Good Tea Partiers, Bad Tea Partiers
James Hohmann comes up with an easy way to distinguish between the two — Tea Partiers in Two Camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul. "Palin... speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values," says Mr. Hohman. "Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values – the hallmarks of libertarians."
Socially conservative though I may be, I'm no social conservative. The paradox here is that once these issues are handed over to federal bureaucrats, they are as good as lost. Just look what happened to the American Indian, or the Black family, after the feds took over management of their internal affairs. Family values should be kept where they belong, in the family.
UPDATE: A conservative blog for peace links to this video of Black tea partiers speaking their minds — Keith Olbermann’s Worst Nightmare.
Socially conservative though I may be, I'm no social conservative. The paradox here is that once these issues are handed over to federal bureaucrats, they are as good as lost. Just look what happened to the American Indian, or the Black family, after the feds took over management of their internal affairs. Family values should be kept where they belong, in the family.
UPDATE: A conservative blog for peace links to this video of Black tea partiers speaking their minds — Keith Olbermann’s Worst Nightmare.
Labels: America the Beautiful, Conservatism, Indian America, Paleolibertarianism, Race Matters, Ron Paul for President
5 Comments:
This an area where I get stuck. I agree with social conservatives about the direction of the country and yes abortion is something to get angry about. But they are so wedded to militarism and government force. They also let themselves be manipulated by the GOP machine.
I agree with libertarians about the war and civil liberties. They correctly see the dangers of the leviathan state. But so many are just hostile to faith. Is the movement in principle hostile to the "ancient regime", to the Church. I worry that it is a trap some how.
Faustina
Probably a false dichotomy. Palinites (unthinkingly) support the imperial warfare state, Paulites (wisely) don't.
Which side agrees with George Washington on avoiding passionate attachments and entangling alliances? Imagine Paul wearing a hybridized flag cluster in his lapel.
Faustina, I see your dilemma, and am wary of such "traps" as well, but I think that most of the Ron Paul libertarians are not active enemies of the Faith. Even those that are just want to be left alone, and I can respect that.
I'm having a hard time seeing where Palin thinks government should promote "traditional values." She's been pretty quiet on anything other than pro-life issues, and has actually endorsed Title IX feminist sports meddling. (That's a program Phyllis Schafly hates)
Paul also has very good pro-life credentials and is probably more personally conservative than many of his followers. He has supported same-sex civil unions, apparently blind to what further action the left has planned after they are granted that concession.
The libertarian trap is that their permissive tendencies are only possible in a society that suppresses moral conservatism and subsidizes misbehavior. Without a welfare state, they'd be regarded as cads who shouldn't be trusted with anything.
The conservative trap, besides militarism and crony capitalism, is voting for politicians who won't defend their goals and in fact will subvert them. Many times, these politicians are rather libertarian themselves.
Better yet, imagine Paul (or any politician) wearing a don't tread on me flag on his lapel. Sadly I think it would end up being spun by wonks as un-American.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home