Stalin murdered tens of millions of innocent people.
Frank Rich comparing conservatives to Stalinists is as bad as the tea party protesters comparing Obama to Hitler.
Rich might have some salient points in his article, but when it comes to partisans racheting up the hate-filled rhetoric, he seems to be a part of the problem.
T-Steel
· 1 month ago
I have to agree with JSpencer and DaGoat. Comparing our political leaders even in indirect ways to evil wackaroons such as Stalin, Hitler, Guevara, and Chairman Mao just makes things too nasty (as well as not being true). 'Nuff said on that.
The GOP has a big problem. Some Republicans feel that by default, 2010 will be their year because of the Democratic controlled Congress health care fights and Obama's struggles in certain areas. I disagree. The GOP has a growing political and ideological "insurgency" in their ranks. This political insurgency wants purity of belief and ideas. And they don't tolerate any whiff of "leftism" or "Democratism". Many conservatives here in Georgia (who have voted Republican) would happily watch the GOP go down in flames for one of their "own" to get into a political office. And the GOP can't comfortably corral them at this time. Since I'm a "third partier", I absolutely love this political insurgency in the GOP. I wish one would happen in the Democratic party as well. But the Democrats seems to have more stable ship at the moment.
JSpencer
· 1 month ago
With the exception of the Stalinist comment, Frank Rich is right smack on the money.
DaGoat
· 1 month ago
With the exception of the Stalinist comment, Frank Rich is right smack on the money.
I agree, the GOP seems intent on shooting itself in the foot. Unfortunately the headline cheapens the message, haven't we had enough of hyperbolic comparisons to murderous dictators?
kathykattenburg
· 1 month ago
Which leaves you and Frank Rich with what insight, exactly?
Exactly the one offered before, which is clearly too uncomfortable for you to address.
jchem
· 1 month ago
So let's get this straight. Folks had a great time over the summer comparing Obama and the democrats to Nazis and we were treated to numerous posts here on this site talking about how low political discourse has become. Why, a simple google shows you didn't much like it and posted so here (as just one of many examples). Now, you and the left embrace the idea put forth by Rich that the Right are a bunch of Stalinists? Seriously?
During the late 1930s, Stalin launched the Great Purge (also known as the "Great Terror"), a campaign to purge the Communist Party of people accused of sabotage, terrorism, or treachery; he extended it to the military and other sectors of Soviet society. Targets were often executed, imprisoned in Gulag labor camps or exiled. In the years following, millions of ethnic minorities were also deported....Researchers before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union attempting to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.
In your post, you wrote "The right’s tactics in upstate New York are another illustration of a central paradox about the contemporary GOP — its tendency to mirror that which it supposedly reviles". How is what you are doing any different?
Polimom
· 1 month ago
I agree with Elrod about the tea partiers. The movement seems to be awash in paranoia and conspiracy theorists.
The Tea Party movement is nearly synchronous with the capital L Libertarians. Not sure why they don't just take the label and move on. Everything from abolishing the Fed to the paranoia is already firmly established in the Libertarian party. No need for a different party.
Of course, the edgy, slightly unhingedness of the Libertarians is largely why they've never gotten off the ground as a viable political power.
nicrivera
· 1 month ago
Of course, the edgy, slightly unhingedness of the Libertarians is largely why they've never gotten off the ground as a viable political power.
Or it could also be the draconian ballot access laws that Democrats and Republicans have imposed to prevent third party candidates from getting on the ballot in all fifty states.
Or it could also be the fact that the cable news networks have Democrats and Republicans spouting Democratic and Republican talking points every single day of the week whereas Libertarians are invited onto the cable news networks perhaps a couple times a year.
The Libertarian Party has its fare share of conspiracy theorists, but I'd rather take my chances with some "slightly unhinged" Libertarian activist who is fighting for my freedoms than some "seriously unhinged" Democrat or Republican who would put me in prison for commiting any number of victimless crimes.
Obama and McCain have both vowed to continue fighting the War on Drugs, a government program that essentially spends billions of dollars each year to arrest people for smoking pot.
Talk about unhinged.
