The
Tea Party phenomenon erupted with a spontaneity seldom seen in a laid back political culture. Whatever your perception or
the impression depicted in the media, there is no dispute that Rick Santelli's "rant" on the CME trading floor in Chicago, telecast live by CNBC on Feb. 19, 2009 initiated and tapped into a frustration brewing under the surface. Not exactly, the shot
heard round the world; but more like a St Helens explosion, the economic and a moral argument rang clear. "This is America!"
Santelli declared. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't
pay their bills?"
Seldom seen on the mass
media is righteous outrage. The GE corporate behemoth reeled in Honest Rick and toned down the airtime message. Placing
him in the town square stockades or subjecting him to corporal punishment might just signal that a modern day Sam Adams lives.
Yet the cat was out of the bag and the sentiments tapped into an underlying current that frightens the gatekeepers of the
command and controlled corporate/state economy.
When
main street middle class beleaguered taxpayers resonated that, the system was out of whack, the damage control team went into
overdrive. This background helps to explain why the face of unprompted Tea Party individualism must be distorted, maligned
and redirected.
Adequately defining the average Tea Party proponent is futile since the myriad
of factions that make up group behavior is naturally fragmented. Do you take your tea with sugar, honey or milk? Is your tea
green or decaffeinated? So too the core values, priority concerns and immediate threats vary within an ecumenical Tea Party
mentality. Hundreds of local, state, regional and national organizations claim to be part of the Tea Party movement. However,
is this loose coalition really a movement or a state of mind?
Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express and Tea Party Nation are familiar names. Each brings their agenda, baggage and quirks. Attempts to coordinate into a cohesive functioning
national crusade disregard the unstructured existential reason for the cause of the political explosion. Inherent autonomy is intrinsically individual. Movements typically conform to regimentation.
It is essential to separate the philosophy from action components. Genuine conservatives,
America First exponents, limited government proponents and fiscal restraint advocates are rare. When tried many “so
called” angry citizens fail the traditional test. Neoconservatives cannot qualify by definition when held to these strict
standards.
Annoyed armchair conventional solid
citizens lack the historic perspective and internal fortitude to rebel under the criteria of a radical reactionary. Most want reform at best, while failing to understand or accept that the political order is irrevocably beyond
worth of any socially redeemable merit. The inauspicious reality is that the vast majority favor the social welfare state.
Trimming the edges in order to avoid catastrophic pain and suffering is a toxic fuel that runs the despotic governance.
The counter opposition to Tea Party indignation is the entire
culture and political administration of vested interest in “government goodies”. By sheer numbers, Tea Party goers
require a wide-ranging megaphone that can turn up the volume to overcome the clutter of the mass media machine. Progressives,
the code word for totalitarian collectivists hate individual liberty and love state sponsored dominance. Add in all levels of career politicians and public
employee parasites and you have the makings of a very unequal combat. The war to purge society from the curse of limitless
imperial rule is the burden of true traditional conservatives.
In order for the Tea Party mindset to make constructive contributions to this eternal struggle, the philosophy needs
to influence the political regime. Many interpret this goal as running for elected office, supporting likeminded candidates
or forming a third party. Take you pick, Wikipedia presents links to the current crop and historic minor parties. Facing the practical reality that few voters actually cast their ballot for authentic government
reorganization, the lesser of two evil DemocRAT or RepubliCAN’T becomes a bearable choice for many citizens.
Sadly, as long as the myth that democratic elections and officially
authorized edicts are legitimate under a corporate/state system is generally accepted, no relief from government tyranny is
possible. Reforming the election process from within is like asking the hungry tiger to become a vegetarian.
The GOP effort to package Republicans as tangible Tea Party
candidates does not brew potable sustenance. A declared Tea Party candidate might run as a Republican, but party loyalty is
a root cause of dysfunctional civic performance. The “tea bagger” who wants to run as a Democrat has
the burden of shedding the “political fellatio” of the high priests of state supremacy. Illusions need to be discarded
and pragmatic politics make the strangest of all bedfellows. When has any meaningful restoration of Jeffersonian limited government
been achieved in our lifetime?
Fox Business News
promotes the Tea Party Summit: Ron Paul Meets Sarah Palin with host Judge Andrew Napolitano. “What does the future hold for the Tea Party? Rand Paul, Jim DeMint,
Michele Bachmann, Dick Armey, Ed Rendell, and a surprise guest will discuss their thoughts on the potential creation of a
libertarian-conservative coalition.”
This
billing falsely assumes that established party career celebrities will lead the charge for a Tea Party revolution. Excluding
the Pauls’, conservative populism is AWOL within the Republican Party. Months ago columnist Kurt Nimmo got it correct about Sarah Palin, “Americans are not fooled by her sudden Tea Party plumage. Republicans
are desperate to regain control of the White House and Congress and give us four or eight more years of Bush and his warmongering
statist neocons. It is a shabby and absurdly transparent gimmick.”
The Claremont Institute has a different viewpoint.
“Conservatives could offer "innovative leadership" with the help of a "new cohort of smart policy
wonks with a practical vision for the future," according to Mead (of the Council on Foreign Relations). The political
problem is that the Tea Party populists may not accede to a conservative agenda set by a different set of experts and professionals.
Populists "want big and simple ideas," Mead writes, not "intricate, finely crafted reforms whose beauty can
only be appreciated by a few." If there's hope for a conservative coalition that overcomes those tensions, it resides
in the constant awareness of a much bigger governmental and even civilizational threat—that the "dysfunction of
the current system" will drive us "into a massive social and financial crisis."
It should be obvious that CFR wonks are part of the fundamental problem. The
massive social and financial crisis is already here and is just awaiting the inevitable collapse of the top down master slave
matrix. Mixing mainstream political operatives with disenfranchised and socially scorned populists is a formula for failure.
The entire political, financial and economic structure is bankrupt. The fervor of adamant Tea Party activists intuitively
knows the established order must be abolished. Events are on an ordained course. Chic policy planning will
not prevent the pain of a crumpling hierarchy.
