Tea party wins in northeastern primaries could bode well for Democrats

[estesbob]

The happenings of the various tea party groups IS news, whether you accept it as such or not. Fox is not guiding the tea party folks. Just because the other networks do not report what is going on is not make it less newsworthy.

Every single network had detailed reports on the tea party Wednesday morning. Of course that is irrelevant to the Left as they are convinced that every problem in the country was caused by George Bush and Fox news.

 

[bbarrick8383]

With it being so difficult to understand, I’m surprised so many people have joined.

It must be like a million man Mensa society.

Maybe that’s why you don’t understand it. Instead of keeping it simple, you are making it hard and trying to find something in it that does not exist.

I don’t see anything difficult about it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Another one who doesn’t understand the tea party. Keep up with your assumptions. You got it all figured out.

I understand it well enough to want to have nothing to do with it. I have it figured out enough for myself. Supporters of it, however, are welcome to push its agenda such as it is.

 

[Good_News_1]

I don’t see anything difficult about it.

Then we are agreed: they are reactionaries with almost nothing of value to add to public discourse.

Simple as it gets.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Every single network had detailed reports on the tea party Wednesday morning. Of course that is irrelevant to the Left as they are convinced that every problem in the country was caused by George Bush and Fox news.

If you can be so wrong to think that such is what we are convinced of, then why should we believe anything you say about abortion? You may just as well be wrong about it as about our blaming Fox News for everything.

 

[CMatt25]

Would the tea party cease to exist if it weren’t for Fox New? I think so.

mediamatters.org/blog/201008300026

Now Glenn Beck is telling them how to dress. I guess that makes him the tea party daddy.
I think a nice pair of cargo pants and a plain navy polo would be nice.

Oh no Via now don’t go there on this thread! I might have to attend a teen Mass in a warm climate in cargos, a navy top, but in a pair of nice clean white sneakers on my feet. Not sandals although I can’t guarantee someone won’t be in flip flops.

 

[Suudy]

If you want to discuss, item by item, various programs and their practical deficiencies and to suggest their reform or elimination on non-Constitutional grounds, that is one thing. But if you want to pretend to believe that our government is fundamentally un-Constitutional, then accept the logical consequence of that position. Otherwise there is really no common ground for discussion between those who want to improve existing institutions and those that, for ideological reasons, seek their elimination. Starting from a pre-determined ideological result, while pretending to want to work within the system incrementally, is insincere and does not ultimately allow for compromise.

Nonsense. The common ground is that both want the same end: justice and care for those in need. The only difference in opinion is the means.

You speak of practicalities, and on that basis reject ideal goals. The ideal is that the government limit itself to its enumerated power. To get there, however, requires practical steps forward. And each of those practical steps falls short of the ultimate ideal goal, but each of those practical steps is one step closer.

Look, it isn’t either the ideal or the practical. We do get it both ways. We strive towards an ideal AND use practical means.

Nice to look back, fifty or a hundred years later, after people give their entire lives to combat grave injustices, and pretend history could have happened in some alternative universe that is tidy and clean and adheres to some predetermined ideological recipe.

I’m not talking about past means that no longer exist. For example, the abolition of slavery practically required the death of 600,000 Americans. The means were disgusting. But that doesn’t mean we should return to slavery and try it again the right way.

The problem that bothers folks is the existing means. These means are still illicit today. And we want those means replaced with licit means.

Strawman.

Umm, no it isn’t. The tea party, for the most part, is focused on federal encroachment and consolidation of power. And for my part, that is my focus. For example, the problems with medical care for the poor and the elderly should not be solved by federal programs (funded federally or not).

I have a more fundamental question: what is your investment in an America neither you nor I nor our parents, or perhaps our grandparents, ever experienced, and which, to the extent that we understand it, was probably less desirable in most ways than our own time?

You are presuming that changes to how the government is structured would return the US to the same state it was then. I’m not suggesting (or is anyone that I’m aware of) that we return to how things were. This isn’t about regression, but progress in a different direction using fundamental principles that have been discarded. This isn’t about taking steps back, but looking back, figuring out where we went wrong, fixing things and going down a new path.

How do those programs hurt you? Do you realize that many federal programs are largely administered at the state level?

