Re: Clarity Re: [RC] [ RC ] Political Holy War -- comments / follow-up

[David R. Block]

Title: "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech

Oh dear. I know that they had such visibility in 2010. There are some who are questioning whether or not the Tea Party still lives in 2012 (go Google "death of the Tea Party" for some interesting stories-wishful thinking on the part of some-or-the gospel truth?). Relatively speaking, they've been quiet in comparison. Whether or not that's a good thing is hard to measure. I know that they are spoken of a lot, but mostly by commentators and not necessarily Tea Party spokespeople or man in the street types. The talking heads definitely want them alive, if for no other reason than to scare the Democratic base and susceptible Independents. Can't argue with 1, sometimes I am one of them. However, I do think that the Tea Party has reduced its visibility since the 2010 midterm elections. To the point that some on the left (and even the right) are writing the obituary. I don't think that anyone in the primary process is going to want to incur the wrath of any remaining Tea Party voters. Even if they just sort of went underground. Alienating one's base usually doesn't end well (see McCain, John, 2008 race). Those who said that they would stay home if McCain were the nominee are ruing the day of that decision. Doubt that they will do that again. That being said, my Southern Baptist Deacon brother-in-law has said that he won't vote for Romney. Mormonism claims a victim. I haven't asked the Baptist Minister brother-in-law, but I'm not sure that the results would be different. Thank you for this post. David "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz   On 3/26/2012 11:38 AM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: Hi David, On Mar 25, 2012, at 10:14 PM, David R. Block wrote: Thus, any legitimate critique of the government is interpreted by the Left as a call for Social Darwinism. Giving them a perfect excuse to defend their failed experiment in social engineering. Doesn't that pretty well make criticism of the government "out of bounds" or ineffective at the very least? Or what? Tell me. PLEASE. Yes, the Left is actively perverting and subverting the discussion. No question about it. The problem I have is that the GOP -- specifically the Tea Party/Libertarian wing -- is making it *easier* for them to get away with it. THIS is the point that (I think) Billy and I have been trying to harp on. 1. There is a hardcore libertarian right that is fond of rhetoric that is absolutely anti-government and pro-market 2. This segment of the community has disproportionate visibility, BOTH because they have a strong clear message with resonates with many influencers on the Right, but -also- because the unscrupulous actors on the Left love to play that up to justify *their* egregious pro-government/anti-market stance. 3. Rather than whining about the unfairness, the best response from the GOP would be to articulate a *principled* critique of *both* the pro-government Left and the anti-government extreme Right. This would explicitly position them as a viable small-government party rather than an extreme anti-government party. So far, nobody appears to be willing to do that. Would you disagree? THAT is what Billy and I have been talking about. But as you yourself demonstrate, any critique of Libertarian thought (however sympathetic!) is immediately seen as defending the anti-market Left. This is the problem we want to solve, but ironically appear to have recreated. :-/ Any suggestions? -- Ernie P. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org