Polimom
· 1 month ago
Nic -- The vast majority of people that I choose to associate with here call themselves Republicans. However, they are (mostly) socially liberal (or at least tolerant). Libertarian candidates should do very well here -- but in the last election, the Libertarians had a candidate in nearly every race. Guess how many won?
Zero.
Those Libertarian candidates all sounded exactly like their Republican opponents. Only one of them seemed able to distinguish himself, or his party, from the GOP -- and he had no money behind him at all. (I sent him some.)
Getting on the ballot for anything other than president isn't hard to do. There is, however, no coherent message getting out at all.
And although I suspect you and I are on the same side of this discussion, I don't think it serves anyone well to minimize the kookiness the party has attracted over the years.
nicrivera
· 1 month ago
Those Libertarian candidates all sounded exactly like their Republican opponents.
That's because the Libertarian candidates (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root), were former Republicans who--for all intents and purposes--ran on Republican platforms. There were actually four genuinely libertarian candidates during the Libertarian convention (Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Mike Jingozian), but Libertarian delegates, in all their infinite wisdom (or should I say idiocy) decided to vote for the two candidates who were more well known to the public but--sadly--were far less principled.
None of this changes the likelihood that the Libertarian Party was unlikely to garner more than 1% of the vote even if they had chosen principled candidates. The political system and the media is biased against third party candidates in general.
Getting on the ballot for anything other than president isn't hard to do.
For Democrats and Republicans it sure ain't. They're assured ballot access year after year since they never fail to garner less than 5% in statewide elections. Libertarians and third party candidates, on the other hand, generally have to hire people to collect the 50,000 to 100,000 signature needed to attain ballot access as well as the lawyers needed to make certain that Democrats and Republicans comply with their own ballot access laws.
For third party presidential candidates, this is something that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I imagine it wouldn't cost so much for a third party congressional candidate who only has to obtain ballot access in a single state.
TheMagicalSkyFather
· 1 month ago
It could also be that the Libertarian party tends to advertise itself as Repub lite and does not push out what would be its more popular messages like an end to the war on drugs. Of course they do this in my opinion because they are not intended to ever be a party but a release valve for unhappy GOPers in any given election cycle which is also why in GOP weak elections they tend to run ex-GOPers for the presidency. The Green party is utterly ignored but they do not seem to be owned by the Dems nor the GOP but though I love and respect Libertarians the Libertarian party has only its leaders to blame for their lack of success considering since the 1990's they have ran off many of my friends by talking libertarian while discussing rolling back abortion and gay rights and other things that would make your joe average libertarian realize that the party has little to do with liberty other than economic.
nicrivera
· 1 month ago
It could also be that the Libertarian party tends to advertise itself as Repub lite and does not push out what would be its more popular messages like an end to the war on drugs...
Then again, if a Libertarian who wants to legalize marijuana runs against a Democrat who wants to keep marijuana illegal, and you vote for the Democrat, who ends up winning the election...aren't YOU the one who is at fault?
It's all about principles and priorities. A lot of "liberals" claim they're for freedom and tolerance, but at the end of the day, they'd rather vote for a Democrat who promises to give them universal health care than a Libertarian who promises to end the War on Drugs and other ridiculous victimless crime laws.
TheMagicalSkyFather
· 1 month ago
I would agree but I have never seen that happen. Ron Paul was considered an "extremist" by Libertarian party higher ups which I find a bit horrifying but he was the first time that I heard "libertarian" linked with an end to the war on drugs from anyone running for office. If they acted like they believed in Liberty and actually ran that way they could possibly pick up more voters that are even currently on the left but they run as either the economic liberty party(which means nothing to someone with little to no economic pull) or Republican lite. At least the Greens run as CRAZY. They do not mince words nor really try to attract people by dulling the message but this is also why they are ignored since they are not considered a valid release valve.
nicrivera
· 1 month ago
Ron Paul was considered an "extremist" by Libertarian party higher ups which I find a bit horrifying but he was the first time that I heard "libertarian" linked with an end to the war on drugs from anyone running for office.
Ron Paul was the first time you heard "libertarian" linked to ending the war on drugs from anyone running for office???
