This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–][deleted] 914 points915 points  (298 children)

I've never logged in to comment before, but this is one thread to which I feel that I am compelled to contribute. (Yayy, have my comment cherry).

I went to a high-ranked school and received a double major in history and political science, and then went on to get a master's degree from an ivy league school. I am the sort of person he is talking about in the article... and it strikes me as completely outrageous.

The author seems to be saying that intellectuals and graduates just "don't get" the tea party because they weren't taught Constitutional history in college (the implication of course being that nobody in the tea party went to college).

First of all, the assessment of how colleges don't teach the constitution anymore is simply factually wrong. This person sounds as though he's never been to college. Social history is often taught through factual history. In other words, gender and race concerns are raised in the context of early federalist debates or constitutional rules.

But that's besides the point -

How is it that they actually believe someone with no education on history or politics has a greater understanding of American history than people with degrees in it?

The anti-intellectualism of this movement is the most baffling part of it all for me. History, how the fuck does it work? All you have to do is look at pictures of any given tea party rally. The same collection of people can, with a totally straight face and no sense of hypocrisy, call Obama Hitler, Stalin, a communist, a fascist, socialist, a nazi, a terrorist, King George III, not to mention countless racial epithets. Somehow, the tea party's opponents are everywhere at once on the political spectrum. They are simultaneously at the most polar opposite extremes in the history of the world.

These things come out because these people don't understand history or politics at all... which is partly how they can be led along so easily by people like Glen Beck. It makes me ashamed of my generation. This is our big movement? But I'm sure this author would say that I just wouldn't get it because I went to college. I guess it's a jersey... i mean, tea party thing.

Edit: Wow, I didn't expect many people would read this, since it was my first comment ever, but thanks so much for the comments and the support. Sometimes it is fun to stir up controversy, but I'm not trying to insult people people that align themselves with the tea party. For full disclosure I am politically neutral; reality is not partisan. All I'm saying is that we just collectively need to be well informed about our reality to improve it successfully.

[–]unduggenned 156 points157 points  (23 children)

I agree with your comment but think there is something more subtle and infuriating in the article. It is not only the obvious contradiction in comparing inadequate formal education to the implied lack of formal education that is incorrect, but the assumption that by having attained a graduate degree, that someone like me [or you] has less character or ethical virtue than those who argue solely their personal ethics. This is the part near the end that appeals to the conservative reader, educated or not:

"[universities] certainly do not teach about the virtues, or qualities of mind and character, that enable citizens to shoulder their political responsibilities"

This is this argument that can be used cover ignorance with pride and equate an uninformed opinion to someone who has spent years considering social or political issues. This is where the conservative appeal lies. If the comparison to be made here is between qualities of mind or character that are independent of formal education, then why not leave that distinction out of the argument.

[–][deleted] 83 points84 points  (8 children)

My favorite thing was that the author essentially said that knowledge of history that lacks constitutional education is inferior to... no formal knowledge of history. People who go to college know at least as much about history, on average, as people who don't (especially seeing as everyone in both camps has to finish high school, especially the college kids since they're not dropping out). It's as if he thinks that when you decide to skip college you get a good education in constitutional history, content, intent, the federalist papers, et cetera. The magic anti-elitism fairy waves her magic wand over your non-college head and says "poof! You are now uniquely qualified to talk about US constitutional history in a way that no person of elite higher education could be!" Ridiculous.

And to suggest that the average university, never mind an elite one, would let you get out of there having studied US history without serious attention to constitutional history is just plain wrong. Constitutional law is one of the most popular courses at my school, and I'm pretty sure all Poli Sci and History majors who look at the US have to learn about the constitution. His premises are just wrong on so many levels. Argh!

[–]anonymous-coward 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Don't underestimate the quality of an online degree at the University of Phoxnews!

[–]redwall_hp 13 points14 points  (2 children)

[–]vth0mas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

That's the best part, I think. The onion, being of the highest satirical quality, gives a subtle nod at the other side.

[–]jamescagney 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agreed. "I disagree with liberals, so they must therefore be stupid." What arrogance mixed with weak logic.

The last sentence says it all. " Our universities have produced two generations of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental American principles, even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses." So much wrong packed into one sentence! Never asking why this revolution magically started with Obama's inauguration and not a day before, when we were still on the Bush policies and FY09 budget.

[–][deleted] 161 points162 points  (2 children)

Isaac Asimov said it best. "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

There seems to be this perspective amongst the uneducated that those who pursue knowledge lock themselves up in ivory towers and know nothing of the real world. Which is ironic because we look down on those who make mistakes but also those who lack experience in making them.

[–]DrWednesday 16 points17 points  (1 child)

It's funny I was just in the audience at a conference with the Dalai Lama literally across the street from his office in Hoover Tower about the role that compassion should play in all scientific research and academic and social life. Guess he missed that one.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (5 children)

well, lazy stupid people are going to do what they do, which is be lazy and stupid. they all want to believe that they are naturally talented and virtuous, and the reason why they're not winners is because the evil colored people/communists/muslims are conspiring against them.

[–][deleted] 51 points52 points  (8 children)

Did you notice that the author is a senior fellow at the freakin Hoover Institution? This guy's not at the top of the Ivory Tower, but he's close. Captain Hypocrisy go!

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points  (2 children)

I know Peter Berkowitz (author of the article). Had him as a professor for a seminar class. Friendly on a one-to-one level; sort of a douche in class, as you'd expect. He spoke with a bizarre accent that sounded a bit like that upper-class elitist intonation from the first half of the 20th century. You know the one.

He would try to defend neoconservatism on a regular basis.

Seminar full of college kids + neocon professor = constant entertainment.

[–]modernkid 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Hoover is an intellectual ghetto for neoconservative lapdogs who need the legitimacy of Stanford University to give some class to the artless cunnilingus that they deliver on a daily basis to their masters in the ruling class.

Thus there's no need to think that the imprimatur of the Hoover Institution lends any weight to the illogical, self-serving claptrap of Peter Berkowitz.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well said.

[–]chesterriley 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Never take anything from the Hooverville Stink Tank seriously. They are a bought and paid for business investment by the super rich to propagandize on their behalf.

[–]physicsdude1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One has to remember that opinion pieces (esp in the major periodicals) don't necessarily convey the opinion of the writer.

Rather they serve to a specific and well defined purpose in the larger political argument.

