Tea Party Libertarians complaining of co-opting

[NorthSideSox72]

So, the inevitable has begun. The Tea Party, having realized they were co-opted by the Republicans generally (and more specifically, by the Christian Coalition crowd), is starting to show that it's two distinct groups of people. The more Libertarian crowd is complaining about it.

 

And hilariously, read what head co-opter Jim DeMint had to say...

 

Conservative South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who has been called "Sen. Tea Party," angered some in the movement by asserting during an recent interview on Fox News that "you can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative."

 

His argument, he told Fox, and one echoed by Perkins, is this: "A large part of the expansive government is to make up for a dysfunctional society because our culture is falling apart, the family is falling apart."

 

LOL, even for a Congressman, that's an impressively loose justification for saying small government equals big government. How do people see this and not laugh?

 

But hey, keep it up Jim. The economy is still in the tank and you plan to make this about social issues? Good luck with aaaaaaaaaallll that.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Good for the Libertarians. Really surprised it took so long for them to speak up.

[Balta1701]

Good for the Libertarians. Really surprised it took so long for them to speak up.

Not surprised in the least.

[NorthSideSox72]

Good for the Libertarians. Really surprised it took so long for them to speak up.

I'm guessing we didn't hear much about it from them for multiple reasons...

 

1. They quickly became the minority in their own movement, so they were drowned out

 

2. The media didn't find that story nearly as interesting as making it out to be some kind of revolution, which is way sexier. Now its way sexier to find division in said movement.

 

3. These libertarian types probably were happy to use the co-opting to get their folks in office in some places, but now they want to make sure they get what they wanted out of them.

 

 

[Balta1701]

4. The Libertarians really aren't that much of the "Tea Party", which is basically just the activist wing of the Republican Party anyway, and they make very little noise electorally because they're going to turn out to vote every time anyway and they're not voting for Democrats.

[lostfan]

This sounds about right and it's one of the reasons you had so much "the Tea Party is ____" from the left, who are more or less describing what they can see, and why you have people who self-identify with the Tea Party replying with "no, you guys are way off and you don't understand what we're about, 'we' are not interested in half those things you said, we're only concerned with the budget" etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

4. The Libertarians really aren't that much of the "Tea Party", which is basically just the activist wing of the Republican Party anyway, and they make very little noise electorally because they're going to turn out to vote every time anyway and they're not voting for Democrats.

Your bolded phrase I already said, and the rest of your post is basically left-wing talking points that aren't very accurate. So please don't co-opt my list.

 

Like the Alien Trilogy, I refuse to acknowledge anything after #3.

 

 

[lostfan]

well Balta is right, there aren't a whole lot of Libertarian Democrats.

[NorthSideSox72]

well Balta is right, there aren't a whole lot of Libertarian Democrats.

The Libertarian crowd is really not a reliable GOP vote - They are independents and in fact, the ones I know who really are Libertarians, often voted 3rd party or even Dem a lot in the past decade because the GOP abandoned fiscal discipline.

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm guessing we didn't hear much about it from them for multiple reasons...

 

1. They quickly became the minority in their own movement, so they were drowned out

 

2. The media didn't find that story nearly as interesting as making it out to be some kind of revolution, which is way sexier. Now its way sexier to find division in said movement.

 

3. These libertarian types probably were happy to use the co-opting to get their folks in office in some places, but now they want to make sure they get what they wanted out of them.

 

1 is true. 2 is only kinda true. It became more sexy as a story for the media because they now got to demonize the right wing that they love going after so much. We got to hear all of the stories about the racism and everything else that makes for big attention.

 

3. isn't true at all. Libertarians have never cared about selling out to get victories. If they really felt that way, they would be in one of the major parties already. I can tell you for a fact the early tea party movement excited people because it encapsulated the small government movement without being polluted by all of the social hang ups that en company the closest economic party to the Libertarians. I know I will probably get corrected here, but I am speaking as probably the only person on Soxtalk who actually worked with a person who founded a Tea Party movement at a county level, and as someone who attended and spoke at one of these early rallies.

[lostfan]

The Libertarian crowd is really not a reliable GOP vote - They are independents and in fact, the ones I know who really are Libertarians, often voted 3rd party or even Dem a lot in the past decade because the GOP abandoned fiscal discipline.

There's Libertarians and then there's people who call themselves Libertarians. The first number is a lot smaller than the second.

[Balta1701]

The Libertarian crowd is really not a reliable GOP vote - They are independents and in fact, the ones I know who really are Libertarians, often voted 3rd party or even Dem a lot in the past decade because the GOP abandoned fiscal discipline.

The ones I've met who call themselves libertarians are the most reliable GOP votes I know.

[lostfan]

1 is true. 2 is only kinda true. It became more sexy as a story for the media because they now got to demonize the right wing that they love going after so much. We got to hear all of the stories about the racism and everything else that makes for big attention.

