-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Brandon in the Basement
January 8, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Time for Some Ju-Jitsu
December 10, 2012 | 51 comments
A Further Perspective
The Tea Party and ‘Tucker’s Law’
A general principle that deserves to find a place in the textbooks.
I usually don’t like to push my name too far to the forefront in writing a story, but after a quarter-century of reporting on politics I think I’ve discerned a general principle that deserves to find a place in the textbooks.
I’m going to call it “Tucker’s Law.” If anybody has posited this before me I’ll be glad to cede naming rights. I don’t recall ever seeing it in so many words, however, and so since nobody seems to have marked out the territory, I’m going to rush in and stake my claim.
What has triggered this is not a single event but a whole series of observations that have been simmering over the years. There are many strands leading to the formulation of this concept. This is good because the mark of a sound scientific theory is that it is supposed to take seemingly disparate elements and pull them all together in one concise explanation.
One observation that always sticks in my mind is watching Sergei Eisenstein’s Ten Days that Shook the World, the 1928 movie made for Lenin that dramatized John Reed’s account of the Russian Revolution. There’s a wonderful moment where the Russians have overthrown the Czar and are setting up their first parliament. Representatives from all over the Czar’s vast empire arrive. There are Moslems from Central Asia, Laplanders from the Arctic Circle, and Cossacks from the vast internal plains that constituted Russia’s Wild West. I remember the camera lingering particularly over one Cossack with a massive beard and a headpiece that looked like a fur-lined sombrero. It was obvious that Eisenstein relished all this diversity.
Yet the point of the movie was that all this parliamentary democracy had to go and that Lenin and his party were right in overthrowing the government, claiming they were more representative of “The People.” Eisenstein had a hard time dealing with that in his movie. The Bolsheviks, after all, only held about ten percent of the seats in parliament. Yet they were an organized and fanatical minority, prepared to stop at nothing and ready to resort to violence when needed. And so their fanaticism was enough to strangle this infant democracy in its cradle.
This was not an easy message to convey to movie audiences. The best Eisenstein could come up with was a female guard who starts shedding sentimental tears as she dreams of what life could be under the Bolsheviks. She finally switches sides, welcoming the Bolshevik battalions, and the diverse, parliamentary democracy disappears forever.
But then what was Communism ever about except an effort by a minority to impose its will on the majority? The key was to centralize everything while extending the reach of the government into the most pedestrian aspects of everyday life. I remember Max Eastman’s account of his tour of the Soviet Union in the 1920s when he came to view the “future that works” but soon began to have his doubts. “It occurred to me one day,” he wrote, “that the two things the Russians loved most in the world were the market and the church. What was Lenin’s program except to take both of them away from the people?”
I thought of this again last week when Cuba announced it was going to unravel some of its Communist apparatus by firing 100,000 government employees. One tidbit that emerged is that in Cuba, shoemakers work for the government. Shoemakers!? When a political regime feels compelled to drag shoemakers under control of the central authority, what can be left of normal life?
As Frederick Hayek and the great Austrian economists taught us, socialism in all forms — be it the “International Socialism” of the Communists of the “National Socialism” of the Nazi Party — is an attempt to extend politics into the economic realm. In order to create perfect equality or end class divisions or establish the 1000-year Reich or whatever the reformers are promising, it is necessary to take control of economic activity and once that happens, human freedom ends. After all, what has any radical reform movement been except a demand that says, “Give all power to the government and then give me control of the government.” As Hayek wrote in one of the most significant sentences of the 20th century, “The person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect.”
What we have been witnessing in this country, then, is a slow but steady erosion of individual freedom through the gradual centralization of everything in Washington. This has not been achieved by one big blow, like the Russian Revolution, but is the cumulative effect of a thousand little movements, each intent on achieving its own piece of “reform” by demanding that decision-making be centralized in order to accomplish their agenda. Each faction soon discovers that by bringing their small and perhaps even unpopular effort to the Capital, they can attain the greatest amount of leverage with the smallest amount of resources.
Look at the environmental movement. Environmentalism has always been an issue whose support is a mile wide but an inch deep. Everyone is in favor of clean air, clean water and protecting mother earth, but if it comes to paying an extra 50 cents for gasoline or buying a toilet that has to flush twice to do its job, support quickly evaporates. Therefore government mandates are necessary. I recall reading a book written in the early stages of environmentalism where the author was counseling his fellow nature lovers on how to grow their effort. “When we think of implementing an environmental agenda, our thoughts turn to government regulation,” the writer said. “And when we think of government regulation, our thoughts naturally turn to Washington.” No point in trying to persuade your fellow citizens. Just get down to Washington and start making law.
