To the Tea Party: War and Liberty Aren't Fellow Travelers

Most certainly he did. The most compelling piece of information garnished from the piece is the differing views on big government - that big government on social programs (left), is bad in Tea Party opinion, but that big government on war and security (right) is okay.

I'm not able to refute that, but there wasn't any real data provided by James Bovard to show how he came to the conclusion. In a piece by Phillip Dennis, he states that a lot of various movements have used the Tea Party's name to further various causes or make money and cautions for people to research the group they're joining. I think there is some merit to those statements as we've seen Palin capitalize on the movement, and the GOP attempt to assimilate it into its base.

The other flipside to the first premise is that if a person is asked between the two viewpoints on big government... I would not be inclined to disagree with the right. But this is by consequence of the assumption that the wars are being fought for correct reasons. For example, our participation in the World Wars. But it is also very easy to see how this mentality can be misdirected and abused - for example, the Cold War. As a blanket and general statement, I cannot disagree with this, and would have to consider it on a scenario basis - this would be my argument to oppose the conclusion of the article. That wars will have to be fought eventually - and that a bigger government is a consequence of this, not that a big government is okay if it is a warmonger.

I will also state that I do not see all "social" programs as being bad. I do however see a large spectrum of abuse, double standards, and lack of personal responsibility that these things bring. This too is hard to throw a blanket statement over that would correctly articulate my sentiment for or against it.

Which brings me to my last point. At its core, and I think what the Tea Party needs to stick to as its unifying ideal is that our current two political parties are both corrupt, elitest, self-serving and propogating groups of individuals that have been enabled by the people through a slow concession of our rights (by us shedding personal responsibility) and strong relationship between influence and money in this country. I would like the movement to solidify as a group that reforms the political machine enabling a better core group of Americans to represent their peers rather than the lawyers/CEOs/bored-wealthy. And we do this by destroying the cost of campaigns and limiting donations to people only and to a maximum amount that makes a wealthy person no more powerful than a poor. That, and we rid ourselves of lobbyists from all groups. These would be nice steps, and if we could accomplish this, then I would turn our attention to the media and see if this helped take the spin out of their sensationalist and bias reporting.