the tea party: libertarian my ass

satansbed

WHAT makes tea partiers tick? Jonathan Haidt, a trailblazer in the scientific study of the psychology of moral sensibility and judgement, says it's conservative conviction in "karma". Perhaps this is not what you were expecting? Mr Haidt elaborates:

Karma is not an exclusively Hindu idea. It combines the universal human desire that moral accounts should be balanced with a belief that, somehow or other, they will be balanced. In 1932, the great developmental psychologist Jean Piaget found that by the age of 6, children begin to believe that bad things that happen to them are punishments for bad things they have done.

Mr Haidt goes on to argue that, as conservatives see it, since the New Deal, liberals in power have been trying to suspend the karmic laws of cause and effect, insulating individuals from the injurious effects of vice and poor judgement. Birth control and abortion detached sex from it's natural consequences, welfare rewarded indolence and illegitimacy, and so on. "Now jump ahead to today's ongoing financial and economic crisis," Mr Haidt says.

Again, those guilty of corruption and irresponsibility have escaped the consequences of their wrongdoing, rescued first by President Bush and then by President Obama. Bailouts and bonuses sent unimaginable sums of the taxpayers' money to the very people who brought calamity upon the rest of us. Where is punishment for the wicked?

Not only are sinners saved from their just desserts, in the karmic conservative's scheme, the virtuous and true are punished for their industry through unjustly burdensome levels of taxation and bureaucratic interference. Studies show liberals are more likely to treat equality as a moral baseline, and to see wealth and poverty as lucky or unlucky draws in the cosmic lottery. For them, the state acts well when it intervenes to smooth the unequal wages of fortune. However, Mr Haidt contends, "[f]or the tea partiers, federal activism has become a moral insult. They believe that, over time, the government has made a concerted effort to subvert the law of karma."

This is an intriguing hypothesis, and Mr Haidt offers a number of pieces of evidence to back it up. The data he sets forth, it turns out, strike a blow to the idea that the tea-party movement is primarily animated by "libertarian" sentiments.

Here's a statement about the positive side of karma: "Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most." Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically than liberals and libertarians, whose responses were identical.

And here's a statement about the negative side of karma: "Whenever possible, a criminal should be made to suffer in the same way that his victim suffered." Liberals reject this harsh notion, and libertarians mildly reject it. But conservatives are slightly positive about it.

The tea party is often said to be a mixture of conservative and libertarian ideals. But in a study of 152,000 people who filled out surveys at YourMorals.org, led by my colleague Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California, we found that libertarians are morally a bit more similar to liberals than to conservatives.

Mr Haidt goes on to note that libertarians differ as strongly as do liberals with conservatives about the importance of "group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritual sanctity" among moral considerations. Mr Haidt seems to suggest that these differences in moral temperament will cause the largely conservative tea-party movement to fail to fully integrate its libertarian rump. This prediction rings true. For over 40 years libertarians have been an impotent drop of oil in the conservative gallon bucket. One is almost tempted to say that libertarians pinning their hopes on tea-party triumph deserve what they've got coming to them, but, alas, there is no karma.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... d_politics

unsung

Jesus, when will some of you get it through your heads?

The TEA Party is nothing anymore compared to what it originally started as. The movement has been hijacked, probably about six months ago or so.

We now have color TV's and phones that don't have cords. Get up to speed please.

mikepegg44

unsung wrote:

We now have color TV's and phones that don't have cords. Get up to speed please.

I am amazed to what length people will go to discredit people for becoming motivated in the political process. It always seems to be the same people who accuse Americans of apathy when it comes to the political process. I guess getting involved isn't enough, you also must agree with them in order for it to be ok

unsung

I think it is a fear thing because next week they are going to get their clocks cleaned.

BTW I should mention we now also offer digital clocks.

know1

I've started my own party. Its intention can not and will not be muddled by anyone.

The name of the party is "Vote against all incumbents with no exceptions party".

Anyone care to join me?

unsung

I'd be on board for about 98% of them.

know1

unsung wrote:

I'd be on board for about 98% of them.

Then you're not on board.

satansbed

unsung wrote:

Jesus, when will some of you get it through your heads?

The TEA Party is nothing anymore compared to what it originally started as. The movement has been hijacked, probably about six months ago or so.

We now have color TV's and phones that don't have cords. Get up to speed please.

yeah but even ron paul, who i admire, but not neccesarily agree with,l calls himself "strongly pro-life",[ "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health

VINNY GOOMBA

satansbed wrote:

unsung wrote:

Jesus, when will some of you get it through your heads?

The TEA Party is nothing anymore compared to what it originally started as. The movement has been hijacked, probably about six months ago or so.

We now have color TV's and phones that don't have cords. Get up to speed please.

yeah but even ron paul, who i admire, but not neccesarily agree with,l calls himself "strongly pro-life",[ "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health

Actually, he's officially in the "it's up to the states to decide how they want to handle abortion" group, but it really isn't his biggest priority. The man realizes that abortions will always exist, even if illegal, and that in principle the law should protect life, but simply law alone will not yield the least number of abortions. Conciously avoiding unwanted pregnancy is the only way to do that, which relies on personal responsibility-- one of the cornerstones of libertarian philosophy.

I'm not really sure what any of this had to do with the tea party discussion though?

VINNY GOOMBA

know1 wrote:

I've started my own party. Its intention can not and will not be muddled by anyone.

The name of the party is "Vote against all incumbents with no exceptions party".

Anyone care to join me?