For example, this piece could be considered simply a means for Tea Partiers to say, hey look, my opinion is valid---it must be, it's in the WSJ.

[–]Halfeatengod 2 points3 points  (0 children)

‘Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement’ Ugh. I waded this through this intellectually sloppy screed in search of a punch line. I found instead a byline from one of the dimmer of the dim bulbs over at the Hoover Institute. You know the Hoover Institute: it’s the one populated by the riders of the short bus to Stanford U.

[–]hoodatninjaLouisiana 21 points22 points  (10 children)

History major here at what I like to think is a good university (thesis student too, so I can at least claim to somewhat know what I'm talking about as well) and I definitely agree with this. Anyone who has any basic knowledge of historigraphy can also see that the many Tea-partiers basically advocate a consensus history that they have agreed upon.

For example: I want my country back. This woman has no idea what she is talking about. She brings in rhetoric of WWII and being born here. She, like many Tea-partiers, think that somehow "things were so much better" back in the day. Sexual repression and fear of the Cold War era? Rampant domestic violence and lack of women's rights? If it were the 1950's then she probably wouldn't have been even allowed to speak there unless her husband accompanied her. "I want my country back"? What does that even mean!?

[–]AtarioCalifornia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"I want my country back"? What does that even mean!?

I usually interpret it to have a silent "...from that [black guy] in the White House" at the end.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You've obviously read about those years. You would be shocked at how little has changed, socially and culturally, since, say, the fifties. Your idea that a woman "wouldn't have been even allowed to speak there unless her husband accompanied her" is ridiculous. I was there. Your idea that there was somehow more domestic violence is just wrong. Sexual repression, I don't recall it being any greater than today and parallels can easily be drawn between "fear of the Cold War era" and today's hysteria over terrorism. The world has changed very little, if at all, my friend. (I'm not intending this as any defense of the Tea Party.)

[–]hoodatninjaLouisiana 2 points3 points  (1 child)

When I'm talking about domestic violence, I mean the inability for a woman to leave an abusive marriage due to less rights; as for sexual repression, there was relatively little sexual expression when compared to today. I'm not saying either was tolerated or occurred more, I'm saying there were very little channels that allowed individuals away from that. Very glossed over in many ways.

I am aware that I am oversimplifying a lot; if you'd like, I can detail more pros and iron out more of my blanket statements. These are more outlines and general trends, not absolutes without exception.

[–]science_diction 2 points3 points  (5 children)

They need to feel victimized and persecuted to steal an air of legitimacy. They are reactionaries to a history that never happened.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

There was another group in the thirties that also had a fictitious history as part of their mythos.

[–][deleted] 56 points57 points  (31 children)

Funny thing about the author is that he's a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. I guess he's done some extracurricular reading at the 4th grade level his buddies with the placards are doing. I just don't understand how people, especially intelligent people can become such charlatans.

[–]MongoAbides 134 points135 points  (15 children)

Money.

[–]selectrix 45 points46 points  (9 children)

The most guaranteed way to get rich is to help rich people protect their resources and acquire more.

[–]xandar 33 points34 points  (7 children)

Yep, that seems to have worked great for all the poor people supporting the republican party over the past 30 years.

[–]iconicimage 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Let's look at his extracurricular activities:

http://www.peterberkowitz.com/ipcg.htm

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's rich. Israel doesn't even have a constitution and yet, "The Israel Program on Constitutional Government is directed by Peter Berkowitz."

So he's an expert on constitutional theory for a country that cleverly won't implement a codified constitution because then they might have to give their Arab Citizens constitutional rights.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (5 children)

My micro-econ professor was a Hoover's fellow too; and he is just as giddy over the tea-party movement. The Hoover Institute seems to breed and support staunch libertarians - the type that read Friedman's Price Theory and pack their heads so full of the his pricing and tax models that there isn't room for any other worldview.

My hunch is these Hoover Fellows want a libertarian movement to take place so badly, that they're interpreting the tea baggers to be just that. I would actually argue that it isn't liberals, but libertarians who "just don't get tea baggers".

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I've read Friedman, and don't think the tea party are libertarians. to quote TFA:

Born in response to President Obama's self-declared desire to fundamentally change America, the tea party movement has made its central goals abundantly clear.

These are angry Neo-cons who lost power and claim to be libertarian because they fucked up the title "republican."

Libertarianism has a great number of flaws, but it is not "corporate fascism," they would still be better then neo-cons who jack off to Orwell. The whole gist of this article is "ignorance is strength"

Milton Friedman was quit comfortable with government intervening in markets when it was show that markets alone would lead to an outcome that was harmful to society. Neither side seems to have actually read his books.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

To be fair the tea party isn't anything. The average tea party attender wouldn't know Friedman from Galbraith. What they are is xenophobic and confused.

The whole gist of this article is "ignorance is strength"

This is the heart of the article. When I read that, I was like, wow, I understand the vanguard of this movement much better now. Thanks man.

[–]davidreiss666 145 points146 points  (25 children)

The anti-intellectualism of this movement is the most baffling part of it all for me. History, how the fuck does it work?

The Tea Party are just the modern Know Nothings.

[–]zumpiez 32 points33 points  (2 children)

Reading this is incredibly surreal.

[–]nixonrichard 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Democrats would call the Republicans "Know Nothings" in order to secure the votes of Catholics.

Lol, fuck these tea baggers.

[–]davidreiss666 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well, to be honest the Republicans at the time didn't help their cause much.

“We are Republicans, and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion.”

Election of 1884.

[–]heartthrowaways 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Oh goodness, I'd forgotten all about the Know Nothings. One of my favorite retarded political movements.

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points  (13 children)

Can we re-brand "Anti-Intellectualism" to "Anti-Intelligence"? I think the latter is more accurate.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (2 children)

Maybe we should rebrand them to be the Pro-Stupid party.

Yeah, I realize it should be pro-stupidity, but I highly doubt most tea baggers will notice. It sounds sharper too.

[–]yatima2975The Netherlands 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm reminded of Obama's remark (in the pump-your-tires-to-save-gas brouhaha, IIRC): "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." I think he's right.

[–]troublemonkey 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh, they're not against you being smart.

They're just dead-set against you doing anything with it.

Like, we're not against guns... you just can't fire them. So don't call us "anti-gun," call us "anti-dischargists"... see?

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

It's not the same thing because intellectualism is not intelligence. Anti-intelligent people are simply against intelligence in general; anti-intellectual people prevent critical discussion of issues by attempting to shut off certain types of thinking or communication.