Pope JPII said it better than I could:By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
These programs are harmful because they deny people the dignity they deserve, attending only to their material needs while ignoring their social and spiritual needs. Further, these programs rob those not benefiting from those programs by reducing their ability to get directly involved.

As for administration, the issue is twofold: 1) many programs are federal funded (Social Security and Medicare to name a couple) and 2) many are unfunded mandates by the federal government (i.e. Medicaid and NCLB). They are both clear violations of subsidiarity, the latter being the most egregious. Both of these deprive communities of a lower order, depriving them their proper function.

 

[Suudy]

Had to split across two posts.

The main reason that most of these programs are funded at the federal level is because coordinated effort and resources need to be concentrated, and to avoid the freeloader problem.

This is an assertion I’ve not seen proven. This in conjecture only. Again, I encourage you to read Centesimus Annus. It isn’t just about resources, but about people, communities, and society.
Good_News;7072612:

The reasons these are federal programs are fairly self-evident…

If they were self-evident, nobody would oppose them.

So, I’m not seeing the great benefit of state control in these examples, since the states all do the same thing.

You are taking too practical a viewpoint. It isn’t just about the ends, but the means. Communities of higher order should not interfere in the internal lives of communities of a lower order. The benefit lies in the means, not just the ends.

And in the case of abortion, the nexus would be the federal interest in regulation of medicine.

You premise is that abortion is a medical procedure. It isn’t. Medical procedures are intended to cure or treat some disease or condition. Only in the last 30 years has pregnancy come to be considered a medical condition requiring treatment.

Were abortion to be recognized for the evil that it is–murder–it would need to be a federal interest any more than it is a federal interest to police murder, rape, etc.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

Then we are agreed: they are reactionaries with almost nothing of value to add to public discourse.

Simple as it gets.

What do you mean by reactionary? I notice this word being used exclusively by liberals for some group that they dismiss out of hand. I heard a liberal once using it to describe Objectivists, and then he didn’t want to discuss them like they were beneath his notice.

 

[estesbob]

If you can be so wrong to think that such is what we are convinced of, then why should we believe anything you say about abortion? You may just as well be wrong about it as about our blaming Fox News for everything.

You should believe everything I say as I am right 99.999999% of the time. And even when I’m wrong I mostly right-in most cases extreme right.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Then we are agreed: they are reactionaries with almost nothing of value to add to public discourse.

Simple as it gets.

Is the movement reactionary, no I don’t think so. Many of the members may be, I am to a certain extent. I see nothing wrong with that, this progressive direction we are headed is definitely the wrong way. Unfortunately since liberals do not believe in states rights they enjoy dragging us along with them it seems.

Being reactionary does not mean you have nothing of value.

 

[Good_News_1]

The ideal is that the government limit itself to its enumerated power.

In other words, to “resurrect” a dead theory of the Constitution which was never seriously adopted because it didn’t work, and replace the policies that were in place as the United States became a superpower and the economic engine of the world. That’s an ideal?

The problem that bothers folks is the existing means. These means are still illicit today. And we want those means replaced with licit means.

But they aren’t illicit. They are the law of the land, and have been for generations.

This isn’t about regression, but progress in a different direction using fundamental principles that have been discarded.

A different direction = backwards decades and centuries. That’s regression.

Pope JPII said it better than I could:

OK. If you want to talk about welfare, I don’t have a problem. I agree that private charity should be encouraged and increased (including by government action), and that the special needs of communities are best served locally. But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether the federal government should have the power to prohibit racial discrimination in a restaurant, or deterimine whether medications are safe. It doesn’t have much to do with whether agriculture should be stabilized through subsidies. It doesn’t have much to do with whether the government can run a mandatory retirement program. If you want to discuss things like healthcare, the very nature of the institutions that run them - huge hospitals and insurance companies - and the scale of the problems caused by huge demographic trends tend to dilute the case for local administration.

The Catholic Chruch, so far as I know, doesn’t have a theory of the United States Constitution. The Church is too large and wise to have an opinion on the 10th Amendment.

The problems of this country are relatively manageable. We won the cold war. We have a high standard of living and strong economy. We need to get a handle on the budget. That isn’t that hard to do - we had a surplus a decade ago. We need to whittle at the budget in practical terms. Social security is fairly easy to shore up. Medicare is a challenge.

