Andrew Sullivan highlights the point a lot of people have been making, but that a lot of my libertarian friends have been fooling themselves about: the Tea Party is, for the most part, a populist movement and not a libertarian movement.
I say "for the most part" because the Tea Party is a lot of things to a lot of people. Certainly there are some important libertarian strains. But don't fool yourself into thinking this is anything other than what it is.
The evidence on the fiscal side of things isn't very explicit in this post at least, but I wouldn't expect anything substantial.
It'll be interesting to see how history remember the Tea Party. As I've said before, it's a mixed bag. The opportunistic man-handling of the Constitution and of American history bothers me a great deal. The fringe elements that have tinges of racism concern me, and the more common elements that abandon Jeffersonian principles with respect to religion in a free republic deeply disturb me. But they do seek out information, they do express themselves in the public square, and all this is very good. You get the sense sometimes that they think that because they expect something "the American people" expect something, but oh well - that sort of thing will happen. I'm not sure what we'll say exactly about the Tea Parties looking back on them, but I am quite sure we will not think of them as a libertarian groundswell.
What is Canonical Neoclassicism?
1 hour ago