Sarah Palin’s Bad Tea
During her speech to the first ever National Tea Party Convention in Nashville on Saturday, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin discouraged the very idea of a national organization, urging the movement to stay leaderless and decentralized. This was the most important and valuable part of Palin’s speech.
As for the rest of it–Sarah sounded pretty much like the same old Republican Party.
Despite the many independents that make up the movement, the tea parties in large part represent a long overdue reexamination of conservative principles. A big-spending Democratic president seems to have awakened grassroots conservatives enough to finally lament the big spending of the last Republican president, and plenty of incumbents from both parties face voter backlash in 2010 and possibly beyond, particularly if they supported bailouts, stimulus, national healthcare, or other massive debt-incurring legislation.
The tea partiers are right to acknowledge and denounce Bush’s big-government growth of Medicare, the implementation of No Child Left Behind, and Dubya’s other expansions of the domestic state. But what they still seem to forget is what made conservatives so tolerant of big government during that time—an almost religious preoccupation with supporting the Iraq War.
Today, defense spending remains the largest part of the federal budget, dwarfing the bailouts, stimulus, healthcare, and other government programs that offend tea partiers most, and President Obama is still expanding that budget and escalating our wars. One would think cost-conscious voters would at least question Obama’s wisdom in continuing Bush’s exorbitant foreign policy. Yet few tea partiers are asking such questions, and according to Palin, Obama’s primary weakness is that he’s not enough like George W. Bush.
Following up her tea party speech on “Fox News Sunday,” Palin said of Obama, “If he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, Well, maybe he’s tougher than …he is today, and there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years.”
What is Palin trying to say? That tea party anger towards Obama would lessen if the president was to “toughen up,” becoming even more intent on waging war? Does Palin believe that the massive domestic spending conservatives don’t like would be tolerated so long as Obama increases the massive foreign spending conservatives do like? Isn’t this exactly what happened under Bush?
At a time when a more radicalized, grassroots conservative base could feasibly be persuaded to question government spending as a whole; Palin seems intent on leading the populist Right back into the same old, big government, pro-war, any-war mindset. Conservatives as thoughtful as columnist George Will and as bombastic as radio host Michael Savage have asked recently if American dollars and lives are worth spending in Afghanistan. But for Palin, still, there is no question.
The necessity of endless war and the gargantuan government needed to sustain it is also not in question for the neoconservatives. When uber-neocon Daniel Pipes wrote an article for National Review Online last week called “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran,” the alleged purpose of the piece was to give the commander in chief some pointers on how to keep his command in 2012. But make no mistake—Pipes’s main concern is that somebody bombs Iran, regardless of which president or party. Pat Buchanan responded to Pipes in his syndicated column, asking if Obama would indeed play what the Buchanan calls “the war card,” something presidents have done in the past to boost their popularity. The difference is, traditional conservative Buchanan was clearly chastising what the neoconservative Pipes was advocating—the U.S. waging war simply to boost a politician’s poll numbers.
But Palin didn’t make the distinction, telling Fox News, “Say [Obama] played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran… things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation…”
If the tea parties are supposed to represent a break from the big spending of both parties, Palin’s foreign policy views alone negate the entire tea party message. If the largest part of the U.S. budget—defense—is to be expanded indefinitely in the name of “toughness,” how can grassroots conservatives argue against bailouts, stimulus, and national healthcare, each of which costs much less? Real “toughness” might include not just using the same old Bush jargon, but a serious cost/benefit analysis of the U.S.’s habit of putting soldiers in harm’s way halfway around the globe for no discernible reason—while just mindlessly assuming our government has America’s best interests at heart.
Above all, real conservative “toughness” might require a real questioning of government at all levels. Unfortunately, conservatives whose attachment to the warfare state remains every bit as passionate as liberals’ attachment to the welfare state, continue to prove they have no serious intention of dismantling big government–only making noise about it. Just like Sarah Palin.
Palin is right about one thing. This TEA party movement, if it is ever to amount to anything of value to Liberty activists, MUST remain decentralized. If it becomes a unified organization with a national office, then it will be much easier to co-opt.
Upon centralization, it will lose all potency. Before you can say “Newt Gingrich,” the TEA party movement will become nothing more than the conservative wing of the republican party.
