Don’t Obamize the Tea Party

Obamize.

(This is the post I was thinking of when I made up that word.)

Here’s an example of why:

“[Bryan] Fischer [of the American Family Association] recently interviewed Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, on his nationwide radio program. Fischer told her that evangelicals want some signal that the Tea Party movement supports their views on abortion and marriage.
‘Can we hear that message from the Tea Party leadership?’ he asked.
‘You’re not going to hear it from me,’ she responded.”
Better answer: NO, AND IF YOU’RE SMART YOU’LL STOP ASKING.
“‘As long as we stay focused on the fiscal issues, that’s the glue that holds us together,’ [Kremer] says. ‘If we start delving into the religious aspect or social aspect, that’s when we’re going to become divided and when people are going to disagree.’
But Fischer says this strategy could alienate Christian conservatives.
‘And if they begin to discover that the leadership of the Tea Party movement isn’t going to fight for them on those issues, then I think they’re going to lose their enthusiasm for movement,’ he says. ‘And they’ll go back to being disengaged or they’ll invest in that energy in some other direction.'”

So the socons will take their ball and go home if they don’t get their way?  I don’t know much about Fischer or the AFA, and I don’t know how prominent they are, or aren’t, or how many people they speak for, or don’t.  But he clearly thinks it’s on the high side.

Government spending is too high and getting higher; therefore taxes, debt, and deficits are also too high and getting higher.  That is all happening because the people have learned that they can vote themselves the treasury*.  And now that we’ve learned we can do it, we have to learn not to.

This is the only important issue in this election, and probably in every election for the foreseeable future.  If other issues are important to you personally, that’s fine.

Pissed off about the ‘gay agenda?’  Fine, enjoy that.  Want tighter immigration controls?  Fine, enjoy that.  Think marijuana should be legal?  Fine, enjoy that.  Got a problem with trans fats or Wicca or selling beer on Sunday?  Okay, well, you get the idea.  Everybody has pet issues.  Go ahead and talk about them.  Look for candidates who support them.

But focus, people.  What we need now are candidates who agree that the government is too big and does too much and spends too much.  We need candidates who agree that it has to stop growing and start shrinking.  We need candidates who understand that lower government spending means fewer government services, and that are willing to take the necessary political stands to support it anyway.  You know how people react when government handouts are threatened.

And ideally we could get candidates who are prepared to explain all this to people who might not agree with the above.  Remember this chick?

We are eventually going to have to convince her too.  I am not confident.

So when we find a candidate who might fit the bill, we’re going to have to set aside our other issues, forget our differences, and support that candidate.  Because those political stands are going to be hard to make, and they’re going to have to feel confident that we’ll continue to support and defend them when their opponents try to make hay from them.

Because the people have learned that they can vote themselves the treasury.  Politicians have learned that they get rewarded for handing out goodies to their constituents.  And any politician who tries to make it stop is, in certain eyes, going to be a heartless bastard who wants to see starving puppies in the gutters.

The only way to convince enough people we’re right, that it’s a bad idea to give the government so much power, is to show them.  That means getting clout, then getting some more clout, then getting some more, and so on until there are enough small-government believers in office to make a difference.  If we try to force other issues to the forefront, then we lose sight of the only one that matters.  Abortion?  Foreign aid?  Mosques in NYC?  We have the luxury of arguing about those things.  In fact, it’s a measure of how well we’ve done that such things take up so much of our political consciousness.  But if the spending, borrowing, taxing, and owing doesn’t get under control we’re not going to have that luxury much longer.

So go ahead and push your issues and beliefs, but prioritize, people.  This is a long road, and we can’t blow it.  Learn to get along.

But if you’d rather insist on ideological purity, okay.  See you on the bread lines.  In the reeducation camp.

One more thing.  I fully expect that some of the people running with tea party support right now will forget all about it while they’re in office.  After all, the Tea Party owes it’s existence to politicians letting themselves be sucked into the gravy train (I’m looking at you, Republicans).  When that happens, when they start showing their true colors, again, we’re going to have to continue ignoring our differences and get rid of them.  And we’re going to have to keep trying.  There can’t be any “well, he’s good on this other issue…” or other bullshit like that.  Okay?  Okay.  UPDATED see here.

*This is a paraphrase of a famous quote that you’ve probably heard before.  I’ve seen it attributed to several people.  I don’t know the truth of it, so I’m giving it to my main man Benjamin Franklin.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Don’t Obamize the Tea Party

  1. Doc says:

    As a wildly conservative Christian ‘evangelical’ (a term that is about ready for the dumper, just like ‘born-again’, as far as having any usefulness in actually describing a ‘branch’ of Christianity), I basically agree with you. My emphasis would be: the Constitution. We need to rediscover it, like Josiah rediscovered the Book of the Law. We need legislators, executives, and judges willing to admit that, e.g., Social Security is grossly unConstitutional, and we need to be arguing over exactly how to end it, not how to ‘fix’ it.
    If we actually followed the Constitution, the ‘social’ issues would be much easier to deal with because, e.g., we would also acknowledge that the Federal Gov’t has exactly zero power to force states to make abortion legal. Zip. Nada. Likewise there would be no Federal judicial actions regarding, e.g., the military’s policy re homosexuals, or homosexual ‘marriage’. Good grief, per the Constitution, if a state wanted to make the Presbyterian Church of America (not the Bible-less PCUSA, mind you) the state religion, it should be allowed to; it’s only the Federal gov’t that can’t establish a ‘religion’ (which word, to the Founders in the 1780’s, referred to any of the denominations of Christianity, not to Islam/Buddhism/Wicca/etc). We ‘So-Cons’ could fight at the state level for whatever ‘intrusive’ policies our little hearts desired, while the economic engine of the nation would run unfettered by ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

  2. Pingback: Must I fisk my own commenters? | Mister Pterodactyl

  3. Larry says:

    The first rule in damage control is to plug the holes to stop the water from coming in. We can fix the radios later.

  4. Pingback: HEY, WHAT DID WE TALK ABOUT? | Mister Pterodactyl

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s