Question for Tea Party Folks: 19th-Century Political Role Models? (brainwash, cost, politician)

[diva360]

This is a sincere question for those who are Tea Party people or who adhere to their principles: who do you look to in the 19th Century as philosophical/political ancestors? I see a lot of similarities between them and John Calhoun, mostly because of Calhoun's ideas about how a minority faction could and should disrupt the political process and his ideas about natural rights, which seem to mirror modern Tea Party ideas about producerism. Thoughts? I'm trying to understand why Tea Partiers thought it was a good idea to go down the path of the gov't shutdown assuming that they knew that such an attempt would almost certainly fail and that it might cost them popularity points, the latter of which has been evidenced by much polling:

The tea party is getting more powerful. But less popular.

Calhoun was the best comparison I could come up with from the 19th Century, and he was very influential and interesting, even though I think he was wrong. Who do you look up to in American political history and why? No name-calling, please, I'm just trying to put things in historical perspective.

[biscuitmom]

As if they have the faintest grasp of history...

[Patton360]

Although not a politician (and not American at birth), I'd say Ludwig Von Mises.

[diva360]

Originally Posted by biscuitmom

As if they have the faintest grasp of history...

I'd agree that many of them don't, but there is precedence for their style of thinking, and it is too easy to dismiss what we don't agree with out of hand without trying to figure out where it comes from. I was just curious about what responses this thread would generate for the sake of analysis and discussion.

[biscuitmom]

Originally Posted by diva360

I'd agree that many of them don't, but there is precedence for their style of thinking, and it is too easy to dismiss what we don't agree with out of hand without trying to figure out where it comes from. I was just curious about what responses this thread would generate for the sake of analysis and discussion.

Well said, I stand corrected. Just curious, why do you want to limit the responses to 19th century American political history?

[diva360]

Originally Posted by biscuitmom

Well said, I stand corrected. Just curious, why do you want to limit the responses to 19th century American political history?

Basically because, as Patton360 did, a lot of people will tend to mention 20th-Century (although born in the 19th) thinkers who were somehow connected to Ayn Rand and who were alive for Keynesian and Friedmanesque economic debates. I'm interested in what Tea Party people, staunch defenders of the Constitution as they claim to be, think more about things like the Federalist Papers, which, admittedly, go back to the 18th Century and pre-date the Constitution per se. For example, in "Federalist No. Ten," Madison argued strongly for a centralized government and against factions, and by implication states' rights. Calhoun emerged a bit later and strongly disagreed, as did his House counterpart, John Hammond.

A lot of the analysis I've read that is critical of the Tea Party cites things like Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics, but again, that is a relatively recent work. I'm interested in hearing what people have to say in terms of earlier American political thought especially because, as I said before, constitutional rhetoric seems to be so important to Tea Party folks. I realize that this may be a fool's errand, but I thought it would be an interesting question to pose.

[biscuitmom]

Originally Posted by diva360

I'm interested in hearing what people have to say in terms of earlier American political thought especially because, as I said before, constitutional rhetoric seems to be so important to Tea Party folks. I realize that this may be a fool's errand, but I thought it would be an interesting question to pose.

Hmm uh. Other than their take on the 2nd amendment, I don't know that they've got. I've bumped the thread up a few notches for you, it's worth a shot.

[Patton360]

If I had known you'd sit there and ignore people who answer your OP, while pretending to be clinical and superior, I'd not have bothered.
Stow your insufferable arrogance if you want to be taken seriously.

[Goinback2011]

Leftists have been told by other leftists that they're educated and 'smart'.

Until they realize they are but brainwashed robots and know less about history than their pets, it's not worth responding to any of them.

[diva360]

Originally Posted by Patton360

If I had known you'd sit there and ignore people who answer your OP, while pretending to be clinical and superior, I'd not have bothered.
Stow your insufferable arrogance if you want to be taken seriously.

In what ways, exactly, was I being insufferably arrogant? I merely restated what I was asking in my OP, and I did not ignore what you said. Rather, I said I was looking for answers that went back further in time than Von Mises, though I will admit that he was an interesting thinker and your reply gave me something to think about that I had not seen before.

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Leftists have been told by other leftists that they're educated and 'smart'.

Until they realize they are but brainwashed robots and know less about history than their pets, it's not worth responding to any of them.

Please refrain from posting insults and instead respond to the question(s) at hand. Even assuming that I "know less about history" than my cat, it still shouldn't be hard for you to answer the questions I posed, no? If you were to do so, then we could move the discussion forward, and you could respond to its substance rather than personally attack its participants.