The Cato Institute’s David Boaz analyzes recent polls to shed some light on whether Tea Party activists are truly libertarian-minded or (as liberals and their media never tire of claiming) in fact dangerous and reactionary social conservatives. He blogs:It’s disappointing to hear that New Mexico Tea Partiers booed Gary Johnson’s support for legalizing marijuana. And it’s true that a new poll shows Tea Partiers pretty strongly against marriage equality. But the poll does show them just a smidgen more supportive than either conservatives or Republicans. And other polls … have shown somewhat more support among self-identified Tea Party supporters, or a clear division between libertarian-minded and culturally conservative Tea Partiers. In general, Tea Party activists — organizers and people who attend events — seem somewhat more libertarian than people who simply tell pollsters they consider themselves to be members or supporters of the Tea Party movement.
Tea Party groups have declined invitations to criticize federal court rulings on gay marriage. They have studiously avoided taking positions on social issues, even when social conservatives stomp their feet and demand that the Tea Party start talking about abortion and gay marriage.
I have said before that “The tea party is not a libertarian movement, but (at this point at least) it is a libertarian force in American politics. It’s organizing Americans to come out in the streets, confront politicians, and vote on the issues of spending, deficits, debt, the size and scope of government, and the constitutional limits on government. That’s a good thing. And if many of the tea partiers do hold socially conservative views (not all of them do), then it’s a good thing for the American political system and for American freedom to keep them focused on shrinking the size and cost of the federal government.”
19 Comments for “Tea Party Folks: Friends or Foes?”
posted by John Howard on
“keep them focused on shrinking the size and cost of the federal government.”
Exactly! Which is why Transhumanism and Same-Sex Procreation and Gay Marriage should be rejected by Tea Partiers, because those things, if legal, will result in huge government intrusions into basic rights like natural procreation and require huge government agencies to regulate and research and provide access to all those artificial methods of procreation.
Limiting procreation to combining unmodified gametes of a man and a woman and preserving the rights of every marriage to procreate with the couple’s own gametes is the way to shrink the size and cost of government.
Transhumanism is incompatible with liberty and with conservatism, it is virtually the opposite of conservatism. It may indeed infringe your freedom today to be told you cannot try to create a mutant chimp-human hybrid, or try to create offspring with someone of the same sex, but really, were those ever freedoms or rights, and who are you to say you should be allowed to create other people in Frankenstein labs?
posted by John Howard on
So do you guys care more about reducing the size and cost of government, or protecting your own freedom to make offspring with another man?
Hopefully you don’t think genetic engineering and same-sex procreation can be left unregulated and untested, do you really want unregulated untested labs creating people? And surely you realize that it’ll be expensive and people will demand it for free, and insurance companies will be forced to cover it just like they are forced to cover IVF now. Is it really something you need so bad that we should let that happen?
posted by BobN on
Looks like those Tea Party folks are flexing their muscles in Wyoming.
Gosh, it’s a good thing they aren’t anti-gay….
posted by Tom on
The problem within the Republican Party, as I see it anyway, is that anti-gay positions are costless for Republican politicians within the party itself.
I don’t think that the takeover of the Republican Party by Tea Party adherents is going to do much to change that situation. Social conservatives will continue to demand that Republican politicians take anti-gay positions and vote accordingly. The Tea Party adherents — whether social conservative or of a libertarian bent — will not penalize them for anti-gay positions. As long as a Republican politician is anti-government enough to meet the high standards of the Tea Party, anti-gay won’t cost them.
I don’t see anyone in the Republican Party presently calling out the anti-gay politicians and exacting a political cost. Even GOProud doesn’t seem to withhold votes and contributions from anti-gay Republican candidates.
So, Stephen, I think that this is mostly wishful thinking. The Tea Party folks may focus the party on cutting back government, but isn’t going to stop the party from advancing an anti-gay agenda.
The upcoming death of the Wisconsin Domestic Partnership law is a good example, I think. Killing off Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnerships (which protect domestic partners with respect to hospital visitation, medical and end-of-life decision-making, funeral decisions and inheritance) won’t add a single job to Wisconsin’s economy and won’t save the state a dime. But the law is going down, and it is going down because social conservatives are demanding that it go down. The Tea Party could, at best, give a flying … It isn’t their issue.
Anti-gay and anti-government are not mutually exclusive. A Republican politician will get social conservative support if sufficiently anti-gay, regardless of whether or not the politician is sufficiently anti-government to satisfy the Tea Party. A Republican politician will get Tea Party support if sufficiently anti-government, regardless of whether or not the politician is sufficiently anti-gay to satisfy social conservatives.
