Agreed. His comments are baseless. Pretty sad to see this ignorant thinking...

TP isn't a thrid party, its a faction of the GOP.

But here in Indiana, the tea party people I've talked to would be appalled by your anti-imperialist, left wing views. The sad fact is that the 'mainstream tea party' is just exactly as Mr. Rothkopf describes.

When you really get into the facts of WW 2 you find that the Swiss were not really neutral. Almost as bad in fact as Vichy France. And to the larger point that you talk TheEndIsFar with regards to your views of our Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. You are basically a revisionist in regards to our United States history. How easy it is for you to ignore the Institution of Slavery.

Yes I know, I am a neo moderate Democrat with a Kenyan anti-colonialist view of the world. And I am damn proud of it. As I am of our American President Barack Obama. I really like that guy.

While I admonised RöSTIGRABEN for using the childish 'Teabagger' term, I think it makes a good description of the Fake Tea Partiers.

Google fake Tea Party for some pretty good examples.

Here in Georgia we politely tell TeaBaggers that the longer they stay at a rally and attempt to mislead our intentions the more likely we were going to follow them home. None stick around

I'll give you a few hints on how to recognize a TeaBagger from a Tea Partier.

1. If 'mainstream' is attached to it, they're a TeaBagger.

2. If they have not recently read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, then they are a TeaBagger.

3. If they would vote for the Former running mate of McCain, then they are a TeaBagger. She is useful for getting borderline TeaBaggers out to meet real Tea Partiers though.

I'm very pleased to hear you like a true Tea Partier's foreign policy and can see why you dislike the TeaBaggers, who wouldn't? So give the Tea Partiers a second chance, it's those TeaBaggers you disagree with. Sort of like Moderate and Radical Muslims. It's hard to tell them apart by just looking, but talking to them gives a more clear picture.

As for the Tea Party, anyone acting like a tool is a TeaBagger, let us know about them, and we'll take care of them.

Don't judge a book by its cover, or color, read it first.

Now just for the record, we're going to put as many Republicans in office as we can just to send a message to Washington DC and State Capitals, but don't you worry a bit, our goal is not to put Republicans in office to replace Democrats but rather to show that there really is no difference. Nov 2012 is going to be much more exciting.

The Devil is always in the details isn't he :)

I'm happy to elaborate.

So the Swiss weren't technically neutral 70 years ago, is it possible for the US to become neutral today?

I believe so, you?

Revisionist? You mistake my brevity for revision. I'll clarify.

In order to 'form a more perfect union' the Founders compromised the rights of Negroes and erroneously found it acceptable to grant and revoke their inalienable rights. That was a tragic decision, but has since provided a stepping stone towards Self-Government, no matter your skin tone.

It is my and every Tea Partier's position that all Mankind (Human Species) share these inalienable rights and while I cannot specifically speak for everyone, their is only ONE Race, the Human Race and its variety is only matched by our ability to commingle.

While some people may find comfort or some other use in the terms Asian, Caucasian, Negro (African if you prefer), Native American, etc, I see no use other than a visual descriptor. To use them as subdivisions of the Human Race is divisive and ultimately dangerous.

Does your pride come from any accomplishment, or simply the description of yourself? I need to know before I consider whether I'm impressed or not.

As for Barrack Obama, I fail to see him as anything but the Fad of a Socialist Party. I would have preferred to see our first African American President be an experienced leader rather than a spoiled fundraiser wowed by Marxism. His hubris seems unmatched in the world today. But we have crossed another color barrier so I'm pleased enough with that.

Do you think Hillary's going to run in 2012, seems like she is setting up an exit from his admin.

I pick up trash in the outdoors as much as I can. It is a pet peeve of mine that people will go to the outdoors and trash it. Lewis and Clark are heroes of mine. So is Dwight Eisenhower. Not to mention every US astronaut who went up in space. My pride comes from the love of this country for the civil religion it espouses and the fact that no one hangs out its dirty laundry like we do. I don't need to wrap the flag around myself to prove my patriotism nor do I need to demonize those who disagree with me assuming we are all using the same facts and that we grasp the concept of the loyal opposition.

What I take issue with is those who would bear false witness against thy neighbor and this includes people who keep stating that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Socialist, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Anti-Christ, Kenyan, Cylon (ok, just kidding about being a Cylon) or anything else that is not based on any facts. Do you really think that Robert Gates believes Obama is a Socialist? It makes for good fund-raising for the right but it is not true. As much as I opposed George W. Bush I had no use for people who called him Hitler or claimed that the US was behind 9/11. What I do believe is that the way the war in Iraq was paid for is the reason why America is in such dire economic circumstances. And that doesn't even go into how the Iraq War was mismanaged by Donald Rumsfeld. Go see Tom Ricks on this blog. President Obama has implemented anti terrorists measures that have been a lot more effective than George Bush ever did. Saving GM was the right thing to do. Canada is not socialist but look at their health care system. No Canadian conservative will ever dismantle it.

Bottom line is I believe that the Founding Fathers of this great country of ours wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in such a way as to make it a living document. They knew that slavery was going to create the conditions for the Civil War down the road but felt that they had little choice but to accept slavery in order to make a unified America.

Hillary is not running in 2012 IMHO. She is getting what she wants to do which is to leave her mark in history. That is the ultimate ego stroke of all those who serve in high office.

You're complaining that Tea Partiers are being mocked, and follow that up by comparing the Democrats to the Nazis? Way to unintentionally prove Rothkopf's point. Seriously, stop getting all of your information from Glenn Beck and other fringe crackpots, and read some actual history.

RöSTIGRABEN,

Not complaining, simply correcting Mr. Rothkopf. Are you upset with the comparison being made, or are you confused as to how the Democratic Party is Socialistic and Nationalistic in nature?

Trust that I do not believe the National Socialists (aka Democrats) in the US harbor any ill will towards Jews or wish to exterminate anyone, only that the Socialist Political Philosophy is not a Left or Right philosophy so much as it is a Central Planning and therefor Central Authority philosophy. I mean, who cares if you're a Communist, National Socialist, Republican, Greenie, etc if you govern as a Fascist (Central Planning)? Benevolent or not.

You carry a Swiss moniker, if I put money down that you are not from the German part, would I have lost it? I once lived in Switzerland for a short period, just north of Zurich, and found most of the Swiss I encountered to be better debaters. Your rebuttal lacked the critical thinking I came to expect from the Swiss, but I was not exposed to the French or Italian folks as much.

Here's a paper you might find interesting. http://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_2714.html

As for Beck, I've seen his program, but he is like listening to a student who almost gets it, and sometimes does, but speaks to you as if he is the teacher. And a sarcastic one at that. Not my cup of Tea, I make my own thank you.

So back to Democrats and Socialism, which is it, upset with the comparison or confused?

Are you at odds with the Foreign Policy of an actual Tea Partier (my 1st post) or are you more comfortable with Mr. Rothkopf's imaginary "Teabagger" policy?

Note: Calling a grown man a childish name is only effective if the man/woman has only reached physical maturity. It is also a reflection of the one calling the childish name if they are a grown 'man/woman'. Feel free to name call as much as you like.

Self-Government.

The End is Far

Yeah, you would've lost that money, I'm from Zurich myself. And while we're at it, let me advise you not to make any bets about questions of history or politics either, because you're completely out of your depth on these issues. You've apparently got no clue what the (very basic) terms "socialism" and "nationalism" mean, and your knowledge about the policies of the Nazi party is equally shallow. Let's start with the latter point: despite their name, the Nazis never instituted a planned economy, at least not during peacetime. They sought to create a corporatist system in which a few massive private conglomerates, mostly those relevant to arms manufacturing, were privileged. Now, about socialism: the defining feature of socialism is complete public ownership of the means of production. Do you see that happening in the US? A few large financial companies and GM were nationalized because of the crisis, and these are being swiftly returned to private ownership already. Comparing that to Soviet-style central planning is simply insane. As is your description of the Democrats as "nationalists" - remind me, which major US party known for unilateral military action, anti-immigrant nativism and general flag-weaving, loud-mouthed, pompous "patriotism"? Not to mention that teabaggers (yes, I'll keep calling them that) are especially annoying in that regard. So yes, please inform yourself about the things you blabber on about, if you don't want to be ridiculed. Cheers.

