But Philadelphia is more specific, and a bellweather for things to come, but not good things. Like many in the country's metropolitan regions, there is a fear-base self-pity allergy of psuedo-xenophobia. This virus brings on the belief, however misfigured, that government is the source of all its problems, that we need to take government back, that we need less government while we're at it, and let people have the individual, or states have the indivdual, right to live and plan their life as they please, that we should in essence let the "strong survive", while the weak try to figure out or even understand their most basic of benefits or social covenants we as a nation long before FDR or even Abraham Lincoln swore that we would to ourselves give, that we would feed the poor, take care of the sick, and provide for the elderly. That we will take care and educate our children, and give families something to live for and build upon. No, we were not promised we would be rich. A few of us were promised 40 acres and a mule that was never received. A few more of us have treaties with our government which includes social and economic covenants we owed them, that have not all been fulfilled. We've also made promises to others, like those we have defeated, like Japan. Those for which we should never have been involved, like Iraq. Like many others for which we give billions in foreign aid, for purposes not all intended as good for them or for us citizens, that take our jobs away for lower pay and corporate greed. Corporations that often are from our country, and employ and are run by people like these Tea Partiers, or others like you.
Somewhere in the escape to suburbia in the late 1960s, the suburban populace, who previously thought themselves immune to the problems of the cities they left, realized that there was no escape from social progress. They had trouble reconciling with social change - change that they knew was long overdue, and now threatened to topple their lock on world dominance. It showed its worth for the first time in the early 1970s - the emergence of an post-colonial African bloc of nations blocking legislation in the U.N., and the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 cutting off oil to the West. It was seen again in 1979 with the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran, which spread fear that was no doubt particularly felt in the American Jewish community.
By the time of Reagan, this particular subgroup of America, the "silent majority", started enuciating their views openly on the government giving perceived preference to people with whom these folks do not feel they share a "heritage". A problem within that thinking is what, or whom they think they are, with respect to this "heritage". It is ironic, and a smack in the face, to watch lower-class ethnic Europeans (that would be you Italians, Irish, Jews and Poles that came to America between 1860-1920s) think that their "heritage" is being threatened by those of other desents, whether that be African, Native American, Mexican, or whatever that is not them. To the extent that, in 2010, they feel even more threatened and emboldened to set up vigilante shops where they can express their unhappiness towards all the classic conservative pitches, with in addition blaming all the woes of a superpower going mad since its sole ascendency in 1990 on one black man who becomes president a year and a half ago. Too much government is taking too much from us, we need less government, less regulation, more conservatism (which will likely evolve into less tolerance), even more than their GOP can deliver.
IF we have too little government, my question is who will protect us from them?
The Contract From America, which is being created Wiki-style by Internet contributors as a The Tea Party is being very careful not to ignite these fires, at least for now. Their Contract From America, a manifesto of what “the people” want government to do, mentions little in the way of social issues, beyond a declaration that parents should be given choice in how to educate their children. By contrast, the document it aims to improve upon — the Contract With America, which Republicans used to market their successful campaign to win a majority in Congress in 1994 — was prefaced with the promise that the party would lead a Congress that “respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.”
Tea Party leaders argue that the country can ill afford the discussion about social issues when it is passing on enormous debts to future generations. But the focus is also strategic: leaders think they can attract independent voters if they stay away from divisive issues.
“We should be creating the biggest tent possible around the economic conservative issue,” said Ryan Hecker, the organizer behind the Contract From America. “I think social issues may matter to particular individuals, but at the end of the day, the movement should be agnostic about it. This movement rose largely because the GOP failed to deliver on the party's core economic conservative ideology. To include social issues would be beside the point.”
As the Tea Party pushes to change the Republican Party, the purity they demand of candidates may have more to do with economic conservatism than social conservatism. Some Tea Party groups, for instance, have declined to endorse J. D. Hayworth, who has claimed the mantle of a fiscal conservative, in the Republican Senate primary in Arizona. But these groups find his record in Congress no more fiscally responsible than the man he seeks to oust, John McCain.
The Tea Party defines economic conservatism more strictly than most Republicans in Congress would. The Tea Party wants to do away with earmarks. The Contract, for example, includes a proposal to scrap the tax code and limit it to 4,543 words (same as the number in the original Constitution). It proposes capping growth in federal spending to inflation plus the percentage of population growth, and require a two-thirds majority for any tax increase.
