34 votes

Survey: Most U.S. Libertarians Do Not Identify With Tea Party

By Mary Wisniewski
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Most American libertarians do not consider themselves part of the conservative Tea Party movement despite a public perception that the two political groups are linked, according to a national survey released on Tuesday
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/most-u-libertarians-not-identify-te...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

In other news: The sky is blue.

And the Pope is Catholic. More at the top of the hour.

The Day

Sean Hannity got on board the Tea Party Train. I jumped off

Add Ted Cruz

who's wife is intertwined with the central banking cartels.

Ron Swanson

There's nothing wrong with the Tea Party...

I understand there are many facets of the Tea Party, but mostly they stand for less gov't, less spending, and more accountability. As a Libertarian, how can I NOT be on board with that?

The MSM is attempting to demonize the Tea Party and anyone affiliated with it. I'm not buying into their game.

The question is...

The question is, do they align with the Bloodthirsty Warmongers? Do they align with the Theocrats? Do they align with the White Slavers? Do they align with the Reefer Madness? Do they align with the Censors?

If not, then they're already libertarian. ;-)

Freedom is my Worship Word!

My criticism of the tea party is...

largely that they've mostly been talk as far as less government, less spending, and more accountability goes. The Tea Party establishment (tea part patriots and a few others) threw their support behind Romney and Freedom Works wasn't terribly helpful to the Paul campaign, so what we've got here is a case of "once bitten, twice shy".

You do have a point that the MSM has been attempting to demonize the Tea Party, along with just about everyone else that they don't like, and a small yet sizable minority here on the Daily Paul seem hellbent on standing with the MSM because they love their abortions more than their freedom, or because a particular politician won't kowtow to every homosexual cause under the sun at every opportunity. But much of the criticism thrown at the Tea Party is legitimate, and it largely circles around them talking one way and voting another way.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

In NH

We don't even consider TPP or FW part of the movement. They are scorned.

We had 4,000 people at our rallies at one time, now, if that stupid TPE bus comes around, maybe 200 show up.

And yes they had Romney and he was protested and booed.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

"They love..."

"love their abortions more than their freedom"

That is absolutely wrong. I love everyone's freedom, which does NOT include you imposing your will on any existing person's insides. A woman's womb, actually, every one of her molecules inside of her skin is hers to do with as she pleases.

The Constitution only protects the rights of people that you can actually see.

Even God Herself says that life doesn't begin until the lump of clay receives the Breath of Life! (Genesis 2:7)

But the "Women are chattel property" imprint is tough to break.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Hmm, people I can actually see you say?

In other words, every person who has voted in favor of an undeclared war isn't committing an Unconstitutional act since they can't see and likely will never see the people killed by it. Gotcha!

Oh yeah, ever hear of ultra-sound? If you think that this doesn't count, I can easily argue that seeing people on a monitor while killing them with a drone doesn't count either. And no, telling me that I view women as property won't shut me up, just so we're clear.

Now, given that you refer to God with a feminine gender yet quote the scripture (which does not ONCE mention God with feminine attributes or with a feminine pronoun lol), I can pretty well guess that you are impervious to logical arguments, so I'll make my point to you in a way that you'll understand.

You, in your gloriously idiotic post, have proven a belief I've had that not everyone should be permitted to vote. Furthermore, never quote scripture when posting something directed at me, I get very easily offended when idiots cite things that they are intellectually incapable of comprehending.

(I hope that you're actually a man, because that would be even more amusingly pathetic).

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Never considered myself Tea Party material.

I've defended some of the things supported by the Tea Party, namely their opposition to Obamacare and their sudden (albeit hypocritical) opposition to the conflicts in Libya and Syria. Having said that, the Tea Party was co-opted, at least insofar as the label itself is concerned, by a cabal of Neocons trying to survive a massive backlash against their ideas.

Even though I completely loathe Barack Obama and his disgusting Chicago crowd, I don't have any regrets about voting for Gary Johnson despite my massive disagreement with him on the abortion issue. Mitt Romney was not an improvement in any way over Obama (nor would most of the field of Republicans in that election save Ron Paul and possibly Jon Huntsman on the war issue) and the fact that he was paraded around as being such was an insult to my intelligence.

