"We do not touch social issues, typically speaking, because once we do that's when you lose people, divide people." So announced Amy Kremer from the stage last month's Tea Party Convention.
Kremer knows well the fragility of her kinda-movement, with all of its internecine squabbles: She's the organizer of Tea Party Express -- a nation-wide anti-tax bus tour -- even while being sued by Tea Party Patriots, of which she was a former board member.
The power of the Tea Party as such -- if such a thing exists "as such" -- has been overblown, but the attention it's getting is indeed indicative of a broader populist angst of which incumbents surely must take heed.
The funders of the Tea Party are of the intransigent far right, but it's imprudent to dismiss all of the popular consternation -- and every person who's attended a rally or who voted for Ron Paul -- as essentially reactionary. Most tellingly, polls consistently show a plurality of independents holding a favorable opinion of the movement's aims. (As a former Green, I've had quite a few conversations with people who voted for Nader in 2000 or 2004, and then Paul in 2008. While I think they were misguided, those votes were expressing something very different than the Left's caricature of the underpinnings of contemporary popular angst.)
Last month's convention was notable for how much time was devoted to consideration of how to hold together the strong-willed, and frequently headstrong, members of the movement, and maintain surprisingly high levels of legitimacy in the minds of rank-and-file voters. It was rife with lofty platitudes about agreeing to disagree, and pledges to abide by paraphrases of Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of another conservative."
All the more evidence that Democrats can and should break up the party by taking aggressive stands on those issues that'll pry loose social libertarians. And foremost, we should quit locking people up for no good reason.
While most self-identifying right and center-right populists are anti-tax and anti-stimulus (at least until they reap the benefits) many want the government not just out of their pocket books, but out of their social lives altogether. Many prioritize the latter -- concerns to which Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to respond.
We should exploit the opening by passing medical marijuana laws, and decriminalizing marijuana more generally, rolling back blue laws, ceasing to imprison people for sex work, and reducing other forms of social paternalism. (In my state of Rhode Island, this should have meant refusing even to criminalize prostitution, as we did last year after 30 years of legalization; other states are sure to have their own idiosyncrasies.)
Like good Democrats, we'd be doing right by some of our most disenfranchised constituents -- with the bonus that in the process, we'd gain esteem with the civil-libertarian strain that runs at varying depth through the blocs of self-identifying independents and conservatives, and even members of the Tea Party. With more than 2.3 million people in prison at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per head, and millions more moving through the courts each year, we'd be able to increase our claim to the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
Medical marijuana ought to be a given: With a January ABC/Washington Post poll showing nearly 90% of liberals and moderates in support, and nearly 7 out of 10 self-identifying conservatives, there's much for Democrats to gain, and very little to lose. At almost as high a rate -- upwards of 75% -- Americans oppose jailing those arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
There wasn't much scientific polling done on last year's criminalization of prostitution in Rhode Island, but a consistent two thirds of the strongly anti-tax, anti-union, anti-Democratic sorts who tend to answer polls on the Providence Journal's website were against making prostitution illegal -- and even more people opposed incarcerating people for it. As I go campaigning this summer, my stand against putting women in prison will be the first thing I mention to any voter who owns a "Don't Tread on Me" doormat.
Unfortunately, many Democrats seem to be taking all the wrong lessons from the Coakley-Brown debacle in Massachusetts: They're in retreat -- even more risk-averse than usual, and refusing to take stands on (seemingly) controversial issues. But Coakley didn't lose because she wasn't cautious enough. Democrats need to show voters that we have some real fight, and in the realm of criminal justice reform, we can do so by standing by our ideals, even while tapping into the pervasive populist anger and blunting the electoral impact of the right come November.
Socialism, even minimal amounts = dependence = servitude.
The Obamamerican dream for you is an eco-friendly 800 sq ft appartment with a government controlled thermostate and nearby public transportation so you'll have a way to go downtown for your free health care.
If your life's aspirations are higher than that - join a Tea Party.
A simple argument. Wealthy people still get cancer. Their unregulated insurers deny them coverage for treatment. The unregulated hospitals and doctors charge huge fees for providing diagnostics and treatments. Wealthy people suddenly become poor people. This story plays out regularly in the united states. Go unregulated free markets!
A wealthy person buys a house. A more wealthy person buys the neighboring land and builds chemical plants discharging toxic chemicals into the water and soil (only a socialist would prevent them from exercising their rights to do so). The value of the first wealth person's house drops to nothing, hence a large portion of their wealth is gone. The toxins cause illnesses for their entire family but they can't afford to move. Go unregulated free markets!