Forgive me, but I find that absolutely baffling. Ending the War on Drugs has been a part of the Libertarian Party's platform since the party was formed in 1971. In fact, it is probably THE signature issue for which they known for.
I'm curious about how much you actually know about libertarianism or the Libertarian Party.
TheMagicalSkyFather
· 1 month ago
Most of my friends growing up and their families were libertarians so much of my info from the 80's/90's came through them and the only part of the drug war they discussed was weed which is only a small part of the problem in my opinion. Then around 2000 my friends and their families began to become very disillusioned by the party when they went soft social conservative(they all live in IN where it played well though not for them).
Then I waited after the Patriot Act for the Libertarians to go batsh*t and...nothing, well that is not true. I heard nothing from their party but a good deal of info from libertarian voters, unfortunately they felt at the time that the Lib party had been taken over by the Repub party which is why they were actually falling away from its libertarian principles, at the time they showed me many websites videos and documentation to prove their points but I really do not remember much of them since I had no interest in the party at the time. Then around 2007 or so I began being Ron Pauled on comment strings. Meaning I was forced to debate reality(its much like being Chomskied) though neither Dem Rep live in reality and therefore our political system from that viewpoint is very difficult to defend when real tangible options may exist. It was at this point that I actually became very interested in libertarianism but it was through RP. My specific sticking point was and still remains corporations, they are collectivist creations of gov that have all of the negatives of big gov while being utterly unregulated and unbound in such a system but I was quickly corrected since being inventions of gov they as well would go away. Do not get me wrong they should be created when in the public interest once that is no longer the case though they should be dissolved. That is when I came into the fold and actually backed and contributed to RP until he was basically done then I switched to Obama who was my second choice. This is my very long way of saying if the Libertarian party could run like RP did they would have my vote in a second, but when they have ex-Repubs as their representatives I already know the score, an end to regulating corps and a continuation of corps regulating our gov.
My knowledge of Libs runs from 2004 or so forward but of its supporters and their frustrations back to the late 80's. I did not get out of high school until the early 90's so I only have so much knowledge of the more obscure parties histories for example the Green party was totally off my radar until 2000 and that was only because I am a fan of some of Nader's work in the 70's. The reason I have any knowledge of the Constitution Party and Libertarian party is because I grew up in a dark red area of IN. I do remember the 2008 Libertarian candidate though which I took as a rather funny joke.
ProfElwood
· 1 month ago
I'm still in Indiana, but a bluer part now. I learned of the Libertarians during the Perot race. I was supporting Perot until I found out that he was asking for relief from a major tax debt, and that much of this money was earned from the government. I found the Libertarians in Indianapolis and supported them for many years. They were always against the drug war, corporate welfare, and well, just about everything congress was coming up with. They were going crazy against the Patriot act when it came out, and they went with Bob Barr only because Ron Paul was running for the Republican nomination and was contractually prevented from running for the Libertarians. Bob Barr got a big black mark for snubbing RP once -- I read an article on the LP site from a supporter that said that he would reluctantly vote for Barr, but not really support him otherwise, because of it.
TheMagicalSkyFather
· 1 month ago
I hit "comment" and then thought of a better way to explain. I am not actually much interested in politics but I am a history geek which gives me a wealth of knowledge about Dems, Reps and Whigs in this country and other political systems that have been tried but thats about it. Hence why I did not know that Libertarianism has a built in safety valve for that nasty mega-corp problem I was so concerned about. Of course libertarian economic ideas mixed with conservative social ideas is not something I would ever vote for though.
elrod
· 1 month ago
JeffDavis, My apologies to you - I certainly don't mean to insult everybody in the Tea Party movement. But I do think its aims are ephemeral for the most part. The two party system, for good or for ill, is going to stay with us as long as we have a winner-takes-all Constitution. And while I recognize the frustration of the Tea Party movement - the concern over deficits is one I share - I just don't see the arch-libertarian response as any more sensible than, say, a move toward genuine socialism (which I also don't support). In other words, I hear lots of unrealistic calls from the far left and far right that accurately diagnose the problem but don't really offer workable solutions.
