Party Goers – What Do You Take With Your Tea?

The Tea Party phenomenon erupted with a spontaneity seldom seen in a laid back political culture. Whatever your perception or the impression depicted in the media, there is no dispute that Rick Santelli’s “rant” on the CME trading floor in Chicago, on Feb. 19, 2009 initiated and tapped into a frustration brewing under the surface. Not exactly, the shot heard round the world; but more like a St Helens explosion, the economic and a moral argument rang clear. “This is America!” Santelli declared. “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?”

Seldom seen on the mass media is righteous outrage. The GE corporate behemoth reeled in Honest Rick and toned down the airtime message. Placing him in the town square stockades or subjecting him to corporal punishment might just signal that a modern day Sam Adams lives. Yet the cat was out of the bag and the sentiments tapped into an underlying current that frightens the gatekeepers of the command and controlled corporate/state economy.

When main street middle class beleaguered taxpayers resonated that, the system was out of whack, the damage control team went into overdrive. This background helps to explain why the face of unprompted Tea Party individualism must be distorted, maligned and redirected.

Adequately defining the average Tea Party proponent is futile since the myriad of factions that make up group behavior is naturally fragmented. Do you take your tea with sugar, honey or milk? Is your tea green or decaffeinated? So too the core values, priority concerns and immediate threats vary within an ecumenical Tea Party mentality. Hundreds of local, state, regional and national organizations claim to be part of the Tea Party movement. However, is this loose coalition really a movement or a state of mind?

Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express and Tea Party Nation are familiar names. Each brings their agenda, baggage and quirks. Attempts to coordinate into a cohesive functioning national crusade disregard the unstructured existential reason for the cause of the political explosion. Inherent autonomy is intrinsically individual. Movements typically conform to regimentation.

It is essential to separate the philosophy from action components. Genuine conservatives, America First exponents, limited government proponents and fiscal restraint advocates are rare. When tried many “so called” angry citizens fail the traditional test. Neoconservatives cannot qualify by definition when held to these strict standards.

Annoyed armchair conventional solid citizens lack the historic perspective and internal fortitude to rebel under the criteria of a radical reactionary. Most want reform at best, while failing to understand or accept that the political order is irrevocably beyond worth of any socially redeemable merit. The inauspicious reality is that the vast majority favor the social welfare state. Trimming the edges in order to avoid catastrophic pain and suffering is a toxic fuel that runs the despotic governance.

The counter opposition to Tea Party indignation is the entire culture and political administration of vested interest in “government goodies”. By sheer numbers, Tea Party goers require a wide-ranging megaphone that can turn up the volume to overcome the clutter of the mass media machine. Progressives, the code word for totalitarian collectivists hate individual liberty and love state sponsored dominance. Add in all levels of career politicians and public employee parasites and you have the makings of a very unequal combat. The war to purge society from the curse of limitless imperial rule is the burden of true traditional conservatives.

In order for the Tea Party mindset to make constructive contributions to this eternal struggle, the philosophy needs to influence the political regime. Many interpret this goal as running for elected office, supporting likeminded candidates or forming a third party. Take you pick, Wikipedia presents links to the current crop and historic minor parties. Facing the practical reality that few voters actually cast their ballot for authentic government reorganization, the lesser of two evil DemocRAT or RepubliCAN’T becomes a bearable choice for many citizens.

Sadly, as long as the myth that democratic elections and officially authorized edicts are legitimate under a corporate/state system is generally accepted, no relief from government tyranny is possible. Reforming the election process from within is like asking the hungry tiger to become a vegetarian.

The GOP effort to package Republicans as tangible Tea Party candidates does not brew potable sustenance. A declared Tea Party candidate might run as a Republican, but party loyalty is a root cause of dysfunctional civic performance. The “tea bagger” who wants to run as a Democrat has the burden of shedding the “political fellatio” of the high priests of state supremacy. Illusions need to be discarded and pragmatic politics make the strangest of all bedfellows. When has any meaningful restoration of Jeffersonian limited government been achieved in our lifetime?

Fox Business News promotes the Tea Party Summit: with host Judge Andrew Napolitano. “What does the future hold for the Tea Party? Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, Dick Armey, Ed Rendell, and a surprise guest will discuss their thoughts on the potential creation of a libertarian-conservative coalition.”

This billing falsely assumes that established party career celebrities will lead the charge for a Tea Party revolution. Excluding the Pauls’, conservative populism is AWOL within the Republican Party. Months ago columnist Kurt Nimmo got it correct about Sarah Palin, “Americans are not fooled by her sudden Tea Party plumage. Republicans are desperate to regain control of the White House and Congress and give us four or eight more years of Bush and his warmongering statist neocons. It is a shabby and absurdly transparent gimmick.”

The Claremont Institute has a different viewpoint.

“Conservatives could offer “innovative leadership” with the help of a “new cohort of smart policy wonks with a practical vision for the future,” according to Mead (of the Council on Foreign Relations). The political problem is that the Tea Party populists may not accede to a conservative agenda set by a different set of experts and professionals. Populists “want big and simple ideas,” Mead writes, not “intricate, finely crafted reforms whose beauty can only be appreciated by a few.” If there’s hope for a conservative coalition that overcomes those tensions, it resides in the constant awareness of a much bigger governmental and even civilizational threat—that the “dysfunction of the current system” will drive us “into a massive social and financial crisis.”

It should be obvious that CFR wonks are part of the fundamental problem. The massive social and financial crisis is already here and is just awaiting the inevitable collapse of the top down master slave matrix. Mixing mainstream political operatives with disenfranchised and socially scorned populists is a formula for failure. The entire political, financial and economic structure is bankrupt. The fervor of adamant Tea Party activists intuitively knows the established order must be abolished. Events are on an ordained course.  Chic policy planning will not prevent the pain of a crumpling hierarchy.
If you have any doubt about the patriotic nature of the Tea Party, .

The Tea Party is a revolt from elitism. Liberty is the ultimate cherished personal goal that is a core reason for the founding of America. Take the noble Santelli’s words to the next level. “How many of you people want to pay for the insolvency of a thoroughly corrupt system that benefits a select few and enslave the many? To this end, Tea Party goers need to dump the entire ship of state into the sea.