Reflections on the April 15th Tea Parties.
The Tea Parties were a great success in giving people a voice of dissent. There were many reasons why so many people showed up to the Tea Parties. It struck me how diverse were the objections of the people. Because there were issues ranging from the policies of President "O" to the 'bailouts' begun by President Bush, it held a little bit of something for everyone who were mostly on the the losing side of the past election.
Only a few of the participants really voiced the true reason for the Tea Parties. That reason being: The federal government going beyond the legal powers it possesses through the Constitution. This is at the core of the protests and the frustration of so many people. If this is true (and I believe it is) then this is not a President "O" problem. This problem has been around longer than our current President has been alive.
Now the seeds of the future demise of the Tea Parties were sown on April 15th at the Tea Party events. The seeds which will produce the demise of the Tea Parties are the Republican Party. Let me explain. Name the practical difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. I know what the two parties say they stand for (and at least the Democrats act on what they say they stand for) but when we look back the last 20 years, the only real difference between the two parties is described like this. The Democrats desire to kill something quickly while the Republicans desire to kill something slowly. It is akin to having both wrists slit (Democrat version) verses having only one wrist slit (Republican version.) Either way, death comes.
The Republican party says they for limited government. Yet, where have the Republicans limited government when they were in power and had opportunities to do so. The problem seems to be that Conservatives who hold to a Constitutional view of government try to link up with a Party that does not in itself hold to a Constitutional view of government. This brings us back to the Tea Parties. The Republican Party is (and will be) at the Tea Parties for one reason only - to get back in power so they can go the same direction as the Democrats (only at a slower pace.) Why would anyone at the Tea Parties even dream of the Republican Party getting back in power?
Those at the 2009 Tea Parties, if they are coming in the spirit of the original 1773 Tea Party, will not look to the Republican Party but look to a new party that will act as radical as the signers of the Constitution no matter the cost. This is the only way the change which the Tea Party dissenters are looking for will come about. Expecting it to come through Republicans in power will only bring demise in slow motion.
So my fellow compatriots - let us look elsewhere to a new party. Why waste time and effort on a party that has left the Constitution as surely as the Democrats? Spend your effort in bringing forth a viable new party. When you do this you will really be embracing the spirit of the 1773 Tea Party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, Ray. I don't remember who I was talking to about this, but we came to the same conclusion. Why don't we call this new party the Tea Party? Too easy? Where do I sign?
ReplyDeleteThis is Amanda! Since I hear conservative pundits beating their heads in about all this horrid "socialist" (not to mention "fascist"(?!!) activity afoot in America, I want to address the larger ideas of socialism vs. capitalism.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you rather have your money going towards, in this day and age, I wonder? I'm guessing your financial portfolio isn't as dazzling now as you once thought it might be -- the savings and the effort of many years (for many Americans) up in smoke. For you personally, I imagine this is your primary slice in the American capitalist system of making money, money generating money, etc. But the financial crises that has contributed to the evaporation of so much money is symptomatic of a fundamental flaw in the capitalist system (which is, I assume, the overarching issue at stake when it comes to this frustration with taxes and constitutionality).
I think that political interests in the 20th century aggressively asserted the position that capitalism is synonymous with Christianity or Christian values, and I'm not sure how accurate this is. I figure what you envision, ultimately, in a small-government world with little taxation is the freedom for the average American, the little guy, to raise herself or himself up by the bootstraps and get a small business going, to make money, etc. Ironically, the only places I've seen that occur en force is in "liberal" communities and states, where citizens consider it an ethical stance to nurture local business culture and community, even though it costs them more sometimes, and therefore seems to be immediately economically detrimental. And isn't community what early Church principles were primarily centered on? Distributing wealth and helping the poor, etc? The fundamentals of socialism are far more Christian than capitalism ever was....right? I wonder if your political stance has been so informed by living through the Cold War (a world socially and politically light years distant from the present) that you are blindly entrenched? I would like to hear your perspective on this. I do find it hard to differentiate the current modes of late capitalism from greed; just plain, potentially evil, relentless greed.
I think that these days, considering the burden of the enormous global population and the eternal issue of greed (which have complicated many of the nobler principles of capitalism), our money might be much better spent ensuring things like universal healthcare and increased government funded programs. Obviously, the majority of Americans, whether you agree with them or not, overwhelmingly agree that this is the future path towards a modern enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(I have to add one thing: I can't help but wonder if some Americans are still fundamentally opposed to socialist ideals because they associate these with the secularity of Europe; that is to say, if capitalism fails in America as the successful economic mode, Christians will perceive a fundamental philosophical loss in a centuries-long ideological struggle.)
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good comments. Here is my reply to some of your thoughts.
1) My retirement portfolio (pension and 401(k)plans)took the same hit as everyone else did who were invested in stocks). But the beauty of this is that it is where I chose to have this money. No one compelled me to have these funds placed where they were. This is the inherent worth of the free-interprise system.