Having said that, I do understand that politics is a business of covert intrigues and dishonesty, so I've given a lot of slack to certain people in the Liberty Movement who decided to back Romney for pragmatic reasons, namely Rand Paul. I share the desires of most of my libertarian friends in trying to destroy the current Neocon establishment in the Republican Party (as well as the progressives for that matter), but the only way that is going to happen is if they are convinced to drop their guard and allow us to phase them out of existence, and I think at this juncture Rand is the best person to push this agenda along.

That's my two cents on the matter. And for the record, I never considered myself a part of what the MSM calls the tea party, though I was a part of the 2007 one that is often forgotten about outside of our circle here. I'm just another liberty minded man who despises lawless governments and has a very keen sense of the reality of the world we live in.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

And this is why we may lose & probably deserve to

(this rant is not pointed at those of us who have been educating but the majority this poll represents)

There was never a time in history where so many people were available to us in one sociological 'space' looking for answers WHICH WE HAVE and who were open to those answers.

Too cool for teabaggers hmm? Well I have a reminder for most of you, you used to be socons and neocons. You were exposed to some ideas earlier, sure. Good on you. But you're not karmically superior in any way at all. In fact you failed in your burden to help others understand because you were too hip (libertarians being hip hah) to hang out with well intentioned people wearing betsy ross outfits or with teabags hanging from their tricorns.

You dropped the ball and I would gladly turn away from your doom, except it is one I would have to share.

I have been, and many of us have been, involved with the tea party since the beginning and have changed many minds and changed them in leadership. Many of us have been doing this and bulding bridges. I have never compromised my ideals and have gained respect in the TP community by not doing so, but also by being respectful to people when they do not come along as fast as I would like. But come along they do.

There are others but too few of us out there are doing this work.

They are imo our closest intellectual allies and the most ready for the message of liberty. It is certainly not the establishment libertarian kochtopus who think NSA spying is just swell and keep thinking up 'free market' tax schemes.

So true

I've had to take a lot of heat from 'conservatives' asking why TPP etc are not good for us and after explaining why, and how they extract money that goes to consultants, establishment candidates, or worse unknown destinations, and that we work 24/7 free, they see the light.

Yes our job is to get people who are already upset with the far left agenda, including wars, and get them to see a more libertarian stance.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

I disagree

I think our closest intellectual allies are socially liberal people with a passion for justice and peace, who are interested in learning more about economics.

Or, it could be that we are both right :)

Let's not look at people as members of this or that group, and therefore more open to the ideas of liberty because of their membership in some labeled group. Let's look at people as individuals.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

I would like you to be right

But I have had almost zero luck convincing any socially 'liberal' person to question any aspect of statism whatsoever. Some conservatives respond to moral arguments, some to economic arguments, but most respond to something. Social 'liberals' are too well indoctrinated. Their primary mode of cognition is belief, far more than the religious right in my experience, they deeply believe in the 'beneficence' of the state and the 'order' it supposedly provides.

I can talk to a Christian about freedom because I'm not directly challenging their God, and depending on their interpretation of scripture, may even be singing from the same choir book.

But if I talk to a progressive about freedom I am by definition a blasphemer. I'm not only saying their God isn't Good, it's almost always evil. This is a hard sell to a theist.

hmmm, very interesting observation

about directly attacking the religion of progressives, by attacking government. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I never tried to tackle a fanatical progressive. Just like a hardcore neocons, those people are a hard sell (perhaps hopeless?). I was talking more about the average liberal Joe Schmuck.

I find that many conservatives just want to replace the government with the church and are opposed to government because it interferes with the power of the church. They want to replace political oppression with social oppression. Social oppression is of course much more benign, because you can leave and choose a different community, but I still find it distasteful.

Have you considered that perhaps it is the approach you are taking? Perhaps your approach works better with conservatives but not so much with liberals, and a different approach may work better. Perhaps you approach does not attack the core values of conservatives, but does attack the core values of liberals, putting them on the defensive.

Anyways, thanks for the insight.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

Surely I could be doing it

Surely I could be doing it wrong. But if it requires an illogical approach I am not equipped for it.

But yes of course I am attacking the core value of most liberals, belief in the God of the State. I am not attacking the core value of most conservatives, belief in the God of the Bible.

You are right many conservatives do have an impulse to use state power to promote religious ends. But when I attack the state I am just attacking one tool they might wish to use, not the end in itself.

I can, and have, made the obvious case that it is not lack of religion that grows the state, but rather growth of the state that undermines religion. If the Church has no more practical use, (charity is replaced by no strings welfare) many people will ignore it. If the consequences of immorality (failing to work) are removed by the state, why be moral? If immorality is rewarded (paying for children born out of wedlock) why not be immoral?

Getting people back into the Church won't make the state smaller, because well it just won't work with a large state. It's because the state is large that people aren't in them. Shrinking the state is the only solution to getting people back into Churches.

But most liberals, and all of the subset called progressives, (really fascists) believe in government power as an end to itself. Having no independent moral structure they can't know what is the 'right' answer to a problem, in fact they know from experience their 'right' answers most often cause more problems. So they need to always have the power to 'fix' the problem however caused, not only despite not knowing what the solution is, especially because they do not know the right answer.

The only intellectual tool they know is the gun.

Disagree with socons, and I often do, but they do at least know what they think the right answer is, generally people being more Christian.

If the hammer is the state, and wood is society:

A conservative is a carpenter who wants to build a cabinet. Why? Because we know cabinets used to work to hold things. Maybe we don't really need a cabinet, maybe the wood does not want to be a cabinet, but at least they know what they want to build.

Cabinets used to hold things, like the Church used to hold society together.

When they have built it, they tend to put down the hammer.

The hammer was a tool, not an end.

A liberal is a person with a hammer who only has a vague idea of what he wants to build, and most certainly no earthly idea how to do it even if he knew what.

He wants something to hold things but he hates cabinets. He hates everything anyone ever invented that actually did hold things in fact.

But he does have a hammer and some wood and a vague idea of what he wants. He may even have read a fantasy novel by Marx or Plato about a magical Utopian cabinet that was built with hammers out of wood.

So he keeps hammering away at the wood until maybe one day it might become something the liberal thinks might be useful to his vague ends. Ending poverty, greed, disease, etc.

He smashes away, he wants to hammer out poverty, but of course poverty is part of the wood so he only hammers wood and it makes poverty worse, but he keeps hammering since he doesn't know how to get the poverty out of the wood becuase it's all up in the wood. All his hammering does is let the poverty out to fester.

He tries to hammer out 'greed' but it just exacerbates the problems caused by greed. So he hammers more. Greed is all up in the wood but he thinks he'll get it hammered out if he keeps trying. All his hammering does is let the greed out to fester.

He wants to hammer out disease, so he hammers the health care market with regulation, but then that doesn't seem to do any good, so he keeps hammering, until he gets obamacare, now that really is ugly and beat up, so he'll keep hammering it until the entire market is hammered to bits.

Eventually he's hammered the wood all to flinders, and he will forever keep hammering the flinders.

He will never put down the hammer. To put down the hammer requires some end was met. But to meet an end you have to know what the end is.

Even a bad carpenter might eventually make a crappy cabinet if he keeps trying and knows he's trying to make a cabinet.

Even the best carpenter will hammer forever if he doesn't know what he's trying to make.

I don't consider myself

a Libertarian, I'm more a Constitutional Conservative. I went to a few Tea Party Patriots meetings here in Sacramento and found them all to be clueless neocons.

I believe the term "Tea Party" has been permanently negatively tainted.

I consider myself a proud member of the Liberty Movement.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

The establishment GOP and DNC finally figured it out.

The Ron Paul Tea party movement of 2007 was AstroTurfed and hijacked by people like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck after the 2008 presidential election. That's when the Ron Paul Crew abandoned the Tea Party we created. We then adopted the name "Liberty Movement" to describe our ideological affiliation more precisely.

We punished and eviscerated the hijackers of our movement in a fit of revenge for what the establishment GOP did to our movement. We killed Mitt Romney's chances of becoming president and took back the Tea Party hearts and minds by making sure Obama got re-elected in 2012.

Alex Jones Caller Ron Paul Revenge Voters For Obama 11/09/2012
www.myspace.com/video/vid/109079927

You are correct however...

I still refuse to give up the name of what we started.

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

umm it can't be hijacked AND astroturfedA

And may I add, well done for missing the best opportunity you ever had to educate concerned well meaning americans.

Which opportunity many of us did NOT miss.

The TP was neither astroturf, nor has it been hijacked. The brand name has been roundly co-opted by all sorts of outfits whose names start with 'tea party' but that isn't the tea party. If it had been hijacked you would never have had things like the real challenge to nsa spying or the debt ceiling raise neither of which the establishmet has ANY interest in.

