Thursday, December 17, 2009

TEABAGGERS UNITE!


This is an interesting bit of information. In a poll released today there is more support for a third party identified with the Tea Party movement than for either the Democrats or the Republicans. I have lost any trust in politicians and it seems I am not alone. Their power-grabbing is at least disgusting and at most a death knell for the republican form of government. This is a feeling that is spreading across the political spectrum and has ignited a movement that is taking politicans to the woodshed.

This movement is rooted in the true conservative ideals of limited government, transparency, accountability, and remembering that "We the People" are the boss. Our Founding Fathers had a healthy distrust of government power and they took every opportunity to limit its power. Read Federalist 51 and marvel at the prescience of Madison in his admonition to limit government power. He talked of the delicate balancing act of giving power to men to govern other men while at the same time realizing that they must also govern themselves and their use of power.

It will be interesting to see if this movement continues, I intend to do my part, and if it gains in power. I think it will. Remember, the US is historically a two-party country. Does that mean that either the Democrats or the Republicans are on the way out? A party by any other name.

9 comments:

Oso said...

LaOT,
I don't know if a third party is viable,although I was continually surprised last year by the number of people on both Right and Left who supported Ron Paul.

IMO there is little difference between the way Bush and Obama govern.BTW I'm referring to the administration as well as the man.

Hypothetically if Bush had a third term I'm certain he'd launch a stimulus package albeit weighted towards tax cuts rather than spending.

Were Obama the president 2000-2008 I believe it quite possible he'd have waged two wars in similar fashion.I don't believe he'd have delivered the unfunded tax cuts to the extent Bush did.

Other than comparatively small spending packages to their base (evangelicals/unions etc)I don't see the executive being much different,Rep or Dem.

Dems talk a good game with healthcare reform but ultimately I think the American people will get the package which best benefits the health insurance industry.

Reps Just Said No to the very idea of healthcare reform but that was posturing,they pocket the same lobbyist $ the Dems do.

What endlessly frustrates me is the appeal to two political parties which to me no longer exist.

Reps are the party of small govt and fiscal responsibility yet under Reagan/Bush they greatly increased govt size and spent like drunken sailors.

Dems are the party of the welfare state and govt benefiting the people. They now take more $ from the Finance/Ins/Real Estate sector than the Reps and increasingly ignore their former base for Centrist business friendly policy.

In short,I no longer feel there are two parties, IMO there is just one corporate party funded by lobbyists with us idiots still cheerleading for our old team.

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks LOT. I'm concerned about this. I don't think the tea parties should become a third party movement. On the other hand, the GOP doesn't have all of the tea party intestest at heart. So, we keep fighting for free markets and liberty.

Thanks.

Ducky's here said...

You know, no one ever tells you that gingerbread dough looks exactly like dog poop. It's just one of those things you have to see for yourself.

Carl Wicklander said...

I don't know that a third party can really take hold in this country - the deck seems too stacked against it. That said, I certainly do support third parties. Even if they rarely have enough support to ever win an election, they may just have enough influence to get one of the major parties to clean up its act.

LAOT, I'm sure you've heard of Norman Thomas, the 6-time Socialist Party presidential nominee. When he was asked why he stopped running for president he responded, "Because the Democratic Party adopted my platform." I don't see why the same shouldn't happen to the Republicans, albeit with a better platform than the socialists!

Brooke said...

I'm pretty much done with either party; it's either socialist or socialist light.

I'd love to be able to vote for a viable conservative party.

PRH....... said...

Screw both major political parties{especially the Democrats, but the GOP gets no pass}...

They have sold US out...but I have to admit I'm having great fun watching Barry's poll numbers fall like a turd in a two story outhouse. And watching his lap dogs trying to spin him demise.

Merry Christmas Steve to you and yours..we hope to see you in 2010...

Law and Order Teacher said...

