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.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I don't even drink tea.
ReplyDelete"...the Tea Party is, for the most part, a populist movement and not a libertarian movement."
ReplyDelete99.9% of libertarians realize this already. Almost any libertarian publication, blog, etc. that I have ever read on the subject qualified their statements about the Tea Partiers this way.
However, libertarians are willing to defend the TPers for much of the same reason that libertarians defended the anti-war movement during the Bush years (strange that the anti-war just evaporated once Bush left office - though we are still involved in two wars) - because the so-called mainstream in American politics is just so vile.
I don't think it's 99.9%. Many do. Many don't. As I said.
ReplyDeleteI've documented many prominent libertarian bloggers who treat them like a libertarian movement and many that treat them like a populist movement right here on this blog.
What could you possibly mean "the anti-war movement just evaporated"??? Do you mean the media doesn't cover it as much? Do you mean you haven't taken the time to seek it out? All the major players (Code Pink, those grandmas, Cindy Sheehan, etc.) are still active they just don't get on the news. And Obama's continuation of Bush's national security policies has been by far and away the biggest complaint of Obama by the left.
A reason for some mellowing may be Obama's de-escalation in Iraq and reemphasis of Afghanistan. The anti-war movement never had as much of an issue with Afghanistan, even under Bush. The anti-war movement with Bush only really picked up in 2003. So this repositioning by Obama from Iraq and Afghanistan and the de-escalation (albeit extremely gradual) in Iraq is understandably going to make people more receptive. But even given all that it's absurd to say that the anti-war movement "evaporated". You're obviously not paying attention.
"I've documented many prominent libertarian bloggers who treat them like a libertarian movement..."
ReplyDeleteYou've made that claim certainly; but I see no evidence of it.
Where are the marches against the wars again?
"And Obama's continuation of Bush's national security policies has been by far and away the biggest complaint of Obama by the left."
Which only a tiny proportion of the left has complained about in any serious way. And of course that tiny proportion is now on Obama's Nixonian "enemies list."
"A reason for some mellowing may be Obama's de-escalation in Iraq..."
No, Obama latched onto the de-escalation that the Bush administration was already undertaking. Obama is following the same game plan the Bush administration proposed.
"The anti-war movement never had as much of an issue with Afghanistan, even under Bush."
Actually, no, they did; and since the Obama administration is (a) clue free about Afghanistan and (b) completely adrift as to what they should do there (reminds one of the Bush administration) there ought to be a lot of protesting going on right now. But there isn't. Imagine the nightmare that is going on currently in Afghanistan under the Bush administration - there would loads of people in the streets.
"You're obviously not paying attention."
No, you obviously aren't paying attention.
No, Obama latched onto the de-escalation that the Bush administration was already undertaking. Obama is following the same game plan the Bush administration proposed.
ReplyDeleteRight, so? This was widely remarked on as well. Contrary to popular opinion, very, very few people thought that Bush was the spawn of Satan.
As for Bush and Afghanistan - there were certainly some that didn't want us to be there but most of the people who oppose Iraq are fine with being in Afghanistan (whether it was well executed is an entirely different question). We had been in Afghanistan for about a year before Code Pink was even founded, for example. It was founded in response to Iraq, not Afghanistan - and they say as much on their website (although many of them also want us out of Afghanistan). They continue to march and protest, do they not?????
Take a look at the stats on the protests. Iraq War protests have happened regularly since late 2002 when war was suspected. What famous marches have their been against the war in Afghanistan? Wikipedia isn't perfect, but they have a list of both. Lots of anti-Iraq war marches in the U.S.. For Afghanistan, there were a series of small ones at the very beginning in 2001, there was one in 2002 although that coincided with a World Bank protest so it's hard to attribute that crowd entirely to Afghanistan, and there was another in 2005. Compare that to the kind of activity there has been for the last decade on Iraq.
And this is what I remember too. I'm not just googling this stuff - I participated in two anti-war marches, and God knows I wrote and talked about the stuff with people too. I never remember Afghanistan being much of an issue.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI am talking about the current state of affairs, not about 2002 or 2003. If the anti-war left were serious about being anti-war they would have taken to the streets in large numbers by now. They're largely giving Obama a pass on Afghanistan even though things have gotten even worse there since he took power.
