Changing views and minds is a marathon, not a sprint. I'm not much about symbolic victories and McConnell should be sh*tting himself that a virtual political nobody captured 35% of the vote agains the Senate Minority Leader.
Changing views and minds is a marathon, not a sprint. I'm not much about symbolic victories and McConnell should be sh*tting himself that a virtual political nobody captured 35% of the vote agains the Senate Minority Leader.
Look at this picture. It so defines what the Tea Party is these days.(https://img3.wakelet.com/images/J/1/Y/FZZdxJ.jpg)
Let me preface my comment by making crystal clear that I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, but that an astute political marketing director will see the obvious.
In order to package the Tea Party successfully and to attract younger voters to it, which must be a "must" for the Tea Party, the idea of the movement must be sexy (attractive, fresh, new, enticing, exciting).
Being an old codger myself, I will readily admit that there is NOTHING sexy about these guys, and their unsexiness defines the Tea Party.
If I've learned anything from watching how the left has taken power in America, it's that there are 2 clear paths to power in a Republic.
1 - Violent revolution.
2 - Patient, persistent, relentless pursuit of goals. This requires pushing the agenda both within the political environment, as well as pushing it in society.
The left has kicked our butts using #2. I'm not sure conservatives will be good at using method #2.
You have no idea how much I cringe when I see people in period dress showing up at rallies.
Want to toss a spanner in the works? Have Bevin start the paperwork to run a 3rd party campaign a la Lisa Murkowski. If the Establisment can do it, why not the Upstarts?
Bet you money that if I showed up dressed like Betsy Ross they'd call me a liberal and throw my ass out.
Do you remember how much agita Guiliani caught for his SNL "drag" outfit at TOS?
Want to toss a spanner in the works? Have Bevin start the paperwork to run a 3rd party campaign a la Lisa Murkowski. If the Establisment can do it, why not the Upstarts?
So, you're saying that maybe these guys should "sex" it up a bit - something like this?
(http://www.blackcatantiques.com/georgecostanzasexy.jpg)
:chairbang:
Most of those who voted for Bevin wanted to send a message to McConnell. They would NEVER vote for Allison Grimes. And they would NEVER vote for Bevin if it meant electing Grimes.
McConnell is going to beat her like a drum.
Look at this picture. It so defines what the Tea Party is these days.(https://img3.wakelet.com/images/J/1/Y/FZZdxJ.jpg)
Let me preface my comment by making crystal clear that I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, but that an astute political marketing director will see the obvious.
In order to package the Tea Party successfully and to attract younger voters to it, which must be a "must" for the Tea Party, the idea of the movement must be sexy (attractive, fresh, new, enticing, exciting).
Being an old codger myself, I will readily admit that there is NOTHING sexy about these guys, and their unsexiness defines the Tea Party.
If you think that's sexy, we should hook up.
Amazing.Co-opt? When was the tea party movement ever not conservative? It started out anti-big government in response to Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC and it never abandoned those principles. Anti-big government, anti-high taxes. That should have been enough.
Conservatives co-opt the movement ...
Co-opt? When was the tea party movement ever not conservative? It started out anti-big government in response to Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC and it never abandoned those principles. Anti-big government, anti-high taxes. That should have been enough.
Unfortunately, a lot of tea partiers and interlopers threw social issues into the mix, made the tea party stand for whatever they demanded it did at the moment, and a whole lot of opportunists arrived, trying to make a quick buck out of the whole thing. **nononono*
The biggest bragging point of the early TEA Party was that it cut across Party and ideological lines. It didn't happen so long ago that I don't clearly remember that.You act as if the big-L Libertarians weren't doing the exact same thing, and we all know their task: dividing the vote to elect Democrats. Why did the socon-leaners win out? They understood Duverger's Law: an opposition works best when united. Because the big-L's insist on their own party, they got nowhere, and the socon-leaners who were using the GOP as their vessel got traction.
I wasn't a "conservative" movement. It was an anti-taxation movement.
