Posted on 10/21/2010 11:04:51 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
It's a question I'm frequently asked these days. I'm far from an expert on the Tea Party. Accordingly, my answer is limited to stating that there is a division among Tea Party members, with some tending towards an interventionist position and others tending towards isolationism. I avoid opining on what the breakdown is.
One way to get at the question is to look at the positions taken by prominent Tea Party candidates in this year's election. Scott Conroy of Real Clear Politics has undertaken that analysis. He finds the same division that I posited exists within the rank-and-file.
Marco Rubio's views could probably be described as neo-conservative. He strongly backs our military action in Afghanistan and speaks favorably about efforts to help democracy take root in Iraq. Sharron Angle expressed similar views on her campaign website during the primary season, although she wisely is less inclined to talk about these issues as the campaign reaches its climax.
At the other end of the spectrum is, of course, Rand Paul. He doesn't talk much about foreign policy either, but the best evidence is that his views don't diverge sharply from those of his father. (For that reason, Conroy notes, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani endorsed Paul's opponent in the primary). For example, Paul's campaign website calls lack of effective border security "our greatest national security threat." By contrast, Angle has said that the global war on terror is the central challenge of our time.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
The thing is, the “Tea Party” isn’t an entity unto itself and thus has no “platform” or universally accepted priorities. It is a conglomeration of people who want sanity in government, lower taxes, lower deficits, and thus “Tea Party people” tend to stand behind whichever candidates offer the most reasonable economic policies. As it turns out, this has usually been fairly newcomers to the Republican Party, a new, more conservative Republican.
Why is this a question?
My interest in and support of the Tea Party was based upon its simplicity, its direct message, the fact that it was NOT a political party, and the intention to focus on ONE THING.
Now the Tea Party is being absorbed by the Republican Party and turned into a tool, has “candidates,” is treated like and behaves like a political party or a branch of an existing one, is messing with other issues than the fiscal responsibility that it was originally about, and is really pissing me off.
I still appreciate it in general, but the more these things happen the less pleased I am.
America first. Just like old Ronnie Reagan.
I support the Tea-Party, so let me say
- US out of NATO. The Soviet Union has collapsed already. There is no reason to guarantee the security of 35+ nations
- Europe will be better off externally and internally (with their muslim problem) if they are forced to defend themselves.
- Seek rather bilateral agreements with 2-3 key allies (UK, Germany) and that’s all
- Actively seek the downfall of the Iranian Regime by any means possible
- End all non-Gov’t travel between the USA and Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia. We basically know who the terrorists are and I’m tired of being humiliated at airport security.
- Build a fence at the Mexican Border. Stop allowing Mexico to outsource its Social Welfare responsibilities to the United States.
- Quit the UN (let it die, or let the Chinese have it) and rather, start of “League of Democracies”
I’m missing some....
No. America is not a democracy and thats a good thing.
The Tea Party isn’t trying to be a party. Its just the rank and file trying to take their party back, and take their country back.
The main thing that unites them is the budget and the constitution.
You may not find absolute conformity on every aspect of foreign policy except the certainty that foreign policy should be moral and it should serve the proper interests of the country. How you get there and what that means is something good people can enjoy arguing about. Its fun arguing with sane people you respect.
The main thing is that the ideals that founded the country are worth living for and passing on to our kids. We’re determined not to be the generation that lost America.
Why don’t you just get to the point, and tell us what Ron Paul’s foreign policy is?
Agreed...we may end up missing the beginnings.
But I don’t think the TEA party is being absorbed...it could well be that we are reforming the Republican party.
Since there is no real leadership (just a bunch, a whole bunch, of concerned citizens) it seems logical to me that there will be lots of attempts to discern TEA and give them an identity.
Both from the inside as well as the outside.
But progression to being a viable force may not be a bad thing.
The tea party folks are all over the map in their beliefs. The only real thing we all have in common is we are pissed off at where this country is headed and are determined to do everything within our power to change the direction.
Well stated.
....”Why don’t you just get to the point, and tell us what Ron Paul’s foreign policy is?”....
LMAO!
When it comes to national defense the TEA Party takes the ultra-right-wing extremist position. We’re for it.
I think you have many excellent ideas.
But I’d probably stay in the UN just to throw a monkey wrench in the works.
But if there is a division in the Tea Party over this issue, then sooner or later that will cause trouble. I mean, foreign affairs is not the major issue that the Tea party is concerned with, but it does count.
X2.. smells like paulbot drivel to me..
I tend to favor George Washinton’s policy of neutrality and avoiding entangling alliances that force us to choose sides and support tyranny of all kinds.
The world power thing is something created by progressives, starting with Woodrow Wilson and finally accomplished by FDR. They engineered control over everything from trade to currencies, deciding who can play the game and who gets left out, all the while playing the bedfellow with despots and tyrants and proping up the economies of other nations at the expense of our own. How about we just spread more wealth we no longer have around?
It needs to stop, and the sooner the better. Of course that is only my opinion. I cannot speak for anyone else.
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.