Skip to comments.Libertarians and the Tea Party
Posted on 03/13/2013 5:30:16 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
As we pondered this question, we also wanted to know when and where the two groups intersected. We started with an informal survey. We asked several people the following question: when do you think the Tea Party movement began? They answered: when Rick Santelli ranted on the floor of the Merc in Chicago in February, 2009.
But our research into the history of the Tea Party took us back to 2004, to its first inklings as an organized force for rousing ordinary citizens to fight back against big government. In that year, Libertarian David Koch founded Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit political advocacy group set up to educate the public on the principles of free markets.
Even though the term "Tea Party" was not used then, Koch's vision of "a mass movement, a state-based one, but national in scope, of hundreds of thousands of American citizens from all walks of life standing up and fighting for the economic freedoms" pretty much describes the movement we see today.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Regardless, of whether the 'Tea Party' roots are libertarian or not (they are), we need to merge this into a unified 'One'. [can't we all get along?]
If the Marxist DemocRATS can unite over their vices, why can't we unite around our virtues?
‘Tea Party’ movement history ping article from the Thinker.
Libertarians are amoral, treacherous crypto Dems who must be purged from the Conservative movement.
You'll have to ask the posters who will by shortly foaming at the mouth about 'liberaltarians', 'libtardians' and assorted other fabricated words.
I never understood the animosity myself.
That’s a bit harsh, but your premise of amoralism is mostly true.
You can’t separate Godliness and Freedom, especially under our constitution.
The hardcore libertarians not only see no value in traditional Western Judeo-Christian culture, but in many instances are openly hostile to it,
not seeing the necessity of this cultural underpinning in order to have the liberty they seek.
In answer to your question, it always comes back to
“what is the ultimate conflict?”.
And that conflict is God’s truth (reality) versus Satan’s “alternate truth”.
Disagree. Conservatives are not libertarians as much as libertarians may wish they were.
They may be able to take over a weak GOP by pretending to be conservative but I cant see them winning over many Conservatives.
Hey nice - you are the poster child for the divisiveness needed to keep us from being an effective force to counter the totalitarian left. You personafy perfectly the totalitarian right intolerant of those who favor the original premise of the Founding Fathers. Good job there.
>>Libertarians are amoral, treacherous crypto Dems who must be purged from the Conservative movement.<<
I think “leave me alone and my personal morals are none of your business so long as they do not harm another” is exactly what the framers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution.
Or is imposing your personal morals (outside of societal definitions) on others your definition of “liberty?”
The fledgling Colonialists united with France to win the Revolutionary War.
These are the times that try men's souls.
I think our current battle is in the 'secular' realm. The eternal realm comes later.
>> Libertarians are amoral, treacherous crypto Dems who must be purged from the Conservative movement.
An incorrect generality.
A large number of establishment players consider themselves to be part of the “Conservative movement”.
The Libertarian Party is a haven for liberals that want to use the force of law to establish their goals. This is NOT libertarianism.
The Tea Party movement is rooted in libertarian principles which has nothing to do with liberal values.
Statism and libertarianism reflect enforcement. Conservatism and Liberalism define morality and values.
The conflicts come from moral issues. As long as my morality or pocketbook aren’t compromised, I have no problems.
The task of reducing government is a huge undertaking. If Libertarians support candidates who want to chop federal spending, I’m not going to “purge” them from anything. If they then want to advocate some amoral legislation, I’ll oppose them. But we have to build a coalition to cut government. I don’t know many people who are 100% conservative or anyone who even knows that that is. There are a lot of Christians out there who are way too comfortable with government spending as long as government supports traditional values — Christian Socialists like Mike Huckabee.
I understand that we probably do need to work together, but I came out of the libertarian movement precisely because they had no issues with abortion, gay marriage, etc. I was upset because they saw no problem with it being taught (forced down students’ throats) in school. The MAIN issue is only PERSONAL freedom. I’m sorry, but the Constitution is a moral code. It is more than about personal freedoms, a important as that is. What I began to feel after about 4 years, is that there was not a lot of difference between libertarians and the left, in some areas. It made me quite uncomfortable. It used to really bother me that Ron Paul stated he was a christian, but refused to support any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. His excuse was that only the states should have the right to determine abortion issues. My complaint was: how do we get it back to the states if we do not first overturn it? DUH! Anyway, I’ve been upset to see Rand following in his father’s footsteps.
There are a lot of Christians out there who are way too comfortable with government spending as long as government supports traditional values
The age old L vs C arguement:
Does the virtuous man become free or is only the free man able to become virtuous.
Will a man abide the Constitution in the mannor of our founders — that is my only concern at this point.