Being the exclusionary beings that they are, conservatives immediately set about the task of expanding the movement's agenda to issues that drove out non-conservatives and destroyed what was truly an American uprising.
You act as if the big-L Libertarians weren't doing the exact same thing, and we all know their task: dividing the vote to elect Democrats.
You act as if the big-L Libertarians weren't doing the exact same thing, and we all know their task: dividing the vote to elect Democrats.
Why did the socon-leaners win out? They understood Duverger's Law: an opposition works best when united. Because the big-L's insist on their own party, they got nowhere, and the socon-leaners who were using the GOP as their vessel got traction.
Well, now the GOP is striking back... and they and the Democrats both have the money. Working class schleps don't.
Well, now the GOP is striking back... and they and the Democrats both have the money. Working class schleps don't.
Luis wrote:
[[ Did you really expect the GOP NOT to fight back? ]]
They can fight back if they wish.
But they will not be able to take my vote for granted any more.
That's how -I- will "fight back".
Bet you money that if I showed up dressed like Betsy Ross they'd call me a liberal and throw my ass out.
"The Tea Party is being run by GOPe players."
Really? Are you series?
WHO??
"The Tea Party is being run by GOPe players."
Really? Are you series?
WHO??
Do you think that the members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus are NOT establishment politicians?"
What I think is that you need to support your claim that "The Tea Party is being run by GOPe players."
What I think is that I asked you to give an example of who specifically in the GOPe is running the Tea Party.
I think your claim is erroneous so I am requesting specifics from you to back it up. IF you can, great, but I'd like to know who they are.
That's what I think.
So, if I understand you, Palin, Cruz and Bachman are examples of the GOPe.
You definition of GOPe and mine differ.
I would call these three individuals staunch conservatives, not elitist or establishment.
"..don't go trying to tell me how she's not establishment. "
She's anti establishment if anything. So is Cruz. They both oppose just about everything Boner and his gang stand for.
If your definition of establishment is that a person ran for office, then all politicians are establishment.
When I think of GOPe, my prime examples are Boner, McCain, Graham, et al.
It's time to return to the original Tea Party roots: fiscal responsibility and low taxes. Everything else is just garnish.:amen:
Perhaps it's time to the Tea Party to ditch the Conservatives. If one thing can be learned from history, revolutions consume the first leaders. Started with the Greek pantheon destroying the Titans and goes on to this day.
"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.". Mao
Okay, it's a bit melodramatic. Kids don't wear Robespierre t-shirts or carry around Jefferson's "Little Red Book". It's all about the perception.
The Occu-bleep were binding up traffic, stinking up Mickey Ds and dropping deuces on cop cars. Yet they were media darlings. Girls always like the "bad boy", the lovable rogue, the handsome scoundrel. Even if the girls were the Press Corps and the NYT Editorial Board and the Occupy rank and file were filthy scumbags, the leadership worse.
The Tea Party types, in their period costumes, hats rimmed with dangling tea bags and non-confrontational manner and picking up after themselves at rallies were too easily cast the nerd, the geek, the uncool gang. Was it even a toss up as too who's side America would take? The "Fonz" or "Potsie" Weber?
People seek a leader like water seeking it's own level. We can hardly point to the LIVs and Obamatons, when many latched onto Palin or await the return of a "new" Reagan.
It's time to return to the original Tea Party roots: fiscal responsibility and low taxes. Everything else is just garnish.
Agree that the Tea Party should only be about fiscal responsibility and States rights. Anything else just pulls people apart into little groups. Time is of the essence too, the demographics of the makers and the takers are rapidly tipping the scale in favor of the takers. We can barely manage a majority right now. There is no more time left to waste on this before it becomes impossible to right the ship!
The Tea Party types, in their period costumes, hats rimmed with dangling tea bags and non-confrontational manner and picking up after themselves at rallies were too easily cast the nerd, the geek, the uncool gang.