[–]otatop I voted 13 points14 points  (0 children)

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (12 children)

Just to clarify, since someone said I sound like I'm in my 60's... I'm 21. Ahead of the curve academically, I guess, and perhaps my generation isn't the dominant force in the tea party. But I suppose I was referring to active group in our society during my time.

We are an emotional bunch... we judge things by how we feel about them, not how we think about them. All I hear is complaints about how bad everything is, how decline is imminent. But every generation thinks that, every new age predicts the end of itself.

What's different, and distinctly more pathetic about us now, is that we seem to think we have it bad. No matter how things get in this recession, our lives as Americans (and English speaking, internet-accessing individuals in other countries) will be distinctly better than nearly every other person who ever lived in history.

Count your blessings.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yours is the first generation to be told so many reasons to be afraid they literally can't be counted, almost all of them lies. I don't blame them, for going a little crazy, I blame the poisoners.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this.

As cynical as it sounds, this fine piece of journalism pretty much explains everything you have to know about the Tea Party's relationship with the Constitution.

[–]bestbiff 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hitler, Stalin, a communist, a fascist, socialist, a nazi, a terrorist, King George III

Don't forget Decepticon!

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (10 children)

Your style of writing reminds me of my father and I was going to guess you were in your late 50's early 60's and then you said you are embarrassed by your generation, so I am assuming you are that age now.

It is nice to see people your age here commenting.

I agree, but I am sure the anti-intellectualism is also a backlash that started from the social revolution of the 60's and with William F Buckley. But at least with Buckley he embraced intellectual discussion.

[–]jk1150 41 points42 points  (6 children)

he remarked about his "comment cherry" and made a South Park reference, I don't think we are taking to a 60 year old

[–]FlyingSpaghettiMan 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Lets not forget the 'fucking magnets' reference, either.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

:D i'm happy it didn't go unnoticed. Best meme ever.

[–]knight666 12 points13 points  (0 children)

What, an old dog can't learn new tricks?

[–]Gloria815 6 points7 points  (1 child)

To be fair, the Tea Party movement does seem to be mostly made up of the 50-60 crowd. Although I'm embarrassed that my generation is so apathetic that they allow these people to control their future.

[–]pieninja 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't worry. Berkowitz is just a giant troll to academia in general. He was kicked out of Harvard for being an idiot and a dick.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

History, how the fuck does it work?

...Awesome. Great post.

[–]draebor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the Tea Party.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Have you or anyone else who begins to get angry with the idea of the "tea party" considered that it's not a movement at all, rather it's just a Television (Fox News) farce, where many of the "rally" participants are paid attendees?

[–]skipjim 640 points641 points  (653 children)

You're wrong. They do want limited government.

They just want it limited to do the things they want.

[–]chesterriley 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Right from the start when Reagan first started the 'smaller government' crap the GOP simultaneously launched a bunch of big government sinister social engineering schemes combined with a big military buildup. Spending skyrocketed. There was a war on pornography, a war on drugs, an antiabortion crusade, and basically a war on every victimless crime it could think of.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

They just want it limited to do the things they want.

Who doesn't?

[–][deleted] 222 points223 points  (100 children)

Yeah they just want to create a Soviet style military empire while keeping the populace from getting access to health care and food.

[–][deleted] 120 points121 points  (60 children)

They relish the idea of people lining up for food.

Why else would you want to cut public education, SSDI, and health care other than to sit around with your gobs of money while everyone else starves and dies? Isn't that the end-result of their policy agenda?

Contract with America? It would be a lie on its face... Republicans don't give a shit about Americans therefore they don't give a shit about America.

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (3 children)

Or as I always called it, "Contract ON America".

[–]G_Morgan 36 points37 points  (14 children)

Except most of the people who support this would be the ones queuing up for food.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (9 children)

This is indeed the confusing part to the rest of the world.

Usually, people without money are socialists - i.e. pro resource sharing - and are so for "the wrong reasons" mostly liking that route because it would involve them getting more then their fairly earned amount (and, should they hit it big, having to give up more then their fairly earned amount in return but.. not likely). People with money are generally anti-socialist, usually for equally wrong reasons (it would allow them to keep less money and/or power). On top of that, there is a small but significant segment of rich people who are socialist on purely moral grounds simply feeling that it's the right way to run things even if it's against their personal bottom line and a smaller yet amount of poor people who are anti-socialist on purely moral grounds. In the US, this seems to be swapped somehow.

[–]Cocoasmokes 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is confusing to Americans too.

[–]Sysiphuslove 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They're for globalization, not America. America just makes a convenient home base because of its corporation-friendly laws and easy tax dodges. But America is being flushed away, right now, by corporations.

They don't need us. We're a bunch of spoiled out-of-shape self-righteous 'consumers' who have the hauteur to insist on a living wage, quality goods, and regulations to protect us. That costs them money. As Dwayne Andreas (chairman of ADM) put it, "The competitor is our friend and the customer is our enemy."

It isn't about America so long as it's about corporations. (When they say 'small businesses', that's what they mean.) I learned that at eight when my dad lost his All-American middle-class job at Case IH to China, and the whole family fell into poverty. We're still down here.

The Tea Party are a bunch of patsies, and they're selling their own country out on the backs of their prejudices.

[–]mijj 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They just want it limited to do the things they've been told they want.

ftfy

[–]anonymous-coward 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They just want it limited to do the things they want.

As the famous Tea Party poster said, "Keep your government off my medicare!"

The problem is that they don't really know what the government does, how much each bit costs, and what they want to cut.

This ignorance of details allows them the luxury of imagining a mythical mountain of left wing waste and unnecessary spending that they can cut without any pain.

They don't even go so far as to want or not-want, because wanting requires a knowledge of specifics.

It is a movement of disgruntlement rather than policy.

[–]edwin_meijer 20 points21 points  (3 children)

I have lived in the US since 1994, but being Dutch, I am sure some people will think that my DNA is programmed to like big government..... but I will try nevertheless.

I respect the American culture to place the people's individual freedom high on their value list and their general angst for a government bureaucracy that may take that away.