 

3. isn't true at all. Libertarians have never cared about selling out to get victories. If they really felt that way, they would be in one of the major parties already. I can tell you for a fact the early tea party movement excited people because it encapsulated the small government movement without being polluted by all of the social hang ups that en company the closest economic party to the Libertarians. I know I will probably get corrected here, but I am speaking as probably the only person on Soxtalk who actually worked with a person who founded a Tea Party movement at a county level, and as someone who attended and spoke at one of these early rallies.

But you're talking about millions of people across the country over a sustained period of time, not just yourself. Nothing in politics is that uniform.

Edited November 23, 2010 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

But you're talking about millions of people across the country over a sustained period of time, not just yourself.

 

Actually I am speaking for an entire county's movement. Both events I went to, no one talked about race, or religion, or sex. It was all about money.

[lostfan]

Actually I am speaking for an entire county's movement. Both events I went to, no one talked about race, or religion, or sex. It was all about money.

Okay, change the last word to "your county's movement" and my point still stands.

 

I read about the Tea Party movement and talked to a bunch of different people about it (before I started getting bored with it, and before it started getting stupid and jumping the shark in August/September 2009). Most of their definitions of "Tea Party" were something different. This is why you had Scott Brown coyly riding that wave to win his election, people jumping up and down, then getting pissed off and calling him a traitor.

[Balta1701]

Actually I am speaking for an entire county's movement. Both events I went to, no one talked about race, or religion, or sex. It was all about money.

What an event is abou might not be what gets the people motivated and out voting.

 

I'll give you a Dem type rally as a counterpoint. The "Rally to restore sanity" may not have been about traditional democratic issues, but I'll bet you the people attending it overwhelmingly agreed on a certain set of issues. Environmental issues, tax issues, health care, etc.

 

If you went and checked the anti-Iraq-War protestors, I'll bet you 99% of them also call themselves environmentalists, and it's just a question of which issue of the day they want to get out and rally about. They're already the activist wing of my party, just because they're not talking about it that day doesn't mean it's not the most important issue to them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually I am speaking for an entire county's movement. Both events I went to, no one talked about race, or religion, or sex. It was all about money.

 

I attended three rallies and had the same experience. But people are going to believe what the media tells them, so ya know, racist, redneck, bush-supporting homophobs = all tea party people.

[lostfan]

I attended three rallies and had the same experience. But people are going to believe what the media tells them, so ya know, racist, redneck, bush-supporting homophobs = all tea party people.

This is a pretty dumbass response if it's supposed to be going with what I posted.

[Jenksismyhero]

What an event is abou might not be what gets the people motivated and out voting.

 

I'll give you a Dem type rally as a counterpoint. The "Rally to restore sanity" may not have been about traditional democratic issues, but I'll bet you the people attending it overwhelmingly agreed on a certain set of issues. Environmental issues, tax issues, health care, etc.

 

If you went and checked the anti-Iraq-War protestors, I'll bet you 99% of them also call themselves environmentalists, and it's just a question of which issue of the day they want to get out and rally about. They're already the activist wing of my party, just because they're not talking about it that day doesn't mean it's not the most important issue to them.

 

What are you talking about? People aren't interested and motivated to the messages of a rally they attend? I forgot most people just happen upon rallies, they don't plan on going...

 

[Jenksismyhero]

This is a pretty dumbass response if it's supposed to be going with what I posted.

 

Did I quote your post?

[lostfan]

Did I quote your post?

His post was a response to mine and you piggybacked off what he said. I'm just starting to get tired of getting lumped into the dismissals like that (not just here, on Slate or wherever else I go). Like I'm not qualified to understand things or interpret things on my own because I don't agree with the ideology.

Edited November 23, 2010 by lostfan

[Jenksismyhero]

His post was a response to mine and you piggybacked off what he said.

 

I agreed with him yes, and added my opinion as to the general perception of tea party members.

[lostfan]

I agreed with him yes, and added my opinion as to the general perception of tea party members.

Okay then I suppose (but I edited my first post)

[southsider2k5]

His post was a response to mine and you piggybacked off what he said. I'm just starting to get tired of getting lumped into the dismissals like that (not just here, on Slate or wherever else I go). Like I'm not qualified to understand things or interpret things on my own because I don't agree with the ideology.

 

It isn't about ideology. It is about being there versus not being there and depending on someone else to talk about what happened.

[Jenksismyhero]

Okay then I suppose (but I edited my first post)

 

I think you'd agree though that if you polled 10 people on the street, the majority would dismiss tea party members as either racist/homophobic/crazy christian/etc. Libertarian or "people just pissed at the size of government and the amount of spending by the government" is not what comes to mind, despite being the key message of the various rallies.