Why They Are Wrong, or, The Rise of the Tea Party

Government, the ultimate whore.

The very title of this article is bold and presumptuous.  No nuanced meanings; it's a bold statement that they are wrong.

Who are "they"?  And what are "they" wrong about?

They are the liberals and progressives - the socialists, communists and Marxists.  They are populists (hang in there with me for a bit).  They are even Republicans (gasp)!

They're all over the place.  They figure prominently on social media sites like Digg.  They post articles on sites like the DailyKos.  They comment regularly on web sites about all things political.

Quite often, while eloquent, they are ignorant.  Make no mistake, however, they see the world, particularly the economic world, as an unfair place that needs to be righted - or made fair, just and equal, by right-thinking government employees.  We've written about this on Scragged for years.  We've talked about the myth of fairness.  We've talked about not accepting the premise.

While these are helpful arguments, they fail to get to the very heart of the matter: Why "they" are wrong.  Completely and utterly wrong.

The error begins with the very premise of their arguments.  The basic premise of almost all leftist arguments is centered in the role of government.

In "Don't Accept the Premise" the following joke was told:

Man:  Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman:  For that much money?!....Yes, I would.

Man:  Would you sleep with me for a hundred thousand dollars?
Woman:  I think I would.

Man:  Would you sleep with me for a thousand dollars?
Woman:  Well.... I don't know, but it's not out of the question.

Man:  Would you sleep with me for twenty bucks?
Woman:  Hey!  What do you think I am, a whore?

Man:  We've already established that.  We're now just discussing your price.

While a bit crude, it makes the point nicely.  For the sake of this argument, put aside any personal positions regarding the morality of sexual relationships.

Not a new problem.

Essentially, it boils down to sex.  Sex in certain contexts is considered good, wholesome and desirable - marriage, for example.  In others, it is considered base and immoral, as in prostitution.

Society rejects those who engage in prostitution - both parties violate the law and are punished.  For most of human history across most human cultures, sex outside of marriage was considered immoral.

Sure, sex is good, but with a prostitute?  Isn't disease spread that way?  What about family relationships destroyed?  The self-esteem of the women involved (not to say anything about the men)?

We've written about sex and human relationships on Scragged as part of a modern debate about male/female relationships.  We see exactly the same debate about government.  Sure, sex within a marriage is good.  It creates new life and draws couples closer together, enabling them to raise their offspring in a nurturing environment; but outside of a marriage it is most commonly harmful.  Our collapsing society reveals more and more each day that the traditional boundaries of sexual morality are there for good reason.

What, then, the proper boundary for government action?

Again, prostitution is bad, sex in marriage is good.  Likewise, government within certain bounds is good, but outside of those bounds it is bad.

Think of government as sex.  What government does can be good and desirable or it can be immoral and wrong.  We've never really had the discussion about where the moral line is--at least not politically.

Government as Whoredom

Almost a century ago the whore whispered from the back alley and we politically succumbed to her enticings.  Today, our political discourse is about how much to pay the whore.  And that is why all of them are wrong.

The argument should be about what is appropriate sex government, not how much to pay for it.  We've never really finished the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  Not finishing what was started over 150 years ago is a shame - we've paid for a lot of sex government that has resulted in a lot of unintended consequences and unwanted diseases in those intervening years.  What's worse, it appears that we'll be paying for it in the years to come.

These diseases include a marked increase in out-of-wedlock births, cultural welfare dependency, increased business and personal regulations, decreasing educational outcomes for children, increased higher education costs, decreasing liberty and personal freedoms all across the board, healthcare costs that are spiraling out of control, bankrupt Social Security and Medicare programs - and that's just a short list.  Some of these are like diabetes in that they eat away at the healthy systems causing premature death.

In reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates and studying the history, the political parties have flipped.  Aside from the question of slavery itself, what the modern-day Republicans stand for is closer to what the antebellum Democrats were advocating, and vice versa.  The fundamental question of those famous debates was the concept of federalism, or the role of our federal government.

What should be the role of the national government as outlined in our constitution?

It is this that we should be arguing, not haggling price.  Just like we have (and probably will forever) debated the proper bounds of sexual relationships, we must debate the fundamental role of government.

An Invitation to a Tea Party

At bottom, the Tea Party is about the debate of the fundamental role of government.  The primary issue it brings to the fore is that government is spending too much doing things it has no business doing.

Tea Partiers aren't racists: they're against government sponsored racism.

Tea Partiers aren't anti-tax: they're against the government redistributing wealth through taxes.

Tea Partiers aren't anti-government: they're anti-government-excess.

