FriendBurst Blog

Tea Party Defined

Part 2 of 3

By 1900 American Socialism, like its European counterpart, had become dominated by “Evolutionaries” as opposed to “Revolutionaries.”  No doubt influenced in their thinking by Darwin’s apparently scientifically proven theory of biological evolution as well as heavy opposition to much of their advocacy of dramatic increases in government power over the American economy, a new strategy emerged of electing representatives who would advocate single Socialist “reforms” one at a time as opportunities arose to sway majorities to support them.  The broader long term Revolutionary goal was not only postponed, but tended to be cloaked from majorities which might object.

This change of tactics by American Socialists was necessitated by both the failure of early appeals to violent revolution, public reaction against their attempts to rally support through rioting, and the surprising success of labor unions to negotiate better working conditions.  Taking smaller steps while working within the system was also far more broadly appealing to voters and candidates alike.

Obama’s Election Encouraged Socialist Revolutionaries

Obama’s 2008 election encouraged all ideological Socialists to think that now they could move more quickly towards their goals, because the majority of voters had elected a super majority of Democrats in Congress and then selected not only a Democrat as President, but a cloaked Revolutionary Socialist!  The movement had always assumed that electing a Socialist President was impossible because the number of true ideological Socialists in the US was never anywhere near a majority of voters.  In truth of course the only way a Revolutionary Socialist like Obama could get elected was by denying that he was one.  Socialists dominating the media recognized this and protected him from exposure.

Ignorance of Ideologies and Economic Realities Helps Enable Radicalism

It is true that many millions of Democrat, Independent and even Republican voters lack an understanding of either the nature or value of their own political ideology.  As a result,  they are not in a position to see the long term goals the Socialist Democrats are working towards and have been working towards in the US for seven generations.

Since at least the 1970s and especially the 1990s few have been taught the true background of the role of Socialism in American history, nor has it been pointed out that it is a movement with goals which go beyond whatever Socialists present to them in popular in humanitarian terms, because beginning in the late 1960s Socialists began taking over the American education system!

The Nature and Value of Ideology

Ideology begins with a clear ultimate societal goal, which “political science” says is the starting point for politics itself.  What do those who form a society want it to achieve?  For the US back in the days of the Constitution, it was what was considered to be a scientifically determined “reasonable” goal: the greatest amount of happiness and personal satisfaction for the largest number, since everyone supposedly enters or remains in any society believing the society can provide the best environment to do that.

In Socialist societies, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is to be achieved by relying on government officials to provide the basic necessities, including a job, education, food, health care, and shelter, on the assumption that everyone is alike in needing about the same amounts and types of food, health care, shelter and will feel more secure and actually be more free if life’s necessities are provided for them by others.

It is an ideal in which the practical methods providing for those needs are seldom considered, or if they are, the solution to costs is usually “solved” by assuming existing rich people will have their excessive wealth taken from them to provide adequately for everyone, or by government simply printing money, or borrowing it with no intention of ever paying it all back.  They dispute statistics suggesting that if every American earning over 300K a year or every billionaire in the world had every cent of their net worth confiscated by government, it would only amount to one tenth of the entire American national debt.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

In free market or Capitalist societies, on the other hand, the same goals are considered best achieved by allowing and protecting the individuals’ maximum freedom to achieve their goals on their own, on the assumption that people are all different and know best what will make them most happy and satisfied.

So Socialists trust political leaders to make many of their basic life decisions for them, and are willing to give up much of their income to make that possible.  Capitalists trust the individual to make those decisions for him or her self, and to do what is necessary to fulfill them.

This is the simplest way to distinguish between the two.  Most Democrats and many Republicans adhere to the Socialist model.  The rest of the Republicans and the Tea Party, as well as Libertarians, adhere to the Capitalist model.

The US has in fact been a “mix” of both since the first government regulation was introduced in 1890, and the general development of the country since then has involved adding more Socialism, that is increasing government control of more of the economy.

The Choices: All or None

In the 1930s, Czech economist Friedrich Hayek warned from his personal experience during the rise of Nazism and other national socialist governments in Europe, that mixed Socialist-Capitalist societies are inherently unstable, because the mix tends to change to include more and more government control.   Once the principle of the benefit of government intervention is accepted, any new economic crisis is thought possibly solvable by extending government control into the area in crisis, until government controls the entire economy and citizens are completely at their mercy for their survival.

Sound familiar?

If Hayek is correct, and in the case of “creeping Socialism” in the US he seems to have been uncannily prophetic, the only thing that will stop the inevitable complete control of the US economy by government is a concerted and sustained effort by a majority of voters to not only reject each and every attempt to extend more government control over the economy, but to roll back much if not all established government economic control.  Only then will the ideology of Capitalism and of Constititional Republicanism be restored and the US again move on a steady, sustainable course to longer range prosperity and growth.  Although there are different views of what and how much should be rolled back, basically this is what the Tea Party believes.

Thus the Tea Party movement includes millions of “Constitutional Reactionaries” willing and anxious to work to bring the US back to a significantly smaller and less expensive government than what Socialists have slowly built over the last 130 years and more boldly and rapidly constructed over the last two years.