mr O'Rourke ... thanx for a clear analysis in your award presentations
... my concern is the effect of the Tea Party on the 2012 elections ...
will they be, as Casey used to dub them "one hit wonders" or some-thing that we really should be concerned about ? ... rated for wit ...
lew

Yes. Quite....



^R^

This is beyond witty (I adore the word play). It's superb.

Witty though this article may be, the Tea Party slugs apparently do know exactly what to believe about the man who purchases the million dollar home, fills it with expensive rental furniture, installs luxuriant gardens with a full-time maintenance staff, and then brags about it all to his fellow, minimum-wage, ditch-digging buddies. They also know what to believe about the bank who loaned the money, the company who rented the furniture, and the job security of the maintenance staff.

Further, the intellect of the Tea Party simpletons is not stretched when they correctly compare the federal government to this well-housed, highly leveraged, deeply indebted, ditch digger. (See my comment to your “President Obama – Bring Back the Sun!”.) The stark consequences of collecting a total of $2.1 trillion in federal revenues and having to spend every penny of that on mandated social programs, while borrowing an additional $1.5 trillion to underwrite the outlays for the remainder of discretionary federal functions, including the entire Department of Defense, is well within the capacity of most people who handle their own checkbooks to understand.

Don't get me wrong, every right wing stance of the local Tea Party affiliates which contemplates armed insurrection as a viable option in our transition away from taxing, spending, and regulating our way to a national socialist Nirvana deserves every bit of your sardonic wit. However, I suspect that you are smart enough to understand why one should neither judge a book by its cover, nor judge the wisdom of the Tea Party as a whole by the combined intellectual capacity of Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angel.

Just because most Tea Party solutions appear simple doesn’t mean they are without the wisdom we so often associate with our founding fathers. It’s hard to deny that our forbearers were libertarians, who consistently wanted to be free of governmental interference in their affairs, just as it’s hard to deny they were liberals, who wanted to break the traditional mold of authoritarian, non-representative, government. However, the governmental model set 223 years ago, when our current constitution was written, is the “new tradition”, which the Tea Party congregants now wish to preserve. This qualifies them for the conservative label today.

There is plenty in our political system about which to be scornful, especially as such might be directed towards the incumbents who now serve it, apparently solely with the short-term objectives to become reelected and to become powerful. I don’t find much ambiguity in the overall picture of citizen rage in America today as they see the chickens hatched from such short-term thinking coming home to roost.

Finally, I am just ecstatic over the “Tea Party” name. I really hope it causes about 600 people in Washington DC to defecate their pantaloons daily.

lew,
There will be at least an additional 40-50 million more voters in '12. The Tea Party will be activated then, but for now, the GOP's challenge is to try to keep a lid on their extreme irrationality in favor of the regular GOP irrationality.
They might be one hit wonders, but they are certainly one note wanderers.

skypix,
Thanks.
O'Really
Thanks to you also.
That you're Irish makes me appreciate it more.

Unc,
I just woke up. As soon as the coffee kicks in I'll rebut.
Besides, posting a separate comment will keep this popping up in the feed, and it's already buried 6 pages deep.

Chris,
You open with a good example of identifying a fact that has, effectively, nothing to do with the problem. While it's true the wealthiest spend money, they don't buy 10,000 cars, 40K TVs and eat 250 metric tons of food a day. Their excess money is invested, and does create jobs, as we've seen -- in China and other emerging growth markets.

The Federal debt is a problem, however it's not THE problem. As far as the bogeyman of social spending goes, Soc Sec is 2.5 trillion in on-paper surplus, and if we "cover" the Medicare part of the 941 withholding taxes under that surplus, it reveals itself to not be the problem you imply.

Those programs were in place before the Great Reagan Revolution, so to blame the massive deficits that followed the rise of conservatism on social spending is like pissing up your life savings on booze and loose women, then blaming your house payment for your financial demise.

I ridicule the Tea People because they are dupes (though mostly good, concerned people --as most are) defending the people and processes that bankrupted America. Raging about debt now is an effective political device, as the simple-minded can relate it to household finance. However, in the world of macroeconomic reality, slashing spending and services will only exacerbate the problem and increase the debt. It can be compared to being down to your last 500 bucks, and deciding to eat ramen noodles to stretch your existence as far as possible before starving, rather than investing the money to produce more. While it's not an attractive effort at a solution, it is the only one left as far as fiscal policy goes.

The Founders were not libertarians, the Constitution is not libertarian. To understand why this is true is to examine the fundamental basis of libertarianism as opposed to the less constricted and vastly superior liberal philosophy that it, in part, draws from. The Constitution allows for far more "coercion" than libertarian beliefs would allow. Even the enumerated powers go well beyond a libertarian template -- which would limit government to defense and ruling on contracts and limited laws in a voluntary society. It is a popular misconception to label what is actually liberalism as libertarian--but the ideas of limited government, etc, fall well within liberal philosophy, which predates libertarian philosophy by at least 150 years. Libertarianism didn't exist when the Constitution was written.

If the founders were conservatives, we'd still be a British colony, as conservatism is to preserve the status quo of ruling aristocrats' divine right, justified by state religion -- the "ancien regime."

That the Tea Partiers wish to preserve the Constitution is a pantload of puffoonery. The America they wish to "preserve" and the "free markets" they imagine never existed. In fact, if they knew history instead of faking it, they'd refer to our Founding Fathers and founding Americans as rabid socialists. The restrictions on corporations in founding America would make an extreme socialist blush. The founder's Federal, single payer health insurance plan, passed in 1798 would qualify them for the "socialist" label the right spits out without truly knowing what the word means.

Bottom line -- Federal debt is A problem, but not THE problem. Using it as a political device to agitate the ignorant is effective, but destructive to America. This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the last 30 years of conservatism, in both economic function and civil polity, has brought America to the brink of disaster, and makes reversing the tragic error far more difficult than it should be.

Thanks for commenting, Chris.

True, Stellaa
The election was far more about ambiguous anger than policy. Those who did not vote, which was as important to the outcome, are disappointed and discouraged.

Thanks for dropping in

If there was any justice, this post would be on the cover. Some people are funny; other people are politically astute; you, sir, are both, in large doses, and serve as a model for the very best sort of Political Smart Ass.

On a side note, last night I wasted part of my life (which I'll never get back) attempting to engage one of our in-house OS Teafolk in a discussion. I asked him, on a post of his titled "I AM AMERICAN!" if he thought that everyone who disagrees with him hates America, and by way of answer he kept saying that I was a socialist, a follower of George Soros, and that I by definition hate America and it's values and wish to turn it into a dictatorship devoid of personal freedoms. It was useless trying to point out that the only evidence he had for that assertion was his own statement; magical thinking and an unwillingness to employ logic had convinced him that I was a flagburning socialist, not from any empirical observation of reality, but because he said it was so. I'd love to see his reaction to this post, though I doubt the poor guy's reading comprehension skills would get him past the first paragraph.

Nanatehay,

Gee thanks and double thanks. I think I'm on the editor's DNR list, but I don't post often and I see where at least some of my stuff is not EP material. If you want politically un-astute, read the one about the Reagan Revolution....no offense to author meant, but I'm just sayin'....

I read a little of that exchange, as it met two criteria--you commented, and it was one of those Rwing nutbuckets' posts. Tommy T is more mental case than most, so I never so much read his posts as speed-ignore them. It's tempting to take a swing, and perhaps I will with him someday...but I have my favorite pigeons.

I do admire your work among the mental lepers. There ain't no scabs on your arguments. It's not always a waste to argue with a twit, as it can be described as weirdly entertaining...I know this well. VERY well, as I have spent years ridiculing them.

Keep up the good works!

I'm outta here for a few hours....

cut that out pj, the apsa is a serious body of people who don't have a clue about what they study,so how dare you as someone who does have something of a clue claim to be the president of a bunch of intelligent idiots!

Don,
Some are born to greatness; others inherit it. The political smart asses of the world were leaderless, and begged me to represent their disinterested interests.
I know we have a beer riding on this Palin '12 thing, but I had to take a shot.

I have more than a clue -- I'm freakin' clairvoyant!

You're a smart ass. We need more smart asses around here.

A few more smart asses and we can form a support group!

If one is $14,000 in debt, possesses neither cash savings nor other liquid assets, earns $2,100 per year, but spends $3,700 per year, then when is this financial situation promoted from “A problem” to “THE problem”? This would have been posed as a rhetorical question had you described in your response what THE problem is.

Hence, you now have successfully peaked my curiosity. Further, after reading your response I am left asking what you won’t claim or recommend to avoid cutting into your sacred cows.

First, I had no clear idea what you meant by this paragraph in your response: “The Federal debt is a problem, however it's not THE problem. As far as the bogeyman of social spending goes, Soc Sec is 2.5 trillion in on-paper surplus, and if we "cover" the Medicare part of the 941 withholding taxes under that surplus, it reveals itself to not be the problem you imply.”

