Lewis
A very good distillation of what I feel government should be. Listenhillary
My bad on the context I posted, it seems to have confused some. That's not the thrust of the article, that's the idea being pushed by some people like Dick Armey. The author looks at the movement from a more philosophical perspective and asserts, "The passion behind the populist insurgency is less about liberty than a particularly American idea of karma."
He then goes on to summarize this American Karma as, "Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it's just a law of the universe, like gravity. "
He then asserts, "... suppose you learned that politicians were devising policies that might, as a side effect of their enactment, nullify the law of karma. Bad deeds would no longer lead to bad outcomes, and the fragile moral order of our nation would break apart. For tea partiers, this scenario is not science fiction. It is the last 80 years of American history. "
It does not say very much for the Wall Street Journal that this twaddle was accepted for publication.
Thanks for amplifying that for me. I fully agree with those perspectives. :)
For the simmer bin...