I need to write these down and think some more about these. I am essentially in agreement with the principles.
– Public Policies must be at their core fiscally responsible/conservative
– Ruthlessly end corruption/cronyism/ethic-less-ness in GOV
– Preference for Individuals and Markets over Central Planning
– Yes for Free Markets and Entrepreneurial Capitalism; no for Crony Capitalism
– Federalism…more please.
– Reduced complexity and quantity of GOV laws, regulation, and programs.
– America doesn’t need to apologize or be ashamed for being America
– Remember and follow the principles in US Constitution, e.g:
Government of the people, by the people, for the people”
[…]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
[…]
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
[…]
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
[…]
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
[…]
– Rollback (not just reduce the speed toward) the march to a Nanny-State/Proto-State-Capitalism|Neo-Socialist state. [updated/added 9/26/2010]
Filed under: Election 2012, Public Policy, U.S. Constitution |
PurpleSlog - The Future Will Be Kludged 
A good summary.
However, you are totally missing the social issues that are bubbling back up into view which most Tea Partiers share, even as other Tea Partiers disagree (or don’t share them) because they see pushing social policy and culture wars issues as a losing proposition at the polls and long-term in government (for example, think of how a President Palin or Huckabee would handle a future Terri Schavio-like situation, or how they would use federal powers to punish and discriminate against gays and women’s reproductive rights). Consider the drug war and the abuse of the Constitution it has encouraged for decades… would the Tea Party gov’t in 2011 or 2013 actually end it? Where do they stand on the massive waste of human and financial resources that constitutes our prison systems? They have not answered ANY difficult questions yet, nor have they even broached them in public. Again, these are not just my criticisms of them but the Tea Partiers I have spoken with when attending two Tea Party rallies here in Greensboro in the past year.
I believe some tea partiers believe in those principles you post above without exception. Further, I believe some are actually hostile to the GOP’s foreign policy that puts Israel’s security above ours (largely based on Biblical beliefs), and to the Democrats FP that Americans should be put in harm’s way to stop whatever human rights outrage of the week is going on.
The principle “America doesn’t need to apologize or be ashamed for being America” is fine to believe in but you have to consider what our FP has become in the past 60 years and how contrary that is to what the Founders intended… as well as how we have repeatedly compromised our own principles and ideals in the pursuit of those foreign policies. You may disagree with Ron Paul, but he’s right or near right on a number of FP items, and his people are in the Tea Party and constituted the original core of many of the state Tea Parties.
I have said in numerous forums that the OathKeepers, not the Tea Partiers, are the real revolutionaries because they pledge fealty to the Constitution on everything… including opposition to waterboarding/torture, illegal wiretapping, rounding up of Americans in indefinite detention, etc. I would expect little reform from Tea Party folk once we get into office other than some rollbacks of Obama’s many excesses…. but if you got the Oathkeeper people into key positions and chairmanships, now you’re talking about a fundamental rethink of many institutionalized abuses of the Constitution and the kind of reimagined gov’t that would transition us nicely into some degree of Bobbitt’s market-state.
Good luck with that though. I like this summary though, I just truly hope these people that get elected believe it and act upon it.
And one last bit… when I talk about social issues.. I mean how Joe Miller and O’Donnell got elected over their less conservative counterparts… it wasn’t TARP or Obama that got them elected… it was abortion (especially in Miller’s case). Now, I’m personally against abortion but don’t view it as something the federal gov’t has the business of telling women what they can do with their bodies. Even if the fed gov’t did do that (as they would in a Palin/Huckabee/Miller government), I would especially find it heinous and unconstitutional if the gov’t were to tell rape and incest victims they had to carry that child.
Yet that’s the extremist position Miller, O’Donnell, Deal (The GA gov candidate), Ken Buck in Colorado, and numerous other Tea Party luminaries. Some of them are even hostile to birth control and they make no qualms about forcing women who have children with fetus defects and lethal genetic diseases to carry those children to term.
That can’t be explained away… that’s alleged freedom fighters fiercely advocating the denial of freedom to women in a terrible situation. Hell, I’d argue its treason because its the explicit denial of a woman’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And that will be a problem in time for the Tea Party.
Hi Eddie – thanks for the great comment:
I did that on purpose as I see that outside of the Tea Party themes. You are correct that there are TeaParty-ers on both sides of that issue. I think the mostly social conservatives don’t like this as they see their issues take a back seat.
Not all TeaParty-ers are social conservatives. Alot of them I would guess were Perot voters in 1992 and 1996. If there are/were Dems, I bet they supported Bradley in 2000 (not Gore) and Tsongas in 1992 (not Clinton) and may have voted for Perot as well. Those that tend to vote Repubs I bet are big fans of Christie of New Jersey and Daniels of Indiana who are fiscal/finance reform governors.
The social conservatives (SC) I don’t think are going to be quiet. I keep hearing the phrase recently “values voters” which appears to be code for social conservatives. If I was a Dem operative, I would use the social conservatives to wedge 2010/2012 repub votes.