I also think the word "conservative" is as over-used and meaningless as the word "RINO". I guess we need to come up with a "sexier" term that will cross over better than white bread "conservative". We need to come up with something that sounds more "organic". I am serious.Well, that was part of the whole Tea Party appeal. Of course, the liberals trashed that, too, so keep in mind that any new term that comes up will probably get slandered to death.
The people whose clothes are being emulated in Tea Party rallies were radicals, not conservatives.
Well, that was part of the whole Tea Party appeal. Of course, the liberals trashed that, too, so keep in mind that any new term that comes up will probably get slandered to death.
Of course, if we can beat them to it, it's a moot point.
Edmund Burke, MP and the father of modern conservatism distinguished between the radical French revolution which he ultimately deplored and the American revolution which he supported.
"The French had shewn themselves the ablest architects of ruin that had hitherto existed in the world. In that very short space of time they had completely pulled down to the ground, their monarchy; their church; their nobility; their law; their revenue; their army; their navy; their commerce; their arts; and their manufactures...[there was a danger of] an imitation of the excesses of an irrational, unprincipled, proscribing, confiscating, plundering, ferocious, bloody and tyrannical democracy...[in religion] the danger of their example is no longer from intolerance, but from Atheism; a foul, unnatural vice, foe to all the dignity and consolation of mankind; which seems in France, for a long time, to have been embodied into a faction, accredited, and almost avowed."
The whole package is damaged. The vehicle (Republican Party) is not cool - only concerned with protecting rich white men - according to the media's wildly successful portrayal. I'm just about at the point where I think it would take too long to change that perception, especially with young people. I think we need a completely new makeover and new spokespeople to convey our message.
Instead of constantly talking about how the Democrats promise freebies to worthless do-nothings - we should be enlightening people about how the Democrats (and Republicans) - ergo Washington DC - are actually THE biggest corporation in the US! When you can relate "corporate greed" to how the government treats us little people - I think you can start to reach the young people that have been indoctrinated to have this "knee-jerk" reaction to the concept of "corporations".
The whole package is damaged. The vehicle (Republican Party) is not cool - only concerned with protecting rich white men - according to the media's wildly successful portrayal. I'm just about at the point where I think it would take too long to change that perception, especially with young people. I think we need a completely new makeover and new spokespeople to convey our message.
Instead of constantly talking about how the Democrats promise freebies to worthless do-nothings - we should be enlightening people about how the Democrats (and Republicans) - ergo Washington DC - are actually THE biggest corporation in the US! When you can relate "corporate greed" to how the government treats us little people - I think you can start to reach the young people that have been indoctrinated to have this "knee-jerk" reaction to the concept of "corporations".
I completely understand what you are saying Alice. You can look at recent history for two distinct ways that younger people were reached by a political/governance message. On one hand (especially for 2008), the 0bama campaign was very successful in reaching out to masses of the "brain dead" (I will use that term as a convenient shorthand, fully understanding that not all that responded were brain dead, in fact, some small portion were fully cognizant of the radical agenda that would soon be unleashed) younger folks by basically projecting an image of "the young, hip, black guy is really cool and is going to fix everything that that damn old, rich, white guy screwed up." All it took was a splashy social media presence, getting a lot of young pop culture icons on board, and well, the rest is history. (The take away from this was how easy it was to manipulate a mass of non-thinking youth.)
On the other hand, what was the only other political/governance movement of recent time to attract a groundswell of support and popularity from younger people?
Ron Paul.
In so many ways the Liberty Movement that grew out of his 2008 & 2012 campaigns attracted almost the polar opposite of the "0bama Youth." (Again, I am going to generalize for the point of the discussion, certainly there were/are exceptional examples of what many like to blanket categorize as "typical" Ron Paul supporters: pot smoking hippy kids.) But in general, these were/are young people that are using their brains, thinking about the overwhelming encroachment of government and cronyism in our everyday lives, and responding to the same messages about Freedom, Liberty, and Natural rights that our Founders discussed and enshrined in the Constitution. The Liberty Movement is also "young, hip, and cool" but it is not a set of empty, meaningless platitudes. It focuses on many of the same principles and ideals that most posters here hold in high regard.
