Die grosse Frage die niemals beantwortet ist und die Ich trotz dreissig Jahre langer Erforschung der Menschenseele auch night beantwortet konnte, lautet: Was wuenscht sich die Tea-Partierei?
When I hear the argument for “less government” from the Liptoners, I wonder what these people are willing to give up. The military is a big government bureaucracy, shouldn't we start chopping it down or just let it go? Wouldn't a private army, with corporate logos on uniforms, be less costly to tax payers? What about the FDA or USDA? Who needs meat and produce inspected or new drug applications tested? If I can save $4 of my income tax that (hypothetically) goes to staffing the USDA, should I be willing take my chances with tainted meat? Perhaps so, but is this what Tea Partysans believe? Would less government include removing all government restrictions on abortion? Hey why not! The FCC? Why can't kids watch porn at 8pm on my local Fox channel if they want to and if Murdoch wants to broadcast it?
*
In the end, the Tea Partysans are weak in political philosophy and strong on a type of nativist populism that can be described as conservative in a relational sense (not in a principled ideological sense). If it were just a matter of opposing the Wall Street bailout, I could see that as “non-partisan” (even though I think there is no such thing as a truly non-partisan position in politics: non-partisan implies opposition to a partisan position, which is partisan). Everyone hates finance bankers! (except the family members of bankers). However, when the complaints about big government are represented through terms like “socialist”, then I think it is a movement that is cathected to a conservative (i.e., traditionalist) milieu. If it turns into an organized political force, I am pretty sure it will do so within the Republican Party. It is no accident that the Republican Party is welcoming the energy of the Tea Parties: it could replace the flagging energy of aging social conservatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment