My guess is “yes,” what with the willy-nilly manner in which it is moving into government control of the economy, today seeking to expand this control over financial firms other than banks. [Well, you gotta make something in down times.-ed. But you can't sell libertarians. Not yet.] As anecdotal evidence of this trend I offer the growing sales of Ayn Rand’s over fifty-year old Atlas Shrugged and the huge debut of Mark Levin’s (yes, I know he’s not really a lib) Liberty and Tyranny. The MSM’s reaction to the Tea Party phenomenon is another data point. They claim this movement (with its thus far small protests) has too few members to merit real attention. So did the Bolshevik Party, as I recall…. Anyway, today’s food for thought. Maybe this manufacturing process is a good thing – as long as it stays “green,” of course.
Some member of the media actually said the Tea Parties are too small to cover? Really?!? Wow, these people wouldn’t know a story if they tripped over it!
They also don’t seem to comprehend the main complaint, backed by solid evidence–which is that they cover stories based not on size, but on political viewpoint.
do a Lexus or Google search for the media stories in the run-up to the 1994 midterm election — Outside of Bob Novak, all the big media types and Democratic spinners were stunned when Republicans won the House and Senate (leading to Peter Jennings’ ABC radio commentary when he accused voters of having an election day temper tantrum).
In the same way people on one side of the ideological spectrum or the other tend to gravitate towards websites that reinforce their views, the media gravitates towards things like the staged protests at AIG execs’ homes and away from things like the Tea Parties, because the former reinforces their world view. The latter, they just push away, in hopes that by ot giving it attention, it will die out. And they’ll keep doing that right up until the 2010 election, though today, with so many other media sources available, they have nobody to blame but themselves if they’re again shocked by the midterm results.
I hope posters # 1 and 2 are correct. I have become very cynical.
If I lived in the USA I would be going to every Tea Party within 500 miles. But, for the most part, they are small affairs. In most cases you could draw a bigger crowd at a school yard fist fight (do they still have those?). It’s sad because I think a lot of people have lost their life savings. Why aren’t they out in the streets?
One would think the Republicans will win big in 2010. I don’t think so. First, they don’t have any good candidates. Second, House seats are usually safe for incumbents. Also, remember, Michigan continues to keep re-electing Democrats no matter how bad things get in that state. You’d think by now they’d try the other party.
The Republicans lack an eloquent and passionate spokesperson. Yes, we have Rush, but he’s a radio personality. Sad to say, we don’t have a Winston Churchill straining at the leash to be released.
Funny, they had no trouble covering ACORN’s Rich-Hunt Bus Tour – what was that? 40 people? Well, I guess the (at first hidden, but then exposed) fact that “Working Families” was really yet another ACORN disguise makes it a bigger “group.”
‘Course the tacit involvement of the President himself, who activated his ACORN stormtroopers on American citizens ought to be BIG NEWS.
Ought to increase turnout at the Tea Parties, too. Ought to scare the crap out of every thinking person.
Pops:
There have been dozens of these tea parties with some of them actually drawing crowds in the thousands. If you put them all together, it is a lot of people.
The Civil Rights movement started with less.
I ordered Atlas Shrugged on audio. 63 hours, 50 CDs. Some of it is tedious and redundant a little fantastic, but it is amazing how prescient much of it really is.
Today I saw a post at Hot Air in the headlines about Obama wanting to save the planet. You know, doing something about that chaotic capitalism.
If that does not make your blood run cold, you must be a European at heart, not an American.
If I lived in the USA I would be going to every Tea Party within 500 miles. But, for the most part, they are small affairs
The rally in Fullerton had between 10,000 ad 15,000 people. There were a few differences; a radio talk show promoted it and California has some special problems this year. Still it was a huge rally and the LA Times ignored it.
The irony is that most secular inclined libertarians probably voted for Barack Obama. They thought he would be liberal regarding the cultural war issues—but libertarian regarding economics. Have they woke up to reality?
Like many others I am now a libertarian, the result of dismay at the big-government Republicans under George Bush, not Barack Obama. Libertarian ranks are swelling with former Republicans disgusted with the big-government conservatism of three consecutive Republican Congresses, not with former Democrats who love big government naturally.
More blame should attach to Bush, not Obama, for any recent growth of libertarianism.
To those who suddenly claim to be libertarians, you should know that most libertarians subscribe to a ZAP (zero aggression policy)ideology: if you thought, for example, that invading Iraq was a great idea, it would not conform to such an ideology.
And, for lots of [additional] reasons, it wasn’t a great idea.
“More blame should attach to Bush….”
Sure. Why buck the trend now?
The short sighted foreign policy issues are the reason why I, and a lot of others, are not Big L libertarians. You can debate it as long as you are honest about the existing situation in 2003. Many aren’t. Ron Paul’s campaign was marred by some unrealistic ideas on foreign affairs plus some ugly anti-Semitism.
When Obama says confidently that the economy will get better, hang in there, etc., he ultimately bases this on what we traditionally know about recessions, namely that they end at some point. Yet, he promises to manage the economy to end boom/bust cycles. This is utter piffle.
