Thursday, September 2, 2010

Why the Tea Party must lose: part II

The Tea Party claims that they are in a war for the soul of the country. If that's true, the Tea Party and their un-American, anti-American roots and beliefs must be defeated.

They claim to be against higher taxes but since the Democrats took office there have been no tax increases for them to protest. Maybe they just didnt know. So it can't be about taxes as their signs proclaim.

They also protest against the deficit and debt but ask any of them where they were during the 8 years George W. Bush and the Republicans destroyed the balanced budget, blew a $5 1/2 trillion budget surplus, exploded the deficit and used economic policies that turned the country into an economic disaster and they will look at you with an expression as dumb as some of their signs. They have no answer to that and have no answer as to why they said nothing and didnt protest then, because their protests are organized by Republicans and are all about politics and conservativism and nothing about taxes and the economy. Even if some well meaning people dont know it. The deficit stands now at $ 1.7 trillion. George Bush waged war in Iraq but didnt want to pay for it. He became the first president in history to take the country to war and cut taxes at the same time when he should have raised them to pay for the war. The war cost the treasury $1 trillion and was not paid for. Add in the prescription drug program the Republicans initiated also without paying for it, and there is the deficit. The people with the flags and signs who are whining now about debt and socialism wanted war and wanted the prescription drug benefit but they didnt want to pay for it. That's their idea of patriotism. These are the same people who didn't want people who couldn't afford it to have access to health care.

There have been three major fights for the soul of the country between liberals and conservatives since the country was founded. The first was the Revolution itself where it was the crazy liberals who wanted independence from Great Britain and the staunch conservatives, known as Tories who wanted to make nice with King George and not upset the status quo and remain part of Great Britain.

What is so ironic and even satirical about the Tea Party is that they take their name and inspiration from the Boston Tea Party, a revolt against King George's taxes because the colonists had no representation in the British Parliament. It was the country's liberals who were throwing the tea over board in Boston Harbor. It was conservatives who thought they were crazy and would ruin everything. The British lost that war and so did the colonies conservatives, conservatives who still bristle to this day that Thomas Jefferson defined the United States as "a liberal democracy". One of the reasons Texas dropped Jefferson from their curriculum on political history.

The second fight for the soul of the country was the Civil War where the conservative southern aristocracy who owned slaves and needed them for economic reasons convinced white southern boys most of whom didn't own slaves, that they should get their heads blown off to fight for "southern honor" so the aristocracy could keep their slaves which was the bedrock of southern aristocratic wealth. The conservatives lost that war also and,as is evident by so many confederate flags at Tea Party and anti-Democratic party rallies, they still resent their crushing defeat to this day.

The third battle for the soul of the country took place in the Sixties where Vietnam, civil rights, the Voting Rights Act, women's rights, sexual freedom, and a rejection of blind belief in the government and everything they told us turned society on its head. Again its both ironic and hypocritical that during the Sixties it was the left rejecting the government and conservatives supporting a powerful central government.

Conservatives who now claim they love America but hate the government, like to accuse the liberals whose ideology, philosophy and beliefs created this country, of hating the country but loving the government. Yet it was conservatives who stood with the government and the status quo during the Vietnam War and were called Nixon's Silent Majority, while the liberals, as they did in 1776, took to the streets, demonstrated against the government, and demanded that things must change. Those demonstrations led to Nixon's Watergate abuses which changed the way government was viewed and operated forever. Another victory for liberals.

The liberals won the Sixties war, and like the Civil War which many southerners and conservatives are still fighting, conservatives saw their desire to impose their values on everyone else go down the drain. And they have been holding a grudge ever since in spite of the irrefutable proof that they were wrong about everything from race to equal rights for women, to sexual freedom, to Vietnam. Many of them never got over losing that war and have been fighting it ever since, and are still fighting the Sixties, which was at the core of their resentment and anger at Bill Clinton.

