December 08, 2010
Where's the war? And who are the warmongers?
A lot of people are
hoping to start a war between social conservatives and libertarians in the Tea Party, and I think that represents wishful thinking on their part. That there is no denying the existence of sharp differences in philosophy within the Tea Party tent has long been obvious; I have written a number of posts about it, and I make no secret of being in the libertarian camp, nor have I ever denied my disagreements with social conservatism (especially the statist variety). But
because I have also long favored a coalition between libertarians and social conservatives on issues they can both agree upon, I see no more reason for starting a "war" than the social conservatives I have encountered. Because of the horizontal, grassroots nature of the Tea Party, I think it would be very difficult to start any real war. For starters, the Tea Party is based largely on showing up at a given event. If local Tea Party organizers in, say, the RTL camp decided that a mass demonstration in front of the local Planned Parenthood headquarters was in order, they would be as free to show up as those who disagreed with the demo would be free to stay home. There is nothing new about disagreement on that issue. Ditto gay marriage, marijuana legalization, or demanding that condom lessons be stopped in schools.
Individual Tea Partiers have different positions on these issues pro or con, which means that large turnouts from "THE TEA PARTY" in its entirety could hardly be expected. Few would show up. So how do you start a "war" that way?
I'm reminded of the old slogan "what if they gave a war and nobody came?"
For there to be a "war" between libertarians and social conservatives, they would have to agree to have one. I might be wrong, but don't see such an agreement as forthcoming. It certainly isn't going to come from me. I merely disagree with social conservatives on those areas where I disagree, just as they disagree with libertarians on those areas where they disagree. As these disagreements are well known, and as the coalition enters its third year, I'm not seeing anything resembling a call for war within the Tea Party movement itself.
The whole thing seems awfully contrived, and I am tempted to ask "who benefits?"
In that regard, an article in Reason (Class War:How public servants became our masters) sheds some light into what drives the Tea Party more than any other issue.
Our rulers, that's what!
They -- and I do mean they -- are the uniting force that motivates libertarians and social conservatives to show up together in strength. They make disagreements on other issues pale by comparison. They want to bury us all. And they aren't checking cards at the gates of the nation's doom to see whether we are libertarians, social conservatives, or some non-conforming mishmash of both.
...54 percent of the economy is private, 28 percent goes to the feds, and 18 percent goes to state and local governments. The trend lines are ominous.
Bigger government means more government employees. Those employees then become a permanent lobby for continual government growth. The nation may have reached critical mass; the number of government employees at every level may have gotten so high that it is politically impossible to roll back the bureaucracy, rein in the costs, and restore lost freedoms.
People who are supposed to serve the public have become a privileged elite that exploits political power for financial gain and special perks. Because of its political power, this interest group has rigged the game so there are few meaningful checks on its demands. Government employees now receive far higher pay, benefits, and pensions than the vast majority of Americans working in the private sector. Even when they are incompetent or abusive, they can be fired only after a long process and only for the most grievous offenses.
It's a two-tier system in which the rulers are making steady gains at the expense of the ruled. The predictable results: Higher taxes, eroded public services, unsustainable levels of debt, and massive roadblocks to reforming even the poorest performing agencies and school systems. If this system is left to grow unchecked, we will end up with a pale imitation of the free society envisioned by the Founders.
That's what I think drives the Tea Party, and that's why the latest divide-and-conquer strategy will fail. Every day I see examples, large and small, and I don't have the time or energy to blog about all of them. (Just yesterday I read about the mandate for back up cameras on cars, and about bureaucratic insistence that doctors be chaperoned when examining patients even though neither the doctors nor the patients want chaperons.) These people are running our lives, ruining the country, and they are doing it with our money, and even though it is clear that the money has run out, they demand it anyway.
Which naturally
leads me to suspect that it is they who want the Tea Party to have a war.
They can make all the noise they want, but I for one am not about to go to war on their say-so. Sure, they might be very powerful, but they don't have the power to declare war within the Tea Party, do they? Well, I guess maybe they can declare a war within their media echo chamber, but they can't draft me or make me fight, can they?
posted by Eric on 12.08.10 at 10:52 AM
So now it is okay to put boots on the ground in danger because a Democrat is president?
