By Carl Conrad
The self-named “Tea Party” movement is really an ANTI-Tea Party movement because this is a group that refuses to drink the tea they’re served. They’re disgusted with the intrusions of government at all levels and advocate open rebellion against taxation and government spending. They don’t like programs like a federal government Healthcare plan, Social Security, Medicare, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, Unemployment Compensation extensions, the imposition of Gun Control laws, Immigration immunity, or bailouts to ailing banks, corporations, or federal agencies. They complain that all these things are unconstitutional, unwanted, and excessive. Does that sound like anyone is drinking the tea?
Of course I understand the reference to the Boston Tea Party, wherein revolutionaries dumped tea into Boston Harbor in protest of the Stamp Act and government from afar in general. But, I’m not sure that that parallel fits either.
Most of the Tea Party members claim to be advocates of upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the States to implement laws in which their citizens believe. They call themselves JEFFERSONIANS because Thomas Jefferson was a States Rights guy. They revere the Jefferson mantra like it was the only voice of relevance. But weren’t James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington just as much a part of the Constitutional Convention as Thomas Jefferson? And, those brave patriots were Federalists who believed in a strong federal government to oversee the states. Could they really be considered anti-Constitutional?
So, when these Tea Partiers express their views about fiscal responsibility, free markets, and a constitutionally limited government, understand that these are just fancy phrases that hide the true purpose of these rebels like a wolf hides beneath sheep’s clothing.
The Tea Partiers are really a group of people AGAINST things, not FOR them. Their strength is in OPPOSITION not ADVOCACY. And it is this opposition to things that gives them their unity and seeming singularity of purpose because it is much easier to rally people AGAINST things than to form a coalition FOR them.
As I see it, it’s much easier to get people to agree that they’re AGAINST something than to agree on what they’re FOR – it’s too hot, it’s too cold, this show is too long, this product is too expensive – because when they’re AGAINST something, they’re unified in that opinion. But when you try to find out what each person would like instead, you’ll get many differing opinions. If it’s too hot or too cold, what temperature should it be? If a show is too long, what should be cut from it? If a product is too expensive, what price should it be?
It’s when groups like the Tea Partiers have to identify what they would prefer instead of what they’re objecting to that they begin to splinter. The surest way to fragmentize these OBJECTIONISTS is by challenging them to put forth something they can agree upon. If it’s a tangible, votable concept, not just some pablum about love, peace, happiness, and freedom, there are bound to be more opinions than times Lindsay Lohan has been to rehab!
So maybe next time we should brew them a little stronger TEA that will expose their many differences. If they’re against the tea you’re serving, what tea do they want to drink? I think you’ll hear MANY differing answers because they’re really not FOR a tea, they’re just AGAINST the tea that’s being served.
Revolution In Media 
By Carl Conrad
The self-named “Tea Party” movement is really an ANTI-Tea Party movement because this is a group that refuses to drink the tea they’re served. They’re disgusted with the intrusions of government at all levels and advocate open rebellion against taxation and government spending. They don’t like programs like a federal government Healthcare plan, Social Security, Medicare, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, Unemployment Compensation extensions, the imposition of Gun Control laws, Immigration immunity, or bailouts to ailing banks, corporations, or federal agencies. They complain that all these things are unconstitutional, unwanted, and excessive. Does that sound like anyone is drinking the tea?
Of course I understand the reference to the Boston Tea Party, wherein revolutionaries dumped tea into Boston Harbor in protest of the Stamp Act and government from afar in general. But, I’m not sure that that parallel fits either.
Most of the Tea Party members claim to be advocates of upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the States to implement laws in which their citizens believe. They call themselves JEFFERSONIANS because Thomas Jefferson was a States Rights guy. They revere the Jefferson mantra like it was the only voice of relevance. But weren’t James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington just as much a part of the Constitutional Convention as Thomas Jefferson? And, those brave patriots were Federalists who believed in a strong federal government to oversee the states. Could they really be considered anti-Constitutional?
So, when these Tea Partiers express their views about fiscal responsibility, free markets, and a constitutionally limited government, understand that these are just fancy phrases that hide the true purpose of these rebels like a wolf hides beneath sheep’s clothing.
The Tea Partiers are really a group of people AGAINST things, not FOR them. Their strength is in OPPOSITION not ADVOCACY. And it is this opposition to things that gives them their unity and seeming singularity of purpose because it is much easier to rally people AGAINST things than to form a coalition FOR them.
As I see it, it’s much easier to get people to agree that they’re AGAINST something than to agree on what they’re FOR – it’s too hot, it’s too cold, this show is too long, this product is too expensive – because when they’re AGAINST something, they’re unified in that opinion. But when you try to find out what each person would like instead, you’ll get many differing opinions. If it’s too hot or too cold, what temperature should it be? If a show is too long, what should be cut from it? If a product is too expensive, what price should it be?
It’s when groups like the Tea Partiers have to identify what they would prefer instead of what they’re objecting to that they begin to splinter. The surest way to fragmentize these OBJECTIONISTS is by challenging them to put forth something they can agree upon. If it’s a tangible, votable concept, not just some pablum about love, peace, happiness, and freedom, there are bound to be more opinions than times Lindsay Lohan has been to rehab!
So maybe next time we should brew them a little stronger TEA that will expose their many differences. If they’re against the tea you’re serving, what tea do they want to drink? I think you’ll hear MANY differing answers because they’re really not FOR a tea, they’re just AGAINST the tea that’s being served.
Share this:
Related