Obviously Hoyer speaks as an expert, right?
There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families.
And I presume your mother was a boot-wearing drug-sucking whore, Steny.
But unlike you, I will add this: I could be really, really, wrong.
HT: Zippers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I guess we'd need to ask their families, wouldn't we?
Long-Suffering One, you say? Why?
Steny isn't normally a bomb-thrower. But hey! Way to win friends and influence people!
I think his concept is that being entirely uncompromising tends to be hard for interpersonal relationships.
Extending that to families is wrong on two levels. First, it's a variation on the fallacies of composition and division. Both fallacies share the false idea that something true at one level of organization is true at all levels.
The other issue is that the TEA Party's Constitutional approach is highly compatible with compromise. The reinvigoration of the Tenth Amendment means that you can have widely different modes of government among the several states.
The current centralized model tends to impose a single standard on everyone. The reason to "compromise" at the Federal level under the current model is that all critical decisions have to be made there. Such compromises leave no one happy.
Really, then, the TEA Party is about a better kind of compromise -- the kind where everyone can be happy. California can do just what it wants; Texas can do something else. The Federal government will exercise the limited powers actually granted it by the Constitution, and otherwise power will return to the states.
The only people who will be unhappy are those whose happiness comes from forcing others to abide by their values. Don't like Southern Baptist values? Under this model, you have to worry about them taking over the Federal government. Under the TEA Party model, you just have to locate in a state where they aren't very powerful.
Post a Comment