Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Economics is a different matter, and one where the answer is harder to latch onto because of too many vested interests that'll drag the whole market down if something happens that they don't like (but that in itself might not be that damaging), but that's not what i was addressing in this case.
I'm not making this up, either. Palin herself spelled out a resentment for east-coast intellectuals in no uncertain terms, and then you have these clearly ideology-driven points of conjecture on cuts, and people who think we can solve the budget problem by "cutting foreign aid" (when foreign aid is so miniscule as to be a non-starter)
Cut the EPA, because environmentalism is hooey, cut planned parenthood because all they do is abortions, cut health-care because the uninsured won't impose more of a burden on the system if they're completely uninsured, no-sir
Austerity is a fine economic idea, but no-one actually wants to do it right (which is higher taxes and less spending, each party unwilling to do both), and instead the Tea Party ideas have been hijacked by anti-intellectual and psuedo-intellectual rhetoric that's just a new coat of paint on the same Republican ideas. It's the old conservative docket, just with the cavalier attitude towards war dropped off (which i'll grant is a positive at first, but they tend to be more isolationist on that front than is wise). The numbers back this up in that the Ryan budget would get us to more or less the same place financially in 40 years as the Obama one (assuming that fiscally unreliable democracy as it always does wouldn't just chart their own paths in those 40 years), just with the burden in those 40 years being shouldered by those who can least afford to carry it, rather than those who most can
|
That's where you make your mistake. Your attributing Palin and Ryan as leaders of the Tea-party... when they aren't.
A lot of Tea-party leaders are anti-palin. She's mostly just used as an attraction to gather people to come. Since their attempt to be bipartisan failed when no democrats crossed over due to the Democratic and Republican dual effort to paint them as racists and lunatics.
It's this way with every new political movement... or new anything really.
You need name recognition so you let in people who aren't full on when it comes to your ideas.
I mean heck, the newest Tea Party star is actually Donald Trump.
If the Tea Party somehow surives 5-10 more years, you'll see those people begin to fal; away.
|
Political leadership is relative. I mean Gandhi wasn't the leader of the Indian National Congress, but his ideas influenced the composition of the group. The ones out there making the noise for the group are going to attract the people, who in turn shape discourse. If Trump and all his "birther," nonsense is the frontman for the group, then they're going to attract more birthers, or people like that Southern California Republican operative who got caught circulating that picture of Obama superimposed as the child of chimps (which shares the same root as the birther paranoia, it's racism at heart)
You could be right, but i think you're seeing the Tea Party as a Libertarian vehicle, whereas i'm seeing it as a Republican capitalization on voter angst