What we don’t need is Rand Paul explaining how the civil rights laws were wrong, then changing his mind when he realizes how far out of touch his “ideals” are with reality. What we don’t need is people yelling and screaming about the deficit, and then finding excuses to balloon the deficit by trying to extend any of the gastly Bush tax cuts. What we don’t need is the constant stream of completely unqualified candidates, who started with Bush, and now include Obama, Palin, and people like O’Donnell, who claim their lack of experience are a virtue that will produce anything other than incompetence and disaster.

 

[Suudy]

In other words, to “resurrect” a dead theory of the Constitution which was never seriously adopted because it didn’t work, and replace the policies that were in place as the United States became a superpower and the economic engine of the world. That’s an ideal?

Are you saying the US became a superpower and the economic engine of the world is directly related to the size and scope of the federal government?

And the “dead theory” never had a chance. The Federalists, John Marshall included, killed the ideal before it ever went into effect. So to say “it didn’t work” is completely off base.

But they aren’t illicit. They are the law of the land, and have been for generations.

But they are. That’s the point. Again, read Centesimus Annus. See what the proper role of government is. It is not one where the communities of a higher order usurp the proper roles and duties of communities of a lower order. The law of the land has its basis in real, universal principles.

Being “the law of the land … for generations” is not a source of legitimacy. Slavery was the law of the land for generations, but that did not make the institution licit.

A different direction = backwards decades and centuries. That’s regression.

No it doesn’t mean that. Unless you mean progressivism now is “[a] different direct = backwards decades and centuries”. A different direction does not mean backwards. It only means not the same direction that we are on now.

But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether the federal government should have the power to prohibit racial discrimination in a restaurant, or deterimine whether medications are safe. It doesn’t have much to do with whether agriculture should be stabilized through subsidies. It doesn’t have much to do with whether the government can run a mandatory retirement program.

Absolutely it does! It’s not the proper role of communities of a higher order to usurp the roles and duties of communities of a lower order. I can’t repeat this enough. The ends do not justify the means.

Look, nobody disagrees with the idea that racial discrimination should be prohibited, or ensure the safety of medicines. The issue is how it is done. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power to do this (at least until the idea of implied rights coupled with judicial review appeared ). And I have no objection whatsoever if states individually enter compacts with each other to do these things. What bothers me is that the federal government has imposed mandates upon states to participate in compacts it may not want to participate in. To do so denies the very sovereignty of the states and the dignity and free will of their citizens.

The Catholic Chruch, so far as I know, doesn’t have a theory of the United States Constitution. The Church is too large and wise to have an opinion on the 10th Amendment.

Not in particular no. But in general yes. For the very application of the Constitution and its legitimacy are contingent upon proper role of the state as identified by Church teaching. For example, the Church has condemned communism. In doing so, it condemned the very government of the Soviet Union. Insofar as the Constitution violates Church teaching, it is illicit. And insofar as how the US government, in it current configuration and exercise of power, violates Church teaching, is illicit.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then we are agreed: they are reactionaries with almost nothing of value to add to public discourse.

Simple as it gets.

I love this.

The left is given to authoritarian concentrations of power. That’s as old as tribalism. The present all-powerful triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid is as old as the Roman Republic.

Long ago, we had terrible transportation problems. They were largely solved by the proper employment of power from petroleum. The left doesn’t like petroleum, and wants to frustrate its use.

Before man figured out that he could warm himself and cook his food with fire, he just shivered in the dark and ate food raw. After some time, he figured out that coal burns even more efficiently than wood. Then he discovered that he could employ coal to generate electricity. The left doesn’t like coal and wants it banned.

And, before man had figured out almost anything, he had nothing but the sun and wind to light his life and sail his boats. Today, the left wants us to try to power everything with the sun and wind.

Man figured out that there’s a lot more nutrition in meat than there is in grass and gathered roots. Of course, the left thinks cattle cause enough methane to kill polar bears, so they want to cut down on those.

In primitive socieities (and some today) gathering wealth was chiefly a function of raiding one’s more fortunate neighbor. The left wants to redistribute wealth by force.

In primitive societies, unwanted children were exposed to the elements to die. Obama, the left’s darling, opposed the Infants Born Alive Act…twice.

And the TEA PARTY is composed of reactionaries?

