Gridlock in Washington D.C. due to partisan politics is strangling, polarizing and leading our great country down a slope of fiscal irresponsibility toward bankruptcy. For the past three decades, or so, we have seen the size and scope of the Federal Government grow while placing unfunded burdens on the shoulder of the States. After the historic election of Sen. Obama, as the United States first mulatto president, a movement started to take hold. That movement has become to be known as the Tea Party movement. Criticism has been heaved upon this group as a bunch of redneck bigots that only protest the President because he is black. According to Tea Party Patriot website (www.teapartypatriots.org) the mission is:
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
There philosophy is:
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.
Recently a new group of people feeling alienated by the Tea Party movement has sprung up. The new movement is called the Coffee Party. The Coffee Party (http://coffeepartyusa.com) mission is:
The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.
Both Parties claim to be independent, non-partisan and diverse. The grassroots mantra is being heralded by both parties but a quick Google search finds only one website for the Coffee party and over 30 sites for the Tea Party movement. Regardless if you consider yourself a Tea, Coffee, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Socialist, or Libertarian Party member an intriguing change on the political landscape is before us and threatens the Two-Party system. Listening to the pundits, left and right, a common fear grips them all with Americans gravitating towards a third party concept; competition. The right is afraid that too many Conservatives will vote for a non-Republican endorsed candidates while the left is concerned that Progressives (Liberals) will vote for a non-Democrat endorsed candidates.
The Tea and Coffee Party members are bringing to light that a serious third party movement can really take hold and gain traction? The bums in office now, and in the past three decades, have done little but their own re-election needs ahead of America by contending that putting America further into debt and making us all slaves to the notion that Big Government is in our best interest. Much to their chagrin Americans have become dependent, almost co-dependent, on the Federal Government to solve our ills. We want cheaper health care so we turn to the Government, we want assistance from losing our job so we turn to Government, we want to marry whom we choose so we turn to Government, etc…Have we not learned one thing as Americans from turning to the Government?
Turning to the Government for all the answers only creates more problems because those in Government cannot agree on which freedoms to restrict or who should pay. I know I invoke our Founding Fathers a lot but I believe they set the ground work for one of the most envious forms of Government the world has seen. Democracy does come with a price but Big Government is not the price we should be paying. Again I ask, is it time for a new bold approach to Government that the Tea and Coffee Party organizers are trying to tap? Is it time for the Republicans and Democrats to graciously step aside and allow everyday citizens to represent Americans again? A mistake we have made is to make Government a full-time job.
Are you for the status quo – Republican or Democrat Party – or are you drinking something different?
You, like many of your libertarian contemporaries, dislike the government being used as a crutch. In some short order, can you tell me where disaffected people are supposed to turn?
ReplyDelete"Turning to the Government for all the answers only creates more problems because those in Government cannot agree on which freedoms to restrict or who should pay."
This is quite a bold statement. So really what you are stating is that it is not the government but the people who are IN government that is the problem. And, since WE elect those people we are, in a sense, to blame for those problems. Correct?
"In some short order, can you tell me where disaffected people are supposed to turn?"
ReplyDeleteIn the most basic terms, libertarians (of which Chris self-describes as not being one by the way) believe that the person we should turn to is ourselves. Libertarianism believe in the right of oneself to self govern on the most basic level and from a political perspective in two basic tenets - in modern political terms they are fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. By that we believe that the government should be small with minimal responsibilities (national defense and law enforcement among them). If people abide by the laws and law enforcement is adequate, there is no need for excessive regulation. In most basic terms, my rights on my property are my own as long as they do not hurt my neighbors and your rights stop at my property line. Therefore, as an example, I cannot pollute my land because it would hurt my neighbors and you aren't able to pollute your land because it would hurt me.
We also believe that there is no creed worth more than another. Therefore, racial, religious, sexual differences are not considered relevant. For example, libertarians do not believe that government should sanction marriage of any type, therefore if marriage is a contract between two people then gay marriage should be legal since all people are equal and those two people have a right to choose how they live. It's between them, not them and society.
That's a VERY basic idea of some of what libertarians stand for. (ridiculously basic and missing quite a bit)
"And, since WE elect those people we are, in a sense, to blame for those problems. Correct?"
Yes, we are to blame for our problems. Ironically I posted on Chris's facebook copy of a quote that addresses this.
Maistre wrote, "Every nation has the government it deserves".
We deserve the government we have - because we're complacent in our stewardship of our rights. And fixing the system won't happen from within either current political party. Both are a part of the cause, not the solution to the problem.
Kevin..Thank you for the simplistic look at Libertarians.
ReplyDeleteAnon..Yes, elections have consequences. The trouble is that Americans do not demand more of their elected officials. We do not demand that they be held accountable for their actions. Case in point is Rep. Rengel who had to step down from his Ways & Means Committee chairmanship because of ethics violations but is not being run out of Washington because he casts the right vote on health care reform.
We as Americans should not sit idly by and allow Rep. Rengel to remain in office. While I am not a fan of term limits, the way in which Americans take the right to vote so lightly a time may come for them. If we demanded a Government that offered the basics - safety, protection, and ensuring rights - we would not have a government that offers bailouts, subject to special interests, and allows people to make choose.
Kevin and or Viper...a question. Kevin stated, "if people abide by the laws and law enforcement is adequate, there is no need for excessive regulation."
ReplyDeleteWait a minute..isn't "excessive" a fairly subjective term. And if people (and I'm guessing you also mean corporations) abide by the laws (that were written by the government) we wouldn't have to give them more laws? But if those laws become, say, antiquated or ineffective, then we change the laws or add new ones? Doesn't that surmount to government regulation? The very thing that libertarians are against?
I happen to believe the libertarian creed just like you two, but I think both of you are delusional if you think that it is possible to achieve. Being that no democracy on earth has such a government set up this way. There is either a socialized government system or a half-assed democracy with poverty around 60% and people going hungry in the streets.
Viper, would you like being fired from a job when your boss only has one side of the story? He has "alleged" ethics violations. One nice thing about democracy is that he gets to face his accuser and a separate entity gets to decide his fate when BOTH sides of the story are told. Besides, Reps have a 2 year term. His opponent will have every opportunity to present this during the election and he might be voted out. You don't think thats fair?
Anon...In regards to Rep. Rangel, the ethics committee has come back with their preliminary findings that his failure to account for rental property and disclose the finances regarding the trip were a violation. If Rep. Rangel was not guilty then why step down from his chairmanship?
ReplyDeleteIt is this type of arrogance that nearly every elected official feels they are entitled to. You are correct that voters will get the opportunity to vote for or against Rangel. I admit I haven't looked to see if he is up for re-election in 2010 or 2012. Either way we need to demand more accountability from our elected officials.
Ahh, Rangel is in the House. He would be up for reelection in 2010 and 2012 if he wins. I'm assuming that was a temporary lapse rather than not knowing.
ReplyDeleteyes, correct oversight on my part. Thanks.
ReplyDelete