Are the Core Beliefs of Republicans and the Tea Party Different?

[Char. Limit]

Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?

Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'

When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.

You can't actually believe this... the whole point of this thread is that the Tea Party is not purely Republican, and will support anyone who goes for large social and economic freedoms.

 

[mheslep]

I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines? And he clearly describes them as forcing you to hand over your money at gunpoint (again, a paraphrase from memory). Based on those two characterizations - unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.

Heck, I consider them wasteful and immoral.

PS: If you think I've misrepresented him, I'll go have another look at the video.

No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00

"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."

* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.

 

[Char. Limit]

No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00

"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."

* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.

Hey, the French Revolution worked pretty well until every other nation in Europe declared war on them.

 

[mheslep]

Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?

Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'

When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.

You can't actually believe this... the whole point of this thread is that the Tea Party is not purely Republican, and will support anyone who goes for large social and economic freedoms.

Yes, ask (soon to be former Gov Fla ) Charlie Crist if he thinks the TP is just another name for the RP.

 

[Gokul43201]

A member of the tea party might argue that the government should stay out of healthcare because their involvement is the reason that law against paying for stuff out of pocket exists in the first place.

But when you actually poll the tea partiers, you find out that most of them believe Medicare is a worthwhile program and think it's good that it receives as much money as it does.

 

[mheslep]

Hey, the French Revolution worked pretty well until every other nation in Europe declared war on them.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" Completely unlike the American revolution, the Jacobins deliberately destroyed many (most?) societal institutions in pursuit of "the new man".

 

[Char. Limit]

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" worked pretty well? They lopped off thousands of heads per week, including some of best of scientists of the age. Completely unlike the American revolution, the Jacobins destroyed many (most?) societal institutions in pursuit of "the new man".

The Reign of Terror was late in the revolution, and just showed what happens when someone slowly becomes crazy. (Namely, the leader of the Jacobins, whose name I don't recall)

EDIT: Oh, I also want to say that the Reign of Terror happened after every other nation in Europe declared war in France, so my statement still stands tall.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00

"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."

* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.

So it's a statement of fact that the UK has failed to have government pay for healthcare?

 

[mheslep]

The Reign of Terror was late in the revolution, and just showed what happens when someone slowly becomes crazy. (Namely, the leader of the Jacobins, whose name I don't recall)

Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin. He was ruthless, not crazy, as were many of the Jacobins.

EDIT: Oh, I also want to say that the Reign of Terror happened after every other nation in Europe declared war in France, so my statement still stands tall.

Not if you mean that the other countries caused the Terror (1793) which began one year after the revolution. And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars#1791.E2.80.931792" in 1792.

 

[Char. Limit]

Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin. He was ruthless, not crazy, as were many of the Jacobins.

Not if you mean that the other countries caused the Terror (1793) which began one year after the revolution. And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars#1791.E2.80.931792" in 1792.

I don't mean that. I mean that before Robespierre went paranoid and started chopping people in two, it was working pretty well. I just chose the wars and the Terror because they happen to coincide chronologically.

 

[mheslep]

So it's a statement of fact that the UK has failed to have government pay for healthcare?

Nothing like that. Whittle refers to the failure (it was near collapse) of economic output in the UK in the 60s, early 70s from socialist policies, of which the NHS was only one of the many nationalized (at the time) industries. Heck, even the Soviets stopped trading with the UK back then - couldn't get delivery.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When someone says this is what the Tea Party stands for and not that, or that, you have to wonder how he knows, and who exactly decided that he should speak for the lot of them.

That's how I see it. The entire movement is "whatever makes you angry today". There is no formal logic or accountability, which is why they [whoever represents the tp that day] can take a stand against anything they want; as if their position was realistic or practical.

We all want lower taxes. We all want to reduce the debt. Most of us probably want the least government possible. We all want a thriving economy and good jobs. These goals are not exclusive to the right or the extreme right, but that is what the tp would have you believe. The problem comes in implementing steps to achieve these goals without making things worse.

 

[Gokul43201]

Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin.

I think it's unfair to club Rousseau in with radical extremists like Robespierre and Lenin.

 

[mheslep]

I think it's unfair to club Rousseau in with radical extremists like Robespierre and Lenin.

That inclusion wasn't careless on my part. I do think it fair, brilliance not withstanding. Rousseau IMO was the proximate cause of both of the other two. He condemmed a society of laws in http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.txt" :

Such was ... the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness.

Personally, Rousseau had a string mistresses, and fathered five children with one of them who he treated as a maid, abandoning all of the children to an abominable orphanage where they very likely died. So yes I think he gains entry to the club on grounds of ruthlessness as well, if he never actually dropped a guillotine blade or sent train loads to the gulags.

 

[Gokul43201]

Rousseau IMO was the proximate cause of both of the other two.

I think of Rousseau being a cause of Robespierre's actions in about the same vein that Christianity is the proximate cause for the actions of the Westboro Baptists.

He condemmed a society of laws in http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.txt" :

I think you've misinterpreted that passage. See for instance:

I should have wished to live and die free: that is, so far subject to the laws that neither I, nor anybody else, should be able to cast off their honourable yoke: the easy and salutary yoke which the haughtiest necks bear with the greater docility, as they are made to bear no other.

I should have wished then that no one within the State should be able to say he was above the law; and that no one without should be able to dictate so that the State should be obliged to recognise his authority. For, be the constitution of a government what it may, if there be within its jurisdiction a single man who is not subject to the law, all the rest are necessarily at his discretion.​

Personally, Rousseau had a string mistresses, and fathered five children with one of them who he treated as a maid,

You could very nearly be talking about Jefferson here. I don't consider these comparable to actions of Lenin or Robe'.

... abandoning all of the children to an abominable orphanage where they very likely died.

Again, I don't know the background for these actions, but I don't consider sending 5 of your children to a horrible orphanage, even if it was for no good reason, to be similar to slaughtering thousands of people.

I believe it is generally accepted that some of Rousseau's work was basis (or at least influential) for parts of the US Constitution.

 

[WhoWee]

But when you actually poll the tea partiers, you find out that most of them believe Medicare is a worthwhile program and think it's good that it receives as much money as it does.

If you've worked for the past 30 years, paying into Medicare Part A, and your plan is to receive benefits when you retire - you might think it's a good program? On the other hand, if you dig a little deeper and inquire whether they plan to rely on Original Medicare A&B only (or with a Part D with Original) OR whether they plan to have a Medigap Supplement or a Part C Medicare Advantage plan (hospital, medical, and prescription) and you'll find most want something more than Original. Next, if you dig even further, you'll find that millions of people with Original only - also have Medicaid.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you've worked for the past 30 years, paying into Medicare Part A, and your plan is to receive benefits when you retire - you might think it's a good program?

I can't speak intelligently about your succeeding statements, nor even claim to understand the point you make in them, but I do have a problem with the above statement.

If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds to me like a person who refers to a program as robbery when s/he is being forced to pay into it, but after doing this for 30-odd years, deems it worthwhile when the time comes to partake of the spoils.

 

[WhoWee]

I can't speak intelligently about your succeeding statements, nor even claim to understand the point you make in them, but I do have a problem with the above statement.

If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds to me like a person who refers to a program as robbery when s/he is being forced to pay into it, but after doing this for 30-odd years, deems it worthwhile when the time comes to partake of the spoils.

Medicare Part A is a payroll deduction and an insurance premium. Retirees are vested in this program. Unfortunately, when they become eligible for Part A, they find it does not protect them from out of pocket exposure to catastrophic events.

The hospital benefit requires a deductible of $1,100 in 2010 (increasing in 2011) per benefit period - it's possible to pay this deductible 6 times per year. At day 61 in the hospital, the beneficiary pays $275 per day, and $550 per day at day 91 (the benefit from day 91 to day 150 can only be used once) at day 151, the beneficiary pays 100% of the cost.

Part A is for hospital expenses ONLY Part B (which has an additional premium) is designed to cover 80% of medical expenses with no limit to out of pocket expenses. Original Medicare (generally) does not cover prescriptions filled outsuide the hospital (Part B).

 

[turbo]

From an AP-GfK poll.

Tea party backers fashion themselves as "we the people," but polls show the Republican Party's most conservative and energized voters are hardly your average crowd.

According to an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, 84 percent who call themselves tea party supporters don't like how President Barack Obama is handling his job – a view shared by just 35 percent of all other adults. Tea partiers are about four times likelier than others to back repealing Obama's health care overhaul and twice as likely to favor renewing tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans.

Exit polls of voters in this month's congressional elections reveal similar gulfs. Most tea party supporters – 86 percent – want less government intrusion on people and businesses, but only 35 percent of other voters said so. Tea party backers were about five times likelier to blame Obama for the country's economic ills, three times likelier to say Obama's policies will be harmful and twice as apt to see the country on the wrong track.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/tea-party-poll-elections-2012_n_787887.html

 

[ShawnD]

We all want lower taxes. We all want to reduce the debt. Most of us probably want the least government possible. We all want a thriving economy and good jobs. These goals are not exclusive to the right or the extreme right, but that is what the tp would have you believe. The problem comes in implementing steps to achieve these goals without making things worse.

