Why does the Tea Party support Scott Brown?

Great post, Norman.
Slowing the destruction of America is a good thing. Right?
But is this what Republicans in Washington are doing? Is there a more descriptive way to put the point? How about:
Contributing to the slower destruction of America is a ____ thing. Right?

It is NOT a good thing.

A slow death kills and a fast death kills. Is it the frog that won’t jump out of the boiling pot if you put it in while the water is still cold before applying the heat?

We need the damn frog to jump out, and as your post discusses, Brown’s not going to be doing much jumping.

Double post, sorry.

And now for something completely different:

It sounded good (after all, who wouldn’t want to see Repbulicans starting to jump out of the boiling pot?).

But according to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp) it’s not true, despite it’s value as an Aesop’s fable-like make-a-point-sound-good device.

I have been trying to tell all of my “conservative” friends that Scott Brown’s victory might have given Obama his 60th vote for the proposed health care legislation. They were not convinced and were riding on the high that a “Republican” won Ted Kennedy’s (like we live in feudal times) seat. I found this link yesterday and more than a few people issued expletives. Thank God for YouTube and the internet for capturing everything these intellectual deficients say.

I think we will see a lot more Scott Brown’s in 2010. This will be the year that the tea-party patriots and the liberty movement in general will vote for lesser evils just to stop the “evil Democrats.” The grassroots movement is not organized enough, and the tea-party patriots are still infants in their understanding of genuine principles of liberty, to identify genuine principled politicians and get them elected. So, 2012 is the opportunity for true liberty minded candidates to be elected. Libertarians have to make an effort in the meantime to evangelize the tea-party patriots in Libertarian ideas.

Thanks, Jason, that’s a good reminder as well. Love your website, btw…

Hi Norman!

I enjoyed your article. I live in Massachusetts so I got a good look at what the tea party movement was doing for Scott Brown. I too was surprised that they could so easily endorse him just for the sake of getting a republican in office. As this was my first time I was able to vote, I was under a lot of pressure from family and friends to vote for Scott Brown. However, I felt that I could not mainly for three reasons:

1. He committed sodomy by posting nude for a magazine and was named sexiest man of the year.

2. He is pro-choice

3. His involvement in what we call out here “romneycare”.

As a Christian, I think that it is important(especially us young people) to not go with the flow by voting hastily for someone who has not yet proved he can be trusted. Instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, we must remember what God’s standards are vs. mans standards. Unless we do this, we are not going to be able to bring our country back to the way our Founding Father’s intended it to be.

Thanks again!

Sarah

Sarah: You stayed true to principle, and that’s great! Point of clarification, though, as far as I’m aware I do not think Brown’s actions in your first point can be classified as “sodomy” per se. Was that mag lewd? Absolutely. But I think that it is generally better to focus on policies than his personal failings.

Maybe there are better words to use than “invaders” for military members. Whether it’s accurate, the tone seems a bit off.

Patrick:

Your comment, by its brevity, is a bit unclear. Are you broaching the subject of: “Watch your tone, or all you’ll do is turn off the people you should be trying to persuade rather than effectively persuading them?”

I get the sense that Norm’s post is “preaching to the [people who should be part of the] choir” (i.e. the tea partiers). In other words, knocking upside the head people who are already open to the idea that Americans who invade are, in fact, invaders.

Call a spade a spade. Didn’t Bush say something about calling evil by its name?

Norm: how does one go about persuading people from statism toward Liberty? Libertarian Evangelism. When you go about Evangelising for Christ, for instance: you don’t walk into a brothel, slay the prostitutes, and drag the patrons out of the place shouting Old Testament laws at them.

How one conveys the message has a huge role in how the message is received. On the internet, you have very little influence on who stumbles upon your site. Therefore, out of any three visitors, you may have one choir-member, one person who is open-minded enough not to mind a few harsh words, and one person who is just about ready to peep out of a door, but sees his friends and family members in the military called invaders, and bam, the door slams again.

Obviously, it’s impossible to speak to all people in a way that they’ll hear, but to a certain extent, I’m sure you strive to strike a responsible balance. Do you do this consciously? What steps do you take to do it?

(And then there are folks like Michael Savage and Glen Beck who do not try to strike a balance. My hunch is that these folks don’t do a lot of persuading.)

Regarding the use of “invaders”… I made mention that Brown supports invasion, occupation, and sanctions. So, how can it be off-tone to call the people enforcing such as invaders, occupiers, and sanctioners (if that last one is even a word), if indeed the former set of deeds are truly happening? Seriously, did not the Federal Government call it an invasion from the start? Do they not call it an occupation now?

If they don’t like to hear it, if it makes them uncomfortable, then it is only because it is true.

Sometimes it is right to call people out for moral turpitude. That is just as much a part of evangelism as anything else. Of course, you have to pick your battles and be tactful, but never, never, never stop telling the truth.

And to be sure, there are a lot worse things to call someone than an “invader”.