When pondering the question of who it is that the Tea Party wants to take the government back from, the active failure to prosecute for voter intimidation by the Obama Administration would seem to be the answer.
Or perhaps Congressmen who want to pass campaign finance laws to prevent GOP election victories.
There’s also this comment via Instapundit
Interestingly enough in the last several years there have been four big SCOTUS cases which IMHO, really define our freedoms and personal liberty Kelo property rights; Citizens United free speech; Heller 2nd amendment and now McDonald.
I hear a lot from liberals about how the right wants to curtail freedoms, we’re fascists yet when I look at where the liberal Justices ruled or dissented in those aforementioned cases I think it’s pretty clear who are the real curtailers of freedom and liberty.
After all when the State can take your property, restrict your political speech and disarm the populace, you really don’t have much left in the way of freedom.
Maybe those people too?
UPDATE: The more I think about it, the more I believe that the “taking back” is from the “government party” as exemplified by public service unions. Our political class is busy creating Two Americas, a privileged public sector and a serf like private sector, which the former can loot as needed or desired to support themselves. The Tea Party wants to take back the government from the government and reform it so it operates for the people and not just the public sector.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack look to rack up over $146B in losses while becoming two of the largest landlords in the USA. Clearly what we need is legislation that will make sure this kind of thing won’t ever happen again. We could prohibit government agencies from buying securitized mortgages, which would have effectively prevented the recent banking meltdown as well.
Having intervened even more massively in the health care system, and failing (as usual) the Obama Administration is now starting to consider price controls (via HotAir). Just as Hayek noted, each step of intervention leads to the next and little bits of regulation gradually (or, with Obama, not so gradually) turn in to de facto nationalization.
This is of course another example of legislating against reality. I suspect that what people who don’t like market really don’t like — that markets end up reflecting what is and not what people want.
I managed to get a comment
deleted [see update] over at Brothers Judd, although since Disqus is used as the commenting system the comment is still available over there. Apparently Judd didn’t like my tweaking him with his past praise for Under-performin’ Norman. Judd titled a post with “A TAD MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN NORM MINETTA” which seemed rather dismissive of Minetta who had earlier been described as was “surely the best Transportation Secretary we’ve ever had”, not to mention”one of the few great cabinet officers in the history of the Republic” and even “one of the superstars of the best cabinet since Washington’s”. Having frequently found Judd’s boosting of Minetta rather inexplicable, I am amused to see him get memholed.
Update: I must apologize to Judd, it appears the problem was too many links caused the comment to be marked as junk. My fault, I should have been more generous in my opinions.
This may, in the end, be Palin’s greatest contribution to conservative political fortunes: She suckers the chattering left in to reminding everybody that they are, well, snots.
While there still may exist people in the MAL who have actual political philosophies, the rank and file is mostly filled with people for whom a political stance is purely about social status. It is those people who Palin infuriates because she fails to accept the inherent social superiority of the MALists. It’s certainly one of the things I like best about her.
I want to write a long post on the Congressman Etheridge incident but a couple of points from this link —
In fact, calling on Helen Thomas was a notorious method for a hard-pressed White House press secretary to EVADE tough questions from the rest of the press corps. A zany, out-of-left-field protest from Thomas would disrupt a flow of unwelcome queries, maybe spark a tension-breaking laugh, maybe change the subject altogether.
Not at all hard to believe that someone who provided an information avoidance mechanism was the darling of Old Media, is it?
Obama, 2008: ” … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …”
Obama, 2010: ” … I can’t dive down there and plug the hole. I can’t suck it up with a straw …”
Hope for change, my friends, hope for change.
A couple of clip on how the current Administration handles relations with its enemies.
Nevertheless, to make the boss look like he’s in charge, his administration keeps threatening BP with thuggish language (“We will keep our boot on their neck”) and made public a criminal probe — something the Justice Department doesn’t normally do until it actually files charges.
“If we find evidence of illegal behavior, we will be extremely forceful in our response,” Attorney General Eric Holder said.
Tough guy. But look at his mild comments about the Times Square bomber on “Meet the Press,” where Holder never expressed even the mildest rebuke of the terrorist: “Well, you know, the evidence develops, and I think we have to always try to be careful to make sure that the statements that we make are consistent with the evidence that we have developed,” he said, adding that his people were going “to try to understand what is it that took him over the edge and that converted him from being a person who seemingly was an average American to somebody who was bound and determined to kill Americans.”
Why is it that the president would talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, but he thinks that, in the middle of arguably the biggest domestic crisis of his presidency, it’s a waste of his time to have a conversation with the head of British Petroleum? So when it comes to terrorists, understanding is the main goal. With corporations, it’s punishment.
The answer is that our Administration views people who make profits as more despicable than people who execute their political opponents.
Multiple formatting errors fixed. Sorry!
Long time reader, first time writer. 22 years old. Just wanted to comment briefly on something you mentioned about Obamacare. I have a lot of friends my own age who were all for socialized medicine, and wholeheartedly supported the idea of healthcare reform. We’re talking very, very, very liberal kids. They hate this thing. The overwhelming consensus among kids my age is pretty much as follows: We pay into social security which we KNOW we’ll never get anything from. In much the same vein, Obamacare is yet another way in which we’re being taxed to support a bunch of old people. Overwhelmingly, we feel that we’re being taken advantage of to subsidize a bunch of old people we don’t know, will never meet, and frankly shouldn’t need to be paying to support. Overwhelmingly, we had hoped to see a health care system that didn’t take advantage of young people and burden them even more than we already are. College loans are killing us, social security payments take a chunk out of every check, for those of us lucky enough to have jobs, and now this.
I can’t even tell you how many people my own age who voted for Obama have come to me and told me how disappointed they are in what he’s done with this whole thing.
Well, dudes, that’s how socialism works, it’s how any actual socialized health care system must work, unless the herd of unicorns with leprechaun gold arrive to save the day. Your error was not spending 2 minutes thinking through the question “who needs the health care?”.
What I wonder is whether socialism now, finally, has come to mean “take money from other people and give it to me” instead of the “solidarity” propaganda?
Of course, our modern youth do not have a monopoly on that sort of hazy wish fulfillment thinking. As the Wall Street Journal notes
Almost everything Congress has done in recent months has made private businesses less inclined to hire new workers. ObamaCare imposes new taxes and mandates on private employers. Even with record unemployment, Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25, pricing more workers out of jobs. The teen unemployment rate rose to 26.4% in May, and for those between the ages of 25 and 34 it rose to 10.5%. These should be some of the first to be hired in an expansion because they are relatively cheap and have the potential for large productivity gains as they add skills.
The “jobs” bill that the House passed last week expands jobless insurance to 99 weeks, while raising taxes by $80 billion on small employers and U.S-based corporations. On January 1, Congress is set to let taxes rise on capital gains, dividends and small businesses. None of these are incentives to hire more Americans.
Congress says “we will punish employers until they start hiring again!”. This is the end result of a system of thought that always blames the private sector (or “wreckers”) for any failure of government policy. It’s basically the same thing I noted earlier — our ruling class simply cannot grasp the fact that you can’t overcome reality through legislation.
What can Old Media say, even if they (in theory) objected to being state controlled? After all, we see article after article on the glories of regulation every other profession in minute detail. Why not journalism as well? It is, after all, vital to our republic and therefore can’t be left in private hands …
Here’s the classic example of exactly what Hayek was writing about in The Road to Serfdom. The government starts intervening and once on that path, the government is strongly motivated to keep on traveling down that road.
In summary, the government started with providing medical care to citizens. That lead to growing costs, so the government started imposing price controls. Doctors decided they didn’t care for the low rates and delayed payments, so the government is now using the legal system to force, on threat of civil penalties and now imprisonment the submission of providers to rates the government decides. Any problems resulting from this heavy handedness will naturally be the fault of that market, that is, the ability of citizens to decide how to dispose of their own labor.
As I noted earlier it’s about obedience. It’s not enough for the government to state what it will pay, it must be that the citizens must obey and price themselves as the government wills.
A classic window into the liberal mind was provided by this recent NY Times correction of a Freudian editing error:Because of an editing error, an article on Tuesday about the top 10 choking hazards for children omitted some steps to take if a child is choking and seems unable to cough out the obstruction. Besides having someone call 911, the health authorities recommend acting quickly to remove the object.