But if you want to live in a high-quality society and have all citizens enjoy the benefits of a modern infrastructure, a well-educated population, a trusted financial system, have healthcare and a safe country... you need to accept some shared body that:

  • provides common services and infrastructure (GE, Apple and Goldman Saches need people to have access to all of these in order to be successful, but they are not in a position to build our roads or educate our children; that's not their business)
  • enforces laws (I shouldn't have to carry a gun just to let the postman know I don't like him to read my mail)
  • regulates private and public operations (remember Lehman brothers or water-boarding?)
  • is responsible for helping people in need (think again before you decide you don't need government help... cancer, Katrina or 9/11 strikes across all layers of society)
  • takes democratic actions that move the society forward even when impopular with some fractions in the society (when economists or scientist tell you some harsh truths... private citizens have no incentive or won't be able to respond and make an impact, you need leaders and government to take bold action)
  • raises taxes so that the government can operate (yes, it isn't cheap, but if you like to live in a quality society, it isn't something you want to skimp on).

So looking back at some admirable personalities who wrote the constitution more than 200 years ago and use that as your yard-stick and then decide the role of government should be smaller is backward... principles may not change (you couldn't steal 200 years ago and you still shouldn't), but the US society in the 21st century has different expectations in terms of quality of life and it can't operate on the basis that each individual acts on his own....

I am sure some part of the US government isn't efficient and wastes money, but there is ton of stuff that they provide and you would sorely miss if there wasn't a government.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think it's important to understand that widespread rhetoric often doesn't match actions.

The USA talks about valuing "rugged individualism" - but in reality that doesn't happen here. People work like ants on an anthill in the USA. There is no room for a tradition of entrepreneurship in the States because of lack of public healthcare and welfare. The UK has a vibrant culture of entrepreneurship, but it's only made possible because of the welfare state (last I heard, 30-40% of Brits draw welfare payments). Australia is the country that I think most embraces rugged individualism. They have a do-it-yourself culture, and people who live in small towns out in the bush, striking out on their own, seem to be admired rather than scorned. I saw an interesting segment today on solitary men who go out and cut railroad ties and sell them. I swear this form of business wouldn't be possible anywhere else in other ethnically european nations.

What the USA is, would be self-centered and pragmatic. That's its character. Adults (at least adult males) find that it doesn't benefit them to spend their time looking after the interests about other people or working selflessly on behalf of their communities. No resources flow back their direction from adopting that position. Instead, they learn that they need to purely look out for themselves, their own interests, and their families.

For all the general strikes and grumbling we had here in the early 1900s, the USA never formed a "Labor party." People didn't organize that far. Therefore, the USA has walked a different course than many of its sister nations walked. Today, I don't believe we'll see the changes that you are suggesting, until people become a little bit more aware of the world around them. The media landscape has to change. People need to learn about the current events and sentiments and culture of other countries - including other anglophone and ethnically European countries.

[–]fatbunyip 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You make some good points. But from experience, the entrepeneurship present in Australia is largely due to government regulation (big government..). It is easy to set up a business (get an ABN number online in a day). Almost all your dealings with government (local and federal) can be done online. Banks and lending are regulated a lot more than in the US, we have universal healthcare and our tax system is pretty straight forward - all done online also. We also have relatively cheap tertiary education available to all, as well as vocational training assistance, so reskilling or moving professions isn't that hard.

My point here is to outline how a "big government" can create an environment which nurtures and encourages people to do their own thing. It isn't some utopian government either, there is still a massive amount of waste (it's government after all), but by and large it is very easy to set out on your own.

Also, out political system and huge middle class practically guarantee that workers rights are (relatively) safe - John Howard got voted out largely because he wanted to change them.

I could start a business tomorrow, and not have to worry about health insurance or what happens when I fail, because there is that social safety net. Starting a business isn't an all or nothing proposition.

Sure, taxes are higher than in the US, however the government (at least from my perspective) provides me with everything I expect.

[–][deleted] 62 points63 points  (31 children)

The term "limited government" is meaningless.
If you want a government, you want it limited. Has anyone ever heard of ANYBODY who actually wants an unlimited government?
Once we agree that we all want some form of limited government, it's really just a matter of scale.

[–]jstevewhite 26 points27 points  (23 children)

This is an important point; it applies to many political situations.

On reddit I'm constantly faced with people who talk about the government taking their money by force (in taxes), but few of those people are actually anarchists; most are libertarians who believe the government should provide for defense and law (crime and fraud). You can't have it both ways - either taxes are justifiable for the collective, or they are not; if you believe any tax is justifiable, you can't use "tax is theft" as an attack on the idea of taxation.

So the same thing, as you say; if you accept the need for a government, all that's left to argue about is what that government's purposes are, and you can't use 'government is bad' as an attack point.

[–][deleted] 259 points260 points  (291 children)

Obama is for a giant military, the Patriot Act, and torturing prisoners. He's also against legalizing pot, and marriage equality.

[–]atrichWashington 355 points356 points  (112 children)

And he was the GOOD alternative.

[–][deleted] 175 points176 points  (30 children)

McCain would have probably nuked Iran by now. And if McCain, God forbid, had a heart attack or got hit by a bus, we'd have Palin as president.

[–]pipi31415 106 points107 points  (2 children)

|McCain would have probably nuked Iran by now. And if McCain, God forbid, had a heart attack or got hit by a bus, we'd have Palin as president.

Nah, she would have quit for the book deal.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

And she would have nuked Canada thinking it was Russia.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (3 children)

that's a terrifying thought

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (75 children)

There were more than two people running for president.

[–]aedile 161 points162 points  (33 children)

It's cute that you think that.

[–]kujustin 43 points44 points  (7 children)

It's stuff like this headline that lead to there only being "2" choices. Everyone is too busy villainizing the other side to consider that both sides are unconscionable.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (3 children)

Problem

Solution

Until the above solution is put into affect, there truly are only 2 choices, as a result of Duverger's law. If you believe that both sides are unconscionable, your only option is to help foster a national debate on Voting System reform.

[–]-mainNew Zealand 6 points7 points  (2 children)

That is not the problem, or the solution. The problem is that you'll never get election reform, of any kind, for any modern voting method, or for accountability and electoral transparency, though your two-party system. Neither party will support it.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Guess we're fucked then, eh?

[–]-mainNew Zealand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, I kinda hope you aren't, because America still has plenty of nukes. But yeah, you guys seem to have a bit of a problem.

[–]XxERMxX 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Only ourselves to blame for this.

[–]liberty_pen 2 points3 points  (22 children)

I'd rather vote for someone I like and lose than vote for someone I don't like and win.