Let’s pretend you meant that we need to offset the annual Medicare cash shortfall by using the $2.5 trillion you claim exists as a Social Security saving asset. In March 2008, the Medicare trustees reported, “The value in today’s dollars of the HI [Health Insurance] deficit over the next 75 years is $13 trillion.”

This, of course, begs the immediate question of how one covers 13 acres of manure with a 2.5-acre tarp. Further, Social Security is NOW using its saved surpluses from previous years to cover a similar cash shortfall, and will be in this condition until 2041 when it alone will exhaust all of its savings. Hence, the ability of your solution to cover the Medicare manure pile is less than it appears.

All this presumes that Congress would allow Social Security funds to be used in this way. Just for that, I am grateful to you for injecting some humor into my day.

On the other hand, let’s pretend you meant that we need to cover the Medicare annual cash shortfall by increasing withholding rates under 941 quarterly filings made by employers. Again, in March 2008, the Medicare trustees went on to report, “Eliminating this [HI] deficit would require an immediate 122 percent increase in payroll taxes or an immediate 51 percent reduction in benefits, or some combination of the two.”

I won’t even bother trying to convince you that employees will not stand for this kind of increase in their deductions, or that elderly Medicare recipients will not stand for this kind of reduction in their benefits. I will, however, remind you that 941 withholdings are neither deducted from, nor paid by, passive income and that only people you would call “rich” have significant passive income.

These latter two observations render this interpretation of your solution for the preservation of Medicare something the rich might avoid while most of the rest could not. I wonder what you will blame for this “blowback”? It’s funny how the Tea Party congregants who advocate a flat tax on all income and the kind of small government that does not throw money at every social ill have the solution to this mess!

Second, simply to suggest that Social Security and Medicare are anything other than impending or current financial disasters is laughable. Neither set of trustee’s agrees with you. They are two social programs that share a vast commonality with most all social programs in history, much of it well beyond their simple, but huge, economic failures.

Third, the fact that American capitalists create jobs in China is nothing more than free enterprise indulging itself by buying in the cheapest market and selling in the most expensive one. I am sure you disagree; but this is an argument that always degenerates to a conclusion that both labor and management are greedy. The Tea Party congregants will generally say that no government is competent to regulate human vice and liberals will always say that government belongs in this arena as a moral arbiter, market controller, or whatever.

Fourth, it doesn’t bother me which set of Congressmen and Presidents are mostly to blame for our dire straits today. Frankly, there’s enough blame to go around; and the only lesson to be learned, so far as I am concerned, is that all politicians want to be reelected no matter how much their actions to please a constituency with an entitlement mentality hurt the long-term interests of America.

Fifth, you need more sleep. I claimed that “ . . . it’s hard to deny they were liberals, who wanted to break the traditional mold of authoritarian, non-representative, government.. . .”, referring to America’s founders. You argued that “If the founders were conservatives, we'd still be a British colony, as conservatism is to preserve the status quo of ruling aristocrats' divine right, justified by state religion -- the "ancien regime.” Look, if you agree with me, just make some smarmy comment like, “I’m happy to see that even stupid conservatives can agree at times with us brilliant, witty, liberal, clairvoyants.”

However, it was disappointing to have you claim that our founders weren’t libertarians. You seem to support your claim, in part, by pointing to the fact that the libertarian philosophy was not fully expressed for 150 years after our current constitution was written. This is, of course, to miss the point in a trivia of literality.

Then, to claim that liberals believe in “. . . . limited government, etc, . . .” produced another one of those moments where I can thank Paul for his humor, unintended though it might be. Granted, the very definition of liberalism makes its adherents open to just about anything; however, it was one of your great liberal models who clearly specified that proud liberals are to “. . . care[s] about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, . . . .”

And, yeah, it was those monumental conservatives, FDR and LBJ, who led us to the great socialist troughs of Social Security and Medicare. What I believe you know, but are unwilling to admit, is that our founders would come bitchslap every supporter of welfare politics so hard that their mammas would hurt – if they could stop spinning in their graves long enough to get out of them. These men cannot possibly have envisioned the federal largess in the name of the "General Welfare" that we now have.

In the meantime, your homework, should you choose to accept it, is to read that long grocery list of complaints Jefferson insisted should be included the middle portion of the Declaration of Independence to confirm the causes motivating the withdrawal of colonial allegiance to the crown. The primary philosophy underwriting these complaints is that government derives its power from the consent of the governed – a concept more and more insisted upon by present day conservatives and one which I hope stands behind the Tea Party name, if not its philosophy.