The Rep elites seem to mostly on the social conservative side. I think this is because 1) The SC have let the Repubs be BigGov/BigBiz republicans, 2) They are used to working with the SC leaders.
The finance/fiscal reforms types care little about the repub elites and see their experience (aka Making the Wrong Moves and Fucking Things Up While Enrich Themselves) and not useful. The elites know this and are/will fight to keep their own way of life and privilege.
I know this is against mainstream conventional wisdom, but Palin is mostly a finance/fiscal reform TeaParty-ers, not a SC. Here hands-on career in Alaska shows that. Clearly the friendly and likable Huckabee is a SC. You can tell from his TV show he would be fun to hang around with, but I don’t think he could get elected nationally. I think the Left and the MSM have made it unlikely that Palin is electable nationally. I don’t think that matters since I dont’ think she is going to run anyways. She is going to remain a national influencer. That fact that she seems to drive lefties and elites crazy makes me smile.
The National Republican reaction to the Terri Schavio-like was quite disturbing. That would certainly be a good core of a question in a future primary or general election debate to separate out candidates.
Myself, I consider the finances to be the number #1 issue. The finance weakness is also a National Security issue. Everything else is secondary.
Great question!
Short-term: I don’t think so. There are lower hanging fruit.
Long-term: I think they would have to. I know there is no consensus on this issue other then what we are doing is not working.
I think a proper TeaParty-ish policy might be to:
1) Acknowledge things are not working as they are
2) Let the states (or at least a few) experiment with different approaches.
3) Consider Marijuana legalization for adults
4) Gather data and feedback from the experiments and continue to learn
First let may say, that I don’t see it as a waste to lock up bad violent people. The rates of violent crimes are down so much because we are locking people up. This does seem to be an area were gains can be made.
The TeaParty-ish approach to this should be:
1) Acknowledge things are not working optimally and that improvements are desired
2) Acknowledge that nobody really knows “the better” approach(s)
3) Let the states (or at least a few) experiment with different approaches.
4) Learn from the state experiments and continue to improve.
Notice a pattern? Real Working Federalism is a Learning System.
The TeaParty is definitely not focused around National Security/FP issues. I think your assessment is correct on the differences here. What TeaParty-ers must recognize whatever is there preferred FP/Security policy, execution of that preference is at risk from the worsening long-term Financial/Fiscal situation (unless the position is that the US is at heart the main bad global and must be thwarted). So, TeaParty-ers will have to agree to disagree on this. This will be a point of attack to disrupt the Tea Party movement.
I think the desire of the Left/Boomers to be ashamed of everything the US has done in the past and need to apologize for it is crap. I really hate the majority boomer generation PoV from a politcal PoV. They act like spoiled children and despite being handed everything (or perhaps because of that) acted in a morally depraved manner and continue to do harm to the country they were born into in order to get back at mommy and daddy. It is at this time of the Obama administration that the fucking hippies who spit at returning US Soldiers in 1968 while waving communist paraphernalia, worked for McGovern in 1972 and then brought drug use and porn into the mainstream have risen to the highest levels of power across all US institutions. Zeus help us all.
I disagree with Ron Paul on almost every FP/Security view he has. He is a bit of a crackpot. I think his influence on the TeaParty types is real but much overstated. I will give him this: 1) He consistent; 2) There is no hint of corruption around him.
I have never heard of them. Can you share some links?
I am against Bobbit’s market state idea (and its post-America America implied adherence to Global Governance). I meant to write a bunch of post on that a few years ago but never did. I need to revisit that and explain myself.
BTW, Bobbit’s historical analysis of state is awesome. I just think his extrapolation of what comes next is wrong. Ok, that is all for a future potential post.
I don’t know if that true. I think the SCs want it to be true to make them seem more powerful then they really are.
I think it is possible finance-minded primary voters saw that the BigBiz/BigGov types and could be counted on to continue making the wrong moves and fucking things up while managing to enrich themselves.
The above is generally my view as well. I find the abortion issue makes me uncomfrtable. The tipping point for me were discussions in college when most people at my liberal university were pretty la-de-da about abortions…and the mental/emotional collapse/mess of a good friend who had one.
Honestly, this isn’t going to happen. Every since I have been old enough to vote the left screamed that if republicans are voted into power that abortions will not be allowed….followed by steams of fantasy scenarios. It is not going to happen. It is settled law. As far as treason…well that is already defined in the US Constitution in a rather limited way. On purpose.
[…] Here is my understanding of the Tea-Party(ish) Principles « PurpleSlog – Not the Future&…, on September 18, 2010 at 9:15 am Said: […]
PJ O’Roarke [1]:
[1]
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/106655/
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2010-SeptOct/full-ORourke-SO-2010.html
I should have added as a principle:
– Rollback (not just reduce the speed toward) the Nanny-State/Proto-State-Capitalism|NeoSocialist state.
