Earth Day and Tea Party 2011
Any Middle Ground?
Update; Both the “Green Party” and “Tea Party” openly called for “SMALLER GOVERNMENT”.
This may sound funny, but it is true nonetheless, I heard it with my own ears. Of course the call went out with different reasons as their basis of logic, but I believe there is common ground to work towards.
Same call different visions.
Green Party: Traditional Liberal philosophy of individualism/rights protected by the government not mandated actions dictated by the government. One must realize the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive. An example of a modern liberal mindset is the old rally cry of “Question Authority” and “Down with Big Brother” anyone remember those chants? Traditionally bigger government has never been the answer to problems Liberals seek to solve, but has been more of a hindrance through political and financial favors benefiting big business when they would rather see a focus on the needy or the “Common Person”. At Earth Day in Calaveras County this year I heard a more traditional Liberal message, at least from the organizers of the event.
Tea Party: Traditional Constitutional based philosophies were on display. Again individual freedoms and rights protected by the Constitution were at the heart of most discussions. One must realize there is a difference between a “Conservative” and a “Constitutionalist” or a “Libertarian” viewpoint. A Constitutionalist usually cares less about impeding what conservatives would consider “immoral” activities and focuses more on individual freedoms. While the so called “Moral Majority” rules the conservative faction, Constitutionalists tend to leave the moral judgments to God and focus on staying true to bringing government back to its correct size and scope. Their rally cry is tax inequality, in the idea that without continually increasing tax revenue the government would have to shrink by necessity. Representative Tom McClintock a well known “Tax Fighter” and somewhat of a celebrity in the anti-tax political realm was on hand to deliver a speech on the topic and was well received by many admiring Tea Party people.
In 2012 I believe we are in for a historical change of many philosophies and view points on political issues brought on by the necessity to restructure our fiscal policies. I see many different avenues for people to come together and build on common beliefs to achieve the goals that must be met for us to move forward at this stage in our country’s history and I as difficult a task as it may be to hold the position of a publicly elected representative at this time, I am excited at the challenge and look forward to working with all who wish to contribute in creating solutions for the challenges that we face here at home in our county.
Please come out and say hello at the first bi-annual Town Hall meeting.
Copperopolis: Thursday 04/28/2011 7-9 pm at the Black Creek HOA
Rancho Calaveras: Friday 04/29/2011 7-9 p.m. at the Rancho clubhouse
Typically it is assumed that there is no middle ground between alternate sides of the aisle politically, as the author of this book suggests on his cover art.
Today I had the opportunity to attend both our local Earth Day celebration and our local Tea Party tax rally.
Interestingly enough there were commonly shared beliefs voiced independently at each event unbenownst to the other.
Later this week I will elaborate in more detail with a longer blog post.
Very interesting stuff, that is actually a breath of fresh air towards better understanding, as well of course mixed with some all to over used rhetoric. Stay tuned.
Calaveras West Blog 
Hi Darren,
The Green Party may claim to hold a “Traditional Liberal philosophy of individualism/rights protected by the government not mandated actions dictated by the government” but the Green Party platform appears to indicate otherwise: http://www.cagreens.org/platform/platform_democracy.shtml .
The Green Party appears to want to transform the American form of government from a Republic into a “Grassroots Democracy”. The Green Party website also states “The principles and spirit expressed in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international standard that all nations, especially our own, must meet.”
The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights also promotes Democracy and redistribution of property.
In a Democracy, individual liberty takes a back seat to the collective. Democracy is mob rule and history has shown that Democracies consistently end in tragedy. The American form of government is a Republic, based on law that protects each individual’s inherent rights.
Having the government provide for the countless goods and services that the Green Party imagines are somehow “rights” would require expansion of government power and expense to facilitate forced property redistribution. Compelling someone to labor or part with their property for the benefit of another is the antithesis of freedom, it’s slavery and theft.
Tonja Dausend
Hey Tonja,
Green Party aside, which I am not well versed enough in to confirm or deny their real vs. perceived goals, I agree with you on the detrimental affects of an unchecked democracy.
You are also correct in saying we posses a “Republic” form of government. We express our choice of “political representative” in a “democratic” process of election, but that is where it ends. The idea of a pure democracy is not one easily understood by most in terms of it’s inherent flaws.
Take for instance discriminatory mandates or legislation such as those that existed before the success of the civil rights movement in the 1960’s a mere 50 years ago. The majority deemed segregation to be acceptable and therefore was common practice though obviously an affront to human rights and civil liberties supposedly protected by the Constitution of the United States. One of the better quotes on “Tyranny of the Masses” or “Tyranny of the Majority” can be found in the writings of Montesquieu who’s writings were politically influential in the development of legal and political system. This quote is a gem in the political realm of advocacy for “smaller localized government” and gave reasoning and insight as to why our Founding Fathers pushed for “State’s rights” to supersede any Federal Government dictates.
Baron de Montesquieu in 1748:
“It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.”
Unfortunately, our modern political system has disregarded or adopted ever changing legal precedent as legitimate dismantling agents for much of the original language that protects the integrity of our Republic, without which leaves us vulnerable to deterioration and eventual systemic collapse. I’m not so sure that where we stand today is beyond repair, I pray that it is not and certainly join with those who seek to protect our great nation from those who seek to destroy it.
Long live the Republic!