I was Diggin’ the Tea Party…Until They Went Batshit Crazy

by Darwin on October 19, 2010

For any regular followers, you already know that I’m no fan of Obama’s destruction of the economy, I’m dismayed by what the Republican party has turned into, I’m sick of stupid stimulus pet projects, special interests, and dumb legislation with questionable motives…so you’d think I’d love the Tea Party.  And I thought I would too.

The Birth of the Tea Party

See, I watched in awe when Rick Santelli of CNBC lambasted the homeowners who knowingly took on liar loans, pulled equity out of their homes to put in new kitchens and swimming pools, and then expected to be (and were) bailed out by the federal government (you and I – nevermind, our children, who will ultimately pay these debts).  We were all thinking it but very few were saying it.  Here’s this veteran bond trader voicing outrage and reason at what we all knew was about to transpire.  From that moment, the Tea Party movement was born.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Rick or other like-minded individuals now identify with the current movement.  See, like virtually all politicians that actually make it all the way, he who is the most polarized, outrageous and extreme wins.  While the Tea Party could have been a cohesive movement of people and leaders focused SOLELY on fiscal responsibility and smaller government ranks, the way their viewed by America (with plenty of help from the liberal press) is as a bunch of crazy loons – just more Republicans in disguise.

The Idiocy of the Tea Party

I can’t say I blame people for their view of the party.  I mean, look at some of the stupid statements and behaviors from prominent personalities in the movement:

  • Rand Paul on Racist Businesses – He’s Cool With it. Regardless of what his personal beliefs are on the topic, he’s really dumb to say it.  And if he wasn’t a white male, would he really feel the same way?
  • Christine O’Donnell on Being a Witch?  Not that I care about something she said as a young idiot on Bill Maher’s show.  But the notion that she was dumb enough to address it with a ridiculous “I’m Not a Witch Ad“.
  • Today took the cake – Christine O’Donnell basically doesn’t understand the 1st Amendment and she thinks local PUBLIC schools should be teaching creationism. Not only is her thinking dead wrong, backwards, and downright dangerous to scientific progress (this country already has a massive deficit of analytical thinking scientists and engineers), but Darwin disapproves big-time!
  • Glen Urquhart is similarly crazy: “The exact phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph HItler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ASK THEM WHY THEY’RE NAZIS.”

Is there really value in questioning whether Obama’s a Muslim or whether he was born in America at this point?  What value is that adding to their message?  Why are these people talking about stuff unrelated to the core issues Americans care about?  Jobs, Government Debt, Business Environment, National Security.

Instead, politicians have to take extreme views on:

  • Religion
  • Guns
  • Abortion
  • Masturbation
  • Abolishment of Government Agencies
  • Going to a Gold Standard

There’s never a middle ground here.  These candidates tend to take the most extreme position in order to get their base fired up.  It’s a shame we can’t get pragmatic, centrist politicians elected that oppose the status quo within their own party once in a while.

Here’s the Tea Party Candidate I’d Like:

  • They say nothing about religion.  In fact, I don’t even know what religion they are, if they even have one.  So, they’re not pushing creationism over true science in public schools, they’re not saying God told them to invade Iraq, and they’re not pandering to constituents with Christian values.  They’re just plain old good people doing good things because it’s the right thing to do.
  • They are for smaller government and less intrusion, but not outright abolishment of entire segments of our society.
  • They are serious about cutting the government payrolls and adhering to a balanced budget, especially when NOT in a recession.
  • They make rational, sound arguments, supported by FACTS.  They are not mocked relentlessly for their extreme views – because their views are reasonable.
  • They recognize and admit that they aren’t going to change the world – baby steps.  Just move us in the right direction.
  • They practice what they preach.  Too many politicians are complete and utter hypocrites.
  • They find middle ground with both Democrats and Republicans on issues and they DON’T always adhere to party line cliche stances.  This will give them credibility with voters and political capital to get stuff done.

Unfortunately, in America, someone like that cannot get elected.

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

Dividend Monk October 19, 2010 at 9:56 pm

That makes too much sense for it to actually happen.


Before You Invest October 20, 2010 at 8:36 am

AMEN!!! (Err… I guess I probably should use another phrase here huh?).

I love the idea of the Tea Party, a grass roots party setting out to get rid of the stale old leadership and reminding the government just who they’re working for, but like you said I just can’t jump on the train because whenever I think they take a good step, the next one is right in to a pile of dog poo.

I think there is a lot of good coming out of this movement, but it’s probably the next group that will get it right, or at least get it closer to right.


Investor Junkie October 20, 2010 at 8:38 am

Sigh. It seems like we always have to pick the lesser of the two evils in candidates.