Actually it can. Different groups do different things.

Within two major cities near where I live. In one city, it was a neo-con bill o'rly butt love fest. Pretty bad. The turn out is pretty bad as well as time went on. The other, was pretty much a typical gathering of elderly folks who didn't bother to participate in the caucuses, but who's heart was in the right place.

Then another in the larger city, it was FULL of Ron Paul supporters taking the lead as officers and was VERY involved in the party politics on the local republicans. They had taken out bill board signs and everything. Very effective both in off site organization and Republican party integration and control.

Point is, the tea party can be pretty much without a rudder to bitch about local politics, or very effective for whomever uses it to influence local political parties.

The Liberty Movement as a whole in a lot of areas is FAR more organized as we have specific goals we want despite different views we may have over religion and issues. Liberty is a FANTASTIC uniting force where others would be divided over petty issues.

Let's Be Fair.

You are saying that Glenn Beck along with Dick Armey co-opted the Tea Party? Although I am not a huge fan of Glenn, I must say that he came to the aid of Freedom Works and helped oust Dick Armey back out after Armey ousted Matt Kibbe. He refused to have Armey on his show and pushed to have Kibbe re-instated and he succeeded. He is on record saying that Dick Armey tried to infiltrate Freedom Works Libertarian movement and he was not going to put up with it.

Granted, the Republican Party jumped on the band wagon and succeeded in making people think that the Tea Party is theirs, but let us not blame those who were not actually a part of it. Glenn is a Conservative Libertarian, even though he sometimes fights himself over the fact. He has been coming around more these days and I believe he just might be influential in helping Republican Libertarians in the coming elections, at least that is my hope. I know a lot of you just want a third party, but until we can get to a point where they are recognized for debates and the like, we need to look at Conservative Libertarian thinkers in the Republican and Democrat Party's. Wish there were more in the Dem Party, Heck, I wish there were more in the Republican Party.

its distinctions like these

its distinctions like these which has made me come to realise that i WONT focus on labels, at least to the best of my ability, as i believe this is so ingrained in our societies under the guise of peer pressure, instead i THINK that it is the cause that we should focus on, the "message" , that brings EVERYONE, as in, from all sorts of backgrounds, the LABELS, the thing that brings us TOGETHER, this is something that is CONTINUINGLY fought against, it is the NATURAL course, as I see it, and coming from this angle, it is natural to see those things that try to resist it

does that make sense, i know how difficult it is to put into words that do the actual THOUGHT justice, thats why its treasure for me to find folks who literally "speak their mind", who translate it so well, and then, so happen to have a "heart" i can respect

and i happen to think EVERYONE is capable, when there is no more bullshit to get in the way

In my experience with a local tea party

they claimed to represent ideals that I shared: Constitutionally-limited government, a free market economy, and fiscal responsibility. And they did believe in and promote those! It just turned out that they weren't necessarily a priority. An area heavily Catholic, at election time it seemed the abortion issue trumped all others.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Yes

You will notice legit tea parties do not focus on those issues even though most of our members in NH are pro-life.

I always tell folks that you recognize a legit tea party when you see it

Does not focus on social issues
Does not collect money
Does not endorse candidates or run campaigns
Does focus on issues and education
Does not act as an arm of any political party

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

To its credit, those characteristics

did actually apply to the group. Nonetheless, just as individuals, in talking about candidates, their platforms, the debates, etc., you could often tell whom people supported. Clearly, many wanted Santorum as president for one reason: his stance against abortion.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Big surprise

Personally I don't fully identify with either movement.

Both have their positives and negatives just like everything in life.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

You could easily photoshop John Kerry

or any other establishment politician into these pictures :

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/ted-cru... "Is this where I get me a huntin' license"

Ron Swanson

December 16th 2007

It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz or any of the other wanna B'zzzz . It was a Brush fire of liberty and freedom that had to be quickly brought under control by the establishment.

Ron Swanson

liberty conservatives

Inside the numbers. There is a small number of people calling themselves libertarian. In my experience many of them are motivated by anarchy, hate for police, and love of pot, and guns. The much larger and growing group is the liberty conservative. Both Paul's, Napolitano, Cruz, and Lee are in that group. Our next President will come from that group. I think the groups differ on their attitude toward authority.