Though I like your idea of self government, I question whether it is relevent in the current real world (unless of course you and others like you would like to form your own perfect society much like Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged), the country is the way it is and there is no changing that.

We live in a society where not everyone is created equal and the ability to do harm to others in the name of profit is common, ie the recent Salmonella outbreaks, BP oil spill, wall street financial misdealings to name a few. These are just some of the cases for a strong federal government not to mention the people whose only reason for living is to kill Americans.
In terms of the Constitution which was adopted 223 years ago today and as you say "the Tea Partier concentrates on Article 1 Sections 8, 9, 10 and Article 4 Section 4.", which the former in my estimate gives the specific reasons congress has the ability to tax us for; it's simple enough to say that a lot has changed in 223 years (take cars for instance). The latter only guarantees each state a republican form of government (a country without a monarch) and the protection from enemies and the last time I checked both of these requirements are being met.
I agree that we have lost our way in some aspects of government specifically in terms of politicians catering to special interests and that there is some change needed. If only it was as simple as letting men be self governing.

Regards

:) You certainly have the Swiss 'confidence', but it is overconfidence in this case :)

Almost time for beer, so I'll continue later but it is your understanding that is sophomoric.

Quickly though;

You're cherry-picking Nazi Policy to describe decades of cause and effect. And in creating a corporatist system, did they 'not' plan the corporatist system Centrally and enforce it Centrally? The only big difference in Mercantilism, Socialism, and Corporatism is who does the 'Central Planning'.

As for Socialism, semantics. Again it is Central Planning by the State no matter who owns it, Central Planning requires Central Authority to enforce. If you're going to be a stickler about who owns and who plans, then what is the word for Privately Owned by Individuals and Centrally Panned by the State? There may be one but it is an oxymoron.

As for Nationalism, the One way (Socialism and quasi-socialism, same thing really) or the Highway Definition and I'm not arguing that the Republicans engage in the same behavior. Slow down and read.

Trust me, I've sat at many a Swiss dinner, you're going to have to do much better to ridicule and I can match your attitude :)

Cheers

Folks this is typical Swiss. They know 'everything', and often do. Not this time though ;) It's been 20 years but the word they used to describe themselves was 'closed', but they warm up and are actually quite friendly once you get to know them.

Look, you can't just make up your own definition of what constitutes "socialism". It's a rather diverse philosophy, but the public ownership, not central planning, is the one defining characteristic that all of its schools share. There are even small groups of libertarian and (more traditional) anarchistic socialists, and they're not big fans of any form of control, centralized or otherwise. Even if we did go along with your definition, the assertion that Obama (or the whole political establishment of the US, if you prefer) is trying to institute a planned economy is bullshit. There's not a shred of evidence that they're introducing strict price and wage controls, control the allocation of resources and set production quotas. Such systems have only been utilized during the world wars, when the full industrial capacity had to be mobilized for a short-term effort, and they were swiftly removed afterwards. Again, words actually have defined meanings, and the term "National Socialist" describes a very particular political movement that thankfully ceased to exist more than half a century ago. If you're just going to apply it to anyone who deviates even slightly from a purely free market order, you will not be taken seriously, at least not outside of the Tea Party crowd.

Thanks for your comments which are well thought and accurate.
I would like to suggest that maybe THEENDISFAR is simply guilty of Mental Masturbation?
Aloha,

Name one form of Socialism that Central Planning is not a tenet. This Libertarian Socialism is a 'State-less society with no private property'.

Here's the deal, you can attempt to wiggle your way into being 'right' by attaching hard definitions to the word Socialism, but when it comes down to it, if you have the power to Centrally Plan someone else's Private Property, then it is not Private Property.

Again with the 'strict' price controls you are attempting to wiggle your way into being correct.

