I came across two posts today that paint startling different portraits of the Tea Party movement’s relation to government. One, featured on the site of the conservative Pajama’s Media (h/t Tipsy Teetotaler) says that the Tea Party features individualism, self-sufficiency, an antipathy to government control, and a belief that human nature is innate and unchangeable (there is even a handy chart that plots the Tea Party in relation to, among others, hobos, bums, Nazis, and “Trustafarian Anarchists.”) The bit about innate human nature is contrasted with other ideologies which contend that human nature changes with the environment and culture surrounding the particular individual.
The other post is from Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone who isn’t apparently, seeing a lot of the anti-government self-sufficiency in practice among the Tea Partiers. He cites Alaska’s Senatorial candidate, Joe Miller, “who appears to have run virtually the entire gamut of government aid en route to becoming a staunch, fist-shaking opponent of the welfare state.” Among other things, he and his family took state medical aid, unemployment insurance, and farm subsidies. Taibbi also points to Rand Paul, whose patient base is 50% state insured, to Sharron Angle whose husband is covered by Federal Employee Health Plan insurance, and to any number of Tea Party rank & file who were Medicare beneficiaries or enjoying a government pension or the like.
Taibbi suggests that the concept of “good welfare” and “bad welfare” is really at the heart of the Tea Party ideology. They and those they support, goes the rationalization, took government money for good reasons; not like “those other people.” Taibbi also points out that it would be unfair to pick on a politician for having benefited from the government in some fashion at some point; we all have. But the Tea Party makes itself fair game with its absolutist language:
If you call Obamacare radical socialism and unemployment insurance a parasitic welfare state program—well, guess what, asshole, you’re going to get rung up when we find out you had your whole family living off state medical aid and farm subsidies.
So… one dude used to be on welfare, so that tars the entire movement?
I graduated from a state school, I guess I should start voting Democrat, huh?
My feeling is that you should take advantage of the things you can take advantage of. My kids go to public schools, but that doesn’t mean I support them unconditionally, or even at all. In fact, my experience with the public schools is making me even more Attilla-the-Hun than I already am.
I could totally see somebody who was on welfare come out of the experience soured on the system.
Retirees feel that Social Security and Medicare are something that they’ve paid into, and thus are getting a return on investment. If they’re misinformed as to the true nature of the system, well, I guess 75 years of propaganda that SS is a pension will do that to a society.
Is it surprising that a retiree would still be against welfare? Or that they would want to preserve Medicare, which they feel they paid into, from massive change?
Everybody has a rationalization for why their particular kind of government assistance is good. What it means is that these people need to temper their rhetoric. I know that “some government programs are bad under certain circumstances” isn’t as punchy as “government is bad.” Nuance is hard, and it requires explanations about where and why you’re drawing the line between “good government” and “bad government.”
A Feightnerism. “No one is in favor of government waste, unless government is waisting it on them.”
Todd
Major premise: Nobody who’s complicit with some form of welfare, or ever has been, may advocate smaller government.
Minor premise: We’re all complicit in some form of welfare or have been.
Conclusion: Nobody may advocate for smaller government.
Ummm … Something seems wrong with this logic.
I checked out the link to the Pajama Media site. Amazing what a college sophomore can do with a a few graphics, Ayn Rand cartoons and $100,00 in government subsidized student loans
Roger, clearly not. They’re just can’t credibly be sanctimonious about it, and they should be made to explain their rationale for why the government they enjoy is superior to the government they want to get rid of. They look ridiculous talking about government in Manichean terms of good and evil.
When I read anecdotes such as this, I always am struck by the irony that the subject is generally a testament to the success of the program while simultaneously deriding it. In this case, Miller is an example of an entitlement *working*. It provided assistance during his self-described transitional period and then terminated. It seems that the logical conclusion is that if one has a personal experience with a program that is successful, one doesn’t then criticize the program as ineffective.