Tea Partiers want to return the federal government to its constitutionally proscribed bounds.  Unfortunately, too many, on both sides of the isle accept the existing premise of our current size and style of government, arguing only about the proper amount and method of payment.

The title of this article is "Why They Are Wrong."  Who's the "they"?

"They" are all those who think the government should and can protect us from ourselves with more laws and regulations.

"They" are those who want the government out of their bedrooms but then turn around and invite them right back in.

"They" are those who create rights that don't exist and destroy the ones that do.

"They" are the liberal left, the middle and those on the right who all think government provides funds.  It's not about how much it costs, its about doing it wrong to begin with.  In fact, even if there were enough money, it's still wrong for government to provide funds to its citizens.

Even many Republicans are wrong about this.  Senator McCain was Obama "light" with regard to the role and scope of the federal government.  Senator McCain's voting record and publicly stated policies confirm as much.

He was going to pay less for his one night stand than Obama offered, but it was still the same rotting whore... and of course, more money will almost always win.

Recently, Gov. Mitt Romney had an on-camera "discussion" with someone who asked about citizens:

Woman: Yes! My question is this, how do you think the government cannot provide funds for the people, its citizens?

Romney: Ok, let me answer the question. Of course government provides funds for its people, the citizens. Of course we take care of America when there are national disasters. Of course we honor our promises to seniors. Of course it costs money, but not more than you take in...

Respectfully, Gov. Romney is just plain wrong in his response.  His answer should have been "Of course government has provided and is providing funds for its people.  And that's wrong.  We need to wean the citizens off of government funds and provide an environment where they can take care of themselves and each other."  Gov. Romney is negotiating the price of the woman's services vote, not whether government should be providing funds at all.

This isn't an endorsement of any candidate, but any candidate that hopes to return the country to its previous successful course must address these issues.

It is our hope that 2012 will be about the role and scope of government, not just its size.  Size does matter... but only in the proper context.  Government must return to protecting liberties not providing funds.

The Tea Party doesn't accept the premise.  It doesn't accept the assumption that government will provide funds for its citizens.  It doesn't accept the premise that government must protect rights that don't exist.

The Tea Party is not going to pay a prostitute.  Will you?

Fennoman is a guest writer for Scragged.com.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Fennoman or other articles on Politics.
Reader Comments

Well said, Fennoman.

Awhile back, Newsweek had a controversial cover called "We Are All Socialists Now". This was of course wrong - I'm not a socialist, neither are you.

But many of us conservatives are 'Johns' (to put it in Fennoman's sex terms) because we go along with the socialist programs that others create.

Awhile back, Scragged did some articles on tax credits and why conservatives need to loudly reject them. This is hard for a lot of conservatives to accept, but it's true.

If you gleefully take your tax credits and deductions (knowing that it's government redistribution of wealth) does this make you a John?

If you accept a Social Security check, and use it, does that make you a John?

"We Are All Johns Now"?

September 8, 2011 8:50 AM

This article teaches the philosophy of Ayn Rand on economics which I heartily endorse. The article points out the problems but offers no solution, probably because of a lack of time and space.

To go cold turkey with our current system is not only impossible both politically and economically, so what is the way out of the red light district? We must become a little bit less of a prostitute before we can become chaste again. Rand Paul has, what I think is a proposal with a lot of merit, an idea whose time may have come. He proposes to do away with base line budgeting, base line budgeting calls for an automatic 8% increase each year in the federal budget, along with a 1% spending cut for 7 years. This would balance the budget.

Are we now chaste? Not a chance but we have turned the ship around. If we could finally get to the point of a balanced budget, where we could pay down and eliminate the debt, we could use the 42 cents out of every dollar that we pay on interest and use it to grow our economy. That 42 cents needs to be in the pockets of the citizens to do with as they please, and not used at the discretion of the politicians to buy votes with, and start the path to prostitution all over again.

My thanks to Fennoman for the well thought out analogy of prostitution and government.

September 8, 2011 11:24 AM

Good article and good analogy. Tea Party FTW.

September 8, 2011 8:34 PM

I've written about solutions (search out the articles under my name) - they're not new, not novel, just based on reality.

I did say "We need to wean the citizens off of government funds and provide an environment where they can take care of themselves and each other." The change can't happen overnight. Social Security cannot be turn off right away, but it can be phased out (something I've written about before, too).

Social Security is one program that is probably a little different in that you DO put in with the expectation that you'll take out. Unfortunately, the money is spent, not invested and demographics result in the math not working out (fewer people putting in, more people living longer taking out).

September 9, 2011 12:04 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...