I, on the other hand, shall work on my mathematical proof that:

$2.1 trillion - $3.6 trillion = 0

with the fond hope that my success in this project will convince me of your assurance that things are not as bad as I imply.

Chris,

I think you are wise to fabricate my opinion, as your version is easier to argue against. Due to stunted ideological thinking, you erect the phantom "liberal" of your darkest nightmares, and commence to tilt at your ghostly windmill. I will, however, stick with my opinion versus yours.

I simply pointed out that the SS fund is in surplus, and has been for some time. That if you wish to be as amateurishly myopic as can be in designating social spending as the significant problem, then note that SS is in surplus, unlike the entirety of all other things, including the affects of consumer debt and functional dismemberment, the debt amassed during our 30 year reign of conservative error, and the intrusion of deregulated "free market" banking into our current public/private debt. And look! The last two are the signposts pointing to Tea Party Nirvana...go figure (out some insipid argument to blame it on social spending).

You take my observation that, were we to "cover" Medicare shortfalls with SS surplus, that current deficit total would be reduced, and then extrapolate it into an argument I did not make. I'll assume that is because you have a canned response you wish to use, but need a scenario that enables delivering it.

Then you carry on with glee about how a current surplus cannot cover a 75 year extrapolation of deficit -- based on a static configuration -- which was not even close to resembling the much less expansive sum of my statement. Above I admit to being a political voyeur, but I have to tell ya, watching you masturbate is causing me to have second thoughts.

One might be compelled to sigh, and ponder the traps some set for themselves due to ideological true believerism.

Leaving behind your need to blame our fiscal situation on everything but the much more influential systemic problems of conservative/libertarian deregulation and economically dysfunctional top-heavy wealth redistribution, let's squash the remaining bugs of your delirium tremens.

You write:
"Third, the fact that American capitalists create jobs in China is nothing more than free enterprise indulging itself by buying in the cheapest market and selling in the most expensive one. I am sure you disagree..."

Chris, you must stop this pleasuring yourself before you go blind --though you are, in significant ways. That you would imply I'm so stupid I'd not recognize a simple truth is as intellectually insulting as you suggesting it must have a positive result, as it is "free!"

However, one must have a level of intellectual ability to see that, so I will offer a brief explanation. I like this because it illustrates the plain fact that what you see as "libertarian" free markets (though properly fitting under the larger scope of liberalism) means the Tea Party has no concern for national interest.

We lose jobs, undermine our labor/consumer, therefore tax base, sink further into debt, and become weakened in many ways due to unwise market liberalism (that is the term). But hey, we should be "free!" to commit economic suicide. It fits an inviolable ideological template! Don't mess with my theories by suggesting reality should intrude!

The Founders worked to protect US industry...another shining example of how stupid the Founding Fathers Faking Tea Phrauds can be.

We agree the Founders were liberals. We disagree they were conservatives, and by that, I'm using both terms in the true context of political, not dictionary meaning...or the meanings you have either created or fallen into due to incuriosity or, more likely considering the sum total of your response: intellectual sloth.

You write:
"Then, to claim that liberals believe in “. . . . limited government, etc, . . .” produced another one of those moments where I can thank Paul for his humor, unintended though it might be. Granted, the very definition of liberalism makes its adherents open to just about anything; however, it was one of your great liberal models who clearly specified that proud liberals are to “. . . care[s] about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, . . . .”

The humor is mine, as this is perhaps the grandest display of you not knowing what the F*** you're talking about. As I note in the article, the US Constitution is the world's most famous LIBERAL social contract. To know why this is true, one would have to crack a few books and read a bit, but not much, as it is as obvious to the educated as your elementary school description of China trade.

Liberal Philosophy is the basis of the Constitution, the basis of free market theory, and the Declaration of Independence. That you rattle on about the excessively ignorant Rwing media fed definition as if you're standing on some sort of intellectual high ground is hilarious -- a word that doesn't begin to describe the incongruity of your...thinking....if that's the term.

You're not qualified to discuss the subject, as you are ignorant of meaning and history. This is Big Boy politics, Chris -- if you wish to use the word, find out what it means.

Now, at long last, we can conclude the examination of the pride you take in your ignorance. You write:

"In the meantime, your homework, should you choose to accept it, is to read that long grocery list of complaints Jefferson insisted should be included the middle portion of the Declaration of Independence"

Let's pause here. I have read Jefferson's "Rough Draught," and the resulting edits by Franklin, and what Congress produced in the end. The significant "missing complaint" involves the crown's support of slave trade. Let's continue your gracious offer to educate me...

