Then what makes them radical and extreme?
Radical is not a word I would use. Extreme I will explain along with replying to Zyphlin.
I'm not sure that Redress has claimed them to be that, but I can wager why some on the far left would see the tea party as "radical" or "extreme".
Many Tea Partiers are willing to feel some short term discomfort for potentially beneficial long term improvements. To many, taking such a stance is a "radical" notion, akin to amputating ones leg due to severe dabilitating pain in it rather than living life full of pills. For many people opening yourself up to hard times, even if its the chance of a much better life in total, is a "radical" or "extreme" thing. Couple that with the fact that many on the far left think that the views of what the Tea Party stands for won't lead to "good" things but to bad and suddenly it seems they're pushing for bad now for bad later.
Close. What I and I think most liberals see is the Tea Party cure being worse than the disease. GDP for 2010: $14,871B(
News Release: Gross Domestic Product). Federal spending 2010: $2,080B(
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) That means that the federal budget is 14 %(!!!) the size of GDP. I think we can all agree that that is just too ****ing big. However, when I and I think other liberals look at that, we see a real danger to cutting too much. It would not be hard to cut and send the economy right back into recession or worse. That is not short term pain for a greater good, that is self destructive.
That is why we consider to an extent the Tea Party to be extreme. They are not satisfied with some, they want too much, and extreme amount, that puts us in extreme danger. Yes, the language in this paragraph is overblown and exaggerated. It is just to make the point of where I am coming from, if that makes sense.
I also realize I have not offered solutions, and I will get to that part in a bit, to contrast.
Many Tea Partiers are extremely upset with government, how it works, and the size its bloated. As with any group, hyperbole builds in at times and calls to severely reduce government comes off as an immediete goal to get rid of a huge hunk rather than something that realistically will take time to do. Our society since the New Deal has been one with varying large degrees of government involvement in peoples lives and the notion of moving significantly away from the norm can be seen as "radical" or "extreme".
That was fine and accurate till the last sentence. We know that social programs, many of them important to us, are going to have to go under the knife.
They could be rather "extreme" or "radical" themselves and, as is typical, they view the Tea Party as sort of a mirror, focusing on the fringe elements and extrapolating them as the norm because it suits their political agenda. So they see the fringe that is building up compounds to try and refuse the government, citing "right wing terrorism" yet would never look at groups like ELF as the general representation of environmentalism. They see a fringe amount of klan members supporting the movement and cite that its a racist group, while ignoring the elements of MS-13 and La Raza in the open-borders movement.
No. Those who equate the Tea Party as racist should not be taken seriously. On the other hand, and I commented on this early on in the Tea Parties existence after going to a Tea Party rally that first big day, the Tea Party would do themselves alot of good by policing themselves better and trying to put a more...rational...face when in public. Dressing in outlandish costumes and acting like the worst of the "Bush is a war criminal" rallies is not a good way to present a positive image. You and I both know that those people are not the mainstream of the Tea Party, but the media of course are attracted to the extreme, just as the core of the anti-war movement did not burn Bush in effigy or show him as Hitler, that is what the media(damn liberal media...) focused on.
Ultimately the Tea Party is a solidly right wing fiscal and governmental organization. To my understanding I would not call it "extreme" or "radical" in a literal sense....fiscal and governmental extremism on the right would be the abolishment of almost all taxes and absolutely hardlined limiting of what government can do to the most narrow literalistic reading of the constitution, which is not the case for the majority of tea partiers with one step away from an anarchy being the form of government. Now, comparing the Tea Party's views to modern politics and generally what we've seen from both parties over the past 20 to 30 years...yes, it could be seen as "radical" and "extreme" as neither side on a national stage have showed anywhere near the desire nor gumption to seriously and legitimately work toward significant cuts to spending. So in the sense of being extremely different than the norm, sure. And comparitive to a far left liberal view, it could easily be seen as "extreme" as its significantly different than their views.
But if you ask me if its "extreme" comparitive to a legitimate, honest, moderate (and not a staunch liberal who likes to call themselves a moderate by acting like everyone thinks like them because its common sense and anyone else must be some extreme crazy righty)? No, its staunchly to the right, but its not extreme from a point where you start in the legitimate middle.
Calling for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and reduced government is not extreme in itself. It
is the degree that the Tea Party seems to want to go that I think is extreme, and the speed they want to get there, and the simplistic ideas they have on how to do it.
--------------
We have covered this some in other threads, but how I would solve the problem of the deficit in very brief form, since I said I would: GDP grows about 3 to 4 % a year. Combine that with 1 to 2 % cuts, across the board(including finding those savings in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid), and we arrive at a balance in fairly short order. It will take 20ish years, but the debt is not going to destroy us in that time. We do not have to solve things overnight, and we do not have to destroy the economy in order to save it.
Paul Ryan released his budget proposal for 2012, Obama is reportedly working on one that shares one similarity to Ryan's...it is not passable. Despite the fact that a decent compromise was worked out for the rest of the year, the sides are lining up to play politics with next years budget and neither is really serious about deficit reduction, they are simply trying to get the other side to take unpopular positions before the election next year. I hate cynicism in politics, but I find I am getting more and more cynical all the time.
Cease with the personal attacks immediately or face the consequences. Stick to the topic, period.