Its not likely that a journalist will emerge who has the backbone to expose the cynical exploitation of those in the Tea Party who have legitimate concerns, by those only interested in political power, and those who use it as an excuse to try and impose their way of thinking on others, the hallmark of conservatism as practiced in this country which is a form of fascism.

That kind of fascism shows itself in the preposterous and provably false belief that many conservatives spout, that the country was founded on Christian values when the evidence is most of the Founders from Jefferson to Thomas Paine and most in between had nothing but contempt for the church. Most were theists who believed in a supreme being but not in Christianity or the church and the purpose of the first amendment was to insure that the United States would never have anything like the church of England and that the church would never have an official influence in the United States government.

So if the Tea Party and the next election is about the "soul of the country" then its clear the Tea Party and what they are about must lose.

They like to wrap themselves in the constitution, but like John Boehner proved one day on the capitol steps, few conservatives actually know what's in it. And the ones who do would change it in a second if they could. Does anyone really believe that conservatives embrace the premise that its better for ten guilty men to go free rather than one innocent man go to jail? That is the basis for every constitutional protection and procedure followed in every courthouse in every trial in the country. But most conservatives believe the opposite and if they could, the people waving their American flags at Tea Party rallies would tear it up in favor of exactly the opposite -- having one innocent man go to jail if it meant convicting 10 guilty.

The Tea Party is showing that their primary influence is among right wing Republican voters . Their candidates will lose in the general election if the soul of the Tea Party is exposed for what it is and Democratic strategists, most of whom are weak and inept, can find some ability and expose the Tea Party conservatives for what they are.Fascism by any other name is still fascism. And so is hypocrisy. And no amount of signs and costume rentals will change that.


Anonymous said...

Do the voters have a choice? I'm skeptical that the voters can decide. G.W. and Obama are my evidence that the voters don't decide elections. Clinton won because of Perot, that's why the hunting of BC never stopped.

Marc Rubin said...

"Do the voters have a choice"?

Dont be suprised to see Michael Bloomberg run for president as an indpendent in 2012 if the economy hasnt recovered. He's a billionaire like Perot and can finanice his own campaign, he has a 57% approval rating in NY and can win nationally.

Anonymous said...

Bloomberg? God forbid.

During the Republican convention here, Bloomberg had protesters (and passers-by and shoppers) locked up in a bus depot rented by the Republicans. He refused to release them despite repeated orders from a judge.

He bought the City Council to let him run for an illegal third time. (I still don't know where they got the authority to do this.) He won by less than 5 percent, because the media here refused to report accurate polling that showed the was close, so people just stayed home instead of getting rid of him.

He's posing as a defender of the First Amendment, and getting kudos from the Stupid Left, when in actuality he's sucking up to the Arabs because his company, Bloomberg LLC, wants to expand its Dubai operations and offer sharia-finance "product."

He's a plutocrat extraordinaire, not any kind of choice.


Silent Kate said...

I really enjoyed this post. I just sent it to my conservative brother to read. You have made some great points about liberalism and the founding of our nation. I hadn't thought about it necessarily the way you have put it. I find your writing to be so interesting from your viewpoint. I have to agree with much of what you have said. The problem is where are the "liberals" today? They certainly aren't in White House! Maybe we all have to take to the streets, not those Tea Party people, but real people with concerns about what's happening in our country.

Marc Rubin said...

"The problem is where are the "liberals" today?"

That's a good question. Progressives are liberals who didnt have the guts to stand up to conservatives and hit back when conservatives started to demonize liberals and changed their names.

Walter Cronkite described himself as a liberal, so did JFK, and so obviously did all the Founders of this country. Liberals were responsible for the Civil Rights Act, womens rights, and every bit of progress made in the country';s history up until 2000. But the collection of what are called progressives now, people in organizations like MoveOn and others are just weak. They complain about conservatives but dont know how to fight back and then wonder why they lose elections.

Anthony Weiner said it well when he said when fighting Republicans Democrats bring library books to a knife fight. Except to call their weapons library books is to give more credit than is due. They don't bring library books, they bring water guns.