Take the Fed, for example. No doubt about it, the Federal Reserve should be audited. But the notion that abolishing it (a key demand among many in the Tea Party movement) would bring more financial stability is silly. Our economy was already too global and complicated in 1907 to handle the existing specie-based system. By now, calls for abolishing the Fed are about as sensible as disbanding the US army.
What turns me off about the Tea Party movement, frankly, is the paranoia. And, for the record, I despise the paranoia on the left as well - the extreme anti-neocon/Bush conspiracies were as outrageous as are the anti-Obama ones. I watched the town hall protests on C-SPAN and couldn't get past that wild-eyed look of paranoia from so many of the protesters. When offered evidence that their fears were unfounded, they just doubled down and screamed "Liar," without offering any evidence that they were being lied to.
Does the Tea Party movement represent anything more than slogans? Is it just a plan by ex-GOPers like Dick Armey to get back in power again and do exactly what they did when ruled Congress from 1995 to 2007? How serious are the Tea Partiers about cutting military spending?
I'm still trying to figure out how the goals of the movement are translatable to real policy solutions.
T-Steel
· 1 month ago
"Does the Tea Party movement represent anything more than slogans?"
I share that concern even though I support the Tea Party Movement in spirit. Ross Perot, like him or not, did present policy solutions as an Independent. And your right Elrod, there is a sizable amount of wide-eyed paranoia involved in the movement as well. The key to a strong and viable third party is concrete solutions, charismatic candidates (charisma matters whether you like it or not), the ability to include rather than exclude, and or course money (yuck but oh well). I know long time Democrats and Republicans across all colors who are completely turned off on the Big 2. And a strong third party needs to be able to bring all those folks together. And right now, the current Tea Party Movement hasn't done that much. BUT I like the energy. And I think the more energized voters get in terms of looking at a third party as not crazy, then we will be on the path. But it will be up to that third party to not look crazy.
elrod
· 1 month ago
Actually, Tyrone, a similar movement happened in the Democratic Party just a couple years ago. Remember Howard Dean? Remember Kos's "Crashing the Gate"? Conservatives aren't mirroring "Stalinists" in purging moderates from the party. They're mirroring progressives, who kicked out the DLCers and the Lieberdems from the Democratic Party - all the while running comfortably Blue Dogish candidates in conservative districts (where anti-Bush revulsion pushed them over the top).
Don't get me wrong - I think the tea party crowd is utterly devoid of political sense, common sense, policy sense or any historical sense. In a word, I think they are idiots. But I don't think their push to run right-wing conservatives in primaries - or as third parties - is a bad idea. In fact, if they really do think big government is a disaster then they SHOULD be purging the GOP, considering that when the Republicans held total power they expanded the government. At least it makes the tea partiers consistent.
The bigger problem the tea partiers run into is that their agenda is based on a fictional reading of the economy and the populace. People are indeed "fed up." And they don't like the bailouts, or the deficits. But other than doctrinaire Hayek or Rand or Mises ideas - which no more than a tiny fraction of Americans subscribe to - what exactly do the tea partiers propose as a solution?
JeffersonDavis
· 1 month ago
I guess that means that the DNC practiced "Stalinism" first? LOL
And, brother Elrod.... Don't be so quick to prejudge the Tea Party crowd. I'm one of them. I know you didn't mean "all" of them (I'm not the type that parses words like that); but I'd like to think that I don't fit the mold you described.
Most of the folks I met at the tea parties were regular "joes", who do not have a masters degree in economics or political science. They do, however, recognize a raw deal when they see one. They all had one thing in common - a dislike for Bush and Obama.
The solution? A disolution of parties in general. The two party system and the lack of Constitutional rule are the root of all tea party mindsets (IMHO). These people (and myself) feel totally unrepresented by any party. The election of a President that does not come from "the system" in DC would satisfy most of them, even if he/she failed miserably. It would "shut them up" for a while.
Chip Silicon
· 1 month ago
Yes, nothing says "Stalinism" quite like a political neophyte challenging his party's organization in an open, free election.
kathykattenburg
· 1 month ago
That's not the part of this that's Stalinist, as I'm sure you know if you read my post and Rich's column. Your comment is very dishonest.
kathykattenburg
· 1 month ago
Rich is saying that the far right tends to attack Democrats and liberals for being too far left, or socialist, or Communist, using tactics reminiscent of an extreme form (Stalinism) of that very ideology (Communism, socialism) it's accusing Democrats of following.
