Why “Tea Party” Means Nothing!

United Liberty ^ | January 23, 2010 | David Carlson

[2ndDivisionVet]

In my opinion the term “Tea Party” or “Tea Party Candidate” and the whole “Tea Party Movement” is irrelevant. It means nothing! It hasn’t meant anything meaningful for a long time.

Perhaps this is too radical a statement for most people, but ask yourself this: Do Ron Paul and Sean Hannity have the same political views? The clear answer is no. Hannity supports supply-side economics, Paul Austrian. Hannity supports our current foreign policy (including Guantanamo Bay, torture, and our foreign presence in over 100 nations) while Paul supports a foreign policy of non-intervention. Hannity supports Bush regardless of the argument, while Paul will criticize both parties about their big-government policies. Hannity and Paul have completely different political ideologies when they are examined.

Here’s the problem: the tea parties were not entirely made up of libertarian uproar about BOTH parties, but instead have become a combination of libertarians, paleo-conservatives, and of course neo-cons. Ever since I saw Sean Hannity have a live show at a tea party and talk up the tea parties, I knew that there was a serious misinterpretation about what the tea party movement is and what the true identity is.

We can talk all day about how the “tea party” candidate Doug Hoffman was lifted up by conservatives across the nation. But now we have Scott Brown being lifted up as the “tea party” candidate. I have to give credit to The Humble Libertarian as they pointed out that Scott Brown might be against government controlled health care, but he most certainly is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. Comparing Brown to the libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy:

"One supports the nanny state and agrees with Barack Obama’s opposition to gay marriage, but support for civil unions. The other believes government should stay out of the issue of marriage altogether.

One supports the Federal government’s role in taxing income, regulating education, and allowing the Federal Reserve Bank to continue printing money out of thin air. The other adamantly opposes all three."

As a libertarian, I have to be alarmed. I like to think of myself as a “Tea Party” supporter. But then I realize that label means nothing. It’s just a way for neo-conservatives like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and others to put all non-progressives under the same banner despite the clear differences.

Let’s not kid ourselves. “Tea Party” means nothing.

[paltz]

We have liberals on FR posing as libertarians. So I wouldn’t be surprised.

Be careful, Freepers. The Obama administration is ramping up its political arm for the 2010 elections. This means TROLLs galore will be hitting this site more than ever trying to divide conquer. They will try and slow down the momentum conservatives are producing by discrediting "Tea Party" events as nothing consequential or nut jobs. Keep an eye out for so called friendly posters who are not obvious ZOTS but are looking to turn conservatives and republicans against one another through "agitator postings" on places like FR.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

sorry—I think we have much in common.

[Paige]

What a buffoon. As if what this buffoon thinks truly matters. The Tea Party people are working and they are working hard in their areas to take back the local, state and Federal governments from the people who will not listen to what their constituency want them to do.

As for Ron Paul, he needs to join the Democrat party like Specter did and let Real Americans take back this country.

[reasonisfaith]

Mr. Carlson, you need to stop trying to understand political movements based on what kind of label you can put on them or which personality you can associate with them. Just see them for what they are, using common sense.

But this will be very difficult if your mind runs on the left.

[eclecticEel]

The Tea Party is about opposing the socialism of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. You have to know how to work with someone towards a common goal, even when there’s disagreements about separate issues - otherwise you can just just hand the country over to the collectivists.

[SaraJohnson]

Libertarians have a lot of good ideas, but their messiah Rand, prevents their ability to see reality just like those who worship and follow the religion of Marx. Their ideology even prevents the constitution’s freedom where the States are permitted to establish laws based on the culture and ethics of that State. Imposing the Libertarian’s religion of amoral PC on the whole country through the Federal government or the courts is not constitutional and it is would produce a life of anarchy. IMHO Since very few think anarchy is a great idea and think the social religion of political correctness is oppressive, Libertarians will always be a small minority. The largest group in the us are social conservatives. America's foreign policy is always up for negotiation with Americans depending upon the reality of the time period. The game of pretending there really is no enemy or danger to the US in terms of Muslims, foreign invasion through illegal immigration or communism or globalism trying to harm us and that we made the Muslims do it, unilateral disarmment is the only answer, etc. is nuts.

[MNJohnnie]

Sign, just when I thought Libertarians might be getting a clue..

[SaraJohnson]

The Tea Party only supported Brown to kill obamacare. They knocked off the Republican in NY23 and ran Hoffman against her because she was a Rino. The Tea Party is not Republican. It is conservative and libertarian, though. However, that combination is like herding cats. We only met at the Tea Party because we both despise socialists, although libertarians love the culture of socialism -amoral humanism - and conservatives call it brainless it and self destructive.