Fear and Loathing in Trans-Tea-Party-Mania

Here's an email I received recently from a reader (a friend with history and theology degrees from a grad school in Wisconsin). Whether you agree with the ideas or not, you've got to love these raw, free-flowing, shoot-from-the hip reflections. This one is on politics, sparked by a banal interview with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) entitled "Sen. Nelson: Obama May Not Have Constitutional Authority, But He Has Moral Authority" (Breitbart.tv, June 18, 2010). Commenting on the interview, our reader writes:

The very real and immediate dangerous sense of moral v. legitimate authority.

Tea Parties vary from region to region. I'm not a member of any of the Parties, and can relate to some local SC groups that espouse standing by the constitution, but there are revisionists out there. Perhaps even in Nebraska, Nelson being less than a footnote trying to cash in on those members. This was a political move, one of emotion, not a statement of authority alone (as a senator).

The greater debate and even real fight remains in what right v. what is right. These principles can merge and fade from each other depending on emotion, philosophic bearings, theological bearings. What we witness is the early percolation of, God forbid, a civil war--YES being demonstrated between the Tea Partiers. The extreme Left (not Partiers) are perpetual commies and anarchists. They will be of no account during such a fight, but are a threat as people become weakened. They enjoy filling easy gaps and will impose their will when people are certainly (not probably) weak. Note and brief aside: Have you wondered why Obama Inc., will not make serious effort to save the Gulf from as much disaster as possible? Because it is not in their interest to. They want the citizens to be reduced to not demands but begging the government to save the area and thus themselves. They await a populace ready for slavery.

And so Nelson stands in emotive qualities, desperate to be in collusion with a philosophically oriented group(s). How can we know? As the saying goes, "How does one know a politician is lying?"--"His lips are moving". He's a desperate man trying to be needed by a constituency. He is on the verge of being completely irrelevant or being a fellow apparatchik of Obama's Amerika. The die is cast.

As for the Tea Parties, their variation divides them but also identifies them as societal phenomena that appear to be at least philosophically-based. They are not and cannot stand as one. They are philosophically moved by regional needs followed by, sometimes closely, emotional impulse. Many are conservative or even Republican. They are the groups bent on constitutionalism. The tenet here is every man--more American philosophy of humanity. Many others are liberal in the 19th century sense (as my former political science professor would call it). They are more readily identified with the examples given in the article posted on your blog. They seek to stand up for the little guy, whether infant or retiree. The tenet here is all men--more Franco-European philosophy of humanity.

And so, will the Constitution stand? What will survive--every man OR all men? What will overcome--in what right OR what is right?

Then, as an addendum:

By the way, the two spectra of the Tea Parties are NOT ever completely reconcilable. Their sense of democracy/representative republic/human rights are incompatible. It is exactly---NOT IN PART--but exactly (okay minus the riding bootsies) the 19th century difference between the understanding of freedom in the US as opposed to the varying interpretations in Europe. See Theodore Roosevelt's concepts on this. He has essays on what it is to be a man, good citizenship, good living--these fall line for line in with American values. The European values are found from French revolutionaries to Marx. They ultimately exclude the value of the individual--some in very short order.

[Hat tip to S.K.]