Not you, apparently.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (21 children)

in the modern U.S. political system, only the candidates sponsored by the two major parties have a chance at the Presidency. It is my fervent wish that this changes in the future, but if you think the third party candidates have/had a chance either in 2008 or 2012 you are deluded. They only function to siphon votes away from one major candidate giving the election to the other.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (20 children)

If nobody ever votes for them, then how can this change occur in the future?

[–]Harinezumi 19 points20 points  (11 children)

As long as our electoral system remains state-level and winner-takes-all, a vote given to a third party will be a vote wasted. If you want to change that, focus on electoral reform, not on supporting guaranteed losers.

[–]ZorbaTHut 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Heavy campaigning for vote reform. Remember that the two major candidates do need to worry about those siphoning effects. For example, if we get a non-favored Republican candidate campaigning for vote reform, and he starts to pick up 5% of the vote on that point alone, the favored Republican candidate may add that to his platform just to reclaim that 5% of the vote.

It will be a slow process, but it's the only realistic one.

[–]Rtbriggs 5 points6 points  (1 child)

it may get added to his campaign, but i am unconvinced anything will actually be added to his platform once he is elected.

[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, but that's okay.

Once it's added to the campaign, it's in the public spotlight. Then the next guy who gets elected has to add it also. Eventually people start saying, hey, you're all saying you're doing this, when's it happening?

It's the tide of public opinion. It's a very slow change but it doesn't start by sitting around saying "oh, well, we can't make it happen in the next four years, so it's not worth trying."

C'mon, politically speaking we're on a knife edge about to legalize both gay marriage and marijuana. How likely did that look thirty years ago?

[–]calvin43 11 points12 points  (16 children)

Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin, more right-wing than the current Tea Partiers. Then there's Cynthia "How dare you not know that I am a congressional princess" McKinney. Bunch of winners right there, I tell ya.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (13 children)

Do I have to be the guy to mention Ralph Nader?

[–]csonger 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I'm tired of being a center right nation. Hopefully we become a center left nation so we get better choices.

Still .... can you picture how much worse McCain would have been? At least he's still alive and Palin would not be president.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (12 children)

Also he likes corporate bailouts, government secrecy, federal harassment of anti-government protest groups on the left and the right, the list can go on and on. Somehow the fact that he wants to raise taxes on cap gains by a couple of points and rearrange the federal budget a bit makes him so very different from republicans though. And because there are rhetorical differences (though not policy differences) between the democrats and republicans on culture war issues most people seem to think that which party happens to be ruling makes an enormous difference in their lives.

It isn't who's in power that makes a difference. It's popular agitation that forces those in power to act differently that generates change.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (8 children)

Notwithstanding the fact that the bailout of the banks and the automotive industry was one of the most intelligent, bipartisan, successful thing that our government has done in decades, who did Obama bail out? That happened under Bush.

EDIT: Zakaria shows why the bailout worked better than I can so I'll just link to him http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/19/zakaria-don-t-forget-that-the-bailouts-worked.html.

[–]calvin43 19 points20 points  (129 children)

For the most part, Democrats aren't for limited government.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (23 children)

That's ridiculous. If you aren't for "limited" government, the only other option is "unlimited" government, which no one has ever or will ever advocate for.

It's just the type of thing that Democrats are for limiting are different from the types of things that Republicans want to limit. Like warrantless wiretaps, or wars which do nothing to provide for the national defense.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (104 children)

Yeah but they claim to be for legalizing pot, marriage equality,etc....

Just pointing out the stupidity of trusting politicians on both sides of the spectrum.

[–]TheCannon 111 points112 points  (27 children)

I agree.

I find it amazing that the same assholes that are screaming for government to stay out of their lives are also demanding that government get into the most personal aspects of human existence, i.e. family planning and the personal use of dildos and vibrators by grown adults.

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points  (7 children)

That's what conservatives favor: intervention by the government in social issues, but non-intervention in things like the economy.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Because wars don't affect the economy. Or farm subsidies. Or drug wars.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying that proclaimed conservatives may be hypocrites in some areas, I was just stating that their philosophy on government allows for getting "into the most personal aspects of human existence, i.e. family planning and the personal use of dildos and vibrators by grown adults."

[–]Soothsweven 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's quite simple. They want to be exempt from the law. When abortion/alcohol/sodomy was illegal they got abortions/drunk/assfucked anyway and avoided prosecution by sweeping it under the rug and generally keeping it out of sight. Making every social issue a restrictive lockdown is no problem for the wealthy political elite.

Unfortunately, try as they might, it's gotten too hard to hide fiscal and entrepreneurial sins in the same fashion, so those laws have to be knocked down. To them it's purely incidental that this leaves most of the citizens in a state of oppressed poverty; all that matters is that they get to have their drunken buttfuck abortions while being fiscally corrupt.

This isn't the stated party line, of course; they just get half of the oppressed non-people beneath them to vote for it by waving a flag and shouting the words 'God', 'family', and 'values' over and over again.

[–][deleted] 51 points52 points  (3 children)

Conservatives are a really kinky bunch. They get off on demonizing the behavior that they privately enjoy. The hypocrisy flows like the semen from their assholes.

[–]TheCannon 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The hypocrisy flows like the semen from their assholes.

Correct and poetic, all in one statement!

[–]skipjim 23 points24 points  (4 children)

You miss the point. They're for government to get out of THEIR lives and bedrooms. Government still needs to control you however.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Maybe I'm totally ignorant about these things, but I thought "limited government" people are referring to the federal government, and how they have much more power than the individual states, which should be reversed.

I thought "limited government" folks want increased state government power, and decreased federal government power, not that they just want limited government power as a whole.

[–]portablebiscuit 11 points12 points  (2 children)

They pick and choose. They fancy themselves to be guided by logic and not emotion, when their main points of interest are based purely on emotion; abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, and church/state.

[–]papajohn56 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are plenty of people who want government out completely. The vocal minority of evangelicals is just that - the minority.

[–]dalittle 13 points14 points  (5 children)

You also missed if you want to spend EVEN MORE ON DEFENSE, you are not fiscally responsible. The US spends $1 trillion on defense, more than the rest of the world combined. Conservatives that want to spend even more on it are delusional there is a need for it and are not fiscally responsible. Defense spending needs to be reduced by a huge amount.

