On Second Thought, Tea Partiers Are "Extremists"

They are extremely dense. James Bovard recently wrote an article for the Christian Science Monitor about the Tea Party. The article began:

Many “tea party” activists staunchly oppose big government, except when it is warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding. A movement that started out denouncing government power apparently has no beef with some of the worst abuses of modern times.

He also pointed out that

Many of the attendees seemed to hate liberals far more than they loved liberty. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in April showed that two-thirds of tea party members have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, and 57 percent have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. Denouncing big government while approving of President Bush is like denouncing immodesty while sunning oneself on a nude beach. After all, it was Bush who championed the prescription drug benefit for seniors that adds $7 trillion to Washington’s unfunded liabilities.

And he concludes

America needs real champions of freedom – not poorly informed Republican accomplices. Either tea partyers should become more principled or they should ditch their Gadsden flags and wear T-shirts of the lobbying group that organizes the rally they attend.

Bovard came to essentially same conclusion I did. The Tea Party activists are basically dissatisfied Republicans with a handful of liberty lovers and potential radicals among them. The party is pretty much split into two camps: the Ron Paul faction that is serious about liberty and the Sarah Palin faction that is serious about getting Republicans back into office. Based on the most recent speakers at Tea Party events, the Sarah Palin faction is the majority so libertarians cannot take movement seriously as a party of liberty.

Some activists in the Palin faction replied to Mr. Bovard's original article. Reading the list of criticisms, one wonders if these conservatives have the mental capability to think outside the Liberal-Conservative paradigm. Pretty much all of Mr. Bovard's critics called him a "liberal" because he criticized the Tea Party. Some defended wiretapping and torture because such activities "keep us safe". One commenter called Bovard's article "more liberal racist crap". A commenter named Cowboy (quite apposite given his comments) wrote:

Just more propaganda to those who spread it best, the little people who can’t wait to lable the Tea Party with something, anything, oh my what can they do,nothing is working. The Demacrats, Liberal Demacrats,Progressives, Socialists, what ever you call yourselfs are just falling apart. The Tea Party is Growing every day and there is nothing you can do about it, ain’t it just Grand. It’s AMERICANS that LOVE AMERICA more than what’s trying to destroy it and it is that simple. GOD BLESS AMERICA !!

One of my favorite comments was from Patriot1 who wrote

I have not kept up with the christian Science Monitors beliefs, but to come out with a story like this is really being against the true American conservative and independent way of thinking. Is it wrong to want a strong national defence and a strong police department to protect the people of this nation. No, I don’t think so, but this story makes a point of being strong against bad people evil.That sounds like a very, very liberal attitude. Sounds to me like an Obama way of thinking.

I don't think that any of these commenters can see the irony of proving Mr. Bovard correct with their criticisms. You cannot be pro-war and pro-liberty; you cannot be pro-police state and pro-liberty; you cannot be pro-torture and pro-liberty. This was Mr. Bovard's trenchant critique and his critics here proved him correct. Most of these Tea Party activists are not serious defenders of liberty under any stretch of the imagination. They simply prefer Bush's fascism to Obama's socialism.

Comments

[Cal Bittersmore]

Just like punk rock, the movement died the minute it got a name.