Is the Tea Party Selfish and Bigoted?

Recently an acquaintance  wrote a Blog entitled: Who's Sorry Now.  In the Blog the writer begins with some statements that are allegedly attributed to the "Tea Party" and then goes on to state that their views on who makes up the tea party and their motivations.

Below is my point by point response to their allegations.  Tell me what you think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red,

I have a different take on your characterization of the tea party. 

In your post, you begin by stating, “The Tea Partiers have a lot of interests, most of which consist of things they are against.”

This is not how I find people who support the tea party.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I find members of the tea party to be genuinely for principles of liberty and the values embedded in the constitution.  In fact, this is it’s mission statement taken from the teaparty.net website…

The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded, Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:

• Limited federal government • Individual freedoms • Personal responsibility • Free markets • Returning political power to the states and the people

You claim the “They are against government”.  I disagree, as noted above they are for limited government which is something quite different from “against government”.   You state that they “aren’t all that concerned over its regulating Wall Street.”  On this one, you may have a point.  But you see it is not because no one cares about the corruption and self-serving actions taken by individuals during the Wall Street meltdown.  Rather, the tea-party is for “Personal Responsibility” and holding those individuals who contributed to the meltdown accountable for their actions.  The best way to do this is to have a vibrant court system in which injured parties have the right to recourse.  In addition, where federal and state laws have been broken, those responsible should be brought to justice.  Additional regulation makes companies and institutions beholden to bureaucrats rather than clients and customers.  An environment where bureaucrats  hold significant sway on businesses and business decisions often leads to inefficient responses to customer needs and higher costs to meet the regulations which we the consumer then pay for.  Further, and perhaps more dangerous, is the risk that what may start out as a well-intentioned program with well-meaning civil servants evolves into a corrupt system in which government bureaucrats become susceptible to bribes and other forms of corruption so that companies yield to a temptation of focus on achieving influence rather than serving customer needs.  This is the dark side of regulation.

You said, “ They’re against immigration”. First, I go back to the mission statement and ask, in what part do you see anything that has to do with immigration?  What evidence exists that they are against immigrants.  The tea party members that I know don’t hate immigrants, they respect and admire immigrants.  A mantra that is shared with the tea party is one that is on all of our money, “E Pluribus Unum” , “Out of many, One”.  This is a uniquely American principle that says, the rights embedded in our constitution are available for all regardless of blood line or ethnic background.  Yes, we may have come from many different backgrounds but regardless of our ethnic heritage, we are all Americans and have a common creed that binds us such that any individual is free to pursue happiness in their own way.  Finally, I personally have enormous respect for those who came to this country and properly pursued citizenship.  A wonderful couple I know have shared with me their long a arduous journey to citizenship from their native Nairobi.  My respect for them is unbounded.  Regardless of your stance on the issue of immigration, I simply think that is unfair that this wonderful couple invested themselves into the legal immigration process while others simply cross the borders and take up residence.  What is fair about that?  Either we should allow all people from all countries to come to the US without regard to any standards or immigration policy or we respect the need for a rationale policy of how we manage the process of integrating those from other countries into our society.  It is absolutely unfair to single out one group, primarily from one country and provide them with a special standard that is not applied to others from the rest of the world.

You said, “They don’t like paying taxes, but don’t seem to care much one way or the other about high income tax cuts or other benefits like the multitude of loopholes that benefit the very rich.”  The issue here is one of free markets vs government solutions.  First, it is well documented that the top earners in our country already pay a disproportionate share of taxes.  According to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of all Adjusted gross earners pay 36.73% of the Federal Income Tax.  The top 5% of AGI pays 58.67% of the Federal Income Tax.  Now you apparently feel that is not enough.  My question is what do you think is the right % that the top 5% should pay?  Nearly 60% is not enough????????  From my point of view, this a a grossly unfair burden on a very limited number of individuals and makes us as a nation even more dependent on the success of these individuals for our total tax revenue.  This seems like a risky proposition to me.  Our revenue fortunes rise on these individuals success.   With so much of our present revenues dependent on the success of these individuals, wouldn’t it make sense to encourage even more success for them as this would translate into higher government revenues?