There is no Tea Party…there are millions of Americans who are frustrated with Washington…but the issues that are important to these millions people vary from city to city and state to state.
I expect the folks in Massachusetts have a whole different idea of what the Tea Party issues should be…than Tea Party spirited folks in Georgia.
I expect Tea Partiers in NY think National Security (in the face of terrorist trials) is a pretty high priority…whereas New Mexicans might think Amnesty is the most pressing issue.
It is presumptious of you to speak on behalf of these millions of independent minded people.
As for Palin, you need to watch the actual interview, as opposed to analyzing her comments based upon second hand information. She was speaking hypothetically…in terms of future events that may unfold if Iran continues down the war path. If Israel is ever attacked on a massive scale, and Obama shows himself to be a strong Commander in Chief who stands by his allies, he would. mostly likely have the overwhelming moral support of the nation.
Obama is withdrawing our armed forces from Iraq soon, I think by this summer, so he is de-escalating the war there. However, Afghanastan is a trickier wicket since that war was ignored for so long before he took office. Troop withdrawls now would leave that country in a state of Al Quida controlled chaos. Is that what you really want? A country ripped apart by American troops and left in shambles for terrorists to rebuild?
I don’t think the president cares about his popularity ratings. He’s said many times that he aims to do what’s right, even if it’s not popular.
To me this has long been an inconsistincy in American politics, especially on the right. You cannot have a ‘big’, ‘robust’, ‘proactive’ military which is toatlly sacrosanct from large spending cuts or scrutiny of any kind AND smaller government at the same time. It’s either big military/big gov’t or small military/small gov’t. No one (right or left, but especially right) seems to question the $762 billion military budget, it’s effect on the economy, or its effect on the world as a whole, even though the US is in difficult finacial times and real decsions need to be made. Do we really need $762 billion to fight a few thousand ‘terrorists’? The Tea Party movement to me seems to reflect these frustrations (however incoherently), and the fact that all this military, and all these wars and proposed wars seem to have left the US exhausted and drained and the world no safer, while severly limiting the US’s ability to handle pressing domestic needs. Sadly, I expect the Tea party movement to be absorbed by the Republicans (on promises of spending cuts that will never materialize, yet again)
I love this FOX News, grass-roots organization of conservative, white Americans, because nothing supports social progress better than putting a face on its antithesis.
Tea Partiers are rightfully angry and confused that their way of life is becoming uncomfortable. We all long for a more uninformed time in America, when the world was only as complex as your immediate neighborhood; as far as you need or want to know. Adults call that time childhood.
We should appreciate the Tea Baggers for what they do in spite of their vague intentions, and hope that half-term Governor Palin continues sharing her simplistic, folksy wisdom with Facebook comments and incoherent interviews. It’s exactly what we need for progress in America.
True independents don’t buy the convenience of “independent” minded people who are now awakening to the spending of the Bush years. We are still trying to figure out what it is exactly that’s the draw of the tea party. I have a glimpse into it with my cousin. I had the temerity to question the avout Christian’s forwarding of a pretty vicious anti Obama youtube clip full of 10 minutes of easily refuted lies. In return I got a Glen Beck rant. You see during the Bush years I occasionally spoke up, but mostly I left people alone. When he stole the election in my opinion, I still backed him as my President. However, these baggers will not accept they lost an election. They believe they are no justified at all costs to lie and hold up filibuster, you name it. Because the threat they face from Obama is real and so much worse than the threat anyone faced from Bush. Because their fight is the right fight, no way will they give up. In my opinion these guys need to dry up and blow away before this gets better. The whole premise of the USA is the civil cooperation of competing parties. When they take the ball and go home, it ruins the game for everyone.
Palin is a deal-breaker for me. The Tea Party is a chance to get intelligent, competent, honest Americans back into politics. Not more mediocre GOP/neocon bots like Palin. Whoever invited her to that convention made a huge mistake.
The Tea Party must define itself as opposed to the one party GOP/Dem system we’ve got now. That means stressing issues like the bailouts, immigration, foreign lobbies and these ruinous wars. It means taking out as many incumbents of both parties as possible.
The Democrats must be laughing themselves to sleep at night, tickled that this adenoidal airhead is the face of the Republican Party. Do they secretly contribute to her campaign?