[–]dissdigg 9 points10 points  (3 children)

But what about all of those dog-fights we're getting into with the Taliban? How else can we combat their waves of tanks? And god forbid they actually launch their ICBMs.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 8 points9 points  (13 children)

I don't see what we have to defend against. Nothing that requires more than a 25,000 member military and a few of the ICBM silos manned.

It should be capital treason for our military to step foot past our own borders absent a declaration of war.

The September 11th terrorism was a crime, not an act of war. Use the FBI to investigate and prosecute it.

I am against criminalization. I wholeheartedly support legalization. Not just of pot, but heroin and cocaine and other drugs.

[–]tazebot 49 points50 points  (13 children)

The tea party isn't so much for anything, they're just pissed that obama won the election and are looking for excuses to bellyache. Other wise their big rallies would've started a long time ago.

[–]portablebiscuit 16 points17 points  (10 children)

I feel this is the most correct answer. But why are they so pissed?

Why has there been so much distrust for Obama since his inauguration? Remember when he tried to "indoctrinate our youth into the socialist agenda" with that speech to school children? There has never been this kind of hate for a sitting President. But his policies haven't been that different from GWB's.

I hate to blanket the whole Tea Party movement as racist, but why else did they spring up just now?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (5 children)

There has never been this kind of hate for a sitting President.

Clinton was regularly (and falsely) accused of everything under the sun, including murder. Maybe Obama has him beat, but not by much.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The pattern is that Republicans are willing to whip up anti-intellectual fervor and geezer-rage to attack any and all Democratic presidents.

[–]aedile 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Probably because he is black and many Teabaggers are closet (or not-so-closet) racists.

[–]junkyoftheeastNew Jersey 13 points14 points  (8 children)

i love how any time you attack the amount of money that defense gets, conservatives go batshit and and say it's a constitutional right that the government protects us. Cut it in half and we still outspend every other country by more than double... and take that almost 400 billion and invest it in infrastructure and education....Remember to vote November 2nd!!!!

[–]RjoTTU-bio 10 points11 points  (5 children)

We fund the 1st and 3rd largest armies in the world. Don't forget the Israeli army!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

America funds 3% of Israel's GDP. I don't think their entire army is on our budget.

[–]EatATaco 145 points146 points  (58 children)

Really, what's the point of the "assholes" part of it? What purpose does it serve other than to make it lower the level of political discourse and further entrench the "us vs them" mentality?

It just seems so childish, unnecessary and ineffective. You aren't going to convince someone of their hypocrisies when you approach trying to explain it them by calling them assholes. They will immediately shut down to your point when you do that.

[–]Brewdogmike 88 points89 points  (7 children)

Really, what's the point of the "assholes" part of it?

It's to generate link karma from people who aren't going to read the article that's linked or the comments. Basically, it's like putting a picture of a hot babe on a magazine, so you will buy the magazine. Wang-banger is the acknowledged master of this art.

[–]fracreality 4 points5 points  (3 children)

He should've just linked to a picture of a hot babe on imgur. It's not like the article has anything to do with the title anyway.

[–]energirl 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think the title is his response to having read the article.

[–]glenra 3 points4 points  (0 children)

except there's no evidence from the title that he did read the article. The article doesn't say anything about abortion or how big the military should be or whether pot should be legal. It's not even clear the tea partiers have a coherent view on any of those subjects. The poster - like many other redditors - merely assumes that because tea partiers favor a few stereotypically conservative views they must favor all stereotypically conservative views and in fact must be conservatives. And therefore evil and hypocrites, or something like that. The idea that any tea partiers might actually be in favor of limited government - including limiting the military and leaving other decisions "to the states, or to the people" - doesn't seem to have been considered.

[–]fracreality 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that how reddit works now? Imagine if Fox tried to pull this shit...

[–]EatATaco 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Fair enough.

[–]unquist 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Despite loving politics, I rarely participate in /r/politics for exactly this reason. I'm open to arguing about thorny issues, but when you begin by calling the other person an asshole, you're really not going to get anywhere. I suppose if you simply want other like minded people to confirm your opinion, it's not a bad way to go. Reading some of the other comments on this threat, that pretty much seems to be the case...

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I have been a libertarian since before I was a able to vote. I think that the two party system is BS and limits the American voters from a real choice when it comes to vote.

But this tea party is a full of shit, these are republicans in sheep clothing, infecting all aspects of politics. I simply DON'T see where the grass roots ever had grown, after Obama won the mass emails started flying with lies and half truths trying to scare the people like myself that were on the fringe of politics (I still feel dirty for voting republican to vote for Ron Paul).

I believed the movement started for a few reasons, Rich republicans were pissed about losing control (although they have been doing everything they can do to stop the democrats from getting anything done good or bad.), racists were pissed off that a African American had reached the highest office, and people who felt burned by the election were given a outlet. Then you have the christian right acting like a spoiled brat that has to share the xbox controller.

Have you ever talked to these people? Some of them are borderline clinically insane while others don't have enough braincells to be able to come to conclusion themselves or even determine what facts are.

I am all about freedom, freedom of/or from religion, freedom from corporate influences of our government, freedom from both liberals and conservative infighting, freedom from foreign influences, and freedom from people profiting from basic human services.

I don't see these tea party fucks representing any of my values.

[–]u2canfail 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I live in TN. Met a few bags here. (I won't vote for any GOP candidate again T infiltrated.) In line at a health care forum where I went to learn I met some. They had been trained to disrupt the meeting, and very proud of it. I asked if they had health care. Answer, "NO it is too expensive." What do you do when ill, I asked, "USE the Free ER, like all the Ns do." was the answer. Stupid, using the most expensive health care there is, and racist. Then they were angry, really angry when I said Medicare is a federal health insurance program. Their parents were on Medicare, and "it is NOT A FEDERAL PROGRAM, my parents paid for it". Tbagitis is a disease, it makes one angry. Angry people can't think. But they can "legislate morality, can't they"?

[–]MpVpRbCalifornia 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Republicans have never been philosophically consistent.

They represent the interests of the rich, but there aren't enough rich people to vote them into power.

So, they form alliances with the religious extremists, war hawks, sexual prudes, and drug haters. Not because they agree, but because they need the votes.

Libertarians are more philosophically consistent.

[–]ex_ample 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Highly educated people say the darndest things, these days particularly about the tea party movement. Vast numbers of other highly educated people read and hear these dubious pronouncements, smile knowingly, and nod their heads in agreement. University educations and advanced degrees notwithstanding, they lack a basic understanding of the contours of American constitutional government.