You said. “They dislike people of color on general principle” again, where do you find that in any of the tea party principles?  This is not my experience at all.  Have I ever seen a nut who claims some tea party affiliation ever rant in a thoughtless bigoted manner?  Simple answer yes!  Still that is not an indictment of the entire group.  Evidence of bigotry and stupidity is something that is not limited to a few kooks who claim tea party affiliation.  I see evidence of crazy bigoted behavior on all sides of the spectrum.  (I can send you a you tube link that documents clearly racist behavior against a group of white supporters of a candidate in the Richmond, VA area from the last election cycle, while police simply looked on with little regard)  My point here is that the bigoted and senseless behavior of a few should not indict an entire group.

Finally, you state, “Most of them don’t care about outsourcing jobs because their number is currently top heavy with pensioners”.  I have a different interpretation, going to the principle of free market ideals.  Another way to describe outsourcing is “free market” of capital and labor.  If a shoe manufacturer is forced to maintain a US work force and the labor costs are much more that a competitor, then the finished goods for each will have different prices for similar quality shoes.  The US company must either charge higher prices to maintain margin and therefore lose share or they choose to charge the same price in which case their margins are squeezed.  In either case, this ultimately leads to the shoe manufacturer going out of business and then all of the jobs are lost.  That is not how to create jobs my friend.

Ok, that is enough for today.  Thank you for letting me offer you my point by point response to your provocative post.  I welcome your respectful response back.

LetFreedom_Ring

Some Thoughts on Our First "Gay" President

I know that some time back I stated that I would not engage in the so called "Gay Marriage" debate as I think that this is a discussion that has lost any semblance of rational thought about and that it has instead become an emotional cause celeb within our culture.  However, recently, Newsweek annointed our President as the First Gay President.  I simply had to offer my thoughts one last? time.

A friend of mine provided a link to a site entitled "10 Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage".  This led to a discussion about what it means to be married in America today.  Below are some of my thoughts on the matter.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Open Letter To my Well Meaning Supporters of Gay Marriage,

Thank you for your humorous post that intends to shame us into seeing the bigotry of our position. 

I get it. You want to re-define marriage. Ok. I accept your proposal to redefine marriage. So.... What should the new definition be? Why that definition? What is the intended purpose for codifying that definition into state law? Just asking. 

If you are seeking my support for your new definition I need to understand the purpose and why the state should extend rights and benefits to same sex couples and deny rights to other forms of relationships. Again, what should the new definition be?

Let's Take Out the Religious Argument for A Moment

Let's begin by taking out for a moment the religious aspects to marriage, and simply focus on why the state is involved in marriage at all.  Looking at over nearly a century and a half of marriage and family law, you see a clear pattern that squarely places the foundation of the laws associated with marriage and family on a fundamental principle of protecting women and children.  That is why we had marriage and family law in the first place or at all as a state sponsored/regulated institution.  

Until 1850, there were no State Laws Governing Marriage

There were no state laws covering marriage or children at all in the US until New York enacted legislation, primarily designed to protect women in the 1850s. Over the years the notion of what constitutes marriage and family law has evolved and spread to all other states.

In a watershed moment in the late 60s/early 70s California began the latest round of marriage and family law shifts with its introduction of the no-fault divorce.

The primary purpose of all of the laws that have been enacted up to and including the no-fault divorce laws were primarily designed to protect women and children in those relationships. So we have nearly a century and a half of marriage and family law whose primary purpose was to protect families especially women and children.
Today We Are Being Asked to Consider Something Very Different

Now we are being asked to expand and extend the definition of marriage to include a group of people for whom it was never the intention to cover in the original purpose of the laws governing marriage. I am not arguing that the state should not alter or expand the rights and privileges of citizens, I am simply pointing out that to accomodate this change, we must consider the foundational principles we are using to support the change.