The Federal Reserve is the True power in the United States. They collect astronomical sums of money from the Citizens of the United States via the 16th Amendment and a bunch of D's and R's who are Centrally Planning our daily lives through the 100's of 'Acts' that create the 100's (500+) Federal Agencies. The more money that Congress 'borrows' from the People, the more interest the Federal Reserve banks collect.

The Fed Reserve controls the Central Planning while Congress 'the hand' that enacts it. Obamacare is a perfect example of Central Planning.

Are you aware that Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution limits the actions of the Federal Gov't to 22 responsibilities? How did we end up with 500+ Federal Agencies?

Did you know that Federal Regulations carry the weight of Law, and that Federal Agencies average 10 Regulations for every Law Congress passes?

Did you know that creating Law is the SOLE responsibility of Congress and that they cannot delegate that power to an Agency?

You have no clue what Self-Government is, and that is either a result of not being able/wanting to live it yourself, or you feel others are not capable and therefor everyone is not capable.

Let me ask you a question, what is the TRUE/ORIGINAL definition of LIBERAL?

You may be Swiss, but you are a Parroting other people's understanding. If you were able to think for yourself, then you wouldn't be hiding behind 'diverse philosophy'.

Libertarian Socialists, having no Private Property must plan the use of the collective property in some manner. Direct Democracy is not efficient enough to plan the use of the collective property, so it must be done by committee of some sort. The FEW end up PLANNING for the MANY.

To be clear, I repeat; the Republicans are Central Planners as well, they just think their way is cheaper and less intrusive which is often the case, yet is still Unconstitutional. The Prescription Drug plan is an obvious exit from this generality. The last 3 Wars are also examples.

So whether it is redistribution of wealth to people who don't earn it themselves or through Wars, the earnings from my labor are being Centrally Planned without my consent and outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

That is not Self-Government, that is Central Planning, which is Socialism. Central Authority = Central Planning = Central Ownership. Goes both ways.

Do you disagree that if someone else can Plan your assets without your consent, that your assets in the practical sense are not yours?

@HILOTC - Cheerleaders for parrots don't help the argument so much as just add to the noise. Aloha.

The End Is Far,

So, you must be one of the supposedly not so rare breed of Tea Partier, the educated, middle to upper income white male who believes that America's best times are behind her that I read about on the New York Times. You are supposedly the average Tea Partier. I suppose the media finds it inconvenient to report on you.

If only the rest of the Tea Party were able to formulate consistent and cogent arguments, instead of having been converted into a medium the frustrated and uneducated masses of this country use to express their anger. I can't recall how many times I have read about Tea Partier claiming he supports less government, yet objects to free trade, or some similar nonsense.

The Road to Serfdom contains a great deal of truth. I'm glad that you cited that one instead of some Ayn Rand garbage. The problem I have with many libertarians is that they: (1) take Hayek's prescriptions too far, and (2) and allow themselves to be used as tools by big business (see: Koch brothers). If were up to your sort of people, I fear that we would have no Clean Air Act, no EPA, no Department of Education, maybe even no more public schools, no more national parks or forests, and I imagine that disasters like this latest BP spill would be considered the cost of doing business. Your sort of people make comments like that of Rand Paul, the Tea Party's Golden Boy, "that this criticism of business (BP) is really un-American," when it is now clear that BP was guilty of serious negligence. Your sort of people generally support the sort of financial deregulation and permit the predatory lending that led to this recession.

By the way, you have it 100% wrong that the fascists and communists ever allied with each other, unless I am very much mistaken. The two movements always brutally and violently opposed each other, though many fascists and Nazis began as socialists or leftists, the most prominent being Mussolini, who was once one of Italy's most powerful socialists, as well as the editor of Italy's most well-known socialist newspaper. And Hitler did try to win over German socialists to his cause, and it wasn't called the National Socialist party for nothing. You are correct in that they were both anti-modern or anti-capitalist, however.