Ralph Nader was the first person of his generation to perceive this. When Nader started out in the early 1960s, the common career path for an ambitious young lawyer who wanted to enter politics was to go back to his hometown, start a legal practice, make a name for himself and run for town council around age 28. If things went well you could move up to the state legislature at 32 and run for Congress by 35. Then you could go to Washington and start influencing national policy.
Nader perceived that all this was unnecessary. All you needed was a law degree and a small office near the Capitol. Start poring over the Congressional Record. Target some small bureaucratic agency, broadcast the news that their lack of oversight was creating a “crisis” and you’re on your way. The more you prove the agency isn’t doing its job, the bigger it grows. And the bigger it has to grow, the easier target it becomes. Bring a lawsuit and pretty soon you may be running the agency yourself through court orders.
This has been America’s history over the last half century. Failing to muster enough support at the grassroots level, thousands of political reform movements have found the best way to advance their agenda is to centralize decision-making in Washington and then concentrate their small but dedicated resources on dictating policy to the rest of the country.
So here, at last, is Tucker’s Law:
Letter to the Editor View all comments (101) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/21/the-tea-party-and-tuckers-law
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.10 @ 6:50AM
Mr. Tucker
One quibble. (smile)
Most of us go back to EXTRAordinary lives back home.
A fine column. I will paste Tuckers Law in my permanent documents.
Alan Brooks| 9.21.10 @ 5:46PM
"The Tea Party is made up of people who have no special interests but only a general interest in moving decision-making out of Washington so they can go back to living normal lives."
This is ludicrously simplistic, the tea partiers have many motivations: some positive, some very negative.
marley| 9.23.10 @ 12:58AM
You should meet some tea partiers
Quartermaster| 9.21.10 @ 6:10PM
Tucker's Law should be considered more a corollary to Pournelle's iron law of Bureaucracy. Tucker's law requires the denizens of such organizations be more concerned with the welfare of the agency than of the mission of that agency.
Mark| 9.21.10 @ 7:03AM
Mr. Tucker,
I had one, immediate response to your law and the article: Oops, there it is.
Thank you for the cogent summary of special interests, entitlements, where we're headed, and why.
Like Ken, I'll be putting Tucker's Law in my Keeper File.
Appleby| 9.21.10 @ 7:32AM
The one thing about Americans in general that has frustrated communism from the beginning was articulated by a former brother-in-law (I have 8 of these) who was a communist from a communist family that had migrated here from Ukraine: *We cant get communism started,* he said, *in a country with no proletariat!*
I understood this intellectually when I was at university; I understand it viscerally now that I live in Kanukistan, where there IS a proletariat, that beaten-down, slump-shouldered population whose general response to the latest indignity piled upon them is a shrug and the whine, *What can you dooooooooooooooo?* The closest thing you have in the USA was the Katrina people who waited passively while the waters rose, chanting *We wants HEP!* and waiting for someone to take their hands and save them from drowning without them having to lift a finger.
Beating down Americans to this degree takes concentrated effort that just cannot embrace enough people to create a proletariat that can be herded into (for example) tiny European sized apartments in huge, crowded high-rises and convinced to ride bicycles and walk -- in a country larger than the United States with a population the size of that of California. Nobody can understand that the Europeans live like this because THEY HAVE NO SPACE TO SPREAD OUT, not to reduce their carbon footprint! But the unquestioning Kanukistanis cram together obediently because their Masters tell them this is their duty and, like the Borg, that Resistence is Futile.
If people in the USA Tea Party would just turn their eyes up here and study what is going on next door, and give it some publicity, there would soon be no proletariat in the USA, even the little pockets of Ignoranti you have now.
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 7:55AM
We ,Tea Party Rebels are Anonymous Freemen , who neither need nor want designated Tea Party Leaders and , who go back to our farms , towns , families , jobs and homes .
Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets
TR| 9.21.10 @ 5:37PM
Right on, Tim*
I attended the Tea Party in Searchlight, NV this past spring. The most peaceful event you ever saw. Concerned average people, all they have in common is their desire to get the government out of our personal lives and return to its Constiutionally limited duties.
The dems used to scream "Get your govt. laws out of our bedrooms" but they seem to love watching over our shoulders and telling us what to do for everything else in our lives.
Tea Party - the true patriots.
Quatermaster| 9.21.10 @ 6:13PM
The Dimocrats now scream for Gov to get of their bedrooms, but that's just until they have total power. Then they will be everywhere, including our bedrooms.
Whatever| 9.21.10 @ 8:14AM
"Tea Party members are more successful than the general run of the population."
And they don't give d*mn about the "general run of the population" who are not so successful.
There is a word for these tea-party people:
Sociopath.