"The primary philosophy underwriting these complaints is that government derives its power from the consent of the governed – a concept more and more insisted upon by present day conservatives and one which I hope stands behind the Tea Party name, if not its philosophy."

The entirety of the philosophy underwriting the Declaration is Liberalism. The complaints themselves have nothing to do with justifying self rule; they are the reasons to declare that most liberal of all liberal justifications for breaking with the crown.)

The justification itself is found in Jefferson's blending of Locke's natural rights with Rousseau's Civil Religion, along with the a priori statement upon which our American liberalism stands --

We hold these truths to be self-evident, (a priori) that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator

(Creator, not God -- a statement of civil religion)

with certain unalienable rights,

(The foundation of natural law/rights -- universal and inalienable)

that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

(Here Jefferson avoids using Locke's life, liberty and property. Some say because slaves were considered property, and he had wanted a slavery complaint -- see above --though evidence is inconclusive. "Happiness" appears in both Aquinas' version of natural law, and Rousseau's civil religion, which is a version combining the concepts of natural law -- universal, easily understood and agreed upon -- with a basic, unifying statement about religions. Natural Law, as we know it, extends from Aristotle, through the ages and 3 major religions, and, after a significant tweaking by Grotius and definitions by Locke and Rousseau -- lands in Jefferson's lap)

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

(A fine, strong statement of liberalism. That men have the right to self rule and, through a Liberal Social Contract, have agreed to certain conditions of how that contract is constructed. In our case, representative democracy with a republican form of government where a majority decides within the boundaries of the contract.)

And that's just my Cliff's Notes version, Chris. More than you deserved, but less than what I KNOW.

Thanks for your efforts to "educate" me about the Declaration.

In closing, I imagine you're in somewhat a traumatic state now, what with being informed that what you think is conservatism, and Tea Party reverence for the Constitution and Declaration...is in FACT a strong embrace of LIBERALISM.

LIBERALISM, he says, twice for dramatic effect...

There are other hobbies besides politics, Chris. Perhaps you might consider taking up something different.

With sincere love,
Paul

PS--I wish you had made a post about this, as more would read it. I'm into public floggings -- some B&D to go along with my voyeurism.

Paul,

I love you too. . . .

It is apparent that I have touched one or more nerves, because your response to my response to your response to my response to your original blog appears longer than anything I have written. Generally, few outdo me in length.

However, I get the point. All good things are liberal; and only bad things can arise from a conservative philosophy.

Give it a few days; then take your suggestion to write a general treatise on what makes liberals good and conservatives evil. I have taken the time to expand my profile on Open Salon. Perhaps I will post a couple of blogs that will inspire you to produce more anti-conservative invective.

In the meantime, please trust that I am being sincere in saying that you are an inspiration. As always, I look forward to more interchange between us.

Best regards,

Chris

Chris,
It is fun, but try to break it down into shorter comments.
There's nothing wrong with conservatism-as-state of mind, however, it's not a philosophy. Libertarianism is, but so simplistic it almost deserves the ideology label.
Once upon a time, at the beginning of movement conservatism, it was an American form of conservatism -- preserving those liberal institutions, and wishing to preserve state's rights and limiting federalism. But alas, it has become very European, and instead of believing in a transcendent order, prefers to dictate one.

The only thing wrong with conservativism-as-it-exists-now is that it doesn't have ideas, it has "idea." The same one, repeated endlessly, and demanding that all actions be first crammed through the small ring of its prescription.

One telling fact that describes the degeneration of conservatism is that its most famous 2 representatives in those early years -- William Buckley and Barry Goldwater..expressed opinions that would not only have them banished from conservatism today, but would draw the RINO label.

What it called conservatism now is actually what Buckley referred to as the Right wing, and described as -- the "well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity."

Conservatism took over the GOP; The Right Wing loons took over conservatism...and so it goes....

PS-Don't try to fit my politics into any mold, much less what you see as "liberal." While I'll gladly claim that label, I do so in the sense of the entire scope of the philosophy which, as I show above --covers far more ground than most know.

I'll throw up something about libertarianism here soon....another chance to join in the fray.
To others: Chris and I know each other in a cyber sense, and have for years...so the slapping is part sincere, part TV wrestling...

Grrrreat comment thread!

Nanatehay

It was fun, but I think I'm getting Carpal Tunnel.