So, you see, it is a redefinition.  Especially as you consider it from a legal perspective. Also what you are proposing is based upon introducing an altered/expanded purpose for these laws.

If your argument rests upon the idea that you are eliminating discrimination, I suggest that this is not, in fact, the case.  What you are proposing continues discrimination. Why?  It continues discrimination in excluding marriages within families (think brother/sister, father/daughter) and it continues to exclude marriages between other forms of domestic partnerships such as polygamist relationships.

So it is clearly seen that the argument, that we are doing this in order to eliminate discrimination is, in fact, not true. So, my question remains what should be the definition of marriage? Further, and of more relevance, what should be, from a state perspective, the purpose of marriage (or at least the laws that support marriage)?

Now you may conclude from this writing that I am anti-gay. I disagree. My question is more a fundamental policy question. What I am looking to understand is that if we are going to expand the rights of a particular group of people then what is the purpose of that expansion of those rights?  Why should we provide those rights to those people and not others.

A Radical Suggestion

I have a radically different view on the whole situation. I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business completely. That all relationships, from the perspective of the state, should be defined in a form of civil contract. No (state) marriages at all.

Marriage and marriage ceremonies would revert to the auspices of religious institutions. So anyone could be "married" as long as the religious institution would confer that title but it would have no legal standing. The legal standing for the relationship would be defined by civil contract, a "civil union" for all.  Marriage (as commonly understood by religious institutions) and Civil Unions (the underpinning legal set of rights for people, would, in-fact, be two separate things.

This point of view would allow for the preservation of traditional marriage for those Americans that value that while at the same time allowing for the rights and responsibilities to be conferred upon any reasonable relationship. we could look at it not from an emotional perspective but really from a policy perspective.

Final Thoughts, Resigned to the Inevitable

My final thoughts are that for some time I have felt that technology powerfully impacts society and the values we share.  In many respects, the introduction of the birth control pill has led to a fundamental shift of sex from one whose primary purpose is to have children to one whose primary purpose is to have pleasure.  Certainly both have always been present, but there has been a fundamental shift in what is primary.  Add to this an overpopulated world in which technology performs so much of our labor and children become an economic burden instead of a benefit.  The perceived value of families, in general and children in particular goes down.   Finally, through technology and social mores, it is no longer a necessity to have a man and woman "lay together" in order to conceive children and you have a perfect storm in which new "definitions" of family are not just possible, they are almost inevitable. 

So, I return to the stand I took months ago when I stated I would not engage in this debate any more as I think it is not worth fighting and other more fundamental issues are before us.  The "gay" marriage train has left the station and I think that it is invitable.  If given an opportunity to vote against it, I will, because I do not agree that this is the best solution for our society.  We have been well served with marriages in which there is one man and one woman.  I value children and their well being.  The evidence remains overwhelming that children are best served in a loving, stable, comitted relationship in which a father and a mother are married to each other.  I believe that the state should continue to respect and protect families and children.  I will continue to argue for these ideals of family.  I simply think that because of technology, my position is one that is not shared by an ever increasing wave of a generation who operates in a self-focused world of pleasure that no longer sees the value in old fashioned concepts such as husband/wife, father/mother, children of values.

So I am resigned to the inevitable.  Have your new definition.  Just remember, there are long term consequences to these decisions that you may not have completely thought through.

Your thoughts my friend?

A Response to The Secret Republican Guide to Talking About Gay Marriage

Recently Business Week published an article entitled The Secret Republican Guide to Talking About Gay Marriage. 

Several readers posted comments regarding the article that were wide ranging.  Many of them criticized Republicans for things that had nothing to do with the article or the issue.  Following was my response....

