Socialism in the Tea Party Movement? Yep.

Ouch.

There’s nothing like having your shortcomings pointed out to you. In an April 2010 article in the Christian Science Monitor, James Bovard (Freedom in Chains, The Bush Betrayal) smacks Tea Party activists around for being more anti-Obama and anti-liberal than they are pro-liberty. Of course, liberty is the whole reason the Tea Party movement exists—right?

It should surprise no one that the TP movement doesn’t REALLY advocate less government. Consider the following points Bovard makes after having visited a local Tea Party protest:

· One speaker argued our government must stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (I’m not sure where he found THAT in the Constitution).

· The same author advocated torturing “enemy combatants,” which whipped up the pro-torture crowd.

· One speaker complained about what he felt was Obama’s deference to Islam.

· Another speaker raved about the wonders of the police force, conveniently forgetting to mention a recent case of police brutality.

· A bunch of Republicans got up and talked about economic responsibility while (again) forgetting to mention that “the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thus far equals the projected cost of the first decade of Obama’s health-care program.”

· None of the speakers referenced the illegal wiretaps Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.

· None of the speakers denounced George Bush’s Big Government bent: it was GWB who “championed the prescription drug benefit for senior [citizens] that adds $7 trillion to Washington’s unfunded liabilities.”

There’s more, but I can't go on.

I’m embarrassing to be a registered Republican. Bovard points out the hypocrisy of the TPM, and though he never uses the word “socialist” to describe the TPers, that’s really at the core of the problem. The problem is this: TP “activists” are nothing more than practical Big Government socialists, intent on championing only those governmental programs which scratch their particular itch. Generally those fall into the realm of military spending. They conveniently forget the Constitutional mandate for a localized military which is much more defensive than a global police force. In fact, I remember seeing a U.S. Navy commercial recently—the new tagline is “a global force for good.” What? Where in the Constitution do the founding fathers argue we need to concern ourselves with peace-keeping missions overseas? But conservative eat that stuff up.

One of Bovard’s best lines is this one: “there is scant evidence that most tea partiers have studied the copies of the Constitution they generously hand out to bystanders.” Based on what I know about most conservatives (I’ve lived in their ranks for years), that doesn’t surprise me at all. A perfect example is that of a friend of mine, who has a Gadsden flag sticker proudly displayed in his car. While talking to his wife one day about a house they’re remodeling, I heard her complain about the previous tenants. Apparently they had not strictly adhered to their city code while renovating the house. That’s it right there: why in the world is it the government’s job to tell us what’s safe and what isn’t? Shouldn’t we have the right to decide for ourselves how we will renovate our homes?

Listen up, people: it’s all or nothing. You can’t have it both ways, and cherry-pick the issues you like out of the dozens of Big Government abuses we face every day.

Please—take down your Gadsden flag, read the Constitution, and only put the flag back up when you understand the original intent of the framers.