Tax Day Tea Party Brings out the Worst of Conservatism

The tea party was not completely about taxes or fiscal responsibility. It was about sensationalism, and energizing an uninformed, ignorant, unreasonable, and intolerant conservative base. 

The following are slogans on signs from the protest:

-"Obamas Plan White Slavery"

-"The American Tax Payers are the Jews to Obama's Ovens"

-"Our tax $ given to Hamas to kill Christiand, Jews, and Americans"

-"Obama loves taxes bankrupt USA loves baby killing"

These are admittedly some of the worst, those these are far from infrequent or isolated. 

And lest we forget, the giant stimulus package was loaded with pork and pet projects by Congress. Republicans and Democrat legislators alike are responsible for the massive spending bill. REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE. Obama's input into the stimulus bill was public works projects that put people to work and improve our nations infrastructure at the same time. 

Yet somehow Obama is the only bad guy in this? 

I am all for responsible spending. As soon as our economy is once again strong, balancing the budget must be a priority. I will hold Obama to his campaign promise of reducing the budget defecit as soon as we are back on track. 

However, I want absolutely no association with the bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance of the tax day tea parties and the conservative movement.

It is what it is. 

America No Longer a Conservative Nation

Aside from the recent landslide presidential election, there are additional studies, as well as landmark law changes suggesting a new, permanent Democrat (or Democrat leaning) majority in the United States.

American Ideals and values are changing. We are not straying away from our country's founding principles of liberty and freedoms, rather, we're changing how we go about retaining and promoting those principles. 

For example, we are finally realizing that freedom and equality for all means allowing everyone, gay or straight to be married. 

We are not necessarily straying from traditional Republican values, rather outdated and logically unfounded Conservative values. For example, lower taxes for most Americans was part of Obama's campaign platform, and despite what Limbaugh says, is being implemented. 

However, Conservative bigotry like banning homosexuals from marrying is dying out.

Let's think about this. The world has a natural and inevitable tendency to progress. We threw out dictatorships and monarchies for republics and democracies. We give freedoms and rights to more and more groups and minorities as time goes by, such as the lower class, blacks, women, gays, and what not. We advance our thoughts and views as a collective society, and progress for the better. Conservatism goes completely against this. It is destined to fail.

Republicans need to understand the implications of this. Conservatism is a radical fringe element know (or at least we are moving toward this). Socially moderate Republicans could be apart of this American shift, but there don't seem to be many in power, and good luck to any who try to get funding from the GOP to run against/in place of Conservative incumbents.

Disingenuous Movement

I had my skepticism. I kept hearing about tea parties sweeping the country, kept hearing about this huge movement taking hold of Americans. It was exciting even to think that people were passionate enough about a cause to hold rallies countrywide. I myself do not identify with the tea party movement, but it was a little exciting none the less, aside from being a little unbelievable...

Well, that's because it was. No Glenn Beck, this is not an organic movement started by everyday Americans. It was started by conservative lobbyists, well staffed and well funded.

But let's think about this for a minute. Although Glenn Beck is wrong and needs to shut up, does it really matter is this Tea Party tax movement is started by a lobbyist? I mean, what's the difference between a lobbyist and a like minded regular citizen? One just has more resources than the other, right?

The difference is it takes a hell of a lot of the sincerity out of it when someone who is paid to believe and promote conservative ideas starts a conservative movement, as opposed to someone (or many) who sees no profit or immediate personal gain from doing so. There's no sacrifice in a lobbyist organizing a conservative movement. There is when private individuals take the time and effort to coordinate something like this.

That is why, even though I felt no identification with the tea party movement, I'm a little bummed out to hear that it isn't genuine. There's no more sincerity in it, no sacrifice, no passion. 

Though, in fairness, FoxNews was boasting this event. I shouldn't have been surprised.

My money, My rules

Can the Government interfere in the operations of private business? Absolutely not.

Can you still be considered private business after you accept large sums of government (taxpayer) money? No. 

I get that the government has no place in private business. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. But you can no longer be considered private business if your receiving a bail out. 

Should the White House be able to remove CEO's of bailed out companies? Absolutely. Should the government be able to investigate your lending practices of bailed out companies? Absolutely. You want government money, you need to play by government rules.

HOWEVER. If your going to interfere in bailed out business, President Obama, I hope you know what you're doing.

Where are the scholars in Washington?

Does anyone else have the feeling that our nationally elected officials are not learned in the ways of economics? It is painful listening to our leaders lecture on the economy. It's like listening to someone give a book report after reading Sparknotes. Not even the complete Sparknotes, just half of it. I mean, just listening to politicians babble about the urgent need to take action, without describing (or presumably knowing) the action that should be taken is scary. I'm convinced that there are very few people in positions of power within our government who actually know how our financial system works. 

I remember history class, learning about the scholars that used to run things. Where are the scholars today? We used to have philosophers, inventors, educators and just generally smart people elected to office (Not that every historical figure in American history is a scholar, but I'm looking at the brighter side here). Honestly, what was the last intelligent thing Nancy Pelosi said? What was the last thing she said that made you think she was a really intelligent person? Or Eric Cantor and John Boehner and the rest of this current crop of Know-Nothing Republican Leadership (I say Know-Nothing because they appear to not know shit about anything, including the fact that a budget proposal needs actual numbers in it). What was the last thought provoking thing they said. Hell, what was the last thing they said that wasn't from yesterday's Limbaugh show?

Which begs the question, could an president (or any politician) win an election on the basis of being intelligent and qualified? It could be argued that Barack Obama is the most scholarly candidate to be elected president in quite some time. But look at how much he had to downplay that for fear of being called "elitist". His rhetoric about struggling families was to appeal to the "common man", his half hour prime time network television special showed how he understood the "common american", he allowed his family in the spotlight and made a point to remind American that he was a Christian in order to show his family was just  like the "common American family."

Shouldn't the person anointed to (successfully) run the country be un-common. Our president, the most powerful person in the world, should be extraordinarily smart, not common; he should be unbelievably qualified, he should be educated and versed in the ways of the economy, the law, foreign affairs, history, and what not; a scholar, if you will. He should be much more than a "common" man (dare we swallow our pride and vote for someone knowing that they are better than us). What is it with this country that makes us want to elect a "common man" to office? Why should someone like Barack Obama, or any candidate for that matter, need to downplay his intelligence and qualifications in order to appear "common"?

I voted for Obama. I am not a Democrat, I am not liberal, I really don't fit into either of those labels. I will admit that I do have disdain for Conservatism; not traditional Republican ideas, but Conservatism. Those two labels have seemed to merge lately, but they are not necessarily the same thing. I would have considered voting for McCain had he not given in to the Conservative base and ran on a Conservative, anti-intelligence, "Real America" platform. I digress. 

I voted for Obama because, yes, my opinions and views aligned more with his than McCain's, but just as importantly, because he is smart. He appeared to be smarter and more qualified than John McCain. He seemed like someone capable of reason and pragmatism (In a president!? Whoda thought!). He seemed a hell of a lot more qualified than me, or any other common man I've met throughout my life, to assume the mantle of the most powerful man in the world.

Now, we can only hope that his qualifications extend into the realm of economics....