I am sorry that all of you are attacking Republicans/Conservatives with your ill-informed opinions when the facts speak otherwise. Free-enterprise has done more to lift up the poor and down-trodden than any government program has. A review of history shows that those countries that embrace economic freedom most have the best conditions on the poor. Those countries that control and limit free enterprise the most have greatest % of the poor. You want evidence consider China and Venezuela. The former has moved more and more to a freer enterprise economic model while Venezuela has done the opposite. China has lifted the greatest number of people out of poverty while as a % of the population, Venzuela has been most destructive to the middle class with enormous shifts of people into poverty.

Republicans/Conservatives tend to be the most generous donors to private charity. According to an article published in the New York Times, "Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."
So while liberalism in general and Democrats in particular talk a good game, the facts support that Republicans/Conservatives values actually do the most to lift the poor and less fortunate out of their circumstances.

Finally, according to a recent article in the Washington Post, Conservatives, in general, seem to be at least as committed as liberals to tolerance. They simply are seeking ways of achieving a positive impact on society through most private means (as opposed to government solutions and mandates).

To be clear, I believe that society functions best in a world where traditional views of marriage are uplifted and protected. However, I recognize that the people have the right to define marriage in other ways, even if I may not agree. If the people create new statutes, I will respect the will of the people. To me, focusing on same-sex marriage and birth control pills is a side-show and that the greatest threat to our country and our way of life is the shift in our society from one of individual responsibilty to one of entitlement. Providing an ever increasing segment of our society with benefits with no or little demand for earning that, eats at our core values and leads to a selfish and dark society in which the only way to get ahead is through luck and government connections. If you are like me, you believe that there is dignity in earning what you have and that any indvidual who earns what they posess is worthy of respect. For me, Republicans and Conservatives seem to embrace these values better than Democrats and liberals.

California Dreaming?

When Jerry Brown was re-elected, I shook my head and thought of Eintein's Maxim, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". Why the voters of California would re-elect the orginal Governor 'Moonbeam" and expect something different is beyond me.

I love California. It is my home state and appreciate the wonderful weather, landscape, and beaches, etc, etc. Often, I hear from my children and others who are young, how much they long to go 'California Dreaming' and live in the warmth of the "Beach Boys' Sun". Unfortunately, what they are longing for is a dream that no longer exists. The idea of California does not match up to the reality of California. It is now a land of failed vision that can only be enjoyed by the wealthiest or the poorest. If you are part of the middle class, you struggle to find work, when you do, you are paid less than workers in other states and then your cost of living (food, housing, transportation, taxes) is higher than almost anywhere else.

As I sit hear in my Virginia home and look out on a street that is cold with ice around, I am reminded of Randy Newman's song "I Love LA" and long for the sunny days of my youthful boyhood home in Whittier. However, I then wake up and realize that it is just a dream and the reality of what has taken it's place, in California, is a nightmare.

So, until the 'climate' changes there, I will simply put on my sweater, and patiently wait for Spring to arrive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204542404577156871353490202.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle%26commentId%3D3632399

A Decade Later - What Have We Truly Lost?

It was a bright sunny day. I was traveling from Pennsylvania to NJ on my way to work when I got a phone call from my wife Cheryl . She said, "turn on your radio, I think a plane just hit the WTC". I turned on the radio fully expecting it to be some errant piper cub to discover the surreal horror that it was in fact a jet airliner. I listened with a mixture of confusion and shock. Then the truly unbelivable happened, as I was listening the announcer shouted "the second tower has been hit" My mind went numb.
Today I pray for all victims of that tragic set of acts on that dark day.

American Sunrise 9/11/11

As a nation we seem to have lost something It seems as bad or worse as the darkest times of the 70s when we were plagued as a nation that was in a "malaise" as President Carter infamoulsy said.

Today our nation has a hole bigger than New York in its soul. We are not a bad people, we simply have lost our way and forgotten who we are.

So I include in my prayers that we as a nation have our spirit renewed. That spirit that says 'together we make a difference'. That our people, born out of the crucible of coming here from many lands to taste the precious waters of freedom all for a chance to realize a dream.

