Rick Sincere blogs that, speaking at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum claimed that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan “are certainly two of the shoulders that we stand upon as the Republican Party.” Sincere quotes the Cato Institute’s David Boaz commenting on Santorum’s remarks:
“Santorum in Richmond speaks of freedom, individual rights, and the dignity of the human person. But he has demonstrated in the past that he doesn’t really mean the freedom to live your own life as you choose. He has denounced ‘this whole idea of personal autonomy … this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do.’ That’s the American idea of freedom, but it’s not Rick Santorum’s idea.”
Comments Sincere:
Given that Santorum has declared his interest in pursuing a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, he needs to take some time to reconcile his contradictory views and ask himself, are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan’s shoulders those of giants upon which Republicans stand, or are their old-fashion views about individual autonomy, personal responsibility, and human freedom at odds with the 21st century’s Republican Party?
That’s the question facing the GOP, and it involves whether Tea Party libertarianism will withstand attempts by GOP social conservatives to co-opt the movement.
More. Then again, some see the
winds of change altering the GOP itself.
Furthermore. From The Daily Caller, Sexual orientation makes surprise appearance as campaign issue.
28 Comments for “Social Conservatives Eye the Tea Party”
posted by David on
I appreciate IGF most of the time, but when you guys insist that the Tea Party is not by definition socially conservative I have to wonder what country you live in. No, social conservatives are not “eyeing” the Tea Parties – they ARE the Tea Parties. This demographic is precisely the same as the Moral Majority and the socially conservative wing of the Republican party (most of the modern Republican party). I honestly don’t understand how that’s not bleedingly obvious.
posted by Walker on
“Obvious” is not evidence. Many, even most, tea partiers may BE socially conservative. But they’re doing a darn good job of keeping social issues out of their movement. Read this for a description of social conservatives stomping their feet and begging to be let in.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/social-conservatives-left-behind/
posted by Carl on
“But they’re doing a darn good job of keeping social issues out of their movement”
Are there any major Tea Party candidates who aren’t socially conservative or whose social conservatism hasn’t been a big part of their political careers? The only one I can think of is Rand Paul. Others who are close to the Tea Party, like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell and Jim DeMint, have been very high profile in their social conservatism.
posted by Jorge on
That’s the question facing the GOP, and it involves whether Tea Party libertarianism will withstand attempts by GOP social conservatives to co-opt the movement.
Two words: Sarah Palin. What Walker says is correct. There is really no question that 1) Sarah Palin is a social conservative, 2) that she is the figurehead of the tea party, and 3) that the tea party is a libertarian/small government rather than a social conservative movement. The tea party is and has always been about what the people want, and poll after poll shows that what the people want puts a low priority on hot button social issues. (Some wiggle room is necessary here. For example, I do not consider the movement to bring religion back to the public square a hot button social issue; it could be part of the tea party platform without contradicting any of the above, because it is the government that is tyrannically keeping religion out of the public square at the behest of unrepresentative activists groups such as the ACLU.)
Whether the tea party movement always will be about its current platform is an open question, but one that is not relevant to the 2008 election.
posted by David on
I’m sorry Walker, you asked for evidence and then point to an evidence-free anecdotal Cato article?
So let’s go down the list of prominent Tea Party members/supporters/supported candidates. There’s Sarah Palin, obviously. And equally obviously Glenn Beck. Then on the electoral side there’s Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Ron Johnson, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, Scott Brown, Carl Paladino, Joe Miller, Tim Scott, Jeff Landry, the list goes on and on…
Out of that list who is NOT a social conservative? Let’s spotlight gay issues just to bring out some clarity. Christine O’Donnell’s probably the most socially conservative of the bunch; Sharron Angle has burnished her “pro-family” and one-man-one-woman credentials; Ron Johnson advertises on his website standing up for one-man-one-woman and religious values; Ken Buck compared homosexuality to alcoholism and called it a choice; Rand Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act but otherwise is one of the least socially conservative of the bunch; Scott Brown is a more moderate form of Rand Paul but also voted to define marriage as one-man-one-woman in the Massachusetts House; Paladino is obviously anti-gay; Joe Miller supports DADT (this from a quote in September of this year); Tim Scott opposes gay marriage; Jeff Landry was the hardest to find a quote from but if you dig you can find he also supports legally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.