All that will happen is that the Republican politicians who survive the primary process in this state will be both anti-gay and anti-government.
posted by Jorge on
The problem within the Republican Party, as I see it anyway, is that anti-gay positions are costless for Republican politicians within the party itself.
Shrewd way of putting it.
posted by Tom on
I think that it is objectively true. No constituency bloc within the Republican Party exacts a price from Republican politicians for taking an anti-gay position or casting an anti-gay vote.
BTW, looking at the GOProud 2011 Conservative Agenda, I noticed two things this morning: (1) the agenda makes no reference at all to DOMA, and (2) the tax section (“We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax. Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; and a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.“) makes no mention at all of tax equity for married same-sex couples.
I wonder what is going on with GOProud and DOMA repeal. The issue — at least Section 3 repeal — is a natural for the “limited federal power” advocates and I’m surprised that same-sex marriage issues seem to have entirely disappeared from sight.
posted by John on
Yay. More people saying the tea party isn’t *really* anti-gay.
As if a lack of them shouting it from the streets is some sort of counter balance for what they’re doing from their elected chairs.
posted by Tom on
I’m going to keep my eyes open and see how many Tea Party members of the House (1) sign on to the bill to eliminate same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia, and/or (2) efforts to defund DADT repeal. That will be an indicator of whether the performance of the newly elected Tea Party politicians in Wisconsin — lining right up with the social conservatives on anti-gay legislation — has a wider scope than just Wisconsin.
posted by John on
You can tack Nora Espinoza on as another Tea Partier that’s acting on the anti-gay sentiment that supposedly isn’t there. ’cause what does NM need in the middle of a recession? That’s right, a state-level DOMA.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, you make a series of great points about the TP Movement and soc-cons withIN the GOP and some of those TPers and soc-cons who want to stand apart from the GOP while acting & behaving like solid, pro-America, pro-free market, pro-life, pro-family, lower taxes, smaller govt, greater prosperity GOPers still inside the political closet.
My perception, working inside the GOP, is that soc-cons don’t really give a damn anymore about gay marriage as much as they do much more important & critical issues like the deficit, our trade imbalance, making the borders safe, anti-terror strategies and cutting govt back to a manageable, low-tax size. And making Barack a one-term prez.
I know it will kill lots of the bepuzzled liberals and gay democrat apologists here who often comment like it’s still 1980, but most soc-cons and nearly all committed TP Movement adherents aren’t as interested in gay marriage as many of the farLeft activist types who come to this site to flame away and flail without effect. Groups like GOProud and others have realized that those flamers are more interested in maintaining the gay marriage boogeyman to raise dollars for the Democrat plantation masters than they are in solving the real issues important to most Americans… let alone, most gay Americans.
The TP people I know in Michigan and in natl politics are solidly libertarian –but without that John Stosel affectation of mindless devotion to free illicit drugs and open societies without rational, reasonable constraints. Honestly, the TP Movement has done a terrific job of staying on message, keeping away from the divisive, distracting soc-con issues that destroyed the GOP majorities in Congress and which ultimately gave rise to the ungodly trio of NancyP, HarryGreed and Barack.
The bad news for the liberal gayLeft Democrat apologists who frequent this site is that the GOP learned its lesson, paid its punishment while in the political wilderness and is intent on taking back govt for Americans –and not just for democrats and their union pal fatcat pensioners at SEIU… or all the special interest democrat party constituencies that insure America’s bleak future in their slavish devotion to their victimhood agenda over all else.
posted by Jimmy on
“intent on taking back govt for Americans –and not just for democrats and their union pal fatcat pensioners at SEIU… or all the special interest democrat party constituencies that insure America’s bleak future”
Are they also dedicated to taking our government back from entrenched special interests like Big Oil and Wall Street? Requiring Congress to be transparent with regards to lobbyists meeting with members is a good idea. Closing tax loopholes, combined with lowering corporate tax rates was also a good idea the POTUS put forward last night. These are policies conservatives should support.
We’ll see, won’t we?
Both of my parents, and millions of middle class seniors like them, retired after an average of 38 years as unionized laborers in large factories. They earned every cent they ever made. They bought a good home, put their kids through school, and now have a secure retirement. I think anyone would find it hard to describe them as “fatcats.” I don’t know why you are so buttsore about labor unions. The Republican MO for the last 30 years regarding unions has paid off for real fatcats since there aren’t very many members of unions any more. One sure way to decimate unions is to decimate manufacturing, and then on to the next sector that has unionization to any degree. It should be no surprise that the stagnation of middle class wages goes right along with purposeful lowering of middle class standards of living, all in order to enrich actual fatcats.
posted by Jorge on
I hate to accept an invitation to criticize retirees.
