I must say that I still don’t understand much about american politics. The more I find out about it, the less I see coherence or logic in some of it. The regular democrats and republicans are already strange to me sometimes (just as our Belgian parties can be pretty freaky) but the so-called ‘tea party’ is sometimes more freaking weird than I’d expect reality to be, and more something for some over-the-top unrealistic movie.
This is a good example: “Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners ‘makes a lot of sense’”. I know the tea party is a loose bunch of protestors who react against something that’s supposed to be ‘socialist’ or even ‘liberal’ who don’t always have much more in common than to be ‘conservative’ and against Obama’s politics, but time after time they baffle me!
(As a european I myself would call a lot of their views plainly (neo)liberal, and the McCarthyist witch hunt against ‘socialism’ reminds me of those anti-rock’n roll preachers who see Aleister Crowley from a mile even when he isn’t there, but would not recognise Jesus if he’d stand just before them)
The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote, (…) one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
Apart from the fact that I as a non-American am probably just unable to understand the veneration of the ‘founding fathers’, to the point that they are misquoted and re-invented to fit a lot of different ideologies, this idea sounds to me like a lot like the ‘ancien regime’, or the supposed ‘stupid evil guys’ I’ve learned of that came before belgium was a real democratic country. I know that in those days we even had a system that gave rich people more votes, and poor people none, which is just plain unfair. The ideas of this ‘tea party’ guy are one step in the direction of bringing those injustices back under the guise of ‘democracy’….
I’ve always found that the American 2-party system and representative democracy is a very weak and dilluted form of democracy. An actual real and non-represented democracy would only work in a small community or tribe anyway; and the polarisation between 2 arbitrary party programs that have grown historically looks very strange to an outsider. But that’s something I’m used to. But this is an insult to anything that’s left of the idea of democracy!
I’m affraid that it’s only the tip of the weirdness iceberg, and I guess people like this are to American conservatism what Fred Phelps and the Westboro baptist Church are for Christianity: an evil parody, that does much harm for the thing it claims to represent. And still it’s scary…
And one would almost echo the question of those psychologists: is political conservatism a mild form of insanity? (I don’t believe in any conservative-progessive polarisation I would agree with one of both sides sometimes, disagree with both at other times…)