So if you want to support the Tea Party, fine. But don’t pretend they’re not social conservatives. They may not be blatantly running on socially conservative stances, but this is not a big libertarian tent – all or almost all of Tea Party supported candidates are staunch social conservatives, even if some of them occasionally try to hide this. Don’t expect once these people get into office to change their mind and suddenly have a hands-off approach to social issues.
This is nothing new in American politics; it is just a new name and a slight shift in focus for the same group.
posted by Jorge on
The question, again, is not whether the Tea Partiers are social conservatives, but what the platform is of the Tea Party movement.
By your standards, every time a Democrat were elected, we’d be having a major gay rights revolution.
posted by AG on
David,
You’re not making sense. You call people socially conservative if they oppose gay marriage. That’s just stupid. Is Barack Obama socially conservative because he is against gay marriage (and at this moment his administration is actively working to defend the DOMA)? What about Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton? Are they all die-hard social conservatives too?
posted by BobN on
But they’re doing a darn good job of keeping social issues out of their
movementcampaigns.posted by Carl on
“The question, again, is not whether the Tea Partiers are social conservatives, but what the platform is of the Tea Party movement.”
I think the main question is are these voices going to speak out if the GOP uses homosexuality as a wedge issue, as they have in the past, especially in 2003-2004. If they don’t, then how are they any different from the era of the GOP which placed great emphasis on the religious right?
If it’s go along to get along, and a lot of Tea Party candidates, even if they may not place a high emphasis on opposing partnerships, opposing DADT repeal, or going even further, restrictions or bans on other matters, etc. they may work with those who do place a big emphasis on these issues.
Even Scott Brown, who was hyped as a moderate, did not vote for DADT repeal.
Today’s GOP feels no real need to change their views on homosexuality, and I can’t see that changing anytime soon.
posted by Jorge on
I think the main question is are these voices going to speak out if the GOP uses homosexuality as a wedge issue, as they have in the past, especially in 2003-2004
There are always Republicans who are trying to use homosexuality as a wedge issue; who says they aren’t trying today? We just saw a couple of posts on this site this week on Jim DeMint and Carl Palladino. What’s different about the 2004 election is that Republican voters actually encouraged this behavior. For that, certain conditions were necessary. It is fairly easy to predict: something has to happen that is likely to lead to a backlash. It has less to do with who the constituents are (they’re among the right; duh!) than with what the political and social realities are that they are responding to.
posted by Lori Heine on
It has become quite obvious, in many of the conversations I have had with “progressives,” that they do not WANT the Tea Party to be libertarian. It was the independents’ fear of social conservatism that led to the installation of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid leadership in this country. If the Tea Party movement truly is libertarian conservative rather than social conservative, this reflects the views of the majority of the country. A coalition elected on this platform would govern this country for a long, long time.
So, it’s “Booooo! Scary, scary social conservatives! They REALLY run the Tea Party!” The Left has absolutely no other way to stay in power, or even to hold onto partial and diluted power, if they are unable to succeed in convincing the nation of this.
Many social conservatives have joined the Tea Party movement. That is not in question. What is in question is whether they will govern — once elected — on the principles they now claim they represent. If they do, they will hold onto power. If they do not, they will not.
In the past, social conservatives were all about power, power and more power. They will do what they have to do to promote their own glorious little careers. If this means forego social conservatism and follow the libertarian-conservative line, then they will do it.
What those who wish to discredit the Tea Party movement must actually do is show that these horrible, nefarious people — these social conservative wolves in sheeps’ clothing — care nothing about advancing their careers. That is a claim I would have a great deal of difficulty believing.
posted by BobN on
So, the defense is that they’re craven and willing to do anything to get elected?
Wow. There’s a ringing endorsement!
posted by Lori Heine on
“So, the defense is that they’re craven and willing to do anything to get elected?”
As the Leftist meme is that they will inevitably revert to type and spring all sorts of social-conservative rot on the country, it is certainly a refutation of that.
I would rather not vote for social conservatives either. And I refuse to vote for ones who — like Santorum — have made asses of themselves with their anti-gay rhetoric. But to dig up some quote that somebody may have made twenty years ago, when they haven’t uttered anything even remotely similar since (as some progressives have been doing about some Tea Party candidates) is a red herring.