Bravo - as not all conservatives are Republicans not all libertarians are Libertarian Partiers. We gotta find a better name for those of us who feel passionately about the original liberals who founded this Republic and loathed government coersion.
So these establishment Republicans who kinda like that totalitarian thing as long as the government is pushing their agenda are just as bad as the rest of the Gimmiedats.
There is something to be said for reality “forcing” virtue,
because without some sort of “safety net”,
those practicing unvirtuous lives will suffer for it.
However, I have a biblical worldview, and within that worldview, only the righteous can truly be free.
If you are for using the government to coerse citizens then you have made a fundamental choice.
If we are free then we must be free to make stupid choices. Or is it just OK for government to coerce when it fits your idea of whats OK?
>>So these establishment Republicans who kinda like that totalitarian thing as long as the government is pushing their agenda are just as bad as the rest of the Gimmiedats.<<
May I please adapt that to a tagline? I might not have enough space to credit you...
“We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
1798, Address to the militia of Massachusetts
I believe that this has been addressed very well by Os Guinness and his Golden Triangle of Freedom (Rick Santorum talked about this in speeches) ...
Freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith and faith requires freedom and around again."
That freedom requires virtue was explained by the political philosopher Edmund Burke, who wrote: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites ... Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Virtue requires faith because faith is the primary teacher of morality. That is not to say that one cannot be virtuous without faith, but for society as a whole faith is the indispensable agent of virtue. Faith requires freedom. Why has America remained a deeply religious country averting the road to secularism traveled by our European brothers and sisters? Again Madison's "true remedy," the combination of "free exercise" and no religious state supported monopoly, has created a vibrant marketplace of religions extolling everywhere the word of God to inspire people to fulfill His special plan for each of us. Our founders' inspired brilliance created a paradigm that has given America the best chance of any civilization in the history of man to endure the test of time. Time, this time now in American history is putting that to the test.
As I see it, there’s a fine line between the Tea Party (limited government) and Libertarianism (little government). IMO that line falls somewhere around the 20% tax rate, i.e. with how much or how little government we’re willing to live with.
If a people is incapable of governing themselves individually,
external governance will be required in order to control them.
Did someone already post this quote?
Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants - William Penn
Conservatives and libertarians can agree on the Constitution.
RINO’s don’t like the Constitutions limits any more than the Socialist Dems do.
Choose a side.
“Libertarians are amoral, treacherous crypto Dems who must be purged from the Conservative movement.”
Yeah, the problem there is, there are not enough CONSERVATIVE, constitutional republicans to win anything without libertarians help.
>> If you are for legalizing heroin
Why stop with heroin? The litany of depraved activity erroneously associated with libertarianism doesn’t begin and end with narcotics ya’ know...
Statism is evil. Don’t perpetuate it by demonizing libertarianism.
Differentiate values by contrasting conservatism and liberalism.
“The “Tea ‘Party’” is a movement, not a party. And it will not have the necessary power needed to throw the liberals out unless it comprises both libertarians and the more traditional conservatives. We need each other......
Regardless, of whether the ‘Tea Party’ roots are libertarian or not (they are), we need to merge this into a unified ‘One’. [can’t we all get along?”
The Tea Party problem at the moment is to root out the self serving political hacks who are trying to take over the name and in my opinion, destroy it. Dick Armey tried it with Freedom Works, and was finally ousted.
It’s going on at CPAC right now, and all over the internet. The culprits do not have any interest in Tea Party principals, only in using the name to raise money for furthering THEIR agendas, not ours. They will destroy the Tea Party. They are the people who run CPAC, including cuban born head of the ACU, Al Cardenas and radical islamist loving Grover Norquist, both pushers of amnesty. The phony ‘tea parties’ are teaparty.net and TPNN(Tea party news network)
We have to clear out these traitors, then we might get somewhere. Most people aren’t aware, or don’t want to be, that they are being USED.
What a foolish statement.
I have a friend who is a die-hard Republican. He has a special needs child. He’s all for ADA, government subsidies he recieves (because he deserves them) and government control of almost everything HE decides, according to his Calvinist doctrines, are “sinful.”
There is no difference between that kind of “conservative” and liberal, except in what they want to control.
Call me a conservative, libertarian, liberaltarian, or any other label, I believe in the America of Roger Williams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and many other founders of the United States.
If a belief that a man by his very nature is free to make mistakes that injure himself alone and that he has the responsibility of caring for himself and accounting for those mistakes makes me an “amoral, treacherous crypto Dem,” then so be it. If this be so, then our nation was founded on amoral and treacherous principles and your views would be better served in Europe where top-down, big government control of individuals came from.