Also, how can you say that the Democratic Party is socialist and nationalist? Yes, some Democratic leaders support the welfare state and have protectionist tendencies, but calling them socialist goes a bit far, and is typical Tea Party bullshit. Moreover, how can you speak about "the Democratic Party," as if it were some monolithic entity free of all disunity and dissension?

I would appreciate a response to this comment. I am genuinely curious as to what a libertarian has to say.

"If were up to your sort of people, I fear that we would have no . . ."

Clean Air Act = Yes EPA = No Dept of Education = No No to just about every Federal Agency created. Local, Local, Local.

If only I were King :) Public schools would be at the State or better yet, mostly County level with some State influence where practical. The mission of said public schools would be to compliment the Parent's responsibility to raise children who are self-governing and therefor interdependent in their communities.

My sort of people would have never put a 75 Million dollar cap on oil spill damages that encouraged unsafe practices. Democratic Congress.

My sort of people would have never allowed the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act (Democrats) that led to banks being able to have unlimited money to lend that led to all kinds of hedging that led to the Community Reinvestment Act that led to the Housing Bubble and so on. And as far as 'Predatory lending', if you too stupid to borrow money, you will find out quickly. This goes back to the public school mission I described above.

The Nazis and Communists teamed up together between 29 and 33 to work against the Social Democrats. I first read about this in 'Road to Serfdom', or perhaps 'The Fatal Conceit' also by Hayek. There was a saying that went with this alliance, something like "First Brown, then Red" Did you read Road to Serfdom? Pretty sure it was in there.

As for the Democrats being Socialists, again I am working with the definition that Central Planning is the same as Central Ownership. As RöSTIGRABEN pointed out, there are several flavors of Socialism, but as Hayek points out, and I agree, Central Planning someone's Private Property without consent places State authority over said property making it in effect State Property. Socialism. You want to call the Republicans Socialists as well? I believe the shoe fits, but more loosely.

Nationalistic? The Feds have most control over the Nation, whatever party is in control is in control of the entire nation.

I wholeheartedly believe that Socialism would work and be practical at the County level. It is not until you extend it beyond Local Gov't that it becomes wealth redistribution. You can hold Local officials accountable. And if there is waste, then it is Local, the whole nation doesn't suffer for the ignorance of the few.

Are the Democrats, current political direction especially, not Socialists as defined by Central Planning?

Can I say that all Democrats would use the threat of Gov't force (i.e. Agencies, Regulations, penalties, fines, exclusions, etc) to coerce those that do not fall in line? No, but the current leadership is actively engaged in this behavior, the former as well.

The recent HHS Secretary's threat against insurers who campaign against Obamacare is a good example, Patriot Act is another.

Think what you like, but the Republicans will soon be turning against the Tea Party aggressively as well. Just because many have put on a Tea Party badge means little. If they're not actively engaged in restoring Self-Government, the Tea Party, my sort of people, are going to be in their faces.

Not Libertarian so much as Jeffersonian without being solely agrarian and maintaining a standing army. Yes, I'm hard to label as well.

Not so rare is correct, and I'm pleased to be able to say it.

Self-Government is much older than Central Planning and if you want to get a good taste of Self-Government at its best, read 'The Wealth of Nations' by Smith. You can get away with just reading Book 4, however 1-3 and 5, while a difficult read (archaic language) gave a great Darwinian explanation to Micro-Economics aka Capitalism.

I read Das Kapital (Engels annotated) afterwards and found it to be very Nietzsche-esque, and more philosophical techno-babble than an attempt to predict the outcomes of economic behavior. Seemed more interested in motivation than outcomes.

Having read both, and much Hayek and Keynes, I find Micro-Economics to work hand in hand with Self-Government, and Macro-Economics to work hand in hand with Central Planning Gov'ts. While you can never really have Self-Government, the idea is to come as close as possible.

Where Micro is an attempt at educating the many to predict the outcome of their actions based upon their knowledge of the economy, Macro is an attempt to coerce the outcome by limiting the knowledge of the many and having authority over their actions. This automatically creates a working class and a ruling class where one group has privileged information and authority over the other.

