I am not trying to argue with you about the nature of the Tea Party per se, only that by identifying them and singling them out in your hypothesis, correctly or not, puts you and your efforts behind a filter whereby you can now be classified, again correctly or not, as somewhat partisan.

I don’t think that is your intention, particularly since you are advocating distancing yourself from this measure and returning to original intentions that relied on a more universal, truth filled language. i.e. Washington, Adams and Madison.

The platform of the Tea Party is libertarian in philosophy. Since Jefferson, political philiosophies got embodied in political parties. Both Washington and Adams appealed to the nation to not do this. They felt that political philosophies could be debated without the limitations and evils created by political parties (their words, not mine.) That is the bottom line of my post. We can have the discussion about political philosophies without the limitations imposed by parties, any party.

My blog post includes a comment on the libertarian philosophy behind the Tea Party and its platform. It is not a partisan comment. It is not a divisive comment. It is simply a fact. Minimizing the size of government and devolving government to the local level are the hall marks of the libertarian philosophy. This is simply a statement of fact. That is what libertarianism is. By the Tea Party adopting this perspective, they are by definition a libertarian movement.

This philosophy of libertarianism is in opposition to an “egalitarian” philosophy that would place more emphasis on government providing more services in an attempt to level the playing field to give people an equal starting point and make sure that the same rules apply for everyone. Libertarianisn is the opposite to egalitarianism. The Tea Party is clearly not egalitarian. It is libertarian. Again, this is not a critical comment. It is simply fact.

I am making an essential distinction between political philosophy and partisanship. I am not making a comment about a specific political party so much as saying that all partisanship, ALL partisanship, is political malpractice because it narrowly diagnoses the nature of the problems we face and narrowly prescribes solutions.

Your comment on what the Tea Party is for makes my point. The problem has been defined by the Tea Party as a too large government and too many taxes. This assessment (correct or not) comes from a libertarian perspective. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. It just is libertarian. That is the political philosphy behind a statement like that. Specific solutions that come from this perspective will now be narrowed by this perspective. That is my point. This narrowing is not only unnecessary, it is harmful. Since it is unnecessarily limiting both the diagnosis of problems and the prescription for solutions, I call ALL partisan approaches to solving complex social problems “malpractice.”

This is not intended to insult anyone. Well intentioned people can be led into avenues of political activity that are not in their best interest. I am writing this precisely because good hard working people who want to see their government work effectively and who want to be proud of their country need to be aware of the severe limitations of partisan politics.

There may be times when the nation needs a more libertarian emphasis in government. There may be times when it needs a more egalitarian emphasis. More often, a balance between them is required. Parties of any sort prescribe one only solution for all situations. For this reason they are guilty of political malpractice, just as a doctor would be guilty of medical malpractice for prescribing the same medicine for all illnesses.

It is exactly true that government needs to be limited. But it is not the whole truth. Government also needs to protect equal access to resources and opprtunities. It has to be sure a privileged few don’t run away with the economy. This point of view is “egalitarian.” So, my sense is, that many who ascribe the the Tea Party also want these things. But the Tea Party is NOT for those things, as it’s platform does not mention them. That is because the Tea Party is libertrian. There is no effort in its platform to include egalitarian concerns, no matter what Tea Party members or supporters might want.

The same issues would be true of an egalitarian party. ( There isn’t one in existence now that matches on the left the far right position of the Tea Party. But, a stance that says that the government should be more involved than it is now to solve ALL the problems we face, and then automatically prescribed more taxes and more regulation as the solution to ALL problems would be as far to the left as the Tea Party is to the right. I would have the same objections to this egalitarian (you use the word “progressive”) approach as it would show that partisanship from the left had limited the discussion about finding the balance between liberty and equality.

This is my point. Well intended people can be mislead by partisanship. Partisanship excludes the other half of the discussion no matter what party you belong to.

I mention the Tea Party in the post exactly because it is prominant in the news and precisely because spokespeople for the party have crafted a platform that is clearly and unmistakably libertarian. My point in the article was to simply state this fact.

Finally, the point about malpractice is not directed at people. It is about arbitrarily constructed political parties. Political parties are, as George Washington said, the country’s “worst enemy.” Washington’s words, not mine. I completely agree with him. We owe it to ourselves to understand why he said this so we can gain from the wisdom of the Father of our Country.

John Adams, our second President and major architect of and spokesperson of the philosophy behind our democracy, warned against political parties in his inaugural and asked that Americans not, “lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.” We have gone in exactly the opposite direction.