I came to this site because heard it was started by Pat. I was curious. Then, I stumbled on this thoughtful article. NBot what I expected.
And @ G F Kennan, you read my mind. LOL.
The biggest problem of the Tea Parties is that they don´t represent Conservatism. They represent the interests of a bunch of geezers and old people. They complain a lot about government spending, but not about Medicare. And for conservatives single payer would be extremely better than Medicare as it is now.
[...] state as the progressive left is enamored with the welfare state, as this American Conservative article so aptly points out. If we want to save our country and by extension our civilization, we must [...]
Palin is a joke and a farce. Oh she represents grass roots populism with her folksiness but its the same grass roots populism that George Bush II used to get elected, pass no child left behind, Patriot Act, Oil drilling, obstruct CAFE increases, pass drug coverage and wage 2 international wars.
As Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul understand, before we can have a debate about smaller government THERE NEEDS TO BE A DEBATE ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD WORKING FUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT, BEFORE WE CAN ELIMINATE THE FEDERAL RESERVE…WE MUST AUDIT IT!
The republican neoconservatives and the democratic neocommunists sense this 3rd party formation and they want to absorb it but at its core…it has nothing related to either party.
This tea party movement goes against civil service government and teachers unions, would rather have government vouchers for healthcare than government run program, its nationalism at its core with no offshoring and no outsourcing, its isolationist at its core with no more pro-active foreign wars and more than less government it wants an audit of what works, what can be reformed, what can be privatized through vouchers and what is so far corrupted that it should just be eliminated.
The Republican’s have incorporated right wing-populist-third paty interest’s before, only to stifle such interest’s.
Until they decided to make Gov. Youbetcha’ their spokesbabe, I thought the tea party might actually go some place and be more than just a drone for the GOP.
As they morph into just another wing of the GOP all-war-all-the-time party, I’ll continue to vote for third party candidates. I’ve stopped throwing my vote away on the lesser of the two evils, especially since, with the current crop of democrats and republicans, which is the lesser evil is now impossible to tell.
Sure, you can bag on the tea party movement all you want but what ushured in the grass roots insurection is BHO. He campaigned as a centrist and now has lurched so far left the country has whiplash. Just another example of the modern day elitist politicians from either party who are more interested in party dominance than real problem solving. The Tea Party movement is genuine, grassroots and it will bring the real hope and change for America.
Her being around John McCain so much has certainly ruined her chances of being truly independent. His progressive/neocon agenda has obviously rubbed off on her. Since it happened so quickly, I have reconsidered just how “rogue” she ever was when so easily beguiled. She is even adopting darling terms of the progressives such as “zero carbon energy”. Either she never had any real substance of independence or she is just another easy corruptible mark. Either way, she has proven to me she is not an option to consider for anything other than cluttering up the news of the day.
when I engage in conversations with folks I know that strongly support the Tea Party, the overwhelming feeling I get is that “Expansion of government and government spending are bad….when it’s the other guy who’s doing it.” Not one of the Tea Party folks I’ve encountered, in person or online, seems to care about wasteful spending in Iraq or the big government expansion from the Bush years (NCLB, Patriot Act, Medicare drug coverage expansion).
Palin is a plant. If you remember how Bush got into power was by the MSM. They picked our candidates for us by attacking them. Now Palin was picked the same way. Can anyone explain why they attack her? I know people will say that is because they see her as a future threat, but If they would leave her alone, she would go away. Don’t trust her and Glenn Beck. Vote Debra Medina. Vote for people that have never been in office.
Am I alone here in refusing to take SP seriously to any extent at all–beginning with my declining to read one complete sentence of the article on which all of my 18 predecessors have commented?
I must say, it is refreshing to see this site. The comments are mostly civil (and thought-provoking). The balance isn’t extreme like Fox (and Foxnation et al.). It is good to get a sense of what people are really saying. I had always wondered why the Tea Party people suddenly came out of the woodwork once Obama became President, but had nary said a word during the previous 8 years. Thank you all for the insight.
