Tea Party: Radical or Principled
Posted by Steve Markowitz on October 18, 2013
You got to give it to the Left’s ability to create the narrative (propaganda) within the media. Along with President Obama, the Left has painted Republicans as obstructionist, while at the same time created the narrative that they are bipartisan. How preposterous. Neither side (party) is bipartisan nor should they be. Political parties are created to support a political view(s). If Americans were indeed bipartisan there would be no need for multiple parties.
The word “bipartisan” is bantered around often by the Left and its allies in the media. This Blog proffers the view that bipartisanship inhibits the advancement of societal growth. Imagine if bipartisanship prevailed between Lincoln, Republicans and the proslavery Democrats prior to the US Civil War. The North would have allowed the South to continue the use of slaves. How about if prior entering World War II bipartisanship was used to satisfy the demands of isolationists?
Perhaps the best example of the failure of bipartisanship is the United Nations. It is so much easier to list its failures that its accomplishments.
One of the more outrageous and disingenuous claims of the Left is that the Tea Party is radical. If true then these Leftists must also believe that our Founding Fathers and the Constitution are radical. Main themes of the Tea Party include fiscal conservatism and smaller government. To paint these visions as radical is a horrifying aspect of how far this Country has descended into creeping socialism.
A recent exchange on CNN between, video below, started when reporter Michael Holmes called the Tea Party “radicals”. CNN’s Jim Acosta appropriately responded: “Well, Michael, I mean, first of all, let’s be careful about using the term ‘radical,’ because a lot of those folks feel like they’re standing on principle today, even though they didn’t come out on top in this.” It is obvious that Leftists believe that one must agree with their Progressive policies to be principled. What a convenient way to stop open debate.