Why is the tea party called libertarian so often?

The tea party is very far from libertartianism.

They push for bans on gay marriage, which proves they are ok with the government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

They promote the keeping recreational drug use illegal, while at the same time condemning liberals calls for healthier food. This makes them hypocrites, since they're whole platform on this issue is that they have the right to decide what goes into their bodies, but I they do not think drug users have this same right.

They are agianst religious freedom, condemning anyone is is not christian.

They are as far from libertarian as you can get.

 

"They push for bans on gay marriage..."

Taxcutter says:
Where did you see that in the Tea Party agenda? The Tea Party insistence on following the Constitution makes that issue a matter for the states.



"They promote the keeping recreational drug use illegal..."

Taxcutter says:
Where did you see that in the Tea Party agenda? The Tea Party insistence on following the Constitution makes that issue a matter for the states.


"They are agianst religious freedom, condemning anyone is is not christian."

Taxcutter says:
Where did you see that in the Tea Party agenda?

Did you make these lies up yourself or did you copy and paste them from MoveOn.org?

 

The majority of the tea party are social conservatives, who wish for anything they consider immoral to be banned, whether it effects them or not. That proves they are not libertarians.

 

"The majority of the tea party are social conservatives..."

Taxcutter says:
Negative! The Tea Party is almost entirely fiscal conservatives.
Are these your lies or somebody else's?

 

Who called them Libertarian? Surely not Libertarians.

 

The tea party is driven mostly by fiscal conservatism. On social issues tea partiers have many differing opinions.

The Tea Party was spawned from the 2007-2008 rallys held by libertarians for Ron Paul. These libertarians held marches and wore colonial style clothing. In 2009 the movement grew when it was hijacked by Palin and Bachmann and at that point lost most of its libertarian identity.

 

The same morons that call Glen Beck a libertarian

 

Typically, the ones who are social conservative tend to be the ones who have no idea what they are talking about on taxes and the economy. The core of the orginal tea party are mostly fsically conservative libertarians. The ones I am talking about are the ones who do nothing but call Obama Hitler and have no idea what is actually going on with the economy.

 

Libertarians as a whole are Fiscal Conservatives and Social Liberals (I am one myself). I would never call myself a member of the Tea Party because I feel they have been corrupted by the social conservatives of the Republican Party. However, I know a few "Tea Party" members who consider themselves Libertarians. I was at first a Republican, and left because I did not like the ultra consrvative social norms the modern-day GOP has. SO I joined the Democratic Party and did not like their emphasis on racial stereotypes and fiscal irresponsibility. I found that I like the Libertarian Party's platform of Fiscal Conservativism and social freedoms.

 

"The Tea Party was spawned from the 2007-2008 rallys held by libertarians for Ron Paul."

Taxcutter says:
There was undoubtedly some of the sentiment there but the Tea Party was ignited by Santelli's Rant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA

 

The Tea Party is politically potent because it has enough political savvy to form coalitions.

Thus far, the Libertarians have lived in 0.5%-land because they are too purist to form coalitions.

No group in America can win national elections (and a majority of statewide or district elections) without forming coalitions.

Are the Libertarians incapable of forming coalitions?

 

He is just plain crazy.

 

"Crazy" is relative. Is Beck crazier than Chris Mathews or Rachel Maddow?

 

You are right in part. Many are purists and many are uncompromising. These libertarians do not vote or are involved in the libertarian party. Third parties are highly discriminated against in national elections.

However, many other libertarians choose to work within the republican party and generally have more sucess like Ron and Rand Paul, Justin Amash, etc.

 

Nothing wrong with Rachel. I might not agree with everything she says but she is great to watch.

 

If libertarians were politically savvy, they'd join the Tea Party and change it from the inside. While there are differences, the correlation of interests is undeniable. Details can be worked out.

If the OWS people really believed what they claimed they stood for they'd likewise join the Tea Party although we'd appreciate if the OWS took a shower first and refrained from dumping on our vehicles. I strongly suspect the OWS are just fakes.

 

Hell yes.

 

They don't have any of the Moral Authoritarianism in their platform, but many of the politicians who claim to be Tea Party-ers certainly have it in their rhetoric.

Libertarianism isn't just republican-lite.

 

Tea Party goes against many ideas of the OWS. Tea Party is a promoting section of the Republican Party, nothing else.

OWS was a more libertarian movement and not such conservative as Tea Party. And when I am saying Libertarian I am not only refering to the Libertarian Party, if not to the people that are in the libertarian spectrum that can be from the left(Anarchists in the extreme) to the right(Libertarians and anarchocapitalists and other individualist libertarian groups).

In the Tea Party you had all the authoritarian Conservative, from the center-right(a few) to the extreme authoritarian right(Conservative, fascists and all that), but almost no one was in the libertarian axis

 

Like I said, coalition-forming is a necessity to getting elected. Getting elected is a necessary component of governing.

Purity marginalizes a party.

 

The Tea Party and OWS were both opposed to government bailouts and corporate welfare.

The Tea party favors order and cleanliness. OWS favors squalor.

 

I think they mean economically.

 

Coalition is good, but with who? USA is not like Europe where a coalition is much easier to get than in USA. I don't imagine the alternatives to the two big parties doing coalition with Dems or Reps, that would be hipocritical. With who they would do coallition? There are no options. That is the problem.

The only possible coalition possible and that is impossible because they are opposed would be a Green/Libertarian coalition, and that is against nature.

In Spain we've had many coalitions but they are easier, for example coalitions of different Leftist parties and things like that. But in USA... That is impossible.

 

You are going off nothing but assumptions. Actually show some proof, and you might be taken seriously.

The Tea party ran on opposition to Obamacare, bailouts, and the size of government in 2010, and won big. If they would have ran on the social issues you claim they are about, they would have been dead in the water.

Nice try, but try harder next time.

 

And yet back Romney and Ryan, and Ryan voted for TARP, the bailouts and the expansion of medicare... the actions don't match the rhetoric.