The Tea Party’s Skin Deep Libertarianism
Jim Geraghty has a great article on the foibles of a movement candidate from Nevada, including one statement that sounds awfully close to an endorsement of prohibition:
The next state likely to experience this phenomenon is Nevada, where Republicans will soon choose a candidate to take on the supremely vulnerable Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. For a long while, the GOP primary looked like a two-candidate race between former state-party chair Sue Lowden and businessman Danny Tarkanian. But then one of the groups claiming to represent the national tea-party movement, Tea Party Express, endorsed former state assemblywoman Sharron Angle, and she has rocketed from 5 percent to 25 percent in the Mason-Dixon poll, just 5 percent behind frontrunner Lowden.
So what will we learn — and see spotlighted — about Sharron Angle if she wins the primary?
When You Outlaw Beer: In a 2005 interview, while discussing the issue of legalizing marijuana, she appeared to suggest that she grudgingly tolerates the legality of alcohol: “I would tell you that I have the same feelings about legalizing marijuana, not medical marijuana, but just legalizing marijuana. I feel the same about legalizing alcohol. . . . The effect on society is so great that I’m just not a real proponent of legalizing any drug or encouraging any drug abuse. . . . I’m elected by the people to protect, and I think that law should protect.” Her spokesman vehemently denies that Angle is a prohibitionist, but one can imagine how that comment could get construed by Nevada restaurant, casino, and bar workers in a heated Senate campaign. (Those restaurant, casino, and bar workers will presumably be reminded by their unions that Angle voted against raising Nevada’s minimum wage in 2005.)
While I am no fan of the Tea Party and I’m 100% okay with legal alcohol and legalized marijuana..I didn’t find her statement that problematic. It’s her opinion. She’s not suggesting a new prohibition. No big deal.Report
Of course, this pattern has not quite repeated itself across the nation.
I am also skeptical of TP Express’s claims to that they represent the movement. I have talked to a few friends who jumped in on the protests rather early on, and have stayed strong with the movement since then. They all detest the Tea Party Express. It seems like the TPE lowers the quality of their rallies – brings in a bunch of red meat and people from out of town they simply don’t trust.Report
as Marc Ambider pointed out a while back a large part of the tea Party are in essence disaffected Republicans who’re pissed with the Republican label. So it’s not surprising that they’re not as libertarian as they were originally portrayed.Report
Yes, the TPers don’t claim to be libertarians, that’s something that was placed on them from outside, people saying they have a libertarian streak — a streak is different than being a libertarian.Report
@Mike Farmer, “Oh, I think I totally have the right to more liberty! It’s you people that don’t. You’ll abuse it!”Report
On a brighter note, DADT is on it’s deathbed. We just need the Senate to stick the knife in and the policy will be put onto a (slow moving) guerny to the mortuary.Report
I’d be a lot more concerned about some TP candidates apparently making repeal of the 17th amendment a campaign issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/kill-the-17th-amendment/57323/Report
@Plinko,
What is wrong with that? It is a great idea.Report
@Scott, And the 22nd. Obama for life!Report
@Scott, Why? It just means that corrupt state governments will appoint Senators.Report
@Barry, Well Barry I’ve always thought that it’d be a lot harder for one to buy off an entire state legislature than it would be to buy off one directly elected senator. Plus state legislators are a lot more closely accountable to voters and if they were responsible for populating the Senate maybe voters would pay a bit more attention to their locale legislators. I mean we already have an entire body of directly elected legislators; it’s called congress.Report
@Plinko, Let’s get rid of the 16th too!Report
@Plinko, I think we only really need the 2nd.Report
@Aaron,
No, we only need the 3rd.Report
@Scott,
Actually, given our new state of perpetual war, I’d say the protections of the 3rd amendment are more or less moot and might be best replaced with stronger protections, but that’s just me.
Given your other comments on military issues, I’m surprised you’re in favor of keeping it.Report
@Plinko,
I was just being smart not serious about the 3rd.Report
Really, the most inept, most corrupt, least watched level of elected government in the country ought to elect Senators?
Also, not sure what you might think repealing the 16th Amendment will accomplish:
see http://reason.com/archives/1999/01/01/constitutional-challenge, unless your primarily concerned with tax on your property income but happy to keep paying income taxes on everything else.Report
@Plinko, Ha, supposed to reply, whoops!Report
@Plinko,
Concerning the 17th amendment – I wrote a piece outlining the basic argument last night. You may find it interesting:Report
Oops, it seems I dropped the link on accident. Here it is:
A Few Thoughts About the Senate
T. Greer. The Scholar’s Stage. 28 May 2010.Report
@Plinko, “Really, the most inept, most corrupt, least watched level of elected government in the country ought to elect Senators?”
It will make for a much more interesting dynamic in the legislature.
As it is, we have Representatives Silver and Representatives Gold.
I’d prefer a more “federalist” system.Report