Brain Lemon

It's no secret that many on the left, and some on the right, think very little of the so-called "tea partiers" who have come to represent a powerful force within and beyond the GOP.  Numerous columnists have made fun of and mocked this movement, with the pejorative, vulgar term "tea baggers" gaining unprecented currency by even supposedly respectable folks like EJ Dionne of the Washington Post.  Even the President himself has recently referred to people of this persuasion as "extremists," thus attempting to alienate a significant part of the country.  It is clear, then, that there are many who think that this movement is crazy, radical, and purely anti-government or anti-Obama.

While I'd not go so far as to call myself a "tea partier" (I have never been to such an event nor do I plan to) I can certainly sympathize with the ideas behind them.  By and large the tea party movement is a libertarian, limited-government affair powered by a deep love of personal liberty, and backed by a surprisingly well-founded understanding of American history and ideas.  In short, it is one of the most purely American movements in recent history, as it is based crucially around traditional American ideas of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, and restrained government.  In contrast, much of the thinking in the so-called establishment is largely inspired by European ideas of statism and collectivism that are quite alien to the historical American perspective.  In that vein, then, one has to ask – who the real extremists are in this discussion?

To begin, one can easily look at the tea party agenda and find what end up being some very rational, logical ideas.  For example, we understand that:

• Companies should fail or succeed on their own.  Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, and should not endlessly "bail out" giant corporations.
• Government should spend within its means.  Borrowing and going into debt should be last-resort measures reserved only for true emergencies, not methods to be used in funding extravagent entitlements and paying off political allies.
• Government is a blunt instrument that is best suited to those tasks it is Constitutionally limited too, such as military, police, courts, and other basic services.
• Private enterprise, entrepreneurship, and innovation should be at the core of our economy. Top-down control is not efficient, effective, or conducive to individual freedom.
• In general, people should be left to their own devices, free to practice and live as they see fit, so long as they are not hurting anyone else.

In contrast, the ideas that seem to emanate from the establishment seem to include:

• It is possible for the state, and a select coterie of experts, to properly allocate resources.  These experts have the insight and knowledge to run things better than the free market.
• Government should be able to spend endlessly without any restraint on whatever purposes it sees fit.  Borrowing trillions of dollars from the private sector to "stimulate" the economy is an efficient, effective way to grow the economy.
• There is no area of life that cannot be better run by unelected officials.  People are by and large too stupid to know what to eat, what to drive, and how to spend money.  It should be the job of government to tell people what they should be doing.
• If someone fails, government should cushion the fall so much that they do not feel consequences.  Favored companies can play fast and loose and take extreme risks, fully knowing that their government buddies will cover their asses if things go south.
• In general, that the state should have an extreme amount of power to spend, regulate, and control whatever it wants to.

Having seen the opposing views, is there any doubt which is more extreme?  Especially in an American context, the idea that top-down control by so-called experts works better is insane.  On a fundamental common-sense level, we know that endless spending is disastrous.  And I think we all understand that our lives our better lived by our own rules and desires than by those of a bureaucrat.  And yet in our crazy, mixed-up world, it is the freedom-lovers who are the extremists?  I think not!