I don’t even care what they think about gay issues now — as long as they keep true to their promise to stick to economic issues, lowering taxes (or at least not raising them) and shrinking (or at least not growing) the government. If they keep their word, who cares how they feel about issues they aren’t going to legislate?
posted by Jorge on
But to dig up some quote that somebody may have made twenty years ago, when they haven’t uttered anything even remotely similar since (as some progressives have been doing about some Tea Party candidates) is a red herring.
You can add in racial hit jobs, too. How many times have we heard progressive and Democratic interests, most notably the NAACP, try to paint the Tea Party as racist, based on imaginary or exaggerated evidence? A recent study has found that just over 5% of signs at Tea Party rallies make reference to Barack Obama’s race.
I don’t even care what they think about gay issues now
Well, I do care, but for me the accusation of bigotry has no power. Every time someone makes it, I know it’s just another pathetic political hit job. The progressives don’t really care about making this world a better place. They make some guilt by associaion charge that they’re so quick to dismiss about Obama and Jeremiah Wright, then they ignore the need to hold her accountable for what she said and did in the vice presidential debate. They need to stop doing this.
posted by Jimmy on
Tea Party-types love government spending that is spent on them. They don’t like government spending spent on people they don’t like.
I wonder how many Tea Partiers receiving Social Security support the freeze in cost of living increases (austerity). I’ll bet their asses are so chapped about it, they’d submit the Preparation-H receipt to Medicare for reimbursement.
posted by Lori Heine on
Exactly, Jorge, the progressives really don’t care about making this world a better place. That’s exactly why I no longer care what a politician is said to think about gays. Can we really know for sure he or she means any nice, or even halfway reasonable, thing that may be said?
It seldom seems to result in any positive change — politically instituted — in our lives. It’s all just talk.
When I ask my friends who still support Obama why being lied to and betrayed feels so much better than being demonized and threatened, they have no real answer. They’ve gotten so accustomed to empty gestures and political kabuki that they would not recognize sincerity even if they saw it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I wonder how many Tea Partiers receiving Social Security support the freeze in cost of living increases (austerity). I’ll bet their asses are so chapped about it, they’d submit the Preparation-H receipt to Medicare for reimbursement.
Problem with that, Jimmy, is this.
If they are age 65, they have likely spent around forty-three years of their life contributing 6.2% of every paycheck they have received to Social Security and 1.45% of every paycheck they have received to Medicare, with their employers having to contribute an identical amount on their behalf.
That adds up to 15.3% of every dollar paid these folks – which, at a median salary of $50,000 per year for forty-three years, means that these folks have already given up roughly $329,000 to the government in exchange for an IOU for medical care and a pension.
And now, what you and your fellow Obama Party members are doing is reneging on that IOU and taking the money these people have already paid in so that you don’t have to pay your own bills.
You are essentially stealing from your grandparents’ savings accounts and telling them that they are hypocrites for objecting to you taking the money.
That’s why it is obvious that “progressive” gays and lesbians like yourself live on welfare. You never have seen a paycheck or the deductions taken out of one.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
As probably one of the few true GOPers on this site, let alone someone who’s willingly and gleefully been to Tea Party rallies and battled the social conservatives within my own Party since the days of Jerry Falwell and the ReligiousRight in the 1988 GOP primaries, I can state fairly well that social conservatives are NOT –not– an influential part of the Tea Party Movement nor a part of any animating core of the GOP.
We learned our lesson –even if gayLeft darlings still think Santorum speaks for the GOP. Or Geo Allen. Or Pat Robertson. Or Gary Bauer.
I hope after the trouncing of Democrats in 2010 and 2012, the Democrats come to appreciate that their social liberal constituencies (like the gayLeft) ought to be put out to the curb for trash pick-up and socially liberal policies should not animate any Democrat Party comeback in 20xx. Of course, that would be a lesson tough to learn for the failed gayLeft leadership still sipping pink Cosmos with Michelle.
Really guys, the only ones who think social conservatives hold sway in the Tea Party Movement are those who need it to appear so to advance their exterior political agenda –like the gayLeft creating 2-b-feared boogeymen on the Right or failed, discarded social cons who think they speak for the GOP while trying to hawk their latest book.
