The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[The Brain]

Ide wants size 0.

[DGuller]

I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened.  What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it.  All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.

[mongers]

Confused Canadian here: does the "Tea Party" have a unified platform, is it a bunch of different movements under an umbrella label? Maybe different people have a different aspect or faction in mind when they speak of the "Tea Party".

Given their name, I presume they hark back to that time around the Boston event and no taxation without representation etc. Whereas currently their congressmen seem to be pursuing a policy of representation without taxation ?

[Berkut]

I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened.  What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it.  All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.

That doesn't make sense though - my own frustrations with what? I am not a Tea Partier, and I pretty much think they stand for almost everything I despise about politics.

Saying that an entire political movement of the scale, scope, and success of the Tea Party is a "rebellion without a cause" is a fine example if the point I am making. It is a willful refusal to concede that another group have legitimacy, even when they aren't you.

Irony much?

[Admiral Yi]

I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened.  What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it.  All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.

More or less agree.  After all, their first cause was taxes, at a time when taxes were, and continue to be, historically low.

However, that's not the same thing as saying if a self-described TP'er is in favor of something, it is by definition bad.

[merithyn]

Indeed.

Of course their view of small government includes funding the military, but not "helping people" or at least not as much. That is a perfectly logical position to take. Not agreeing with them is perfectly logical as well.

But when you say bullshit like "They are not about small government!" it means you are either stating something you know not to be true (for hyperbole sake?) or you very much do not understand what motivates them and what they are about.

You don't have to agree with it, but at least understand it.

Or I think that they claim one thing but show themselves to be something else entirely.

You presume to think that I don't understand them, when in fact, I'd argue that I understand them perfectly.

[DGuller]

That doesn't make sense though - my own frustrations with what? I am not a Tea Partier, and I pretty much think they stand for almost everything I despise about politics.

Your frustration with lack of political checks on the growth of government.  That makes you more likely to see that as the (possibly hijacked) legitimate cause driving the creation of TP.

Saying that an entire political movement of the scale, scope, and success of the Tea Party is a "rebellion without a cause" is a fine example if the point I am making. It is a willful refusal to concede that another group have legitimacy, even when they aren't you.

Irony much?

There is a difference between denying the legitimacy of a certain political block, and denying the legitimacy of a democratic government.  Vast difference.  Democracy can't function for long if the losers refuse to concede that the winners have popular mandate.

[DGuller]

I guess I may be guilty of the thing I'm accusing Berkut of myself.  I see OWS as a movement arising from the rebellion to the destructive casino capitalist system, but that may be wishful thinking in trying to ascribe what I think are sorely needed protests to a bunch of aimless malcontents.

[Razgovory]

I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened.  What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it.  All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.

A lot of people project their desires on the Tea Party.  It's so easy because they don't actually stand for anything, they have no real shape or form and it's human nature to try to find meaning and patterns in things.  It's political pareidolia.  The Tea Party can be defined only by what they are against, and that is Obama.

[Malthus]

I think Berkut's interpretation of Tea Party reflects his own frustrations rather than what I think actually happened.  What I think actually happened was a rebellion without a cause by Republicans, who for some time now have had a difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government when they aren't running it.  All the ideology purported to be behind it is just fluff.

A lot of people project their desires on the Tea Party.  It's so easy because they don't actually stand for anything, they have no real shape or form and it's human nature to try to find meaning and patterns in things.  It's political pareidolia.  They can be defined only by what they are against, and that is Obama.

I'd never heard of "pareidolia" before, and it's a great word. Thanks, Raz! 

[Neil]

You guys are wacky.

Truth hurt, eh.

No, you guys really are whacky.

You guys are insisting that your caricature of the Tea Party is the real Tea Party, so you can more easily be outraged by it.

Which is ridiculous, because there is plenty to be outraged by without the need to create this Frankenstein tea Party that the people who actually identify themselves as "Tea Party" would never agree represents them.

But who am I kidding, I am tilting at windmills.

They do have a point though.  Michelle Bachmann, who helped found the Tea Party caucus in Congress, is a snake-handler.  So there is definitely some level of social conservative infiltration into the Tea Party.  How much one can argue, but it's not unreasonable to hate and fear them because of it.

[Admiral Yi]

DC mayor, who's a white dude  of all things, begs Harry Reid on the steps of the Capitol to reopen DC.  Harry tells him (on camera) "don't screw it up."  Mayor claims DC has enough cash on hand for 10 days of operation.

It's all covered in layers of spin and obfuscation, but it seems that Obamacrats don't want to pass a debt ceiling increase unless it comes with a clean CR.

[Sheilbh]

But when you say bullshit like "They are not about small government!" it means you are either stating something you know not to be true (for hyperbole sake?) or you very much do not understand what motivates them and what they are about.

I don't think they are about small government.

They weren't keen on Paul Ryan's recent suggestions. I think some are worried about distributing government rather than just size. They don't like transfers to the 'undeserving' which Obamacare falls under while Social Security and Medicare doesn't. I think there's an element of racial anxiety there and a political fear that the Democrats are basically setting up programs that others will pay for to buy votes. The same fears I think motivate some of the opposition from tea partiers to immigration reform. You bring/buy off (predominately minority) voters and build a permanent Democratic majority that can change America - and Obama perfectly represents that: the most culturally elitist President in generations, a man who doesn't even feign to be folksy.

I don't think it's meant in a negative way. I think there's a genuine fear that the Democrats are trying to create dependant voters. I think there's an element of race and age in that view, but that isn't, I don't think, the motivator.

I think another chunk are genuine extremists on fiscal issues. They want cuts in dollar figures - not even a state that keeps pace with inflation. They want to turn back the Great Society and New Deal programs. And they are shocked to find out that the electorate don't agree with them. I think they're smaller and have piggy-backed onto other tea party groups over the common cause of opposing Obama and Obamacare.

If I'm honest I think they're not as worried about the size of government with the idea that what's happening with government (including size) is permanently changing America so they need to fight it a outrance. Again I think in this they're probably a mirror image of the far-left in this country in the Thatcher era, or perhaps in the US in the 70s.

I'd hoped that with time, the Republican Party would move away from social conservatism.

Who cares about social conservatism? Surely the problem of the Republican party in recent years has been fiscal not social extremism?

Personally I think the way abortion is in the US there will always be, and need to be, an anti-abortion party. The Republicans have lost the ability to talk about it in a way that doesn't alienate everyone else ('safe, legal and rare' v. 'rape rape'). So that's always going to be there. On the gays, they'll lose. They're on the wrong side of history and there's diminishing few votes for them.

It's all covered in layers of spin and obfuscation, but it seems that Obamacrats don't want to pass a debt ceiling increase unless it comes with a clean CR.

Neither should Republicans. I can't see what real benefit they'll get from increasing the debt ceiling without a CR.

At best they'd be able to serialise their long domestic disagreements for a few more weeks?

[Sheilbh]

As an aside I loved one argument I read that part of the problem is that you abolished earmarks. The majority can no longer quietly bribe recalcitrant members with some goodies for the district for a tough vote.

[Admiral Yi]

Neither should Republicans. I can't see what real benefit they'll get from increasing the debt ceiling without a CR.

Prevent financial Armageddon?