So instead I’ll pretend I’m one of those evil rich white male straight Republicans who insists everyone is equal without realizing his own blind power and privilege. I think everyone should just pull themseves up by their own bootstraps, and try their best to apply for one of those union jobs and move up the totem pole to success. Then you can win the American dream.
So people look at you a little strangely and don’t want to hire you right away? Such it up and work three times harder. You’ll still make a good living, and that’s the honorable thing.
Of course it’s absolutely detestable, evil, and wrong that some white people like to deny black people good homes. That some men like to rape and beat up women. That the good old boys in the highest corridors of power-wi*k!- keep out people who are different than them, unintentionally, of course.
But we’re all equal. Throw away this affirmative action and diversity and sexual harassment stuff. It’s insulting and I don’t want to hear it. I made it by myself, and so can you.
The point I am trying to make is that people who do not get their hands dirty with aggressive and unethical union politics still benefit from it.
posted by Tom on
My perception, working inside the GOP, is that soc-cons don’t really give a damn anymore about gay marriage …
At what point, in your opinion, will the soc-cons then, given that they no longer “really give a damn”, no longer work to:
(1) oppose same-sex marriage initiatives (e.g. Maryland and New York),
(2) repeal existing same-sex marriage laws (e.g. New Hampshire and Iowa),
(3) oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships (e.g. Hawaii and Minnesota),
(4) repeal existing civil unions and domestic partnerships (e.g. Wisconsin),
(5) ban same-sex marriage by constitutional amendment (e.g. Wyoming),
(6) oppose DOMA repeal at the federal level,
(7) enact the DMA at the federal level, and
(8) oppose repeal of existing state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
I’m glad to have your perspective as a party insider, and I hope you are right about the fact that social conservatives are moving on, but we aren’t seeing any results on the ground, at least yet.
posted by BobN on
The idea that the anti-gay forces have “moved on” is absurd. If they are silent in many states, it’s because they’ve already got constitutional amendments banning any recognition of our relationships and are pouring their efforts into the states that are still in play — like Wyoming — and fighting to take back states where we have won.
And you’re not getting MM’s “perspective”, you’re getting his spin.
posted by Tom on
BobN, I don’t see any evidence, as should be evident from the list I posted, that Republicans are any less likely under the Tea Party regime to fight against equality for gays and lesbians than they were when social conservatives were the tail that wagged the dog. I think that the Republican Party’s actions in state after state give lie to the idea. I think that Stephen, Michigan Matt and the rest of them are living in a fantasy world.
Be that as it may, I don’t see any reason not to be polite.
And I would be interested in hearing a Republican party insider explain why, if Republicans not longer “really giver a damn”, elected Republican officials continue to push the anti-gay agenda unabated across the nation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That would be, Tom, because gays and lesbians like yourself have made it clear that your sexual orientation is inextricably tied up with massive government waste, debt, higher taxes, unlimited Kermit Gosnell abortion procedures, socialized medicine, and welfare addictions.
Furthermore, people recognize the obvious: if someone says they oppose gay marriage because marriage is a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman, you scream that that person is a Nazi Christianist theocrat if they are a Republican, and gush that that person is a pro-gay ally if they are an Obama Party member.
In short, no one cares. They realize you’re going to call them racist Nazi homophobes because they don’t worship Barack Obama regardless of what they do.
posted by Tom on
My perception, working inside the GOP, is that soc-cons don’t really give a damn anymore about gay marriage as much as they do much more important & critical issues like the deficit, our trade imbalance, making the borders safe, anti-terror strategies and cutting govt back to a manageable, low-tax size.
Uh, sure.
Wishful thinking is, well, wishful.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps that’s because Republicans and Tea Party members recognize what gay-sex marriage supporters are doing and how they’re funding their activities.
The chair of the Iowa branch of Marriage Equality USA, a group dedicated to legal parity for gay and lesbian families, has been arrested on federal charges for allegedly embezzling nearly $6 million from insurance carrier Aviva USA.
Phyllis Stevens, who has served as the head of the marriage equality group, reportedly lavished herself and her female life partner, Marla, with the good life, but that’s not all: as told by The Iowa Republican.com in a Sept. 29 story, Stevens spread the wealth to a variety of “liberal” candidates and causes, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, MoveOn.org, and others.
Why shouldn’t the state act against criminals who rob from businesses?
posted by Jerry on
You forgot to mention that they were also successful in keeping taxes low for the rich that are supposed to create all of the new jobs.
Most of the jobs these folks have created seem to be in India and China. To coin a cliche…”Were are the jobs?”