None of this should be remotely surprising; partisanship and foreign policy fit hand in glove as a general rule.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116920/optimism-iraq-less-afghanistan.aspx
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/122816/Americans-Say-Afghanistan-Going-Badly-Not-Mistake.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/115270/Americans-Afghanistan-War-Worth-Fighting.aspx
Facts are stubborn things.
Look - the opposition was always primarily to Iraq. Protests are still going on. Those who are opposed to the Iraq war have generally been happy but not completely satisfied with trends at the end of the Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration.
If you feel differently you have a right to that, but you can't just make things up.
I am talking about the current state of affairs, not about 2002 or 2003.
ReplyDeleteYou were comparing the current state of affairs to the anti-war movement under Bush.
If the anti-war left were serious about being anti-war they would have taken to the streets in large numbers by now.
They are still in the streets - tens of thousand of them. The media does not report on it, and there is less of them anyway because they see a slight change in policy and that's going to dampen the urge to protest.
They're largely giving Obama a pass on Afghanistan even though things have gotten even worse there since he took power.
Well he's launched a large offensive. It's not going to be pretty. I think you need to separate how hard the job is from how justified the job is. I don't think the anti-war movement is necessarily a pacifist movement, in other words.
And see - this is why I go back to 2002 and the origins of the movement, and this is why I review what exactly was being protested under Bush. You talk as if the anti-war movement was as much about Afghanistan as Iraq. It wasn't. You may have been, but the movement as a whole wasn't.
ReplyDeleteNone of those "facts" undermine anything I've written. The anti-war left are largely hypocrites on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThe facts undermine these:
ReplyDelete"They're largely giving Obama a pass on Afghanistan even though things have gotten even worse there since he took power."
And invalidates this:
"The anti-war movement never had as much of an issue with Afghanistan, even under Bush." Actually, no, they did;
Imagine the nightmare that is going on currently in Afghanistan under the Bush administration - there would loads of people in the streets.
the anti-war just evaporated once Bush left office - though we are still involved in two wars
You go around calling people "vile", offer no facts to support your case, and ignore the facts that are provided. Get over it, or if you want to try to make these cases write it up in a blog or something!
"The media does not report on it, and there is less of them anyway because they see a slight change in policy and that's going to dampen the urge to protest."
ReplyDeleteThere has been no change in policy. The division between the Obama and Bush FP is seamless.
"I think you need to separate how hard the job is from how justified the job is."
Part of the justification for any war is related to its difficulty actually and the ability to meet the goals of the war. Of course the Obama administration would have to have a goal that they understood; they apparently don't according to Woodward's new book on the matter.
"I don't think the anti-war movement is necessarily a pacifist movement, in other words."
No, they are primarily a partisan movement.
They invalidate neither of those.
ReplyDeleteThere has been no change in policy. The division between the Obama and Bush FP is seamless.
ReplyDeleteYou need to get over your obsession with politics and political parties. I was talking about the change in Iraq that started under Bush and continued under Obama. An interesting point on this is that many people highlighted this as Bush coming around to what Obama had been saying for years as a candidate and Senator (and then candidate again) about the relative weight that should be placed on Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, they are primarily a partisan movement.
You don't think there are people against Obama and the war? It is primarily a movement against the Iraq war, and of course that movement isn't going to be positively disposed towards the party that has shown the strongest and most consistent support for the Iraq war. That doesn't make it "partisan".
"You need to get over your obsession with politics and political parties."
ReplyDeleteI have no obsession with either; I just realize that nothing much changes between administrations on FP since all administrations are wedded to the idea of the U.S. as world cop. Like the Roman Empire we are in a continual state of war - ask yourself when was the last time we weren't in a foreign locale blowing someone up. If we had a Temple of Janus its doors would also rarely close.
"An interesting point on this is that many people highlighted this as Bush coming around to what Obama had been saying for years as a candidate and Senator (and then candidate again) about the relative weight that should be placed on Iraq and Afghanistan."
Or alternatively, both relented to the facts on the ground as they existed, while Obama advocated folly in Afghanistan as a means to boost his street cred as a tough guy on FP (there was a lot of this "tough guy" back and forth during the Democratic primary - Hillary would provide Israel with a nuclear umbrella against Iran, Obama was going to "get tough" with Afghanistan, etc.).
"You don't think there are people against Obama and the war?"
Yes, I obviously do. Which is why I used the qualifier "primarily." I stopped reading your comment after that question.
"I have no obsession with either"
ReplyDeleteActually you do.
[see... I "pulled a Xenophon"]