It seems pretty obvious to me that most people really do want huge government. Even talking about cutting medicare will get you thrown out of office.
During the 2008 election, Ron Paul was up on stage talking about how his ultimate goal was to slash pretty much every government program and deregulate as much as possible. He wanted to end foreign entanglements, stop nation building, eliminate the welfare state, and start with the biggest wastes of money first. He sounded sensible when he said programs like homeless shelters should only be slashed after the bigger and more wasteful projects are slashed. Did he win the nomination? Not even close. He was beaten by republican candidates who flat out said they supported nation building and foreign entanglements like Iraq.

This is what makes tea baggers and libertarians a fringe minority. Most people really do support things like social security, medicaid, and medicare. Together those 3 programs make up something like 40% of the entire US federal budget, and it's about to get a lot bigger because the first baby boomers officially retire in 2011 (1946 + 65 years = 2011).

 

[mheslep]

...You could very nearly be talking about Jefferson here.

No I don't think so. 1) Jefferson apparently provided, at least basically, for Sally Hemmings and offspring; he did not throw them in the river. 2) Jefferson's moral blind spot for slavery certainly did not extend to the point of Rousseau's across the board hedonism that he applied to everyone including, as this episode shows, to those closest to him.

I don't consider these comparable to actions of Lenin or Robe'.

Again, I don't know the background for these actions, but I don't consider sending 5 of your children to a horrible orphanage, even if it was for no good reason, to be similar to slaughtering thousands of people.

A difference in opportunity, not in mindset, especially given his writings that go along with it.

I hope to get back to the R. quote later.

 

[mheslep]

During the 2008 election, Ron Paul ... Did he win the nomination? Not even close.

Paul came in second in five or six states and third in five or six more.

 

[Gokul43201]

Most people really do support things like social security, medicaid, and medicare. Together those 3 programs make up something like 40% of the entire US federal budget...

Make that 50% and you'd be close. Throw in military spending, which is also essentially impossible to touch, and you're at about 70% of the Fed budget.

Paul came in second in five or six states and third in five or six more.

Nevertheless, I think the "not even close" description is still pretty accurate.

One thing to recognize though, is that priorities of the electorate constantly change (pardon the ox'). Sometimes for good reason, other times, arbitrarily. Ron Paul may not have looked attractive to the Republican electorate in 2008, but now, he's got to be pretty close to their ideal representative. In 2000, McCain was deemed clearly inferior to Bush, but in 2008, he was going to be the one that saved the Republican Party from the Bush years.

 

[mheslep]

Liechtenstein, with a population of 35k, a little less than that of my zip code, also has the highest GDP per capita in the world at $122k. Liechtenstein now 'joins' the US Tea Party.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MDY5NWJhYzgxNDRmNDEyNmFhZWFjZmEzYjFiMGQ4M2Y="

Interviewer reading from the Prince's book:

The United States in Europe have to free the state from all the unnecessary tasks and burdens with which it has been loaded in the last one hundred years, which have distracted it from its two main tasks, the maintenance of the rule of law and foreign policy.

Interviewer: Your Highness ... if you were an American, you'd be a member of the Tea Party. Will you accept that?

Prince Hans-Adam: (amused) Well yes I have to accept that.

 

[Gokul43201]

That was interesting - thanks for the link. Any idea where to find the remaining 4 parts?

 

[mheslep]

That was interesting - thanks for the link. Any idea where to find the remaining 4 parts?

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

The interviews are always 5 parts there - 4/5 out tomorrow, 5/5 on Friday.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks - I know how I'll be spending my Turkey Day morning.

 

[Al68]

I think you've misinterpreted that passage. See for instance:

I should have wished then that no one within the State should be able to say he was above the law; and that no one without should be able to dictate so that the State should be obliged to recognise his authority. For, be the constitution of a government what it may, if there be within its jurisdiction a single man who is not subject to the law, all the rest are necessarily at his discretion.​

I'm having a hard time interpreting that passage myself.

What does "at his discretion" mean? And I don't follow the logic. Are we "at the discretion" of hummingbirds, for example, because a state's laws don't apply to them?

Does the fact that laws don't apply to hummingbirds constitute their ability to "dictate so that the State should be obliged to recognise their authority"? How so?

Is that just some convoluted and logically incoherent way to advocate equal treatment of humans under the law, or am I missing something?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'll try an explanation, but will not get into hummingbirds (humans can't form a social contract with hummingbirds, etc.). My understanding is that Rousseau (beyond just advocating for equal treatment under the law) makes the claim that is roughly along these lines: were there to be any people made exempt from the rule of law, such people would automatically usurp authority over the rest. This somewhat ambiguous corollary, however, is not central to my objection to the claim that Rousseau denounces a state governed by rule of law.