That being said, there is room for Macro at the business level or local Gov't level, but Macro assumes Authority over shared resources so it must be kept as Local as possible if public and if it is Private Property, then the owner(s) can assume as much control as they deem fit.

This does not preclude safety and pollution standards, etc. I found it very interesting that Smith spoke of air quality regarding all the smoke from factories, child labor, and local ordinances to regulate them back in the 1700's.

In closing, the real Tea Party movement is about the discipline of Self-Government and the Liberty to practice it. It is our right to do so. While it appears to be hijacked by a few or several if you like 'TeaBaggers', the true movement is millions of Individual Sovereigns looking to restore our inalienable rights, the 9th Amendment being most important IMHO.

Oh yeah, we're long winded as well :) Liberty is a topic that we can cogently expand upon at length.

The End is Far, and our best days are in front of us. Have a good one.

"I question whether it is relevent in the current real world" regarding Self-Government.

BNELS,

I've been pondering your question for the last several days and can find no other answer than it is 'relative'. This may at first seem a cop-out, but it truly comes down to a Human Being's ability to be Interdependent. You mention that we're not all created equal, I'd argue that most of us are and that Good Parenting and/or Self-Determination, and lack of, is what creates lasting inequality.

All Human Beings come into this world Dependent and as both teenagers and parents alike know well, most strive for Independence somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd decade of their lives. However, Independence is not very practical in nature and few species in the mammal class practice it; those that do are predators.

Interdependence on the other hand is, and is the very generic term for Division of Labor so eloquently described by Adam Smith.

If you're familiar with Smith you've probably heard of the "invisible hand" that guides economies. This is nothing more than the infinite number of economic decision combinations that take place everyday and Micro-Economics is the attempt at predicting the position, speed, and direction of the invisible hand(s). While Micro-Economics Laws are subject to exceptions (human behavior), they are called Laws for a reason. In life it is far more important to be able to react to/absorb an exception than predict it since they are practically infinite.

Macro-Economics is the attempt by a few people to guide that hand which requires the few to Centrally Plan the Division of Labor and in turn requires the Authority to carry out the plan. Macro tries desperately to make (coerce) Human Behavior Finite, and always fails. Einstein's definition of Insanity comes to mind.

You seem to be saying that since we have many who Cannot plan for themselves that those of us who Can must also be subject to being guided by those (Rulers) so kind as to plan the lives of those who Cannot.

This is quite absurd and offensive and sets to reverse the ratio of Cans and Cannots within the Human Species. Turning Shepherds into Sheep. Have and Have Not becomes far less the result of Ability & Self-Determination than Charity & Predetermination.

This is what many of the Founders were talking about in giving up Liberty for Safety. If you choose to stay under the care and guidance of your parents until you depart this wonderful experience, you are free to do so, but your choice is in no way a coercion for others. In fact it should be a deterrent.

"If only it was as simple as letting men be self governing."

:) LOL, Let? From whom do you ask Permission?

Andrew, if that's the case where were all these Fancy Dress-partiers during the reign of BushII?

It was BUSH II that destroyed the USA national budget and ran up intergalatic levels of debt.

Meanwhile all these frock-coated Konstitution fetishists and slave-owning-ancestor-worshipers would have been polishing their guns, having their brains wiped by Fox "News" and worshiping at the altars of Mars and Mammon.

All the while they wouldn't have given a rat's arse about the health or well-being of their fellow Americans.

Obama *tries*, against the massive opposition of entrenched and vested interests, to put in place a universal health care system - something that is perfectly successful and simply taken for granted in ALL the other advanced economies of the OECD.

And suddenly out come all these sucked-in dupes who swallow all this crap about "fiscal" debt - the vast majority of which goes to the Pentagon to wage disastrous foreign wars of aggression.

EVIDENCE-based public policy, anyone??

Nope. I'll go and blow the family budget on a nice 18th century hat and frock-coat instead and pollute public places with the insane Mormon rantings of Beck and Palin instead!

The psychotic and schizoid- paranoiac nature of the The Tea Partiers is patently and terrifyingly obvious.

War: good. Health: bad.

God damn America.