“I was upset because they saw no problem with it being taught (forced down students throats) in school.”
The overwhelming majority of libertarians do not support the concept of public education in any sense, so I have difficulty believing you left “libertarians” because they wanted to force ideas down students throats in school. I suspect you were having discussions with liberals who liked select parts of libertarianism, not libertarians.
And sometimes by tyrants claiming to act for God.
LIEberaltarians are mindless liberals. They suck up to socialists and empower them. Libertarians are a major amoral, globalist black hole, sucking all the virtue and brains out of everything it touches in power.
I am for American constitutional freedom and it’s Judeo-Christian culture and law - not Ayn Rand’s crazy cult of social liberal stupids and amoral, greedy bastids.
Can we get along? Not until liberal-tarians abandon socialist cultural goals and demands for political correctness and join the land of the living - the American-Americans.
How about levellers. They are shockingly similar to libertarians.
Before tards come out and declare the levellers were commies, William Walwyn and “Freeborn” John Lilburne, the founders of the movement, were far from the so-called “true-levellers” (aka diggers) who were commies and who tried to take over the movement by using a similar name, but held radically different values. See the last provision of the leveller document “Agreement of the Free People of England.”
Read the Putney Debates. You’ll see the same debates we are having today. What should government do?
An Agreement of the Free People of England: http://www.constitution.org/eng/agreepeo.htm
Please. Most libertarians’ ideas hearken back to Roger Williams, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Rose Wilder Lane, Patrick Henry and John Lilburne. Most do not subscribe to the ridiculous excesses of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
I don't have to chose a side. Libertarians have made the choice for me...
this is just a whisper effort to peal away another group of republicans and make it impossible to be a republican and win.
a house divided.
we need to unite as conservatives and with any differences and then deal with them in house. Those differences can be addressed without the view of the MSM.
Exactly - government can't make a people moral.
Libertarians and Tea Partiers owe it to them to bail them out.
Republicans should denigrate Libertarians 'till they do(and even after).
Republicans are not just like the Democrats at all.
Including the Tenth Amendment's prohibition of federal involvement in within-state commerce such as that in marijuana?
The more I think of it 1992, and the Perot Run.
He was a charlatan live hand grenade with a bad haircut who would have made un-kubocko bucks with EDS and or Perot Systems managing Hillary Care, and he was a spoiler to help make that happen.
Hillary Care didn't and he got shafted.
But how many Indy's, Republicans, and Conservatives pulled the lever for him because they were so pissed @ Papa Bush for screwing with the Reagan Legacy.
The problem was everyone was looking for a leader and a new movement, the Tea Party back then didn't realize the power was in their hands, not surrendering it to someone else, and it took another 20ish years to figure it out !!!!
Good explanation of 1992 in your post #43.
I am guilty as charged. Papa Bush did not understand the times, was not concerned about the exploding debt, would not take on Bill Clinton( we didn’t know about Mena(AK) Airport then, did we?)and Perot seemed like he could be a credible candidate.
Perot got 19% of the vote, Clinton became President, and Bush looked like “Wha happened?”
But I’ll tell you what, the GOP was shocked outta their shorts by all this, We got Newt Gingrich and a Contract for America, and in ‘94, the House became Republican for the first time in 40 years! So I am proud of helping to make that happen.
Of course the GOP put up Dole in ‘96 and screwed the country once again. Similar to Sarah Palin helping to win back the House in 2010 with the Tea Party while the GOP-E sat on their @sses, and then two years later, put up Mitt Romney, guaranteeing an Obama second term.
I really don’t care what happens to the GOP.
they either get on board with the Tea Party or become the Whigs of the 21st Century. Their call.
>>So these establishment Republicans who kinda like that totalitarian thing as long as the government is pushing their agenda are just as bad as the rest of the Gimmiedats.<<
Adjusted and made into a tagline. Mark this post well as it shall NEVER have attribution! (just like all the pics I have stolen) LOL (really, I am LOL IRL!)
Struck ya dead, did he?
Dang, he’s got a temper!
>>Including the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition of federal involvement in within-state commerce such as that in marijuana?<<
Look how successful The War On Drugs has been! Right up there with The War On Booze!
Look what it has gotten us!! Swat Teams armed to the teeth, an entire multi-billion dollar federal agency, a good 20-50% of all police resources (my guess), and as a capper: 25% of all prisoners are in for “drug-related offenses” (http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf).
Dude tokin’ the doobie in his living room contributes to the all-important Police State, baby!
Really? 200 years ago libertarians promoting abortion, homosexuals in the military and gay marriage, would have faced lynching, not mere political resistance.
That was my tag line here for about six years after we added the tag line box.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.