Some non-rhetorical questions:
1. What definition are you using for Federalism? Are you seeing it as a synonym for decentralization or as a separate concept?
2. In other discussions like this, I’ve noticed some debate over the “general welfare” part of the preamble. What do you take it to mean? Rhetorical fluff? Reference to specific parts of the Constitution? Or leeway to do what the States and localities cannot do for themselves?
3. If you don’t go by the 3rd definition, what powers currently exercised by Washington would you support legalizing with amendments?
I mean a bit more then decentralization. The US System theoretically seperates governing four main ways:
1) A finite range of authority is given to the federal government by the citizens and the states. There is some overlap between fed and state authority.
2) The federal government itself is divided into three sections that have checks and balancesd against each other.
3) A finite range of authority is given to state governments by the citizens. There is some overlap between fed and state authority. Individual states can organize in different ways.
4) Ultimate authority rest with the citizens. The US System is “of” and “by” the citizen…and ultimelty “for” the citizens (not the other way around). Citizens first, Govs second.
I realize this def of federalism is not quite the common definition. I have just fleshed it out a bit.
Let me get back to you on a larger “general welfare” reply.
Note to my stong desire for federalism as defined earlier is:
1) Is a learning system…if done right…implies improvement overtime
2) Creates negative feedback loops for the US systems (a good thing)
3) Provides safeguards against the negative effects noted by public choice theory
Ack…I will have to fix all of the typos/spelling/grammer issues later!
Note to my stong desire for federalism as defined earlier is:
1) Is a learning system…if done right…implies improvement overtime and increased likelihood of recovery from adverse situations
2) Creates negative feedback loops for the US systems (a good thing)
3) Provides safeguards against the negative effects noted by public choice theory
The problem with reading the vague/open reading of the General Welfare clause (GWC) is that it isn’t standalone. The GWC (and the elastic clause) do not give USGOV the authority to do (or justify) pretty much anything USGOV wants to do because it is constrained by the 10th Amendment which is really the federalism amendment…or does it? The language is not precise. When I wrote such documents as a student I was much more precise. I continue be that way in my sometime role as a project manager (with precise in-scope/out-scope sections of my project charters).
I can see how the citizens or the states might want certain governing tasks to be run by a national authority and not by the seperate states themsleves.
Problems:
1) Who determines what the national authority should do?
2) What is the scope?
3) For how long?
3) How is it paid for?
4) What is the penalty for non compliance if applicable?
5) What are the constraints on the national authority?
6) How are improvements made?
As more power is concentrated in a particular institutional actor, the chance for less desirable outcomes is increased.
I favour federalism/decentralism because it is better system overall (e.g. learning system, resilency, negative feedback loops, counter public choice theory effects).
I am really digressing.
I guess I favour the “leeway” defintion.
That being said, I don’t think an admendement is needed for things like having the fed gov as the coordinatinig response authority in national emergencies (fending off attacks, mege natural disaters).
I have considered tha teducationmaybe shoudl be a federal concern (but I am not so sure right now).
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/my-dream-for-a-21st-century-us-educational-system/
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/lack-of-money-is-not-the-problem-with-the-milwaukee-public-school-system/
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/these-industries-are-need-of-entrepreneurs-with-radical-innovations/
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/attention-usgov-please-dont-build-schools-as-part-of-a-stimulus/
BTW…here is my top level link to other amdendment ideas:
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2006/06/20/suggested-26-us-constitution-amendments-part-0-of-9-introduction/
Here is another federlism thought:
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/capturing-my-thoughts-big-tent-national-political-parties-and-federalism/
And here is where I am coming from:
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/what-i-believe/
[…] on Tea-Partyers, make this happen!!! Demand pledges from candidates for this any other related […]
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293985/federalist-solution-jonah-goldberg
I’m actually inclined to agree. I was happy to see my state and a few others tell the Federal Government to shove it on medical marijuana and think a true “Defense of Marriage Act” should defend gay marriages in states that choose to have them every bit as much as it “defends” straight marriages in states that choose to outlaw them.
I’m also starting to wonder if some of the Executive Branch’s mistakes in recent decades may be a sign that its responsibilities have grown faster than its ability to take care of them, power grabs not withstanding. Heck, my biggest problem with ObamaCare isn’t that he chose to do it at all so much as his decision to take on such a massive undertaking at a time when he had two wars and an economic crisis to deal with. Figuring out what Executive Branch portfolios can be devolved to the States seems a worthy exercise and doing so would provide one means of reducing the deficit.
That said, it’s still valid to ask where the limits of decentralization should be. The writers of the Constitution cannot be reasonably expected to have predicted every situation where cooperation between states would be needed; where they failed to do so, like many environmental issues, provisions must be made somehow. Federal money allows the development of specialized resources that State budgets do not. And Jonah himself hinted that he at least partially approved of the Feds intervention in the Civil Rights upheaval in the ’50s and ’60s.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/20/as-country-club-republicans-link-up-with-the-democratic-ruling-class-millions-of-voters-are-orphaned/