All of us who are here are decendants of those sturdy survivor/dreamers.
God has blessed us in many ways. With providence, it is now up to us once again. The spirit of us, as Americans, is noble. Time to reawaken and set free the greatness of the spirit of our people.

While we have made mistakes along the way, there is nothing that we can't accomplish simply by calling forth that uniquely American passion that we will bring to ourselves and our children a better world. And then, each of us in our own way, going out daily to do our part to realize that dream.
Some might look at the photo of the flag that I posted and see it as an American Sunset. I prefer to see it as an American Sunrise. It is at half mast as a fitting requiem to those who have sacrificed before us. There are still clouds that fill the horizon, but the sun is coming up and bringing with it renewal.

Let Freedom Ring!

Does the Washington Post Hate the Tea Party?

The 4th of July should be a celebration of our independence.  Those values include a respect for the founding principles of our nation.  Principles such as the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Independence from tyranny. 
 
On July 4th 2011, E. J. Dionne, Jr of the Washington Post wrote a piece entitled: What our Declaration really said and used it to continue the liberal machine attack on mischaracterization of the conservative movement in general and the tea-party specifically.
You can read his article here.
In response to this, I offered this comment.

An Intentional Mischaracterization?

Mr. Dionne, You and many others continue to mischaracterize the tea-party with the simple dismissal "no new taxes".  As I read the articles and books associated with the tea party, I have a more complete and thoughtful description.  In a word the tea-party is about liberty and freedom.  That is it's foundational principle.
As such, I believe it addresses issues of today from the perspective that the pathway to maintaining the optimum amount of liberty and freedom is government constrained (especially) the federal government.  I do not believe that they are anarchists, nor anti-government.  (Limited is very different from no).  Government ought to do those things that individuals can not do efficiently and do them in the most limited way possible so as to minimize the impact on individual liberty and freedom.

Tea Party Guided by Milton Friedman’s Philosophy

Milton Friedman in his work "Free to Choose" suggests that our society is best served and advances against issues of public policy advance more quickly when decisions are made at the most local level  in a flow that goes something like this....

1. Individual
2. Family
3. Community
4. City/County
5. State
6. Federal

In other worlds try to solve the problem at the top of the list and work down.  Why???? because it maximizes the opportunity for many different approaches to solve the problem, each group having an opportunity to take their "best shot" at solving the problem.  If they are successful, people who are free to choose willingly move to those solutions and places that best solve the problem from their point of view.

When the federal government intervenes with its "one size fits none" solutions, it removes the opportunity for more creative approaches to solving life's problems.  With this approach I defend both New York State for its recent decision to allow same-sex marriage AND defend Arizona in its approach to immigration.  Both should be seen as experiments to solving complex problems.  Each should be allowed to pursue these "solutions" and the citizens of their respective states should then be allowed to enjoy or suffer the consequences of these approaches.

Tea Party a Movement About Being “Free to Choose”

"Free to Choose" would be a better moniker for the tea-party.  "No New Taxes" sits inside a broader question.  What is the proper role of government?  Many in the tea-party believe that the current administration has over-stepped its bounds and are looking to restore balance.  (I agree).  So, it is not a question about not paying our fair share, it is about minimizing the drag of the government fiscal rake so that decisions and power can reside at the most local level possible. 
In a nutshell it is about being responsible (i.e. living within means, taking reasonable risks) and the appropriate level of both government expenditures AND revenue.

At this time, I am unconvinced that our biggest problem is insufficient tax rates.  Let's focus on what our government SHOULD be doing and the BEST way to bring our government revenue into balance with those commitments.

Let Freedom Ring

PS, You can view the entire “Free to Choose” series by following this link to the Milton Friedman Blogspot.

Performance.Learning.Productivity Blog: When Learning is the Work: Approaches for supporting learning in the workplace

Performance.Learning.Productivity Blog: When Learning is the Work: Approaches for supporting learning in the workplace