We are in the process of throwing outrageous sums of money and making enduring commitments of spending based on little more than wishful thinking. Perhaps Obama can write a book, make everyone buy a copy at a ridiculous price and finance healthcare with it. He’ done nothing in his career to inspire any confidence that he knows anything about the economy. I think we are near the time when we will see an Alfred E. Obama parody– what, me worry?
“Fixing” healthcare will ensure prosperity? Funny that most Europeans enjoy socialized medicine and are suffering worse than we during this recession. Some spots in Europe are in deep trouble, but let’s be more like them.
Obama isn’t creating libertarians, he is creating very angry taxpayers who have already paid their dues by losing 50% or their IRAs/401(K)’s. It’s many of those folks who are forming tea parties, not bonus receiving Wall Streeters.
And yes, official libertarians have a zero tolerance for aggression fetish, which is one (of the many) reasons why libertarianism will always be nothing more than a fringe movement, and why many of the official libertarian movement can safely write smug articles about why everyone besides them is a nincompoop (because they’ll never have to wrestle with the messiness of really governing).
Obama is indeed behind the stragedy to fabricate a libertarian swelling. But its a divide and rule strategy designed to weaken the only true source that can mount a political opposition to him/congress.
How sweet for the re-election of, not only him, but of the Dem majority in congress: If 1300 Libertarian votes come in when the Dem won by only 400 margin; the dem wins by de windfall.
Libertarian is a philosophy, not a political strategy. A nice ideal, as all philosophy is, but not realistic where results are concerned.
Obama switches from straw man to shibboleth, as though Libertarian provides the purity one seeks, if one falls for the “both party’s are equally bad” moral eqivalence double reverse. (ruse) see Glenn Beck.divide and rule, see above
We must keep up, to clean up.
“Independents” were taken in by the false promise of “change” and we won’t get many Dems to switch, as both are heavily invested emotionally with the notion of “good intentions must surely be the way?”
But we can win with ideas, and Libertarian ideas, if strong, have hope of a place in only one of the two viable party’s, and its not Democrat Party: they need us to vote Libertatian, in order to vote Dem, back in office.
There was a lot of overstated commentary after the last election about how Republicans needed to reinvent themselves. Few of the pundits seemed to have a clue about what had gone wrong. Maybe it is because not much had gone wrong – a 6 percentage point victory by the opposition after a two term presidency is an unsurprising result according to those who study such things.
But I wouldn’t say nothing went wrong. Any observer looking closely enough to see past the distraction of the war on terror was aware that the conservative first principle of limiting the size and scope of government was receiving short shrift by our own side. In the pursuit of their own narrow self-interest, Republican pols from Compassionate George on down moved away from this most libertarian precept.
Now, thanks to Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership, this issue has been handed back to us on a platter. For this, we owe the Democrats a debt of gratitude. The question now is whether our pantheon of Republican leaders, squishy principles and all, will be able to do anything with this great gift.
Finally, I would like to note that there is a deeper problem here for conservatives. It is a problem of faulty self-selection. Why would libertarians want to squander their lives working for government? Most don’t. Because libertarians select themselves out of government, we are left with elected representatives, even on the Republican side, who harbor big government sympathies. There is the real problem for conservatives.
hahahahaha…. MSM will not know what hit them…. that’s a good thing.
The way I see it, most of us (that frequent this blog) are a 9-11 created mix of neo-con libertarian. We believe in small government and yet want to be more aggressive against foreign belligerents.
These are not dissimilar views. By being complacent, we allowed the Taliban to hide terrorists and Saddam to enrich himself while shooting at our warplanes in defiance of our cease-fire.
In the same way we have allowed government to creep further into our wallet while keeping us from enjoying our lives how we see fit. (smoking/drug laws, zoning codes, 2nd amendment restrictions).
That is why I see myself as a small l libertarian, one that is very ok with the war in Iraq (i.e. smash it and then rebuild it, for the reason that this plan was the only one that has removed a threat). Right now neither big party stands up for these 2 positions.
Also, I really am mad about how ACORN tried to co-opt the T-Party movement with this witch hunt. I almost want to publish a list of all registered ACORN members.
#13 Yeah, and the other 50% goes to sales taxes, incomes tax, state income tax, phone bill tax, utility tax, then on to cap and trade tax, cut in donations deduction…etc
I attended the February 27th DC Tea Party tyhat was monitored by a federal SWAT supervisor. SOP according to him. No MSM overage, just PJ and Reason TV.
I will attend the April 4th Silver Spring, MD Tea Party and others. Yes, we are small in numbers but from my conversations with people in malls and on the street, we are not alone, they just don`t attend such demonstations since they are too busy with their lives and don´t believe that congress and the president will listen to them anyway.
It will take violance as usual, I’m afraid, to get the medias` attention and then it will be labeled as some nut group. These clowns in DC seem to believe that they are the untouchables. I have suggested to organizers that maybe only demonstations at their local offices will impress them, but we have seen little of that.
Maybe if citizens tarred and feathereds Dodd that might get thier attention. One can always hope.
Is the Obama Administration manufacturing libertarians?
My answer is yes they are.
I’m starting to think my computer browser is taken over by them as well.
I cannot go to web-sites that are Republican on AOL or Google anymore.
Does Oprah own AOL?
Are AOL and Google run by communists now? No, maybe they are owned by SOCIALISTS!
I can no longer get to Pajamasmedia by using AOL.