Social issues still pack a wallop: a group of Democrats opposed to abortion rights could determine the fate of health care legislation in the House.
Experts like Lisa McGirr, a professor of history at Harvard and author of “Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right,” say that the Tea Party uses a kind of code to talk about social values. For instance, to emphasize a return to the strict meaning of the Constitution, they interpret that as a return to a Christian foundation. “When they talk about returning to the values of the Founding Fathers" she says, "they are talking about life as a social issue.”
Tea Party leaders champion states’ rights, holding dear the Tenth Amendment, which restricts the role of the federal government. An Independence Caucus questionnaire asks candidates for their views on Wickard v. Filburn, a SCOTUS decision that Tea Party groups say has been used to vastly expand federal powers. Interesting, Roe v. Wade, which superceded federal power over what had been up to the states to decide as a health and welfare issue within their own state and totally within the purview and intent of the Constitution for the states to regulate, does not come up. So while some may oppose gay marriage or abortion, the Tea Party realizes that these issues can be assumed desirable to their target market than enunciated as the party's policy (via code as noted) and avoid social divisiveness which could break ranks. Surveys have shown, such as the one conducted by the Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based Tea Party-friendly conservative organization, that the most important issues are the budget, the economy, and jobs. The Tea Party has learned from MoveOn.org and built its numbers online, focusing on economic conservatism issues which are core to its base and appealing to newcomers.
"Raising social issues risks fracturing the strength it has built. “Every social issue you bring in, you’re adding planks to your mission, and planks become splinters” ~ Frank Anderson, Independence Caucus of Utah.
With an African-American President in office, they're careful not to infuse race. But with time they will have to weigh in somehow on social issues like racial justice, especially in areas of economics, housing and employment. Money for housing will likely be a thorny issue, with the recent sub-prime mess receiving a lot of mis-coding for who is the bad guy. Some blamed it on people who couldn't afford the houses taking on more debt than they were 'entitled' to. This almost surely suggests minorities, illegal aliens, and people from other parts of the world who immigrated here (but are not European) who are sapping up our limited resources. In fact, too much of the sub-prime debt can be blamed on the finance industry itself, who gave money away, and those in higher income brakets who were buying million-dollar-plus homes in florida, las vegas, and california, and even new york city and DC, who then defaulted. This is in no small part the culprit in its hardest-hit places (Vegas, Miami/South Florida, Phoenix AZ), yet minorities in Detroit and North Philadelphia, who were not as easily able to capitalize on all this sub-prime money as their wealthier suburban neighbors, did not get the benefit. But, they are still blamed.
Unexpected support for gay marriage, and likely the growing acceptance of medical marijuana laws being passed in state after state, show the American public is most comfortable with a live and let-live social policy for coexisting with its neighbors. That still leaves a lot of problems undealt with, but at least our right to live pretty much in the level that we've become accostomed to, while eroding somewhat, is not denied to us. It seems cruel that so many Americans, after all we've been through to get to this point, and after all the failures of not just the last but preceding Republican Presidents to convince the populace that less government is better - it is NOT. People in a large, advanced and complex Earth society like ours needs some level of responsible and working government. It needs laws that protects its people, all of them, on a national, not state, level. The founding fathers formed this nation in an era of colonies and horse-drawn carriages, with mail carriers on horseback bringing the news and communication at its advanced level of the day. Their perception, and I give credit to our lawmakers for still sticking with successfully, could not have contemplated all that we now know as normal. They didn't have to - they knew that too. They intentionally created a flexible, a "living document". We should honor their intent by moving the original contract with America the way they intended: rationally, flexibly and forward.
Avoiding or trying to avoid voicing opinion on social subjects of interest so as not to take an opposing position that will likely alienate supporters is a highwire act of political proportions. The time will eventually arrive when one of them, perhaps an elected official of a township or city or state lesgislator, is asked to weigh in on a vote in their jurisdiction. By then, they will have to calibrate their message so as to rally their base but the message will be so narrow that they will not be able to avert the possibly of alienating their larger audience. Taking the highwire to balance is still yet to be one of their tricker moves yet.
Avoiding social issues can get Democrats over. People who are registered Democrats because of abortion are also totally freaking out about the debt. The strategy is not to appear too rigid, but more fiscally-conservative, but the hidden agendas on social issues are still there. The question for you voters is simple: Can you trust them?