 

[CAC1001]

It seems pretty obvious to me that most people really do want huge government. Even talking about cutting medicare will get you thrown out of office.

Wanting those things is not the same as wanting a huge government. There is a difference between being for sound social safety nets and an excessive social-welfare state. If programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are reformed properly, then they will take up much less of the budget I think.

During the 2008 election, Ron Paul was up on stage talking about how his ultimate goal was to slash pretty much every government program and deregulate as much as possible. He wanted to end foreign entanglements, stop nation building, eliminate the welfare state, and start with the biggest wastes of money first. He sounded sensible when he said programs like homeless shelters should only be slashed after the bigger and more wasteful projects are slashed. Did he win the nomination? Not even close. He was beaten by republican candidates who flat out said they supported nation building and foreign entanglements like Iraq.

Wanting some sound social safety nets is not wanting a massive government, but wanting a limited government doesn't mean wanting to slash every government program and agency in existence either.

 

[CAC1001]

Ron Paul may not have looked attractive to the Republican electorate in 2008, but now, he's got to be pretty close to their ideal representative.

I hope not. Ron Paul strikes me as a nut and his followers seem very cult-like. I don't think he appeals to the Republican electorate though due to his foreign policy, which is very isolationist.

I think Sarah Palin is about as close to the ideal the Republicans want, but most are afraid she would not be able to win the General election. There are some other, lesser-known Republicans I think that also very much are the Republican ideal, such as Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think he appeals to the Republican electorate though due to his foreign policy, which is very isolationist.

My statement was specifically based on the observation that right now, Republicans don't seem care very much about foreign policy, at least relative to issues like the economy and health care. But like I implied above, this could very well be a short term fluctuation brought on by the unemployment rate, the tea party influence, and the stimulus and health-care bills. Give it a little time, and the average Republican will probably go back to worrying more about fighting the bad guys. In any case, I think the relevant electorate would much prefer to have Paul be their lifelong representative in the House, where foreign policy is probably not quite as important as local economic and social issues.

I think Sarah Palin is about as close to the ideal the Republicans want, but most are afraid she would not be able to win the General election.

Maybe, but it's close. Romney and Huckabee are neck-and-neck with Palin in recent polls, but like you said, there may be some influence of the "will not win a general election" feeling that might be lowering Palin's numbers.

There are some other, lesser-known Republicans I think that also very much are the Republican ideal, such as Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.

It's possible. But to clarify my point, I wasn't singling out Ron Paul as being closest to the ideal Republican so much as pointing out that he is probably seen a lot more favorably in today's political climate (where deficit cutting is a huge deal) than in the climate of 2008 (when it was a lot less important).

 

[turbo]

Wanting those things is not the same as wanting a huge government. There is a difference between being for sound social safety nets and an excessive social-welfare state. If programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are reformed properly, then they will take up much less of the budget I think.

Social Security is self-funded and doesn't take up any of the budget. It could be reformed very easily without forcing people to work longer or accept lower payments. Just raise or eliminate the cap on contributions. I can't tell you how many times I have hit that cap over the years. Every time the GOP wants to "reduce government" they come after Social Security, intending to make "reforms" on the backs of the workers who need it for their retirement. It's a false argument, yet Simpson and his co-chair are trotting it out again.

It's very easy for those wealthy deficit-hawks to talk about raising the retirement age, but they fail to properly address the physical limitations of aging workers who have strenuous jobs. I'd hate to have to continue to run paper machines at my age, much less at age 65-70.

 

[Al68]

I'll try an explanation, but will not get into hummingbirds (humans can't form a social contract with hummingbirds, etc.).

Why not? A social contract, as the term is commonly used, is not an actual contract that all parties entered into voluntarily.

My understanding is that Rousseau (beyond just advocating for equal treatment under the law) makes the claim that is roughly along these lines: were there to be any people made exempt from the rule of law, such people would automatically usurp authority over the rest.

That's why I used hummingbirds as a counter-example, because they are exempt from the law, yet they do not "automatically usurp authority" over us. Maybe mentally retarded people would have been a better counter-example, since they are also exempt from the law.

But regardless, someone being exempt from the law means the "rest" don't have authority over him. It doesn't logically follow that he would have authority over the "rest".

 

[Gokul43201]

Why not? A social contract, as the term is commonly used, is not an actual contract that all parties entered into voluntarily.

But while a human being can understand it, and protest it, a hummingbird can do neither.

But regardless, someone being exempt from the law means the "rest" don't have authority over him. It doesn't logically follow that he would have authority over the "rest".

I come to interpret Rousseau, not to praise him.