In NY governor race I was liking Paladino until all of the stupid shit that come out about him.

I guess I’m voting for Jimmy McMillian. The “Rent is Too Damn High Party”



Matt Jabs October 20, 2010 at 8:45 am

Just like a lot of things, I like some of what I see and dislike other things. My plan is to volunteer in a local Tea Party chapter so I can affect positive change within my sphere of influence. I am choosing to contribute because I still prefer the foundational positions of this movement to the bloated bureaucracy of either majority party.


ParatrooperJJ October 20, 2010 at 12:02 pm

I am going to disagree with you on O’Donnell. She it absolutely correct when it comes to the first amendment. The first amendment only bans a state religion, the separation between church and state was created by the courts.


Darwin October 21, 2010 at 7:11 am

Well, splitting hairs on the Constitutional law here, where she was headed is that she’d impose teaching creationism in public schools which is an insult to science. There’s no reason to teach an “alternative view” that’s wrong. We’re in the 21st century and we underproduce engineers, mathmeticians and analytical thinkers. We’ve gotta get our act together and stop dilly-dallying with religious and political correctness over science.


Invest It Wisely October 20, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Agreed, Rand Paul made a big mistake when he appeared to support racism. There are certain things you just should not say, and that was one of them.

However, his transgression seems minor indeed after reading what the others have done. WTF?

My personal views are voluntaryism. Do what is right, and otherwise leave people alone. I don’t care if people either love or hate masturbation, heck, I don’t mind if someone doesn’t believe in evolution; they are free to make that choice, even if I personally believe it to be problematic. In the end though, I ask that these people keep these views to themselves and let other people make up their own minds!


Darwin October 21, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Rand seems OK from the standpoint of smaller government, libertarian views, etc., but then he goes off the deep end with wiping out entire sections of government and all kinds of other solutions which will never be enacted. People need to mix some reason and pragmatism with their ambitions.

On caring about creationism, imaginary friends, talking snakes and burning bushes, that’s all great. Just don’t impose it on children in public schools who are supposed to be learning science, ya know? It’s like starting to teach medical school students that “vaccines MIGHT cause autism” because Jenny McCarthy and many well-meaning parents legitimately believe they do – but the science and the data (truth) tells the exact opposite story. Epidemiological study after study indicate there is NO link. So, why even give it legitimacy? It’s diverting people from studying the true underlying causes and remediation (genetics, parental age, etc). Much like this evolution/creationism movement. Just teach the science. Let parents tell their kids whatever they want outside the schools. If we don’t talk about it, the will of those who are vocal will be imposed on you and yours.


Invest It Wisely October 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm

Re: Before You Invest

I have to agree with you, too. Even if some of these members are bat shit crazy, like Darwin says, at least they are challenging the status quo. Maybe some good will come out of that.


jeff @ sustainable life blog October 20, 2010 at 5:00 pm

Great stuff, I totally agree. Why can’t they just have normal views?


Kevin @ Thousandaire.com October 20, 2010 at 11:21 pm

I agree with you on most parts, but I have to disagree with you on Creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in science class; I agree with you there. Creationism is a philosophical theory that explains a scientific question. As such, I believe science classes should acknowledge the existence of Creationism as a theory that explains the world’s existence, but should not dig any deeper due to the non-scientific nature of the theory.

If Creationism is to be covered in depth, I believe it fits better in a philosophy or history class than it does in a science class.

Furthermore, I don’t understand why people seem to believe Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. If you accept the possibility of an all-powerful God who created the entire universe (you don’t have to believe it, but just accept the possibility), then you must accept the possibility of a God who created a world where evolution exists (because an all-powerful God can create any world he chooses). Finally, if you can’t accept the possibility of an all-powerful God, then I would ask you to prove the non-existence of such a being, which is impossible.

Now tell me who is being an extremist: the person who says public schools should absolutely not teach Creationism under any circumstance, or the person who acknowledges both the possibility that it may or may not exist and thinks students should be presented with all options and decide for themselves?


Darwin October 21, 2010 at 7:08 am

Schools should teach science in science class. Creationism is religious doctrine. This isn’t Afghanistan.


Al October 26, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Great article, well summed-up. Personally I’m very liberal but I totally understood the basis of the Tea Party. I may disagree with it but I get why some people wanted less government involvement and more freedom in the markets. I honestly thought that a takeover of the Republican party by classical libertarians would lead to a better national debate, but sadly it seems like the opposite has happened.

I yearn for a day when we can have discussions and debates, spirited even, without resorting to the personal attacks and name-calling that we see today.


Invest It Wisely October 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm

In Korea and Taiwan, politicians resort to slapping and physical fist fights in order to settle disputes. It could be worse 😉


Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: