While there is plenty of selfishness in the Tea Party movement (though theirs generally and equal and opposite selfishness in most political movements including Progressives) I think the fundmantal point of disagreement would be expressed in one of thos clauses:
Quote:
|
who think of social responsibility as punishment
|
It isn't that they necessarily think of it as a punishment but rather that "social responsibility" is a phrase without inherent meaning. That it can't be anything more than a club defined by those either in power or seeking power and that the potential for misuse is great and therefore as a tool it is to be avoided because no matter how much one may approve of its current definition the pendulum will eventually swing in ways unacceptable to the individual.
That once upon a time "social responsibility" meant keeping races socially separate to minimize conflict, that it meant ratting out radicals to the government, that it meant providing dehumanizing group housing to the poor, that it meant the creation of social programs that ended up continuing rather than alleviating social ills. That it once meant subsidizing cheap calories and then eventually (per the track we're on) criminalizing the consumption of those calories.
Essentially it is a view that one can't give away personal power simply on the good word of the recipient that of course it will never be used incorrectly in the future.
And, in this regard, they have a point. A point that I think is undercut by too much crazy in the movement and inconsistent application. But then communists tend to become libertarians when the government starts telling them they have to do something they didn't want to do anyway.