Just sayin.
posted by Jimmy on
PF – I’ve looked at every pay stub I’ve received over the last 25 years and I noticed that the portion of my earnings that was taxed was 100%, as far as SS is concerned. I think that should be true of someone making $150,000.
Why does the tea party support fascists like Joe Miller, whose private “security” (Brownshirts) are able to handcuff and detain private citizens going about their business?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
PF – I’ve looked at every pay stub I’ve received over the last 25 years and I noticed that the portion of my earnings that was taxed was 100%, as far as SS is concerned. I think that should be true of someone making $150,000.
You don’t need to make it obvious that you have no idea what a pay stub looks like, especially for someone who makes $150k.
Because, if you did, you would know that there is an upper limit on Social Security taxable income, and that amounts over a specific limit are not taxed, which is patently obvious to anyone who’s ever read a pay stub of an individual with compensation at that level.
Why does the tea party support fascists like Joe Miller, whose private “security” (Brownshirts) are able to handcuff and detain private citizens going about their business?
Because “progressives” who admit that they shove and assault people need to be handcuffed and detained, as the individual in question did and was.
Or perhaps you prefer the correct Obama Party response, which is to punch them?
posted by Jimmy on
From Anchorage Daily News:
“While Hopfinger was still in handcuffs, the guards attempted to prevent other reporters from talking to him and threatened them too with arrest for trespass. A Daily News reporter interviewed Hopfinger anyway. No other reporters were arrested, though a few shoving matches and chest bumps ensued as the guards attempted to cordon off Hopfinger and block photographs and videos from being taken of the bizarre school scene”
Clearly, these were nothing more than goons Miller hired to intimidate members of the press. The founders felt a free press was essential to our democracy. This guy Miller doesn’t want to deal with the press. What is he hiding? He is un-American.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Jimmy, the new meme among “progressives” is that a free press, especially one that is critical of Obama, is “destructive” to the country
Please state that Barack Obama is “un-American”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, let’s not forget how “progressives” like Jimmy supported and endorsed actually assaulting members of the free press.
The problem here is that Jimmy is pretty obviously a hypocrite.
Oh, and what happened, Jimmy? Couldn’t you explain why Social Security tax was being deducted from your paycheck even though you claimed to be making more than the upper income limit?
posted by Jorge on
Actually, Jimmy, the new meme among “progressives” is that a free press, especially one that is critical of Obama, is “destructive” to the country
Please state that Barack Obama is “un-American”.
Hey, I’ll take that exchange.
posted by jimmy on
” Couldn’t you explain why Social Security tax was being deducted from your paycheck even though you claimed to be making more than the upper income limit?”
Where did I state this? I said that if 100% of my income is taxed, than so should someone making $150,000. Perhaps I was unclear. There should be no cap.
Do conservatives support reduction of SS and Medicare benefits?
posted by Jimmy on
Faux News is as destructive as any disinformation agency could be.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“Faux News” is it?
At least over there, unlike NPR and PBS and the NYT, Fox News works at presenting both sides to a policy debate… it’s why a seasoned, honest journalist like Juan Williams can get booted from the farLeft’s media conglomerate or Mara Liasson can be pressured to stop appearing on centerist media outlets.
The only faux floating around is your gayLeft outrage, Jimmy. And like Obama –your fearless leader– the outrage just aint selling anything to anyone anymore.
posted by Jorge on
Here’s hoping this site will allow me to post today.
I think I was going to cite the killing of an unarmed black man, Amadou Diallo, by the police in the 1990s. I distinctly remember John Cardinal O’Connor asking at the time if we truly feel the same when we walk past a black person on a dark night than when it is a white person. He said we have to be brutally honest and ask these tough questions in order to heal. I think the same is true here. What does it mean to live in a free country that is in a war on terror against radical Islam? We have a minority of people here who are not only Muslim, but destitute or poor, completely at the mercy of our culture. How do we treat them with justice when we are in such fear after so many plots against us (the Fort Hood shooting, the failed Christmas day and Times Square attacks)?
If we fail to talk honestly about race, it is mainly black people who lose (. That’s just how it happens to be. But the consequences are much worse if we fail to talk honestly about the war on terror. We cannot afford to do that.