Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP "Civil War"--S#!t Just Got Real (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've read that a lot (42+ / 0-)

    including on the front page here at Dkos, but I'm not sure I agree.  At the core of Tea Party ideology, if I understand it correctly, is a fundamental discomfort with the very idea of government.  Tea Partiers have misread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have misread the very idea of American freedom, and understand it to mean that no one can ever tell anyone what they have to do under any circumstances whatsoever.  That is, they have bought out completely from the idea of the social contract.

    Establishment Republicans, on the other hand, want to restrict government down to the smallest size possible, in order to allow for the freest operation of the market and thereby allow the greatest concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%.  Establishment Republicans don't want to abolish the military and they want to guarantee that the police and fire departments can continue to function, albeit as private entities rather than public ones if that will cost them less money.  But the social contract remains in force for them, even if it is a hierarchical one in which they hold power and everyone else does what they are told.

    Think of it as anarchists against aristocrats.  It's not exactly what's going on, but it comes close.

    The efforts to repeal Obamacare are the GOP Abort Obamacare Act. lynneinfla

    by litho on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:38:17 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well No (16+ / 0-)

      They do want to impose the Christian Bible on everyone and tell everyone what to do based on their cherry picked theology.

      Tea Partiers have misread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have misread the very idea of American freedom, and understand it to mean that no one can ever tell anyone what they have to do under any circumstances whatsoever.

      "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

      by kerplunk on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Teabaggers aren't so anti-government as (36+ / 0-)

      they would have us believe.

      Do you remember them freaking out when Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Security?  Or when Bush ran up the deficit?  Nope, they didn't freak, they just voted Bush in for a second term.

      Most of them have so little self-awareness that they probably believe they really do care about small government and deficts.  More likely, they are weak-minded fools who are easily duped by the right wing media, all the more easily this time around with a black president.  The right wing media resonates with them on a tribal level, and so they believe the propaganda about deficits and small government.  

      Once another republican seizes control of the White House, these nutsacks will grow quieter and quieter about deficits and small government, until they are shouting at liberals to show feality to the Commander and Chief during wartime.  They are at heart authoritarians and as long as authoritarians run government, they can't get enough of it.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:09:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  TeaPartiers are not against all government (9+ / 0-)

      If one supports capitalism, one supports at least minimal government to protect property rights.

      Anarchists are anti-capitalist. The terms Anarchism, as well as Libertarianism, predate the attempt to usurp these terms by the right wing. Both are used just about everywhere except the US to mean anti-capitalist, egalitarian, non-authoritarian collectivism, socialism, sometimes called free socialism of free communism.

      The traditional usage of anarchist dates back to the mid 19th century, coined by the anti-capitalist Proudhon, and libertarian dates back to anarchists of his time, and are still used internationally to mean quite the opposite from what most are referring to when they use the term anarchist as a label for the right wing free-market crazies.

      Supporters of capitalism are not anarchist, since the term refers to lack of hierarchy. The concept of property rights and a system which allows monopolization of property used in production, thus allowing the owning class to use their capital as a tool to coerce the working class into servitude is NOT any any way a form of egalitarian, horizontal, non-vertical organization of society.

      Thus, so-called "anarcho"-capitalists are not true anarchists, and right wing Libertarians are not truly in support of liberty, since the result of their system is exploitation and economic enslaving of the majority working class by a minority owning class. Using the term this way is supporting the right wing Orwellian usage of these terms, and helps to promote right wing propaganda that they support "freedom" and "liberty" which is anything but the truth.

      Here's something I wrote about the differences between anarchism to contrast it to right wing free market TeaPartiers:


       If only the Tea Party really were anarchist.

          Real anarchists would replace the state with federations of egalitarian participatory communities which socialize property used in the means of production.

          Anarchism, a socioeconomic theory whose name was first coined by Proudhon in 1840, seeks to abolish all forms of unjust authority, and is opposed to all oppression brought about through hierarchical power relations.

          It is thus in favor of women's equality, since patriarchy is hierarchy.

          It supports worker's rights more than any other movement, since it would eliminate workplace hierarchical dominance from the ruling, owning class, and allow workers to freely associate without coercion, with democratic self-management of the collectivized work environment.

          It is against racism, since racism is hierarchy of one race over others.

          It would not allow theocratic interference in individual's choices, since curtailing abortion rights or imposing bigotry and homophobia is using church authority to create hierarchical relationships over others.

          It would provide health care to every citizen, since equality in the workplace, allowing workers to share equally in the fruits of their labor, also extends to economic equality in consumption of resources. The class hierarchy where wealthier citizens' needs are met, while others go without, is economic exploitation by the ruling class, and economic hegemony over the poor and working class.

          Since most people are workers, and want to be productive, then social needs like health care should be available to all. People can't be productive if they, or their loved ones, are sick.

          And it would also provide retirement pensions, and rights to housing, for all the same reasons. Working people (the 99%) can produce enough to take care of the working community, when economic equality becomes a social agreement.

          Oh, if only the Tea Partiers were anarchists.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:21:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Teabaggers vs Corporate GOP (0+ / 0-)

      the Corporate GOP would like a political/economic
      milieu equivalent to the 1890s, where the Government
      handed out enormous monopolies (Railroads, Bridges,
      tunnels, Telegraph) or allowed market concentration
      or leverage of monopolies into other markets
      (Oil, Metals, steel) so that power concentrated into
      a handful of players.  Hence Grover Norquist pining for the
      McKinley administration.

      the Teabaggers would like something around 1785, with
      no federal government of account, and states with
      agrarian basis.

      so it's a battle between the 18th and 19th century.

      Our modern world enrages them

    •  Yup.Scratch a teabagger (0+ / 0-)

      and he bleeds anarchy. God knows i've argued with enough of them, and in the end, they are all disavowed anarchists.

      But even then, they intently desire to impose their rule on others, so there ya go. I think they want to reserve anarchy for themselves only.

      Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

      by Idaho07 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:11:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site