Talk:Mick Mulvaney

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Tea Party, such that it exists at all, is a slogan for a bunch of nebulous concepts. It has no national organization, no state organizations AFAIK. It has some local non-profit entities, but they are diverse from one locality to the next. It's national founders and organizers are long gone. It holds no elective offices or nominating conventions, appears on the ballot no where.

It's become little more than a label younger conservatives and Republicans can use simply because of decades of demonization by the media of the term, "Republican", that's all. Not unlike how the American Left for decades uses interchangably "liberal", "progressive", or "socialist" determined by the popular mood in whatever era they live. But underneath, it's all the same journalists and organizers promoting the label.

To characterize the Tea Party, I'd say they are traditional Republicans under 35. Some Libertarians have come home to the GOP. The only vague principal that's held up among some, dating back to the Gingrich Revolution and the Contract With America, is Term Limits, which the Gingrich Republicans themselves voted down. In a sense, Term Limits can be considered anti-establishment. But even this view isn't widespread or a high priority among Tea Partiers. The Tea Party has been little more than a "youth rebellion" among conservatives, if such an oxymoron is possible. Not much else. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 06:05, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

The Tea Party never was a political party. That's why no elected official officially belongs to the "Tea Party." It's political movement united by similar ideals of limited government rather than a political organization.
I disagree with your characterization of the movement. I don't think the Tea Party just exists among younger people, and nor is it a "youth rebellion". It is a libertarian-conservative-populist revolt by people of all age groups against the GOP and Dem establishment, which advances left-wing big-government policies. Many older people, as they tend to be more conservative anyway, strongly support the Tea Party. Also, libertarianism is a major (and essential, I would even say) strand of the Tea Party. Ron and Rand Paul, Justin Amash, etc.
I'm not so sure about your statement that people who use the term "Tea Party" do so because "Republican" has been demonized. The term "Tea Party" or "Tea Party movement" has probably been even more demonized by the media. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Rand Paul is a good example. He and his father always were on the Libertarian fringes. His father actually ran for President against Reagan, not on an isolationalist platform as you would expect, but economic policy. Imagine, two Austrian school economics proponents running against each other? I mean, how many votes did he expect to peal off or gain?
The two are supposedly "anti-establishment" which boiled down means term limits. And even the public recognize the argument that banning the most experienced and qualified to let novices and idiots run things makes no sense.
"Drain the swamp." What does that mean? Throw out a Republican controlled majority?
Read chap 5 of H.R. Halderman's Ends of Power, The Hidden Story behind Watergate. It's only 9 pages. You'll learn all there is to know about Washington, and what Trump is up against now. And yes, it is probably true that most Tea Partiers who are too young to know Nixon probably have a favorable opinion of him. On Nov. 4th Nixon won a mandate with 63%, the largest in US history. On Nov. 5th he told the entire Excutive Branch of Washington, "You're fired," which was his right (this really did happen). He was finally gonna drain the swamp of every last New Deal and Great Society bureaucrat thst lurked there for 30 years. They responded, "No. You'll go before we go." RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 10:58, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
The problem with the swamp is not that they're experienced. It's that they support and advance left-wing policies no matter who's in office. I have no problem with experienced officials if they're conservative (and I don't mean John Kasich-style conservative). Draining the swamp means getting rid of the Obama holdovers who inhibit Trump's conservative agenda. Nixon found out how powerful the swamp was. He was unable to undo Johnson's and FDR's welfare state accomplishments. However, even when he was president, Nixon was very popular. Just look at the 1972 election. Not even Reagan surpassed that result. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
It's an expansion of government issue. Democrats always seek new spending for new programs. Republican's seek to maintain the line on existing program. Forget cutbacks. These programs are jobs, or real people's lives and income. Two examples follow.
Elizabeth Warren's rise began as the first chairwoman of the CFPB, born out of the Crash of 2008. All born out of new spending to deal with a crisis. Prior to that, her qualifications and experience amounted to delivering anti-corporate socialist rants to students as an Ivy League college professor for 30 years. The money flowed. 8 years later she's the DNC frontrunner for president.
Like the CFPB, the TSA was created out of a crisis in the aftermath of 9/11, and a massive reorganization of the government, including creation of the $40 billion Dept. of Homeland Security permanent spending. Odd thing is, it was created at a time privatization was accepted by both state and federal governments as necessary cause governments could not meet the commitments, nor carry the costs, of public sector union medical benefits and pensions. But the national Democratic party demanded the massive expansion of security guards at airports be federal jobs, not outsourced to the private sector, in exchange for votes to expand federal spending for the governments reorganization and the war on terror. Fast forward 16 years: it took Jeff Sessions 2 weeks to drain the swamp on an operation that was common knowledge in Washington for 16 years.
But you can't fire any of these people, because their non-political jobs. And they are available​ to tap your phone, or audit and leak your tax return, or deny you non-profit status if you organize to demand accountability, so long as you promise them a 6% pay increase and expanded budget to hire more people, rather than a 2% increase in both that reflects GDP growth. This has always been the only difference between Democrats and Republicans.
What do we learn from any of this? You never want to let a perfectly good crisis go to waste. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 16:18, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Back on the topic of the tea party, I also disagree about it being composed of young people. I have been involved in the movement, and do fall into the "young" category. However, many of not most of the people I have met within it are adults over 40, some of which are retired. I know all groups can't be judged by what I have seen, but I also don't think they can be grouped by age so easily. - -David B (TALK)
Yes, I think the Tea Party is better described as a revitalization of the conservative movement. After the GOP establishment became cozied in with Washington, conservatives decided it was time to renew conservatism to what it had been. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
There are vast, wide, regional differences within it. While characterizing it conservative may be true, mistaking it as Republican would be in error -- particularly in the South. The older people young people speak of are traditional Democrats, of that sort whose parents voted for FDR and Truman, 'the forgotten man.' Hillbillies, rednecks, the 'Bubba vote' that Clinton was popular with. In fact I would argue Dick Armey of Texas, founder of Freedom Works and the Tea Party (digression: 'Freedom Works' is an anti-communist slogan meaning 'freedom works, communism does not'), - whose nolonger associated with either group - Armey of Texas founded the Tea Party so Southerners could vote against Democrats without referring to themselves with the "R" word.
It is easy to see what happened here. The GOP Congressional coalition fell apart with the resignation of Boehner. While Ryan secured a majority of his caucus to be elected Speaker, he never had a majority in the House (it's a weakness of our system the designers never foresaw. By contrast, the UK House of Commons Speaker holds a more nuetral position. The power of the US Speakership & Senate Majority Leader rests in scheduling the agenda). Last summer RNC Chairman Reince Priebus negotiated a truce between the warring factions - traditional heartland Republicans led by Ryan, and the Southern redneck faction supposedly led by Trump. Trump entrusted the legislative agenda to Ryan, which is his job anyway. Ryan delivered the votes of his faction, but Trump never delivered his followers, revealing his collassal ignorance of legislative politics. He's the quintessential opposite of Obama who served as a city councilman, state senator, and Senator. But as Sarah Palin pointed out, she had more executive experience than Obama did.
As of now the split remains within the GOP, with the traditional Midwest heartlanders on one side, the Southern redneck Boll Weevills on the other, and an inexperienced New York RINO (the smallest faction in the GOP) trying to bring them together. Trump would do best to read FDR's playbook. And simply cause I love history so much, let me point out the differences between these two major factions warring in the GOP remarkably resemble the size, strength, regional affiliation, and cultural background of the warring factions of the Civil War. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 05:50, 6 April 2017 (EDT)