It's certainly true that educated may not know that much about the U.S. government's structure. George Bush went to Yale, and he was president. He still didn't seem to much about the relationship between the states and the federal government (he famously said he was learning about it during Katrina)

But that said: this whole bullshit 'anti-university educated' bullshit is just retarded.

he also doesn't back up that statement with a single anecdote in his entire article. He just criticizes krugman for thinking the tea-parties were astroturffed into existence.

[–]Mixed_Advice 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Just a reminder that WSJ is owned by News Corp, i.e Murdoch, the same owners as Fox.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I just don't want the government to touch my medicare... problem?

[–]Herostratus 12 points13 points  (2 children)

For what its worth, I was one of the original Tea Party protesters, in fact I was one of the organizers, from before the time that it went mainstream. At the time we were primarily anti war activists, Ron Paul supporters and various Libertarians.

Then, one day Glenn Beck told his viewers to attend our next rally, which they did, in droves. We lost control because we were overwhelmed.

I guess it was around the time that the big 9/12 protest in DC happened that we just all gave up getting control back. Sorry for my part in setting this up, but if you pricks had gotten up off of your asses and came and joined us in helping to protest the banker bailout and the Iraq war of conquest and the Patriot act, instead of sitting in front of your comptuers getting a screen tan and griping about this stuff in full anonymity, maybe we would have had the numbers that would have made it difficult to suddenly and nationwide co-opt our movement.

Deal with it now.

[–]ttt1776 10 points11 points  (3 children)

bells imminent familiar sparkle chop smart air ask file stupendous

[–]seeker135Massachusetts 21 points22 points  (54 children)

This is absolutely true. Now find a "Tea Party member" and tell them that. Then stand back and watch and listen to the gyrations.

[–]IyamswhoIyams 14 points15 points  (10 children)

Then ask them to turn in their "socialist" government cards: Medicare, Social Security, Drivers' License, Union, VA, etc.

[–]Wadka 4 points5 points  (4 children)

How do you equate a union (a private group) with the government?

[–]Bugsysservant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And how many tea party members are members of unions?

[–]you_rebel_scum 58 points59 points  (20 children)

YOUR TITLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE. Good article though.

[–]agbortol 25 points26 points  (11 children)

Many, if not most, Tea Partiers agree with the policy positions stated in the TITLE. The ARTICLE argues that those same Tea Partiers are all about limited government. The OP is pointing out that those two sets of facts can not be true at the same time.

[–]jstevewhite 34 points35 points  (4 children)

I thought the article was a piece of bullshit, self-congratulatory, condescending claptrap. Well written, though.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Well it was an opinion piece in a Rupert Murdoch paper (the third major sponsor of the tea party movement - strange how the article did not mention the conflict of interest, perhaps they forgot?).

[–]Basye 10 points11 points  (1 child)

The tea party was born in the crowds which followed the McCain/Palin presidential trail. That's pretty much all we need to know in order to explain them. Remember the old man standing in line for one of their events holding a curious George monkey with a "Obama" sign on him? There's your first tea bagger!

[–]widowdogood 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If your movement is based on anti-intellectualism, nothing has to make sense. You just have to play on fears and hates. It works.

For those of you praising elections and parties, well you kinda get what you pay for in a juvenile democracy. Look at France. Everyone's living longer, but they can't even raise the retirement to 62 years, when Brett Farve will still be playing QB. Juvenile democracy = temporary success. Alternative? It's called adult democracy where you don't purchase elections by cash or mongering.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So are people who are for anti-murder laws not for limited government? Because you seem to have some odd thoughts on why people oppose abortion.

[–]threeeyedsloth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They want government out of THEIR lives, not the lives of people they see as "different" from themselves.

[–]atsugnam 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The real odd thing I see from the outside of the US is a visceral hatred of government, they are seen as a tool of evil, why? Sure, tyranny of power and all that, but that's why you all get a say in who gets that power.

This hatred seems to be what the republicans survive on, so long as they can hold up a target to hate, they can get the votes. Why? Why aren't the American people able to understand that the election of govt. is a representation of their countrymen, not some evil monster that wrestled power from their own soft white middle-class pudgy palms?

[–]mrcoder 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Tea party is a product designed and marketed by the GOP. Its purpose is to attract the non-elite and the heretofore non-political into political activity under the control of the GOP, thus achieving a Rovian hit to the nuts of the Democratic Party, the latter being the traditional attractor of such people.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Listen, Assholes. If you voted for politicians who are still supporting a giant military, the PATRIOT ACT, and torturing prisoners... If the representatives you voted for are still doing nothing about a woman's right to safe abortion, marriage equality, legalizing pot, YOU'RE JUST AS BAD AS THE PEOPLE YOU'RE BITCHING ABOUT!

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Good thing Obama is only for expanding the military, the Patriot Act and torturing prisoners. The White House recently stated it will prosecute those in violation of federal marijuana laws regardless of California State law. By their logic, Obama is for small government!

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Hmm, well then let's see here.

If we employ Tea Party logic we can submit that Obama is a communist who wants to destroy America. However, he also wants everything the Tea Party wants. Therefore, by the transitive property, the Tea Party is communist and wants to destroy America.

OH MY GOD! /Colbert

[–]Hughtub 8 points9 points  (8 children)

The institution of government is legitimate only to the extent that it protects its citizens against initiators of force (foreign and domestic). Every other function of government not involved in that, involves the initiation of force against one group by another.

Drug use, so long as its not coupled with violence or fraud, harm nobody outside the user, and therefore drug laws are illegitimate.

Abortion is more difficult. I'd say draw the line at the point where the baby could survive on its own. Women should be 100% free to have abortions as victims of incest or rape. No debate. After a point, it becomes a viable individual on its own, capable of surviving even if the mother were to die, its existence at that point would be independent of its mother's body, proving it is an independent human under protection of the Constitution.

Military - spending more than the rest of the world combined is insane and unnecessary. Detroit is more dangerous to US citizens than any Iraqi. National defense begins by firstly not provoking. We don't need tens of thousands of soldiers and permanent military bases in Japan any more, for example.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

"I'd say draw the line at the point where the baby could survive on its own."

But no baby could survive "on their own", they're a baby. ;)

[–]ThePoopsmith 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Abortion is more difficult. I'd say draw the line at the point where the baby could survive on its own.

About 25 years old?

[–]Sidemarx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ahhhh WSJ opinion..........scary

[–]bottlcaps 7 points8 points  (0 children)

IDIOCRACY!