The founders did not want political parties to “infect” our political life. James Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution and authored many of the Federalist Papers describing the philosophy behind our government and the intention of the founders, hoped that the separation of powers between the three branches of government would limit the pull toward partisanship which all the founders felt would corrupt the government and imperil our society by allowing the government to be controlled by interest groups with power and money.

Here is the irony. Many in the Tea Party likely would agree that special interests and extremism are hurting the country. But, the platform the leadership of the Tea Party have put forward for the party is decidedly and emphatically far right. It is libertarian. As a result, it will never focus on these egalitarian concerns. So, the best intentions of people are tragically being directed toward an extreme that will only worsen the problems. This is because those concerns have been pushed through a partisan filter. My hope would be that these well intended people would not look to ANY party for answers.

We are now so used to political parties that we can barely imagine our government without them. This is despite the fact that they were seen as dangerous by our founders and they were expressly left out of the Constitution. Challenging the validity of political partisanship is not an attack on people. It is the opposite. It is a defense of the people from vested interests that parties represent. I am with Washington, Adams and Madison.

In part, the comments read: “The Tea Party consists of just those people who do not want the all or nothing, they simply want to return to basics and the constitutional basis this country was founded on. This is a far cry from the far left and far right, Dems and Reps. One might even refer to them as the “common sensers”.

Having a desire to get back to basics and actually getting back to basics are two different things. The Tea Party Platform is manifestly libertarian in its formulation. There is nothing egalitarian about it. You can read it here: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

I understand the frustration with government that motivates many in the Tea Party. There is no question, however, that the way they have analyzed the core problems and the solutions they suggest are pure liberatarianism. Limiting the size of government, prohibiting budget deficits, limiting taxes are core libertarian positions. So, my comment stands as is. I would take exception with a political party as far to the left, or egalitarian, as the Tea Party is to the right.

What would be more helpful is an analysis of the problems we face that makes an attempt to find a balance between equality and liberty, as difficult as that balance will be to strike.

For instance, every successful business borrows money to build itself. It’s the same with governments, including ours since the time of our founding. At various times in an economic cycle it is important to reign in or expand the borrowing capacity of the government so it can keep the economy moving. If we say the only answer to all economic problems is not to be able to borrow money at all, we have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the economy and crippled our ability to be flexible in difficult times.

A great example just happened this week. The government financing (pejoratively called a “bailout”) of Chrysler has led to the company turning a profit and the government negotiating the sale of its shares of the company to Fiat for a profit to the American taxpayer. This is a great example of the government spending money to keep the economy moving when the private sector is hurting. The alternative was the company going out of business and millions losing their jobs. A similar story is taking shape with GM. If the government STAYED in the auto business, we would have a form of socialism as far left as the Tea Party is to the right. This would be an imbalance from the left as serious as the Tea Party imbalance is from the right.

There is no question that we need to reign in the deficit. But when? How? If it is done too soon or with the wrong cuts it can cripple the very expansion we need to grow out of the worst recession in 70 years. A sudden cut in taxes and spending in 1938 led to a worsening of the Great Depression. During times of economic contraction, the government needs to step in to keep the economy liquid, as with Chrysler. When the economy is expanding, the government can decrease its place in the market and let the private sector do its thing.

My point is a partisan stance does not allow this flexibility. If, as a physician, I diagnosed every patient with appendicitis and prescribed surgery, I would badly treat most of my patients. I would be guilty of malpractice. Yet, for some reason, we accept political doctors who tell us that every probelm we face as a country has one diagnosis and one prescription. This is political malpractice.

For those with a partisan bent, the only answers when things get bad is to become more extreme in partisanship. Ironcially, this move to the extreme is called a, “return to basics.” But, the “basics” they return to always leave out 50% of the facts. The Left “returns to the basics” of pure equality. The Right “returns to the basics” of pure Liberty. The Left leaves out the requirements of liberty. The Right leaves out the requirements for equality. So, the return to basics is not that at all. It is a movement to the extremes.

Basics would really include a non-partisan examination of the facts, a consideration of the demands of liberty and equality and then an application of the best strategies that meet this assessment. Starting from a partisan stance be it Democratic, Republican, Tea Party or Bull Moose prevents this from happening in a thorough way, if at all.

Partisanship, including the Tea Party Platform, are forms of political malpractice. They offer one unchanging diagnosis and one unchanging prescription for every problem. Why should we do this to ourselves? This inflexibility is bad politics just as it is bad medicine. We would never accept this from a physician and would avoid the doctor who practiced this way.

We can address the needs of liberty and equality without any parties at all. That, by the way, would be in keeping with our constitution which makes no provision for any political parties.