I think we’re tilting at windmills here. Two comments:
(1) First, a parallel. Personally, I think the mortgage deduction is bad tax policy, and that the deduction provides homeowners too large of an incentive to buy a bigger home than they need, and to invest their money in the stock market, rather than in their homes. This deduction is a big reason why so many middle-class and upper class people are currently underwater on their homes, or have pursued “strategic foreclosure.” Anyway, by Doug’s parallel, since I believe this tax deduction is bad public policy, does that mean I shouldn’t use this deduction when I do my taxes? Of course not. But what’s the difference?
(2) If I lost my job (let’s say it was because I spent too much time posting on Doub’s blog….), I would apply for and accept any funds I receive from unemployment. That doesn’t mean the system “worked”, as I may not necessarily need those funds since I have enough saved to last me. However, I would be a fool (granted, possibly a righteous fool) to turn that free money down.
Paul — I don’t think the point is that you shouldn’t use those deductions or benefits. It’s that you sound like a hypocrite when you use them, and then declare that government is bad and that we all need to get bootstrappy. Of course, with some of these candidates, you want to ask why, if they dislike government so much, they are so desperate to be a part of it.
The problem with Tea Party rhetoric is that instead of an honest assessment and conversation about what government can do well, and what it can’t, its form of Reaganism has been boiled down to nothing but “government is incompetent and lousy.” So does that mean we need to privatize the military? (More than it already is.) Privatize the police and fire departments? Are they incompetent?
A great point in Taibbi’s writing about the Tea Party is how Rand Paul is how, once he become a Republican nominee, he shifted in a hurry from real-live Libertarian to Mitch McConnell-approved Tea Party-ish rhetoric. One of two things is going to happen when these Tea Party folks get in on the strength of the “keep government out of my Medicare” crowd: the people who voted for them will disappointed because they didn’t do what they said they would do, or they will be upset with them because they actually did what they said they would do.
“We all need to get bootstrappy.”
I’m almost certainly going to pawn that phrase off as my own one day.
What does government do well? I don’t mean what does government do that is popular, but what do they do really well?
The Marines kill people really well. Other than that?
BTW, Winfield, Indiana has been unpoliced for a couple of weeks now. Only police coverage is the state police, because of a dispute with the County Sheriff. They seem to be doing just fine.
I wish we would have a conversation as to what the government does well and what it does not do. But, on the other hand, we have this little thing called The Constitution, which is supposed to limit what the government can do. But we’ve been ignoring it for damn near 80 years now.
Buzzcut,
Medicare operates a comprehensive healthcare system for seniors and the disabled. It operates with a 2-3% administrative cost. Even the best run private healthcare plans are lucky to get under 15%. The best struggle to get close to 10%.
And Medicare is a good example of a public-private partnership. Medicare establishes the structure of the program, the benefit design, and the high level coverage rules. Health insurers are the administrators of the program and perform the front and backend operation of the program.
And tell me, with specific references to Articles or Amendments and maybe caselaw, what government is doing that you deem unconstitutional.
Todd, I am surprised you didn’t also request that all cites be citechecked and in proper Bluebook form.
My students in Constitutional Law must accurately support their arguments. When I hear claims like Buzzcut’s, that this country “is ignoring the constitution” or that the “founders would spin in their graves”, I call their shot.
Ugh, you’re a constitutional law professor?
Jesus, I hope you know more than Obama does. Isn’t it kind of a joke that no one knows less about the Constitution than a law professor?
It’s part of the great American tradition of anti-intellectualism. Can’t go around believing a bunch of eggheads know more than the common man. Let’s git ‘er dun!
Paul and Buzzcut,
Yeah, thinking about it again, that statement about chapter and verse from the constitution was a little snarky. A thousand pardons.
It has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. It has to do with a healthy skepticism with elites who believe that they know more and are more certain about “stuff” than they could possibly be.
After all, when you get down to it, the law and the constitution are just words. Lawyers and constitutional law professors have no special skills in reading comprehension than the rest of us have.