 

[Good_News_1]

Are you saying the US became a superpower and the economic engine of the world is directly related to the size and scope of the federal government?’

In two parts:

First, the expanded scope of the federal government didn’t significantly hinder the rise of the United States, which was incredibly swift.

Second, the expanded scope of the federal government aided the growth of the economy. Certainly the government is entirely responsible for the military dominance of the United States.

Third, the rise of the United States corresponded with movement away from your ideal, hence I wouldn’t think injecting your ideal would be the natural way to replicate or continue that path.

And the “dead theory” never had a chance. The Federalists, John Marshall included, killed the ideal before it ever went into effect. So to say “it didn’t work” is completely off base.

Well, we could debate that. But this is my point: you are reaching back to theories that have been dead for hundreds of years, and I wonder “why?” What is so horrible in America that can only be fixed by reaching back in history to an society that is completely unrecognizable from anything you have ever experienced? This isn’t like taking about marriage or abortion, in which thousands of years of tradition that are foundational to all societies were forcefully torn down in the course of a generation. We are talking about a theory of government that, by your description, never existed, except in certain people’s minds, hundreds of years ago…

It is not one where the communities of a higher order usurp the proper roles and duties of communities of a lower order.

I understand that communities of a lower order are favored. But communities of a higher order also have functions. The debate is where each function lies. Just noting that the larger entity has exercised or shares power doesn’t end the discussion.

Look, nobody disagrees with the idea that racial discrimination should be prohibited, or ensure the safety of medicines. The issue is how it is done.

No. It couldn’t have happened any other way. We don’t get to invent alternative histories.

The Constitution does not grant the federal government power to do this (at least until the idea of implied rights coupled with judicial review appeared ).

Again, I live in reality. The government has that power. If you want, I will walk with you to the federal building and discuss it with the employees. If I could, we could sit down with the current members of the Supreme Court who will tell you it does, and then bring back the long dead Justices who will tell you it does.

You disagree for some reason that I can’t really fathom. But the law is the reality. Your idea is just an idea.

And I have no objection whatsoever if states individually enter compacts with each other to do these things.

This isn’t conservative, if by conservative you mean, as in the link I gave, a “critique of ideology.” It is pure, unadulteratered ideology and social engineering. There has never been, to my knowledge, in history, a system of state compacts to regulate commerce in a modern economy. There isn’t any pressing practical argument for such a thing, or reason to believe it will work. Now, a hundred and fifty years after the Civil War, it is hard to defend it as being rooted in our history and traditions.

To do so denies the very sovereignty of the states and the dignity and free will of their citizens.

Except, again, reality says otherwise. We have functioning state governments, with large budgets, running all sorts of programs. The states can’t be truly sovereign in any real sense - that was settled by the Civil War, wasn’t it?

. Insofar as the Constitution violates Church teaching, it is illicit. And insofar as how the US government, in it current configuration and exercise of power, violates Church teaching, is illicit.

I don’t know about that. We have capital punishment and abortion in the United States. That doesn’t make the government illicit, and it certainly doesn’t make it illegitimate. It means it is a secular institution with some immoral policies and practices.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

Except, again, reality says otherwise. We have functioning state governments, with large budgets, running all sorts of programs. The states can’t be truly sovereign in any real sense - that was settled by the Civil War, wasn’t it?
.

I see people use this argument all the time. The Civil War proved nothing except that the side with more guns, more ammunition, and more lives to spend, won. It did not turn our republic into a centralized totalitarian society.

 

[Good_News_1]

I love this.

The left is given to authoritarian concentrations of power.

I wouldn’t describe either political party in the United States as particularly authoritarian. We have, in practice, what amounts to center-left and center-right governance.

 

[Suudy]

Third, the rise of the United States corresponded with movement away from your ideal, hence I wouldn’t think injecting your ideal would be the natural way to replicate or continue that path.

No, it didn’t, since that ideal was never realized. It was never even attempted. Right out the gate it was shuttled, with no reason other than the ideological belief in Federalism.

What is so horrible in America that can only be fixed by reaching back in history to an society that is completely unrecognizable from anything you have ever experienced?

You are focused on the ends, ignoring the means. It takes both. A society that puts every accused murderer death will have a spectacularly low murder rate, but that doesn’t justify the means. So just because the US has been on a meteoric rise in power and influence does not justify the mean by which it has occurred.