There will always be someone wealthier and more powerful than you that can control your life, whether you like it or not. Wake up.
Of course he also said things like:
"America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment."
"Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all."
And he believed that every citizen had a duty to the nation and that it wise to seek balance...
"But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."
Please click on the inks and help.
Abolish the ONDCP
http://www.change.org/actions/view/tired_of_being_lied_to_do_away_with_the_drug_czar
Free Henry Walter Wooten, 35 yers for possession of pot is too much!
http://war.change.org/actions/view/free_henry_walter_wooten
Petition for a legal right to use drugs in religion.
http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/to_establish_the_use_of_drugs_licit_or_otherwise_as_a_religious_right_under_law
Thanks
The 6 Basic Principles of the Constitution
1) Popular Sovereignty - The government only has the power to make decisions because the people who are governed by them give them the power to do so but if the government abuses the power that they have been given the people have the right to overthrow their government and change it.
2) Limited Government - The overall theme of this principle is that the government must follow the law. The government must follow all constitutional laws and principles for it to be able to have control over the people and to make decisions.
3) Separation of Powers - This is called a presidential system where the three powers are separated into three distinct and independent branches. Our constitution distributes the powers of the National Government among Congress, the President, and the courts.
4) Checks and Balances - The government is organized around three separate branches.
5) Judicial Review - The power of judicial review is the power of courts to determine whether what government does is in accord with what the constitution provides.
6) Federalism - The principle of federalism is the division of power among a central government and several regional government. By spreading the powers throughout the different states the Framers of the constitution built a stronger, more effective national government while preserving the existing states and the concept
1) on popular sovereignty- We are and have been weakening our government
for a long time. the only way our government can be strong is through
taxes, which come from the healthy, wealthy tax payer. We want to cut
taxes but when we cut taxes we cut out jobs at the post office, a computerized system of taking care of vets, the repair of bridges and interstates and the jobs that go with them. The notion that we don't want bigger government is the notion that all bigger government will be secret agents coming to get our guns. Thats what corporations want you to think because the more they keep government from regulating them, by rendering us (our government) weak the more they have a freehand to do as they please.
3) on seperation of powers- the system was meant to keep us at an even keel, so that all sides were accounted for and could argue their position but we the people, are very little represented anymore because, the government that we are so scared of, is really very weak and over run by corporate lobbyists and the politicians they pay to have elected. Watch and see if those same banks that just raped us gets any vast regulation.
Our government is us. Even the guy that works at the FBI is us, our bro, sis, cousin, and guess what? He aint givin up his guns either!
It is overly complicated and increasingly you need a professional to "do" your taxes.
We must switch to a Fair Tax.
3) The government has pulled all the power to Washington, creating a system that easily corrupted by lobbiest from corporations AND unions.
We need to push the power to govern back to the states for everything that isn't listed as a power of the federal government.
Its the issues not the parties that matter to people who vote for Nader or Paul. They agree on 4 key issues: change of foreign policy (bring the troops home), privacy (repeal the Patriot Act), the deficits (stop spending), and the FED (put FED in control). See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3HwQtLFLbo
Both Obama and McCain really agreed on all of these issues even when Obama was little bit playing the Peace Candidates and saying that Patriot Act should be repealed which of course was complete lie on Obama part as we all now know. People who supported Nader and Paul knew that Obama is not really for Change and they knew and still of course know that Obama and McCain are very similar on real issues.
In this same logic it can be said that this the reason why Dennis Kucinich said that if he would win the Presidential nominee of Dems 2008 he would choose Ron Paul as his running mate as Kucinich and Paul are much more similar than for example Obama and Kucinich. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich_presidential_campaign,_2008#Endorsements_of_other_candidates
Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich 2012!
But the thing that personally annoys me the most is the unconstitutional spying on Americans. There needs to be more people in government that actually respect our privacy rights.
1. The original base that simply wants a balanced budget, end to spending, smaller govt. and constitutionally sound legistlation;
2. The money people. Anything they perceive as a govt attempt to threaten their pots of gold or interferes with increasing the size of that pot is bad, including having to share a portion of that gold with anyone.
3. The nutty faction. There are socialists and communists on every corner, bent on the destruction of the country, seizing your wealth, controlling every aspect of your lives and taking away your freedom.
Sadly, these three factions cannot coexist together as anything more than an angry mob with three seperate contradicting agendas..the only comonalities they share are anger, hatred and selfishness which are little more than a self-destructive mix that forms a poor foundation for any party.
People with that much hate don't deserve to be around sane people.