The irony, the paradox, lies in the mirroring of tactics commonly associated with the very ideology they condemn -- not the fact that they might call any particular Democrat a Stalinist or a Nazi.
Chip Silicon
· 1 month ago
Nothing that I said is either factually incorrect or inappropriate to the subject at hand. You clearly know nothing at all about Stalin, and have added nothing to Frank Rich's incoherent diatribe in your "post."
Doug Hoffman entered the election because he didn't think there was a useful difference between the two major-party candidates. Now that Scozzafava has endorsed the Democrat, it's clear to all that he was quite correct. Which leaves you and Frank Rich with what insight, exactly?
kathykattenburg
· 1 month ago
I'm just curious: If Frank Rich had used the word "totalitarian" instead of "Stalinist," would that have seemed less hyperbolic?
nicrivera
· 1 month ago
I'm just curious: If Frank Rich had used the word "totalitarian" instead of "Stalinist," would that have seemed less hyperbolic?
Yeah, it probably would have flown over better. Totalitarian, while used as an epithet, is more vague, and unlike "Nazi" or "Stalinist", it doesn't necessarily have the connotation of being sympathetic to have political opponents or "undesirables" killed off.
Though the term "totalitarian" is pretty hyperbolic in and of itself. I've used the term "authoritarian" before, but only in cases in which I was referring to specific people or policies that I believed showed an extremely low tolerance for freedom.
The problem with Rich using the term in this particular instance is that he's referring to a large group of people. I find it hard to believe that he understands the political philosophies of all of these people well enough to call them "totalitarians." And whatever you think of their "purging" tactics, it is an extremely bold statement to compare their actions with those of true "Stalinists."
All Comments
Frank Rich comparing conservatives to Stalinists is as bad as the tea party protesters comparing Obama to Hitler.
Rich might have some salient points in his article, but when it comes to partisans racheting up the hate-filled rhetoric, he seems to be a part of the problem.
The GOP has a big problem. Some Republicans feel that by default, 2010 will be their year because of the Democratic controlled Congress health care fights and Obama's struggles in certain areas. I disagree. The GOP has a growing political and ideological "insurgency" in their ranks. This political insurgency wants purity of belief and ideas. And they don't tolerate any whiff of "leftism" or "Democratism". Many conservatives here in Georgia (who have voted Republican) would happily watch the GOP go down in flames for one of their "own" to get into a political office. And the GOP can't comfortably corral them at this time. Since I'm a "third partier", I absolutely love this political insurgency in the GOP. I wish one would happen in the Democratic party as well. But the Democrats seems to have more stable ship at the moment.
I agree, the GOP seems intent on shooting itself in the foot. Unfortunately the headline cheapens the message, haven't we had enough of hyperbolic comparisons to murderous dictators?
Exactly the one offered before, which is clearly too uncomfortable for you to address.
During the late 1930s, Stalin launched the Great Purge (also known as the "Great Terror"), a campaign to purge the Communist Party of people accused of sabotage, terrorism, or treachery; he extended it to the military and other sectors of Soviet society. Targets were often executed, imprisoned in Gulag labor camps or exiled. In the years following, millions of ethnic minorities were also deported....Researchers before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union attempting to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.
In your post, you wrote "The right’s tactics in upstate New York are another illustration of a central paradox about the contemporary GOP — its tendency to mirror that which it supposedly reviles". How is what you are doing any different?
The Tea Party movement is nearly synchronous with the capital L Libertarians. Not sure why they don't just take the label and move on. Everything from abolishing the Fed to the paranoia is already firmly established in the Libertarian party. No need for a different party.
Of course, the edgy, slightly unhingedness of the Libertarians is largely why they've never gotten off the ground as a viable political power.
Or it could also be the fact that the cable news networks have Democrats and Republicans spouting Democratic and Republican talking points every single day of the week whereas Libertarians are invited onto the cable news networks perhaps a couple times a year.
