Some folks who are usually on the same page with me are expressing some qualms about the tea parties. In particular, they’re concerned that the tea party movement is either (a) being coopted by Republicans have no credibility on issues of limited government and individual rights, or (b) are being coopted by the Ron Paul paleocons and therefore even worse. Well, I can certainly understand these concerns. I can say that I don’t think the Sacramento tax party was coopted in this way. There were certainly a large number of people there I would either consider nuts or would strongly disagree with—lots of folks who want to use the opportunity to talk about abortion or illegal immigration or abolishing the Fed. But that is true of any protest, and the speakers at the event were for the most part responsible and reasonable spokesmen: Armstrong and Getty, who are anything but wackos; Tom McClintock, one of the very few Republicans who has stood up against his own party’s reckless spending; as well as some forgettable conservative speakers. Even if you have disdain for Neil Cavuto (someone I don’t know enough about to have an opinion on), I don’t think he qualifies as a nut of any sort. By far the majority of people attending (and I suspect this goes for all of the tea parties) were regular Americans who believe in small government and are very frustrated by both Democrats and Republicans. It was very noticeable that when one speaker made what appeared to be a plug for the Republican party, he received very little applause. There was little reason to be “scared” as Ed Brayton is.*
I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the tea parties are necessarily a bunch of wackos or a bunch of Republican opportunists. There are plenty of those, but that is not what they are in essence.
However, it is obvious that Governor Perry’s answer to a reporter’s question in Texas was deplorable and inexcusable and that if he stands by his words, he deserves to be impeached. Although he did not explicitly call for secession in his speech, his invocation of Sam Houston (who actually opposed secession) was intended to hint in that direction. Later asked to clarify, he came very close to openly advocating secession, and clearly indicated that he thinks it is a legitimate alternative.
Now, there is no question that the federal government has dramatically overstepped its constitutional authority, and there is no question that it has ignored the Tenth Amendment (at Texas’ invitation no less than that of other states). But unilateral secession remains unconstitutional—not merely because of the outcome of the Civil War, but because of the nature of the thing itself—and Rick Perry has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. If he takes secession seriously as a constitutional theory or as a real option, then he should not remain in office. Oh, and no, Texas never did “reserve” a right to secede when it joined the union. Not even our conservative friends at Lew Rockwell’s site claim that, so far as I know.
Of course, if he believes that a long train of abuses, pursuing invariably the same object, have evinced a design to reduce us under absolute despotism, then Governor Perry has the right and even the duty to urge his fellow Texans to throw off that government, through revolution—and of course, to shoulder the enormous responsibility of taking such a step, which would almost inevitably lead to violence. But he has no justification whatsoever for airing the dangerous foolishness of secession, and, worse still, doing so not sincerely but to play to the crowd for political advantage—the clearest possible mark of a demagogue. Governor Perry has embarrassed himself, embarrassed his office, and embarrassed his state.
*--Incidentally, I cannot understand Brayton’s objection to a sign protesting a 39% tax bracket. He writes, “A 39% tax rate on the wealthiest people in the country is slavery, but 36% is not?” Well, how does he know that the person with the sign holds that view? That person was very likely just as outraged at a 36% rate as he is at 39%. And yes, it is slavery. Being compelled to give up the fruits of one’s labor to give to another is slavery. It is, in Lincoln’s words, “the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.” The regulatory welfare state, by which the politically influential live off the earnings of others is exploitative and abusive in principle and a violation of property rights and individual liberty. I thought Brayton called himself a libertarian! And how in the world can Brayton accuse this person of racism—saying “I guess 39% is only slavery if there’s a black man in the White House. How ironic.” This sounds very much like the typical liberal tactic of labeling anyone who believes in limited government as a racist who probably voted for George Wallace. And backed up by an appeal to class envy? Ed, I believe that a 39 percent income tax rate on “the wealthiest people in the country” is slavery; I believe a 36 percent income tax rate is slavery. I think it’s morally unjustifiable and an offense to the principles of individual liberty and private property rights on which this nation was founded. Do you assume I’m a racist Republican Party Reptile, too?
Update: Here's what I mean about Brayton. Brayton is outraged that "the right wing fringe is increasingly being mainstreamed," and cites as evidence that "We've got major voices on the right openly talking...about Obama being a fascist, etc.," and a sign that makes an (admittedly absurd) Hitler reference. Yet he "always like[s] Keith Olbermann...especially when he's brilliantly skewering O'Reilly and Limbaugh, though I think sometimes he lets partisanship blind him and gets overly self-righteous." Okay, so sometimes Olbermann goes a little overboard, but it's forgivable because he's basically a good guy, right? And yet here is the kind of rhetoric Keith Olbermann uses.
Now why is it that Olbermann can be indulged or forgiven his sometimes over-the-top rhetoric calling his opponents fascists, while the exact same behavior from right wing talk show hosts is proof that the "lunatic fringe" is becoming mainstream in the Republican Party? Why is it that when one guy does it it's just, you know, a little extreme, but his heart is in the right place... While when the other guy does it it's proof that the barbarians are at the gate? Might it be instead that Ed gets his news about what's going on on the right by turning to certain media outlets and blogs that spin such news in as dastardly a fashion as possible--while simultaneously ignoring or downplaying deplorable behavior by the left? Our prejudices may be hard to shake, but a little more consistency here might serve readers better.
Update: Now Brayton supports high speed rail lines, of all things, one of the prototypical government boondoggle makework programs of all time, because they will "help workers in Michigan"! I thought he was a libertarian.
