Patriots: Only Free-market Capitalists?

     This year's tax day was a monumental occasion, resulting in several hundred tea parties, and several thousand jokes involving protesters and interesting sexual techniques. My colleague Erich Stremel writes about how he appreciates and agrees with these oh-so-American methods of civic participation and how he understands Governor Perry's recent statements endorsing the Tea Party movement. He focuses on America's history of protesting taxes and and Perry's reference to today's protesters as "patriots" carrying on the spirit of our ancestors. According to Stremel, President Obama has started his administration with good intentions and ideas but is overstepping his constituents' wishes in passing this stimulus package.

     I understand Stremel's point of view; he articulates it well and, I have to say, in a much more even-tempered manner than some of the activists recently protesting. He takes time to examine Mr. Obama's perspective, one of earnest concern for his voters, but respectfully disagrees with his course of action. When weighed against the angry and bombastic tactics of other tea party participants, Stremel's calm assessment of the problem is a much more effective voice for the movement.

     Apart from the fact that Stremel and I disagree ideologically, he presents his opinions logically for the most part. However, I do have an issue with the underlying implication of his article, which seems to be that Americans who do not push for low taxes are somehow less patriotic than fiscally conservative Americans. This is probably not Stremel's intention, but this is the message I hear from Perry and other zealous governors when they use the term "patriot." Is it so unpatriotic and treasonous to suggest that our government should spend money to provide us with essential services? I know how Texas is: mentioning raising taxes is equivalent to suggesting reviving Hitler and placing him in charge. But we've been paying taxes since America was founded, regardless of the party in office. The most recent objection to this basic governmental function seems suspiciously like a power play by a party that has lost its influence, a party desperate to regain its hold over the public. Republicans are quick to accuse their rivals, but it's an exercise in futility to exclusively blame ANY party in office for ANY economic crisis, because they all contributed to it because they are all the same: before they are Republicans or Democrats, they are capitalists.

     This tangent goes beyond the scope of Stremel's article. His only intentions are to applaud the "patriots" for their courage in standing up to a (so far) popular administration and to remind those of us dubious of the tea partiers' actions that dissent is in our cultural makeup. As for the rest of the conservatives trying to figure out their new place in politics, I would recommend taking a page out of Stremel's book. Make an effort to consider the other side of the issue and use what you learn to craft a solid argument. And think before you speak!