“Obama as socialist” is a common theme amongst many Tea Nutters usually characterizing him as both a socialist (or communist) and a nazi all at once. Obviously, those that do this have no idea what either name means. In fact, these appellations are mere substitutes for “doo-doo head” or some other infantile epithet used like school children to bully someone else on the playground (or in this case, someone they know will not fight them back). I am generally embarrassed for these Tea Partiers who, after all, are someones mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters. They may be kind, intelligent and sincere but they have exposed themselves as cranks. And I like them for it.
In truth, Obama is neither very liberal nor much of a socialist in the sense of acquring the means of production (other than to save jobs in the auto industry) since we have offshored most of that. I am still trying to figure out why we are fighting the Taliban, who offered up Osama Bin Laden to Bush after 9/11 only to be rebuffed by “the Decider.” The Stimulus was classic Keynsian economics watered down with ineffectual tax cuts and it has added 1.6 million new jobs some of whom may even have gone to a Tea Nutter or two after they marched to express their frustration with Obama, The Socialist. The bailouts of the investment banks were mostly the creation of the last administration, whom the Tea Nutters loved when in office, so determined was the Bush administration, to delay their Second Great Republican Depression until after Obama took office so that they could blame it on him. The Tea Nutters (sorry for the name calling) seem to have substituted idiocy for truth with absolutely no self awareness of it. This is the stuff from which classic crackpotism is made.
I like what Charles P. Pierce says in his great best selling book that seems to have been written with both Sarah Palin and the Tea Nutters in mind, as well as those who reduce Obama to an infantile name, even when ridiculous to do so. His book is called “Idiot America.” In it, he offers that Americans have lost something precious: the ability to tell the town crank from the rest of us. Instead, we tend to mainstream what used to be the town crank.
The Tea Party offers a lot of angry white people, many of whom are my friends and neighbors, an avenue to express their frustration and little means of acquiring information or otherwise channelling their frustration into constructive policy making. Thoughtfullness is not one of their strongest attributes. Still, America should cherish these people for their activism and sincerity while not being afraid to point out how foolish they are. God love them. They may appear as mere cranks but, as Charles P. Pierce says, at least they are our cranks.
The tragedy is that we try to mainstream them by turning this into a “movement” or and overanalyse its meaning. I agree with Charles P. Pierce and I don’t want to lose something so precious.
I support theroretically the “tea party” movement up until people show up at rallies with signs like “Keep your government’s hands off my medicare”, keep government small, stop expanding gov’t, etc. When the “tea party” people finally accept the fact that the shrub from texas created an economic mess and stop supporting wars and military spending, then maybe then it could be taken seriously. As of right now, the only thing I see is criticism of the current president and the democrats without criticizing their own when they publicly denounce stimulus money while being photographed in their home districts praising “bad stimulus money spending”. It’s the ultimate in hypocrisy and no right person can seriously take this movement, well seriously.
So Obama *isn’t* a socialist? Please state what domestic policies he favors that would not easily fit on the platform of any European socialist party.
When I first heard of Sarah Palin I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt (especially since the left worked itself into paroxysms of hatred against her). But every time she opens her mouth she proves that she is, indeed, a fool. The invasion of Iraq was an act of criminality, and the last thing we need is a war with Iran.
While Obama’s war policy is marginally better than that of the neocons he doesn’t question the establishment view that America has both the right and the need to maintain a vast global military empire. Why do we have occupation troops in Japan 65 years after World War II ended? Why are we still in NATO more than 20 years after the Berlin Wall fell? Nobody who favors these policies has any right to complain about high taxes. In Washington D.C. the only politician with good sense about this issue is Ron Paul.
Why has no one pointed out the great fallacy in this article? By no stretch of the imagination is defense the “largest part of the U.S. budget”. Obama’s stimulus bill ALONE was $300 BILLION more than than ENTIRE DOD budget. Furthermore defense is one of the few things that the Constitution specifically says the government is supposed to do!
I do not suggest that we should be bombing Iran (yet), but we damn sure better be ready to deal with them rather than wasting our time in Libya or Afghanistan. The military represents approx 20% of the budget, let’s get rid of the unConstitutional stuff first.
Please cite the source for the comments regarding the size of defense spending. I am of the impression that it is well under ten percent of the budget and much smaller than “social welfare” programs.
How uneducated and obtuse must one be to claim Obama is NOT a Marxist?