The Libertarian Party has its fare share of conspiracy theorists, but I'd rather take my chances with some "slightly unhinged" Libertarian activist who is fighting for my freedoms than some "seriously unhinged" Democrat or Republican who would put me in prison for commiting any number of victimless crimes.
Obama and McCain have both vowed to continue fighting the War on Drugs, a government program that essentially spends billions of dollars each year to arrest people for smoking pot.
Talk about unhinged.
Zero.
Those Libertarian candidates all sounded exactly like their Republican opponents. Only one of them seemed able to distinguish himself, or his party, from the GOP -- and he had no money behind him at all. (I sent him some.)
Getting on the ballot for anything other than president isn't hard to do. There is, however, no coherent message getting out at all.
And although I suspect you and I are on the same side of this discussion, I don't think it serves anyone well to minimize the kookiness the party has attracted over the years.
None of this changes the likelihood that the Libertarian Party was unlikely to garner more than 1% of the vote even if they had chosen principled candidates. The political system and the media is biased against third party candidates in general.For Democrats and Republicans it sure ain't. They're assured ballot access year after year since they never fail to garner less than 5% in statewide elections. Libertarians and third party candidates, on the other hand, generally have to hire people to collect the 50,000 to 100,000 signature needed to attain ballot access as well as the lawyers needed to make certain that Democrats and Republicans comply with their own ballot access laws.
For third party presidential candidates, this is something that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I imagine it wouldn't cost so much for a third party congressional candidate who only has to obtain ballot access in a single state.
It's all about principles and priorities. A lot of "liberals" claim they're for freedom and tolerance, but at the end of the day, they'd rather vote for a Democrat who promises to give them universal health care than a Libertarian who promises to end the War on Drugs and other ridiculous victimless crime laws.
Forgive me, but I find that absolutely baffling. Ending the War on Drugs has been a part of the Libertarian Party's platform since the party was formed in 1971. In fact, it is probably THE signature issue for which they known for.
I'm curious about how much you actually know about libertarianism or the Libertarian Party.
Then I waited after the Patriot Act for the Libertarians to go batsh*t and...nothing, well that is not true. I heard nothing from their party but a good deal of info from libertarian voters, unfortunately they felt at the time that the Lib party had been taken over by the Repub party which is why they were actually falling away from its libertarian principles, at the time they showed me many websites videos and documentation to prove their points but I really do not remember much of them since I had no interest in the party at the time. Then around 2007 or so I began being Ron Pauled on comment strings. Meaning I was forced to debate reality(its much like being Chomskied) though neither Dem Rep live in reality and therefore our political system from that viewpoint is very difficult to defend when real tangible options may exist. It was at this point that I actually became very interested in libertarianism but it was through RP. My specific sticking point was and still remains corporations, they are collectivist creations of gov that have all of the negatives of big gov while being utterly unregulated and unbound in such a system but I was quickly corrected since being inventions of gov they as well would go away. Do not get me wrong they should be created when in the public interest once that is no longer the case though they should be dissolved. That is when I came into the fold and actually backed and contributed to RP until he was basically done then I switched to Obama who was my second choice. This is my very long way of saying if the Libertarian party could run like RP did they would have my vote in a second, but when they have ex-Repubs as their representatives I already know the score, an end to regulating corps and a continuation of corps regulating our gov.
My knowledge of Libs runs from 2004 or so forward but of its supporters and their frustrations back to the late 80's. I did not get out of high school until the early 90's so I only have so much knowledge of the more obscure parties histories for example the Green party was totally off my radar until 2000 and that was only because I am a fan of some of Nader's work in the 70's. The reason I have any knowledge of the Constitution Party and Libertarian party is because I grew up in a dark red area of IN. I do remember the 2008 Libertarian candidate though which I took as a rather funny joke.
My apologies to you - I certainly don't mean to insult everybody in the Tea Party movement. But I do think its aims are ephemeral for the most part. The two party system, for good or for ill, is going to stay with us as long as we have a winner-takes-all Constitution. And while I recognize the frustration of the Tea Party movement - the concern over deficits is one I share - I just don't see the arch-libertarian response as any more sensible than, say, a move toward genuine socialism (which I also don't support). In other words, I hear lots of unrealistic calls from the far left and far right that accurately diagnose the problem but don't really offer workable solutions.
