In his discussion of the war between conservative and moderate Republicans David Freddoso (the editor of Conservative Intelligence) is squarely on the side of the conservatives. However, he warns about a new trend:
A new trend becoming almost alarmingly mainstream among conservative activists is to find RINO-ism in every shadow. The football equivalent would be to characterize anything short of a pick-six on every play as a defensive failure. As we have noted here previously, this is a paranoid reaction to bad Republican behavior in the Bush years. The fact that the conservative base can be sold on this idea at all is the result of establishment sins as much as it is the fault of the carnival barkers currently selling it.
Ironically, that sort of hysteria can be found among certain Tea Party supporters even towards other Tea Party supporters. I said “ironically” because I have heard socially conservative Tea Party people denounce libertarians as RINOs or even as “liberals” because of their positions on social issues. They forget that the Tea Party is not a litmus test on social issues and never has been. It began as a populist libertarian movement:
Is the Tea Party movement a direct result of the Libertarian movement? As we pondered this question, we also wanted to know when and where the two groups intersected. We started with an informal survey. We asked several people the following question: when do you think the Tea Party movement began? They answered: when Rick Santelli ranted on the floor of the Merc in Chicago in February, 2009.
But our research into the history of the Tea Party took us back to 2004, to its first inklings as an organized force for rousing ordinary citizens to fight back against big government. In that year, Libertarian David Koch founded Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit political advocacy group set up to educate the public on the principles of free markets.
Even though the term “Tea Party” was not used then, Koch’s vision of “a mass movement, a state-based one, but national in scope, of hundreds of thousands of American citizens from all walks of life standing up and fighting for the economic freedoms” pretty much describes the movement we see today.
In 2007, Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul was running for the nomination to the Republican ticket for president, and he staged a “money bomb” on December 16, the anniversary of the first Tea Party in Boston, which netted him $5.2 million — mostly from small donors. A month before that, he got a record $4.3 million from another money bomb.
Read it all.
What I like about the Tea Party movement is that from day one it has been a coalition of people who do not have to agree and do not agree on social issues, but come together along certain Tea Party principles, which are usually stated thusly:
Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets
As to what accounts for this weird, paranoid behavior that Freddoso describes, once again I think it is an example of hyper-escalated political rhetoric of the sort I have described here:
..like-minded, single-issue activists often associate with — and tend to exclusively surround themselves with — other like-minded, single-issue activists. The result is what many call an echo chamber — or “the choir.” But I think “echo chamber” and “choir” are less than accurate terms, because the implication is that people are simply getting together and agreeing with each other in groups. When group dynamics are factored into single issue fanaticism, a lot more happens than mere group agreement. Because people are naturally competitive, many activists want to prove to the group that they are not only devoted to the cause, butmore devoted than the others. This leads to extreme hyperbole, and the taking of positions which normal people would consider laughable.
Be nice if I could do a better job of laughing it off.
Comments
12 responses to “Must every revolution devour its own?”
Whenever conservatives gain power, social cons feel it’s time to get what they want.
Recall the Terri Schiavo deal.
I was worse than any lefty because I thought it wasn’t Congress’ job.
I think I’m missing something. Maybe I skimmed too quickly over Freddoso’s article. I get where you’re coming from about activists and escalated rhetoric but as the article begins with the anecdote of a “moderate” congressman openly raising funds to try and defeat any Tea Party backed candidate the paranoia could be justified.
The use of the term RINO seems a fairly benign and, I would think, accurate term for folks like McCain and Co., who by the way have used some terribly pejorative language when referring to the Tea Party and even fellow Republican congressmen. It’s bad enough when Reid and other Progressives label the TP “extremists” or Grayson compares them to the KKK, but it seem apparent that the old boys network currently in control of party are indeed, conservative in name only. Remember, it wasn’t the TP who denied the libertarian wing representation at the RNC convention.
Drudge just posted an article about this.
Most American libertarians do not consider themselves part of the conservative Tea Party movement…
Not if they’re composed of and headed by socons for sure.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/most-u-libertarians-not-identify-tea-party-survey-040352318.html
The linked article uses as its initial contrast between Tea Party and Libertarians, positions on abortion and legalizing marijuana. Neither of these is a major focus of the Tea Party whose mainline features are supporting:
-smaller or limited government (especially federal)
-adherence to the Constitution
-fiscal responsibility
And the use of the term RINO is to describe a large number of elected Republicans who do not support the items in the list in my previous comment.
So no exact congruence but agreement between Tea Party and Libertarians on some very important issues as well as disagreement between Tea Party and RINO’s on those important issues.
It’s not that hard to understand what’s going on here.
Basil at IMAO has a riff on why he’s a RINO.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2013/10/im-a-rino/
You see, the GOP isn’t about shrinking gov’t, just making it a little less big than the Dems want.
So if you’re against bigger gov’t, you’re actually the RINO.
Good link, Veeshir.
I consider myself a constitutional libertarian with a strong lean to tradition (I examine change to see if we are discarding something worth keeping) and I consistently vote republican but would have difficulty saying I am a member of the Republican Party since I cannot support many leadership positions.
I can only agree with Veeshir – both posts. Oddly enough, when I was blogging – and commenting on other blogs – the ONLY blogs I got banned on were the SoCon’s. (4 of them.) (And no, even Kos never banned me – I just quit reading/commenting out of disgust.)
I guess by that standard I’m a RINO too. I have been holding my nose and voting Republican for years.
[…] commenter to my last post pointed out a study which focuses on the divisions between libertarians and social conservatives, […]
I had similar experiences Kathy.
I’ve only been banned by righty blogs, I stopped going to lefty ones out of disgust.
I used to go to Balloon Juice but their cheering on the SEIU thugs who were going to tea party events to cause problems was despicable.
I got banned from Conservative Tree House for consistently bringing up drug prohibition in the open comments threads. I took the Constitutional position. The Feds have no authority to ban drugs.
My position corresponds to the Republican position on the matter in 1914 (Harrison Narcotics Act).
I guess the “traditional” Republicans have lost the limited government tradition. And they take umbrage at being reminded of it.