I'm on board, and wish others were too. I bought the domain name FireWashington2010.com over a year ago with this being the stated purpose-- a totally non-partisan agreement that Congress and our locally represented officials have failed us collectively, and that it would be a revolutionary act to remove them all at once on one day, without a shot being fired. Guess who never got around to it :( ?

Anyway, the few good reps (and we all know how few they are) would be worth the sacrifice if it meant a 100% turnover. Even my favorite, the great Dr. Paul, who I'm sure is one of Unsung's exceptions. I figure it'll give him more time to think about a 2012 presidential run

know1

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

know1 wrote:

I've started my own party. Its intention can not and will not be muddled by anyone.

The name of the party is "Vote against all incumbents with no exceptions party".

Anyone care to join me?

I'm on board, and wish others were too. I bought the domain name FireWashington2010.com over a year ago with this being the stated purpose-- a totally non-partisan agreement that Congress and our locally represented officials have failed us collectively, and that it would be a revolutionary act to remove them all at once on one day, without a shot being fired. Guess who never got around to it :( ?

Anyway, the few good reps (and we all know how few they are) would be worth the sacrifice if it meant a 100% turnover. Even my favorite, the great Dr. Paul, who I'm sure is one of Unsung's exceptions. I figure it'll give him more time to think about a 2012 presidential run

I'm sure I'll be behind it in 2012 as well. I'm even doing it on the local level.

If we can ever get to the point where they realize they are only going to serve one term, perhaps people who really want to DO SOMETHING USEFUL, as opposed to just working to line their own pockets and get re-elected, will actually run for public office.

unsung

know1 wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'd be on board for about 98% of them.

Then you're not on board.

I'd never be able to vote against Ron Paul.

know1

unsung wrote:

know1 wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'd be on board for about 98% of them.

Then you're not on board.

I'd never be able to vote against Ron Paul.

I wrote him in the last presidential election...even though I'm not even sure a write-in was allowed in my case.

polaris_x

how about the abolishment of political parties? ... no more republicans or democrats ... you are identified in your candidacy by your name and your idealogy ...

know1

polaris_x wrote:

how about the abolishment of political parties? ... no more republicans or democrats ... you are identified in your candidacy by your name and your idealogy ...

I think we should get rid of politicians and let there be a popular vote on the issues and laws.

(I know that would be difficult to accomplish, but communication and technology is getting better and it would be a goal to shoot for).

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

I've started my own party. Its intention can not and will not be muddled by anyone.

The name of the party is "Vote against all incumbents with no exceptions party".

Anyone care to join me?

...
That was the original intent of the Tea Party.
But, now... it is the militantly vocal right wing of the Republican party. It was hi-jacked when FOX News and their celebrities (Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Rove, Kristol) sponsored their rallies and pulled Palin onboard.
A good idea was polluted by partisan politics spread by mass media disguised as truth... welcome to 21st Century American Politics.

know1

Cosmo wrote:

know1 wrote:

I've started my own party. Its intention can not and will not be muddled by anyone.

The name of the party is "Vote against all incumbents with no exceptions party".

Anyone care to join me?

...
That was the original intent of the Tea Party.
But, now... it is the militantly vocal right wing of the Republican party. It was hi-jacked when FOX News and their celebrities (Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Rove, Kristol) sponsored their rallies and pulled Palin onboard.
A good idea was polluted by partisan politics spread by mass media disguised as truth... welcome to 21st Century American Politics.

Their mistake was naming it something ambiguous such as the Tea Party. I'm keeping my party name the same.

Electric_Delta

know1 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

how about the abolishment of political parties? ... no more republicans or democrats ... you are identified in your candidacy by your name and your idealogy ...

I think we should get rid of politicians and let there be a popular vote on the issues and laws.

(I know that would be difficult to accomplish, but communication and technology is getting better and it would be a goal to shoot for).

Popular vote? Letting the PEOPLE determine their futures?

Why, that's radical! Call Nancy Pelosi! This guy must be a tea partier!

markin ball

polaris_x wrote:

how about the abolishment of political parties? ... no more republicans or democrats ... you are identified in your candidacy by your name and your idealogy ...

I wish it could be true but I think people will always form alliances, aka parties. The t.v. show "Survivor" demonstrates this well.

polaris_x

markin ball wrote:

I wish it could be true but I think people will always form alliances, aka parties. The t.v. show "Survivor" demonstrates this well.

they may ... however, by abolishing the party system - voters are then forced to be engaged and to listen and therefore hold politicians accountable ...

right now, i suspect many people vote simply based on the letter next to candidate's name and are done with ... they want to be spoon-fed what to think instead of forming opinions of their own ...

Cosmo

Getting rid of the party system is never going to happen... however, the rise of a third (and possibly fourth) party is completely possible. The trick is that the third party will typically siphon off voters from one party or the other. Look at the recent elections where a third party was a factor... 1992 and 2000. Ross Perot siphoned off voters who were more likely to vote for Bush(41) than Clinton, Nader voters were more likely to vote Gore ahan Bush(43).
The Tea Party would have been better served by collaborating with the Libertarian Party and could possibly field a candidate such as Paul, who might defect from the deeply dysfunctional Republican party.
Instead, they chose the rhetoric of the Karl Rove Republican party and are now part of that party... whether they want to believe it or not.
If the Tea Party wants to stop being a joke... they NEED to dump the Republicans... dump FOX News... dump Sarah Palin and get back to their origins, replacing Republicans and Democrats with Independents that hold no alligence to the Two Party system.