Take the Fed, for example. No doubt about it, the Federal Reserve should be audited. But the notion that abolishing it (a key demand among many in the Tea Party movement) would bring more financial stability is silly. Our economy was already too global and complicated in 1907 to handle the existing specie-based system. By now, calls for abolishing the Fed are about as sensible as disbanding the US army.
What turns me off about the Tea Party movement, frankly, is the paranoia. And, for the record, I despise the paranoia on the left as well - the extreme anti-neocon/Bush conspiracies were as outrageous as are the anti-Obama ones. I watched the town hall protests on C-SPAN and couldn't get past that wild-eyed look of paranoia from so many of the protesters. When offered evidence that their fears were unfounded, they just doubled down and screamed "Liar," without offering any evidence that they were being lied to.
Does the Tea Party movement represent anything more than slogans? Is it just a plan by ex-GOPers like Dick Armey to get back in power again and do exactly what they did when ruled Congress from 1995 to 2007? How serious are the Tea Partiers about cutting military spending?
I'm still trying to figure out how the goals of the movement are translatable to real policy solutions.
I share that concern even though I support the Tea Party Movement in spirit. Ross Perot, like him or not, did present policy solutions as an Independent. And your right Elrod, there is a sizable amount of wide-eyed paranoia involved in the movement as well. The key to a strong and viable third party is concrete solutions, charismatic candidates (charisma matters whether you like it or not), the ability to include rather than exclude, and or course money (yuck but oh well). I know long time Democrats and Republicans across all colors who are completely turned off on the Big 2. And a strong third party needs to be able to bring all those folks together. And right now, the current Tea Party Movement hasn't done that much. BUT I like the energy. And I think the more energized voters get in terms of looking at a third party as not crazy, then we will be on the path. But it will be up to that third party to not look crazy.
Don't get me wrong - I think the tea party crowd is utterly devoid of political sense, common sense, policy sense or any historical sense. In a word, I think they are idiots. But I don't think their push to run right-wing conservatives in primaries - or as third parties - is a bad idea. In fact, if they really do think big government is a disaster then they SHOULD be purging the GOP, considering that when the Republicans held total power they expanded the government. At least it makes the tea partiers consistent.
The bigger problem the tea partiers run into is that their agenda is based on a fictional reading of the economy and the populace. People are indeed "fed up." And they don't like the bailouts, or the deficits. But other than doctrinaire Hayek or Rand or Mises ideas - which no more than a tiny fraction of Americans subscribe to - what exactly do the tea partiers propose as a solution?
LOL
And, brother Elrod.... Don't be so quick to prejudge the Tea Party crowd. I'm one of them. I know you didn't mean "all" of them (I'm not the type that parses words like that); but I'd like to think that I don't fit the mold you described.
Most of the folks I met at the tea parties were regular "joes", who do not have a masters degree in economics or political science. They do, however, recognize a raw deal when they see one. They all had one thing in common - a dislike for Bush and Obama.
The solution? A disolution of parties in general. The two party system and the lack of Constitutional rule are the root of all tea party mindsets (IMHO). These people (and myself) feel totally unrepresented by any party. The election of a President that does not come from "the system" in DC would satisfy most of them, even if he/she failed miserably. It would "shut them up" for a while.
The irony, the paradox, lies in the mirroring of tactics commonly associated with the very ideology they condemn -- not the fact that they might call any particular Democrat a Stalinist or a Nazi.
Doug Hoffman entered the election because he didn't think there was a useful difference between the two major-party candidates. Now that Scozzafava has endorsed the Democrat, it's clear to all that he was quite correct. Which leaves you and Frank Rich with what insight, exactly?
Though the term "totalitarian" is pretty hyperbolic in and of itself. I've used the term "authoritarian" before, but only in cases in which I was referring to specific people or policies that I believed showed an extremely low tolerance for freedom.
The problem with Rich using the term in this particular instance is that he's referring to a large group of people. I find it hard to believe that he understands the political philosophies of all of these people well enough to call them "totalitarians." And whatever you think of their "purging" tactics, it is an extremely bold statement to compare their actions with those of true "Stalinists."