It’s hard for me to explain where I’m coming from on this, but check out this Atlantic article for an idea on where I’m coming from.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269
If 25% of double blind studies are wrong, you simply have to be skeptical that anyone really knows what the heck they’re talking about on almost any subject.
I am very skeptical about all knowing elites claiming that they have the knowledge to tell all us proles what to do. I think that the last 4 years, where the powers that be from both Democrat and Republican administrations, both employing “the best and brightest” from Goldman Sachs, ran the economy into a ditch and can’t get us out of it, is all the proof anyone should need.
The bottom line is that our society and our economy is too complicated to regulate. Any attempt to do so is doomed to failure.
I too am skeptical of elites claiming certainty. But, I’m even more skeptical when folks at the bottom of the depth chart claim certainty.
Buzzcut said:
After all, when you get down to it, the law and the constitution are just words. Lawyers and constitutional law professors have no special skills in reading comprehension than the rest of us have.
So doctors have no better vision or hearing than other people. So why should what they observe or hear from a patient make them any better at understanding the medical issues than a retiree in a hoveround that wants to keep government out of her medicare and thinks that the Great Lake Carp “czar” is an impermissible appointment of a title of nobility by Obama under Article One, Section nine.
I remember reading about a whining college student complaining about her low grade. She said’ “just because the professor has a doctorate degree and all that doesn’t mean she knows more than me.”
Kids learn early, don’t they. They learn how to complain about topics that they choose not to understand, reject information from people that do know more than they do about the relevant topic, then whine when they are revealed as the utter fools they are.
Todd, I could say the same thing about Constitutional Law Professors.
I was talking to Greg Zoeller a couple of weeks ago, and he was talking about his the constitutionality of Obamacare, which he is challenging. He told me a story about his latest visit to Valpo law school, his getting chewed out by the law professors, and how politicized they are.
If double blind studies are riddled with politics and bias, what chance does an area like law have?
Doug, if the experts are wrong, which you just admited, why would you adhere to a political philoposphy like liberalism, which believes in tyrrany of experts?
The reason that I adhere to the libertarian side of conservatism is that I am SO SKEPTICAL as to what government and experts can do. So if the experts have as little knowledge and expertise as I do, or maybe slightly more, why not just devolve everything and let free citizens work it out for themselves?
Todd: No worries. If you had asked me the question, I would have cited to the expansive definition of interstate commerce and the almost unlimited use of the commerce clause. However, I just don’t have the time to pull the cases right now. I do have to admit that I am a bit worried about admitting this to a Con Law professor. I certainly appreciated mine, and wouldn’t want to diappoint.
Zoeller: “Those Valpo profs are so politicized!” = Zoeller: “Those Valpo profs don’t agree with me!”
Paul,
The individual mandate is a somewhat new demand made on the Commerce Clause. But Congress’ power under the Commerce clause is virtually plenary. I have read the cases coming out of the district courts and gave my class an assignment based upon these issues. But I am a little weird in my con law interests. I like seperation of powers and commerce clause issues the most. Could be my economics and business background and the fact that I like consitutional history. I don’t know as much as I would like to, but I try to learn as much as I can.
When I have more time, I will throw some more thoughts out on this issue.
With the commerce clause, I think the simple answer is “Hamilton won” (as a history book I read once said.) Jefferson and Hamilton had this dispute about a limited versus strong federal government. The Confederacy took up Jefferson’s cause. The Union took up Hamilton’s. And the debate effectively ended at Appomatox Court House.
Had the South committed treason in defense of something less loathsome than protecting their right to own other people, perhaps the debate would have gone differently and perhaps they’d be regarded as patriots instead of traitors. But, those are the breaks, I guess.
exhoosier, I’m not doing Zoeller justice in my description of what he said. He said it much more clearly and precisely than I have.
The point is that the liberalism of the academy COULD very well taint a field of endevor like constitutional law. That doesn’t mean that constitutional law profs are correct in their views, IF those views put the actual law behind their politics. And that is my assertion. And Zoellers.