The 'Old Right' and the Tea Party Movement

As most of us know the Tea Party Movement was created by the followers of the Paleolibertarian Republican 2008 presidential hopeful, Ron Paul. After the election they became organized into a minor national movement, then it was infested with people from all sides of the Center to Far-Right, moving it from a Conservative Libertarian movement to a more Mainstream Conservative movement, thus forcing its original founders into the minority.

Now it is being hijacked by Social Conservatives and Neoconservatives, just as they hijacked the Republican Party. I am not a Tea Party member nor do I support the Tea Party and its movement, goals or ideals. But I hate to see such a grassroots organization be so badly hijacked by the same forces the hijacked and corrupted the once great Republican Party.

You can take this thread however you like, if you disagree with me and you are a Tea Partier that is fine. I am just voicing what I believe the Tea Party should do to regain its original focus and break the shackles of Neocons and Christian Fundamentalists.

I think you should attempt to bring back the 'Old Right', it is the best possible winning strategy for you and your movement. It is mostly the same goals and aspirations that you hold and this way you have something to look back upon to see how it worked.

Views of the 'Old Right'

1. A Non-Interventionist foreign policy
   
2. Oppose NATO and other international organizations
   
3. A laissez-faire economic policy
   
4. A strong pro-business orientation
   
5. A strong anti-union orientation
   
6. Support for bipartisanship
   
7. Support for 'traditional values'
   
8. Support for a more Agrarian society
   
9. Opposition to all or most New Deal policies
   
10. null
    

There are currently a few online outlets that are considered 'Old Right' orientation.

The American Conservative
The Betrayal of the American Right(Book)
The Chicago Tribune

Those are just a few to see.

Now there are currently only two nationally known people who are considered 'torch-bearers' of the 'Old Right'.

Pat Buchanan

Patrick Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.

From 1966 through 1974, Mr. Buchanan was an assistant to Richard Nixon, and from 1985 to 1987, White House Director of Communications for Ronald Reagan. In 1992, Mr. Buchanan challenged George Bush for the Republican nomination and almost upset the President in the New Hampshire primary. In 1996, he won the New Hampshire primary and finished second to Sen. Dole with three million Republican votes.

Pat Buchanan blog
Pat Buchanan(Wikipedia)
Political Positions of Pat Buchanan

AND

Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul, House of Representatives
Ron Paul(Wikipedia)
Political Positions of Ron Paul




So please Tea Party Movement if you are going to push for candidates push for real ones, candidates who are more like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. Because these are the Republicans who truly care about America and Americans first.

No comments yet? I thought this would be a thread that would encourage discussion.

reply to post by Misoir


The tea parties started as a reactionary movement and it has been such since its beginning.

As much as libertarians will insist they are neither Republican nor Democrat, they sat far more comfortably during the Bush administration and only decided to pull more of a vocal fuss when the general elections came about (when it became evident a Democratic candidate was likely to win). It’s not as if the tea parties started out as a movement in response to unconstitutional and intrusive acts by the government. The tea parties which started under Ron Paul were reactionary to the general elections. The tea parties grew significantly in size as a reactionary to the win of Barack Obama

This was a not a movement that started up in reaction to the patriot act.

This was a not movement started in reaction to the Iraq war.

It started up during a period in which president Bush was at his lowest approval ratings towards the end of his administration, and at a time when the president candidates began their campaigns, when the primaries were around the corner.

This is why I sit here in amazement that tea parties continue to insist this movement started up in response to the government overstepping constitutional guidelines. Fact is, they did not. And while I have no doubt there are some tea partiers who are tired of government spending and what not, the movement itself was reactionary. I do not think I have to begin to explain what the movement is at current as I’m sure you have outlined it pretty well.

What’s my prediction? Well give or take, the tea parties will die down once the Republicans gain majority and the Whitehouse. Many during that period will still continue to point and insist the movement is still around at that time, but it will evident how much volume the tea parties would have lost once that Republicans take a hold again in DC. This is not an anti-government movement specifically; it’s an anti-liberal Democratic movement. It has little to do with sticking it to the two parties as evident by the leaders of this movement and their ties to the Republican party.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Seeing as how the tea parties are not a single cohesive unit or a political party, you'll be hard-pressed to get them all to agree on any one candidate for anything. Too many people from too many political leanings. As much as it may pain some to realize, the tea parties don't fit into any nifty little categories because their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, positions on issues, etc., are as varied as those you'll find on this site.

I'd have to argue your history of the movement, I'd suggest going so far back as 1994 with the 'Taxed Enough Already' party or T.E.A. which eventually died out and found a resurgence with Ron Paul's libertarians in 2008.

I don't think it took on the mainstream conservative angle until 2009 and Rick Santelli's outburst on CNBC followed shortly thereafter by Glenn Beck's announcement for the 9/12 tax protest.

If you take the ideologies graph from the link in my signature to gauge where the splintered groups are, you'd probably find they reside almost entirely on the lower right. Among them, the conservative neoliberals, the fundamentalists and the paleoconservatives going so far towards the totalitarian nationalists.

To use the same graph I'd put the 'Old Right' more towards the center, a mix of the capital republicans and the paleoconservatives. In particular to the Tea Party movement and the 'old' right, my best guess would be realization by the fringe that they've let the centrists gain too much power and now with the rise of a center-left government they fear and fret the worst. Which is why you didn't hear a peep from them during the PATRIOT Act signing, 'they' were in charge.

So long as the talking heads on Fox news can keep everyone convinced that the protestors and the candidates all want the same things we'll likely see a republican congress next January. Given the 90+% of incumbent nominations during this years primaries we won't see any difference from the old to the new when and if they win.

The tea party haven't formed into a political party primarily for the insinuation that if a third party were to form the democrats would automatically win, which no one on the right wants. In addition to this belief, the GOP also has some Grand Old Cash, which the TEA candidates will need if they expect to do well against the already established left in the country. For the money reason alone is why you'll hear TEA candidates reject both the republican and democratic philosophies yet still have the (R) next to their name.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
As much as libertarians will insist they are neither Republican nor Democrat, they sat far more comfortably during the Bush administration and only decided to pull more of a vocal fuss when the general elections came about (when it became evident a Democratic candidate was likely to win).

libertarianobama.blogspot.com...

Libertarians were the first people to complain about the Patriot Act.

Libertarians don't like government -- period. So when a Republican regime is doing something, libertarians complain about the regime and are labeled as "liberals." But, when we have a Democrat regime, libertarians complain about the regime and are labeled as "conservatives."

Being a politically-involved libertarian is like Tic-Tac-Toe: the only way to win is to not play.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by theWCH]