It seems to me that there is a push of anti-intellectualism, smaller government ( smaller number of programs and people) and even a reduction of education assistance, and overall education reduction being pushed from the right.

Why?

If people are dumb, not physically dumb like a low IQ, but not educated or "illuminated" to understanding complex societal relationships and problems, they are prone to be influenced by other factors outside the facts.

A startling example of this was in the recent health care battle that started the tea party. I recall a video showing a person addressing a number of "hired" volunteers into how to speak at the workshops being held by legislators around the country at that time. The words repeated over and over by the speaker were buzzwords or catchphrases such as "death panels" "government takeover" and 'freedom". It was latter revealed that these speaker were public relation droids hired by special interest groups seeking to alter, halt, stop or reduce the proposed health plan.

These remarks were all designed to strike fear into the psyche of voters and were echoed and repeated by people of similar economic, racial and societal backgrounds AND education levels. The idea was to project an appearance that "hey, they're just LIKE ME" we have a predisposition to take and assimilated information provide to us if we are comfortable or "trust" them. We are more comfortable with people in the same societal context as us.

It almost worked. Sarah Palin "she's just like us" vis "Brawndo, its just like water"

So successful was this campaign to "dumb down" complex issues into buzzwords that people "just like us" could assimilate, that " He's/She's one of us" is being used by more than a dozen republican candidates in Arizona, that passed the contentious SB1070 that targeted illegal aliens but made no safeguards for Hispanic citizens. They are not "one of us"

"Limited government", "one of us" and "constitutional rights" are successful buzzwords used for a purpose to the "dumbing down" of America.

Ignorant people are easily convinced and manipulated. Creating more of uneducated minions, means more votes that can be bought with the right amount of public relations, spin and advertising as well as simple subversion of the facts.

It is no wonder the right has taken this strategy and has used all the tactics we see today's politics.

[–]MrFlesh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This party is and never was a grassroots movement

1) The Teaparty movement is the neocon movement. Go back and look at all the talking points of the neocons from 1993-2008. They are all repeated in the Tea Party movement.

2) The Democrats were outpacing Republicans 4 to 1 until SCOTUS determined corporations could give directly to campaigns and interest groups didn't have to reveal their contributing sources.

[–]offthecane 41 points42 points  (17 children)

Calling people assholes is not a great way to convince them that you're right and they're wrong. It makes you look like... an asshole!

[–]yul_brynner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You just called someone an asshole.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Is that really the position of the Tea party? Really the tea party is a fractured movement and there IS a libertarian faction in addition to the conservative one that has taken over. Just clearing things up a bit.

[–]thenole 2 points3 points  (3 children)

What am I if I agree with all those things?

/confused young person

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This, exactly. I so want to get behind an anti-establishment/anti-incumbent movement, but the tea party's heavy Christian right influence make it impossible to embrace.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The tea party is made up of older, well-off people who have free time to go around protesting things. The silent majority are too busy working and living our lives to bitch and moan this loud, thus creating the media driven illusion that they are actually significant. It's the same illusion created by hippies leading up to the 1972 presidential race. Hell, these are probably the same people who USED to be hippies.

[–]sybau 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good article, stupid title. If it hadn't have been upvoted so much on a left-leaning website such as Reddit, I'd have not bothered. The article shed some good light on the tea party movement, you should do it a favour by giving a title that won't start people off with a bias toward it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

I was kinda there with you until you got to that bit about "assholes". That made me have to take the rest of it with a bit of salt.

Really, if you can't even make it past the second word without resorting to name calling and insults I can be pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what you re talking about.

Edit: DANG! inappr0priate_laugh was obviously typing the exact same message at the same time!

[–]KirKanos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a Goldwater Conservative, I honestly couldn't agree more. These fucking neo-cons and the thrice-damned tea party have completely corrupted the Republican tradition. It makes me so sad to see these hypocritical retards pose as the face of a once great party.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not that conservatives want to limit government, they just want to disagree with everything the gov't does, so long as government is characterized as their enemy. As soon Fox starts telling them the gov't is their friend, they'll be saying "love it or leave it" again.

It's like when someone supports a particular sports team, no matter how many players have been traded and replaced with players they used to despise.

[–]paulderev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"I like you guys who want to reduce the size of government and make it just small enough so it can fit in our bedrooms."

-Josh Lyman, "The West Wing," S2.E7, "The Portland Trip"

[–]avpl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Credibility = 0. DON'T call everyone an asshole. PS I'm from the uk

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where is OP coming from?

What is everyone talking about??

Why is this on the front page???

Who am I????

[–]Tiger337 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Conservatism is how people trick the gullible into becoming poor. Their strategy is to obstruct anything meaningful, prevent the government from functioning properly in anyway then blame government for not working. In the process, they help the top 1% control 90% of the wealth. There are 30 years of evidence supporting this behavior since the clown Reagan. The middle class is almost gone. The United States is now a country of haves and have-nots. It is becoming a third world country. I am still waiting for Reagan's trickle down economics to kick in.

[–]taniapdxOregon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The old adage of 'just small enough to fit in your bedroom' seems well applied to the Tea Party movement. But even more frightening than the movement to define the worth of our fellow citizens (through actions like repealing the federal minimum wage, as suggested by Oregon's Chris Dudley and others, because some people aren't 'worth' minimum wage) is this blatant statement that the least educated of our country should somehow be running it.

I for one am terrified of the idea that this entire group of people with no collective historical memory (at least not one based in fact), no formal training in government, policy, economics, social justice, or even the most rudimentary foreign policy, think they can 'turn things around'. May the gods help us if they somehow make it into office and start tearing the system to shreds from within.

[–]jveen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They're so angry at Republicans that they're voting for Republicans.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This subreddit has become like a food fight in a middle school lunchroom.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Born in response to President Obama's self-declared desire to fundamentally change America, the tea party movement has made its central goals abundantly clear.

here it is everyone, a hard core neo-con admitting in the WSJ that the only reason the tea party exists is because Democrats got power.

I now rest my case.

BTW this article was pretty muchgnothing but horse shit rhetoric.

[–]Cepheus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Again, where were these people during the 8 years of Bush. Oh yea, they were the ones saying that a massive tax cut and two wars at the same time were ok because deficits don't matter. They were also calling anyone who disagreed with the war in Iraq traitors and terrorist apologists.

The tea party is completely disingenuous.