2)"the financial crises that has contributed to the evaporation of so much money is symptomatic of a fundamental flaw in the capitalist system"
There is no economic system that is perfect. Why? Because of sin manifesting itself in the form of greed. The financial crises mentioned above which we are experiencing is not symptomatic of a fundamental flaw in the free interprise system. Rather, in can be argued that the financial crises was brought about by two things. 1- Greed on the part of the money power people on Wall Street. This greed cuts a wide swath through 'both sides of the isle' and is unacceptable whereever it is found. 2- Government policies that force free-interprise to be something other than free. An example of this is the lending practices which brought sub-prime into our vocabulary. There was no such practice until Government encouraged banks to make these loans or face governmental and legal sanctions. Prior to the mid-90's if someone wanted to take out a home loan the bank required a 20% down payment. This insured the bank would not be loaning money to people who would be unable to pay it back. This also had the reality of keeping poor people from owning homes if they could not get 20% saved up. When government stressed everyone who wants a house should qualify for a loan, banks were forced into making loans they never would have made if the threat of leagal action due to discrimination was not place over their heads. Thus this financial crises is due to part greed and part governmental meddling in the free market system. As I see it the fundamental flaw in the system is governmental intrusion keeping the free interprise system less than it could be. But even with this I do acknowledge greed as a terrible detriment. But it is a detriment found in all systems, so it is not fair to blame the free-interprise system for greed.
3)"I think that political interests in the 20th century aggressively asserted the position that capitalism is synonymous with Christianity or Christian values,"
I do not agree that'capitalism' is synonymous with Christianity. I do think that'capitalism' is a better system than socialism. By now you have probably noticed that I make a distinction between capitalism and free-interprise. Capitalism is a term used to describe an economic way of raising capital so that business can operate. Free interprise is more encompassing of individual freedom to pursue their chosen livelihood with a minimum of government interference. In this pursuit the work/risk vs. reward is a primary factor. Governmental influence in this tends to always skew the work/risk vs. reward factor so that those willing to work long, work smart, work hard (read Damon) do not get to reap the full rewards of their labor.
4)"I figure what you envision, ultimately, in a small-government world with little taxation is the freedom for the average American, the little guy, to raise herself or himself up by the bootstraps and get a small business going, to make money, etc. Ironically, the only places I've seen that occur en force is in "liberal" communities and states, where citizens consider it an ethical stance to nurture local business culture and community, even though it costs them more sometimes, and therefore seems to be immediately economically detrimental.
How is what you experience in "liberal" communities any different than what takes place thoughtout the country in every state and every county? Your grandpa never bought a car outside of Gove County so he could support the locals. He always could have bought a car from Hays much cheaper. That was his choice. Just like it is everywhere. People live and shop in their communities - the communities they have a vested interest in whether it is a 'liberal' or 'conservative' community.
5)"And isn't community what early Church principles were primarily centered on? Distributing wealth and helping the poor, etc? The fundamentals of socialism are far more Christian than capitalism ever was....right?"
Community was a vital part of the early Church. However, community was never the center. The center was always Jesus. Christianity and the early Church never was about distributing wealth although it was vitally concerned with helping the poor. Within this discussion, the difference between Socialism and Christianity is that Socialism is a governmental system forcing wealth redistribution (and never to help the poor advance upward). It is an external force. Christianity is based on relationship which then fosters love and concern so that I desire to help the poor. From within his heart comes the motive to help the poor. Christianity is an inner force.
Socialism cannot build community because it is the states reponsibility. Christianity can build community because it is my responsibility.
6) "I think that these days, considering the burden of the enormous global population and the eternal issue of greed (which have complicated many of the nobler principles of capitalism), our money might be much better spent ensuring things like universal healthcare and increased government funded programs."
And right now in Seattle, who can not go to the ER and get treated? Are they turning people away? They don't here in Texas. Anybody who needs treatment can get it! The treatment may not be the same quality as someone with a great insurance plan. But so what is different in this than what is happening in Canada and England where who is treated, what is treated, and when it is treated is rationed out. No system will ever get equal treatment to everyone. So universal helathcare accomplishes what? Takes away personal control and increases governmental control. I oppose universal healthcare simply because it is not a right but a responsibility. Whenever the government takes away my responsibility it makes me more a ward of the state.
Government funded programs tend not to solve problems - they just morph into another form. Why? Because government programs can only deal with the symptoms and not the heart of man from which come the problems.
7)"Obviously, the majority of Americans, whether you agree with them or not, overwhelmingly agree that this is the future path towards a modern enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Regarding the future path we are on. I for one am not emotionally invested in the USA as it is constituted simply because one day it will cease to exist! I choose to be invested in what I believe is eternal - the Kingdom of Heaven.
The pursuit of (enjoyment of life) is not what the constitution affirms because this phrase is easily distorted to become purely hedonistic in practice. But life, libety, and the pursuit of happiness does harken us back to individual freedoms and away from Socialism. I can disagree with where the younger generation desires to take the USA and still accept it. If I don't want to live in the USA I am always free to leave. Ah, yes, freedom! God bless the USA
8)"I have to add one thing: I can't help but wonder if some Americans are still fundamentally opposed to socialist ideals because they associate these with the secularity of Europe; that is to say, if capitalism fails in America as the successful economic mode, Christians will perceive a fundamental philosophical loss in a centuries-long ideological struggle."
I think that most Americans are not so distraught over the winning or losing a philosophical argument as much as they see what the loss of the argument portends.
Wow, what a lot to discuss. It would be fun to sit down and chat face to face. But alas that must be in the future - and hopefully the not to distant future.