Oso,
Thanks for the visit. I agree with you that we don't have anything to pick from in either of the parties. It's funny isn't it that you can pretty much peg each party and their mantra, but they both end up in the same plsce.

Dr.D,
Third parties are a tough call. The populists of the 1890s eventually achieved most of their platform, but they weren't there to enjoy it. I don't necessarily want a third party, but one that listens to its constituents. Thanks for the visit.

Ducky,
Thanks for the visit. If, from your comment, you are stating the old axiom, six of one, half dozen of another, we agree. Judging from you comments, Obama isn't your cup of tea. Again, we agree.

Carl,
Thanks for your visit. Exactly! Hopefully, the Repubs will adopt the policies of the Tea Party. After all, the ones they are espousing are weak at best. I think I'm correct in my history that in the 1820 election there wasn't a viable candidate to oppose Monroe and he took a second term with only one electoral vote against him, ushering in the "Era of Good Feelings."

It's scary to think we're heading in that direction. Of course, that gave rise to the Jacksonian Era, which gave rise to the Whig Party, which culminated in the birth of the Republican Party. Who knew.

Brooke,
I, too, am tired of both parties. I want a bona fide candidate that is a true conservative and not a pale comparison of the other. Thanks for the visit.

Pat,
They have sold us out. I'm still laughing over the "turd down a two-story outhouse" comment. See you in March, brother.

Ducky's here said...

Why does everyone assume the electorate is going to run to the Repubs or anyone else? Sure, "polls" show the Dems aren't making everyone happy (shock shock), but the polls also show the Repubs aren't loved either. The teabaggers get better poll numbers than the Repubs.

Then, "teabaggers, teabaggers, teabaggers", give me a break. The teabaggers are not a single entity. There are at least 20 "major" (major minor? minor major?)teabag quasi organizations, and they are all fighting with each other. To read the posts here, you'd think there was a teabag agenda. There isn't. The teabaggers are more fractured than the mainstream Repubs - and that's pretty fractured.

And this has led to the "we aren't conservative enough" movement. Unfortunately for that group, they not only have no idea what conservative means, they also are so rigid that nobody wants to play in their sandbox outside the DEEP deep south.

And what does all this lead up to? Primary problems like nobody would believe, and a crap load of "base" voters who will take their ball and go home, refuse to vote if they don't get their way.

This causes two major problems for the Repubs, and they can't get around them. The first problem is they can't compromise on anything, it's fight fight fight all the way on every last detail. And even then, if they vote for it, the "base" isn't going along. So they can't go off the reservation even a tiny bit, or they lose. But voting against everything is unpopular outside the base, and the base is only 30% or so. And the base is staying home unless you make yourself unpopular with everyone outside the base.

How do you win an election outside a base dominated region with that albatross hanging around your neck?

The second problem is the attacks on primaries. If Dems had any sense (OFC, we know they don't) they'd encourage attacks on every single Repub who's ever strayed an iota, and help them fracture even more. The Repubs who MIGHT win an election can't win a primary if they get called out by even one of the many (see above) teabag groups. No primary, no run.

Right now, if Palin decides to run, she's got the primary as a lock. And, by every poll taken, she can't possibly win, not even if every liberal in the US stayed home on election day.

So I see the Repubs with WAY more problems than the Dems.

As for the POTUS, Dean is still over there in the corner, smiling.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Ducky,
As usual thanks for the visit. I agree with part of your comment. There is no monolithic political party. Hence, Madison's essay on factions in Federalist #10. He recognized that factions couldn't be eliminated therefore, it became necessary to control them. Checks and balances in government is the answer.

As for third party viability, I use as an example the Populists of the 1890s, who morphed into the Progressives of the first two decades of the 20th Century.

All one has to do check into the legislation of that time period including the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and the 19th Amendments. The Populists may have only realized limited success electorally but the agenda make mainstream.

So, third parties can at least be influential. As for the trouble for the Repubs I'll agree in their current incarnation they do have problems.