(And yes, as a matter of full disclosure, I personally have supported and voted for Ron Paul every chance that I had. And my late 20s son has been very active in the Liberty Movement. So yes, I speak from much personal experience in this matter, and can be called a "Paulbot" by anyone that chooses to use that term.)
My reason for describing all of this is, not to set myself up as a target for the name callers, but rather to suggest an example of how something that you are talking about actually has worked. In some sense, the Liberty Movement has found a way to make being a "Patriot" (to use EC's label from above) cool, hip, and relevant to a large portion of the younger generations. The problem that we run into, as witnessed by the numerous discussions in all of the Tea Party threads of late, is the there are two segments of the overall "conservative" superset that can not be comfortable in all aspects of the Liberty Movement. Of course those segments are the 'neocons' that reject the principle of non-interventionism out of hand, and the 'social conservatives' that don't understand that it is not a legitimate role of government to legislate morality.
I guess, all that I am suggesting is that we do have a ready made example of how the younger generations can respond to a message of government constrained by the Constitution, personal liberty and freedom, and the beauty of the operation of a free market economy. To me, this is probably the best starting point to attracting and gaining young people in significant numbers to eventually make a difference.
Agree... agree... agree.
Bravo.(http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/fainted.jpg)
LOL!
Although we may approach things from a different perspective, we probably agree on far more than we disagree!! :patriot:
Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee, pull up a comfortable chair and check this out.
Long, but well worth ii.
Constitutional Conservatism. A way forward for a troubled political coalition. (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5580)
Burke detested the French Revolution's descent into anarchy, which is tyranny of another sort, and atheism. In contrast, he saw the American Revolution as building a new society founded on the essential cornerstones of order, law, God and liberty.
Exactly my point in distinguishing radicals from conservatives.
I'm not understanding your point.
Are you saying that the American Revolution was carried out by conservatives and not radicals?
Yes, that was how Burke distinguished between the two.
"I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long."
The ideal compliment of liberty and government which support each other is a conservative value and men can be driven to fight for it. The goals and results can justify the means.
President Lincoln considered himself a strong conservative, yet was not unwilling to go to war.
The ideal compliment of liberty and government which support each other is a conservative value
I completely understand what you are saying Alice. You can look at recent history for two distinct ways that younger people were reached by a political/governance message. On one hand (especially for 2008), the 0bama campaign was very successful in reaching out to masses of the "brain dead" (I will use that term as a convenient shorthand, fully understanding that not all that responded were brain dead, in fact, some small portion were fully cognizant of the radical agenda that would soon be unleashed) younger folks by basically projecting an image of "the young, hip, black guy is really cool and is going to fix everything that that damn old, rich, white guy screwed up." All it took was a splashy social media presence, getting a lot of young pop culture icons on board, and well, the rest is history. (The take away from this was how easy it was to manipulate a mass of non-thinking youth.)
On the other hand, what was the only other political/governance movement of recent time to attract a groundswell of support and popularity from younger people?
Ron Paul.
In so many ways the Liberty Movement that grew out of his 2008 & 2012 campaigns attracted almost the polar opposite of the "0bama Youth." (Again, I am going to generalize for the point of the discussion, certainly there were/are exceptional examples of what many like to blanket categorize as "typical" Ron Paul supporters: pot smoking hippy kids.) But in general, these were/are young people that are using their brains, thinking about the overwhelming encroachment of government and cronyism in our everyday lives, and responding to the same messages about Freedom, Liberty, and Natural rights that our Founders discussed and enshrined in the Constitution. The Liberty Movement is also "young, hip, and cool" but it is not a set of empty, meaningless platitudes. It focuses on many of the same principles and ideals that most posters here hold in high regard.