We are talking about a theory of government that, by your description, never existed, except in certain people’s minds, hundreds of years ago.

Yet you reject it as failed, though it never existed? How does that make sense?

I understand that communities of a lower order are favored. But communities of a higher order also have functions. The debate is where each function lies. Just noting that the larger entity has exercised or shares power doesn’t end the discussion.

I never said it does end the discussion. Of course it is a debate. And that is why people who advocate for a smaller federal government aren’t incoherent and off their rocker. You are the one trying to shutdown debate because you claim it has worked so far. You even go so far as to say it couldn’t have happened any other way.

No. It couldn’t have happened any other way. We don’t get to invent alternative histories.

Non sequitur. Just because it didn’t happen a different way doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened another way. Just because I got to Cleveland via bus doesn’t mean I couldn’t have gotten there by airplane. Why then do you think it required a strong, central government to get where we are today?

Again, I live in reality. The government has that power

Might makes right?

You seem to keep missing the point. It isn’t about what is, but what should be. The latter is what I’m talking about.

You disagree for some reason that I can’t really fathom. But the law is the reality. Your idea is just an idea.

I disagree because a clear reading of the Constitution does not support such a position. It was hotly debated at the time, and some legal scholars today still question its application. But to say that just because it has been that way for years, therefore it must be true, is wrongheaded. Again, I point you to the example of slavery. Slavery existed for millenia, yet we don’t suggest that slavery was in any way legitimate. Misogynism was all the rage for thousands of years, but we didn’t just shrug and say “Well, it’s always been that way.”

This isn’t conservative, if by conservative you mean, as in the link I gave, a “critique of ideology.” It is pure, unadulteratered ideology and social engineering. There has never been, to my knowledge, in history, a system of state compacts to regulate commerce in a modern economy. There isn’t any pressing practical argument for such a thing, or reason to believe it will work. Now, a hundred and fifty years after the Civil War, it is hard to defend it as being rooted in our history and traditions.

I’m not talking about commerce, because that is a specifically enumerated power to the federal government. Don’t create strawmen.

I’m talking about regulations and services. In fact, states already do this. States are already in compacts regarding reciprocal rights for driving privileges, vehicle licensing, sales tax exemptions, alcohol and tobacco sales, etc. If two or more states want to get together to run a social welfare program, I say go for it. One big example is the lottery systems that many states participate in.

Except, again, reality says otherwise. We have functioning state governments, with large budgets, running all sorts of programs. The states can’t be truly sovereign in any real sense - that was settled by the Civil War, wasn’t it?

They can with regard to the relationship to the federal government and with each other. Absolutely. Just because I have a driver’s license in Georgia does not grant me driving privileges in Michigan by virtue of me being a US citizen. It, in fact, requires reciprocal agreements between two sovereign states. Sovereignty also has meaning with regard to things like Medicaid and NCLB. States should be free to accept or reject federal intervention in their internal affairs.

I don’t know about that. We have capital punishment and abortion in the United States. That doesn’t make the government illicit, and it certainly doesn’t make it illegitimate. It means it is a secular institution with some immoral policies and practices.

I never said the government as a whole is illicit. Reread what I wrote. I said “insofar as how the US government, in it current configuration and exercise of power, violates Church teaching, is illicit.” The key word is “insofar”. That is, those policies, regulations, laws, and practices that violate Catholic teaching are illicit.

 

[bbarrick8383]

In a world where historically one of the most devastating and destructive forces known to man was government, that there are people who are so trusting and willing to give more and more power to their government as if nothing bad could never happen to them baffles me. When a constitution is ignored or treated as if it were written in pencil, you will undoubtedly end up, whether in your lifetime or not, like other countries that do the same.

We must not look at it as through our own eyes, that’s too easy, but with the wisdom of our founding fathers we should look through their eyes and even more difficult through the eyes of our decendants.

 

[a_priori]

As someone who lives in the Northeast, the situation is easy to describe. The “looters” have been outvoting the “producers” for years here. It has metastacized nationwide and we are now an economic “dead man walking”. The “looters” won’t acknowledge this until the “producers” are broke. Stay tuned.

Note: One can find Ayn Rand’s objectivism abhorrent but agree with her looter/producer metaphor.