Friday, April 9, 2010

Fine for Some but Not for Others

In a fine piece of irony, our friends at the Associated Press have discovered that the smarter future Republican candidates for 2012 are, in fact, listening to the Tea Party advocates rather than dismissing them as nutbags and racists. The nation-wide Tea Party movement, for certain, has its elements in radicalized people that are actually nuts and racists. So does the left in this country have its share of them.

Currently, in the national press, it is the vogue to portray ALL of the Tea Party people this way, but suggest that the moonbats on the left are now just fine to have in your presidential cabinet and in key positions in the House and Senate.

Your intrepid reporter and commentator, Phelonius, was myself at one of the earlier Tea Party rallies, and I saw nothing that suggested either racism or a radical agenda, unless you happen to believe that the US Constitution is a bad thing. If you believe that, then there were a LOT of radicals there. Radicals like housewives and their kids with picnic baskets in hand. Radicals like elderly veterans and businessmen in their suits, and radicals like me, who came to see what the fuss was all about. There were plenty of placards saying things like "Preserve the Constitution!" and "Don't Tread on Us!" (a really radical message for students of our history.) There were people shouting and chanting things like "get rid of Obama" and "remember to vote." I saw no burning cars, effigies or flags. I saw no rioting, no people being violent in any way whatsoever, and certainly no disrespect to law and order. In other words, I saw nothing there that you could not take your 5 year old to see, and there were a lot of kids around with their parents. There was a lot that I was proud to see our kids witnessing, such as the peaceful gathering of citizens voicing their concerns about the politics of this great nation.

Why would any politician in his or her right mind ignore the vast majority of people in this country that are really dismayed and concerned about our government's recent huge power-grab? The fact that these people are normally very quiet and fairly flexible in political debate is a disturbing element to the left, as they see themselves as the vox populi, in spite of the polls that argue very much to the contrary. It is noted in this article that "...the fastest-rising Republicans seem to be those most in synch with tea-partier's aversion to taxes and Washington-based programs and taxes."

I posit that the vast majority of this country still prefers that limited government is the best choice. I posit that the people in general see the so-called "centrists" of the Republican Party as being at least partially to blame for this most recent debacle in the House, Senate and Presidency. If a political party ceases to speak for its members, then the members either leave the party and form others, and that political party becomes irrelevant. The last time this happened was when the Whig party dissolved to make room for the Republican Party. The anti-Jackson elements of the Union were dismayed that some of the old Whig Party had stood with Jackson (later the Democrats of the old south) and the increasing tension between the north and south over issues like slavery and trade tariffs forced voters to look for a voice that agreed with what would later be Lincoln's party. Now, I ask you, was that the use of a "litmus test" that has the left so badgered about the tea partier's insistence on a political platform that reflects their views? Very much so, I would suggest, and very much needed and necessary.

Our current regime tolerates none of this kind of activity. If you disagree with the left, you can be attacked by the Presidency itself if you have a large enough following. They scalped their own following before the last presidential election, and if you were a Democrat bold enough to support the war on terror, for example, you could be driven out of the party on a rail. Ask Joe Lieberman how that works.

Let us examine just how that kind of attack works. If you are a Republican that perceives that his electorate is sick and tired of a socialist agenda and do not want a Republican in name only, then he or she moves to where at least most of the electorate are comfortable. That is called being intelligent. Republics work that way because the majority is SUPPOSED to rule. It is in the Constitution, read up on that. Elections are supposed to put people in representative places that represent the opinions of the majority. Now, if you do this and the opponents of the Republicans catch wind of it, then that person is labeled as a radical. They are obeying a "purity test" and are reacting out of fear. Of course the Republicans want to get back in sync with the majorities in their electorates, as in the last election a great many were not and they lost fearfully. It is the solemn duty of every representative and every senator to represent the interests and concerns of their constituents in Washington, DC, and those that do not fully deserve to lose to their opponents. If you wish to label that solemn duty as a kind of "litmus test" then do so, but realize that it is the way that elections work. Do not elect people that do not represent your views.

If this last Congress and Senate passed a bill or two that you find objectionable, do not listen to the populist cries of the Democratic Party while they go through their death throes, because what they claim to popular opinion is clearly not that. If they find it objectionable that you want representatives and senators tha actually reflect what you believe to be the truth, do not be ashamed to say it, and say it loudly. Let your friends and neighbors know. If nothing else, you will be enlightened by what they think, or perhaps they will.

That is what the freedom of speech means. You have the right to lawful assembly and lawful speech. The tea parties are lawful and healthy assemblies, and far less violent than many of the left-wing assemblies. Speak, show up, and vote. The more people that are interested and informed voters the healthier our Republic is going to be.

I beg all of you, dear readers, to do the exact thing being complained about in this article. LOOK at the voting record of the incumbent, and decide if that is what you want in Washington. LOOK at the opposition and see if that is what you want, but for the love of all that makes this nation great, vote along those lines. Vote in November, and do not let anyone that is eligible to vote 'slack off' and ignore this sacred and important duty.


John said...

James, please pardon my delay in responding to both your comments and invitation, but I recently moved and am still getting organized and settling in. I'll be back presently to respond.

In the meantime:

Phelonius said...

John is welcome anytime at all, and I hope your move is going the way you want it.

My interpretation of the polls is that the Republicans became very serious about public morality as something to legislate, while a great number of conservatives are actually less concerned about that now that they are faced with what a truly socialist agenda does to the long-touted Republican ideals of fiscal responsibility and state independence.

Now, the reaction that most Libertarians get from the conservative Republican is that they fear that social freedoms somehow contradict fiscal responsibility and being strong on national defense and criminal activity. I like to point out that the objections to, for example, concealed (lawful) weapons posited by the NRA are met with nearly identical objections. There was the belief that domestic crimes would skyrocket after many states began allowing their citizens to bear firearms after those citizens registered their handguns, took state-sponsored lessons and took responsibility for their actions. The actual result has been that violent crimes on those states have declined while concealed weapon permits have reached huge numbers and is growing.

This is a metaphor I believe for many other things that are affecting the electorate. We have been told repeatedly by this current administration and many of their ilk that have come before them that "we the people" are in fact incapable of making important decisions. Who are we, for example, to be making decisions about how the children in my state should be educated when we have the feds who are all too willing to tell us how it should be done? Who, as an individual, has a better chance of deciding what kind of fuel to use or what kind of light-bulbs are best or where to drill for oil when we have this august body of know-it-alls that have never worked (for the most part) a day in their lives?

Ron is a lightening rod now for the disaffected Republicans because in the last two cycles the Republicans decided that they needed to sound like liberals and be strong on social programming, while a much larger body of people that became independent as a result are looking for the true defense of their liberties. They are looking for a party that will defend the rights of our grandchildren to NOT have a crippling debt because of our inconveniences. They did NOT figure on a solution to a bad problem with health care would result in the complete government take-over of a 6th of our economy.

A good leader from the Republican party could help a great deal, but you are not going to get them when they only play mouth music to real balanced budgets and real freedom of speech and real defense of our Constitution.

Phelonius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phelonius said...

As a good article on the actual composition of the Tea Party supporters.

Kelly said...

Even MSNBC can see that the Tea Partiers are not stupid people...they are normal everyday folks who don't like their freedoms trampled on.