(And yes, as a matter of full disclosure, I personally have supported and voted for Ron Paul every chance that I had. And my late 20s son has been very active in the Liberty Movement. So yes, I speak from much personal experience in this matter, and can be called a "Paulbot" by anyone that chooses to use that term.)
My reason for describing all of this is, not to set myself up as a target for the name callers, but rather to suggest an example of how something that you are talking about actually has worked. In some sense, the Liberty Movement has found a way to make being a "Patriot" (to use EC's label from above) cool, hip, and relevant to a large portion of the younger generations. The problem that we run into, as witnessed by the numerous discussions in all of the Tea Party threads of late, is the there are two segments of the overall "conservative" superset that can not be comfortable in all aspects of the Liberty Movement. Of course those segments are the 'neocons' that reject the principle of non-interventionism out of hand, and the 'social conservatives' that don't understand that it is not a legitimate role of government to legislate morality.
I guess, all that I am suggesting is that we do have a ready made example of how the younger generations can respond to a message of government constrained by the Constitution, personal liberty and freedom, and the beauty of the operation of a free market economy. To me, this is probably the best starting point to attracting and gaining young people in significant numbers to eventually make a difference.
We are going to have to disagree on the notion that the people who wrote what could be two of the three most radical documents in the history of Western civilization (Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Magna Carta) were conservatives.
Which did not exist prior to the American Revolution. It's hard to conserve something that didn't exist before you.
...
The Magna Carta was designed to end rebellions and try to create a better balance between crown and people. It wasn't the first of its kind, but probably the most important for a few centuries, though it didn't ultimately stop a revolution in England.
...
Heck Luis, we can't agree on everything...
The Magna Carta was designed to end rebellions and try to create a better balance between crown and people. It wasn't the first of its kind, but probably the most important for a few centuries, though it didn't ultimately stop a revolution in England.
The Declaration of Independence was designed to start a rebellion because that balance between crown and colonies had deteriorated.
The Constitution was simply an attempt to improve on the Articles of Confederation, which in the latter case was designed to bring the colonies into a legitimate form of government.
All three were attempts at defining the role of government and where the liberty of its people were formally outlined. Radical yes. But did set standards for a conservative philosophy.
The term didn't define the philosophy. What Burke did (while justifying a monarchy) was to bring words and meanings people could understand to the principle that a government can coexist with its people, who have undeniable rights, and each having a responsibility to that coexistence.
A conservative will do everything reasonable to maintain that important balance, but is not above using radical avenues to do so. IMHO. Real radicalism today is designed to diminish that balance.
I don't believe the Magna Carta was about the relationship between the Crown and the people as much as the Crown and the Nobility. Don't believe anybody cared too much about Joseph "Six Bowls Of Gruel".
Like most things in history, wasn't what man could control but what he couldn't. The plague led more to the rights of man than probably anything before or since. Distributed wealth very well.
Whichever way you describe it, it was a radical document.
What do you think the impact of the King James Bible on the politics of mankind?
One massive issue with conservatives, is that in the name of conservatism, they restrict societal changes which expand or unrestrict rights and do it in the name of conservatism.
Massive, but it isn't a document.
I don't believe the Magna Carta was about the relationship between the Crown and the people as much as the Crown and the Nobility.
Well said Katz! Well said indeed!
I have personally known Dr. Paul for more than 40 years. (he once lived three doors down from me, was my wife's gynecologist, and delivered my youngest son into this world) I was there working to help get him elected when he first ran for congress in 1975 and have maintained a relationship with him since though I rarely see him these days. I agree with him on a LOT of things (in case you haven't noticed there is a very strong libertarian streak in me LOL) but where we part company is in the area of foreign policy. (if you want to attach the neocon label to me feel free) I do not believe that we any longer have the option of non intervention in this increasingly small world and feel strongly enough about it that I could not and cannot support him for the presidency for that reason alone.
Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee, pull up a comfortable chair and check this out.
Long, but well worth ii.
Constitutional Conservatism. A way forward for a troubled political coalition. (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5580)