Louis Jenkins| 9.21.10 @ 8:30AM
Dear Whatever:
Sociopath? We are not sociopaths. We are ordinary, common people, who want:
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets
(see above)
And we don't give a damn about the general run of the population? We are the general run. We do not sit still and ask for goverment assistance. We ask to only stand on two feet. If you decide to be an entitlement character then that's your decision, not ours. If the entitlement society wants the spot light then allow them an opportunity to demonstrate, picket, or hold rallies. Allow them the opportunity to be seen in the daylight. At least then know who they are.
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 9:10AM
You too are illustrating my assessment.
You talk about the "entitlement society". What is that? Are you identifying a significant segment of the American population? Who are they? What are the characteristics of the people belonging to this "society"? Do you consider them to be legitimate citizens?
If you can't answer these questions then you are simply displaying your sociopathic thinking.
While you are at it you might want to consider exactly what is meant by
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets
I'll give you a hint: it's not as simple as it seems.
Dan Hirsch| 9.21.10 @ 9:17AM
Whatever!
For one not to understand simple terms like 'fiscal responsibility' etc. one must be exceptionally uninformed or uneducated or stupid. Which is it?
All I have to say to you is "Whatever!"
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 9:20AM
Ok, Dan, let's see you define these terms. Here's some hints to get you started.
Is it fiscally responsible to start two wars while cutting taxes?
Are signing statements and the theory of the unitary executive part of constitutionally limited government?
Are oligopolistic markets really free markets?
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 9:33AM
Do Your Own Homework ObamaBoy Whatever .
"Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Are Tanned , Rested And Ready for November 2nd .
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 9:41AM
Congratulations, Tim, on your excellent first-grade computer skills! You have successfully performed a cut-and-paste from www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx
Now do us all a favor and stop wasting our time and space with your childish antics. You obviously can't think for yourself.
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 9:56AM
What " Us " Pseudo-Intellect Bloviator ObamaBoy Whatever ?
You're over here on Your Negative Attention Seeker Mission .
I am A Tea Party Patriot , ObamaBoy Whatever. Now , just where do ya think I would find the information that you attempted to ignore . In The Black Book Of Communism ?
Aaaaand , notice how Pseudo- Intellect Elitist ObamaBoy Whatever looks down on We ,The Great Unwashed of The Tea Party .
We'll see your Bloviatin' Mouth at the polls on November 2nd and sort this all out .
Skeptic| 9.29.10 @ 8:43AM
You Tea Party patriots do not answer the man's question.
Instead, you resort to name calling. Go ahead, answer him.
Let's elevate your ideas to a real debate. What will you patriots cut to achieve the meritorious goal of fiscal responsibility for a bankrupt government?
Whatever is an angry liberal who fears you guys. But how do you achieve your goals? What spending will you cut? You won't raise taxes, so something has to go, to the tune of hundreds of billions annually.
What goes? What stays?
After your reckoning in November, do you guys have a plan? I've not heard it.
vtwin| 9.21.10 @ 10:45AM
Timmy, cutting-and-pasting, and sniffing the glue again your mama would be ashamed.
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 11:29AM
Well . ObamaBoy vtwin That trumps the Dog Rump you sniff .
Ole Sarge| 9.22.10 @ 6:46PM
Whatever, it is a good thing we don't have to waste ink to play your little game. I am sure most would not bother.
You and your fellow leftist have tried to create stumbling blocks in freedom for decades, we hope to derail you and yours come Nov.
So, mr troll, take a hike, shoot, go to the library, it will keep you occupied and out of trouble.
Dagny Taggert| 9.21.10 @ 9:49AM
No. Bush's spending and McCain's nomination helped spark the start of the tea party. From a fiscal point of view a bad idea, and thus a catalyst.
No by definition, but could be used to start closing down useless federal departments--like the Department of Education.
Yes. Monopoly no, oligopoly yes. And too much regulation (financial, minimum wage, union presence, discrimination laws) becomes onerous to the point where scale becomes important to survive. Governmental over-reach helped to create the oligopolist situation you have distain for.
Whatever, what you fail to grasp is that the "general run of the population who are not so successful" haven't been helped at all by the centrist philosophy you espouse. What the tea party realizes is that a growing economy helps us all; and the policies of the "ruling class" hurt the economy, and don't end up helping the little guy they claim to.
Dan Hirsch| 9.21.10 @ 10:15AM
Oh my word! Those are such hard questions! Ha ha.
Starting two wars, which rational people see as counterattacking an enemy who has murdered 3000 non-combatant citizens in an unannounced war, while cutting taxes which the unindoctrinated KNOW increased federal tax collections in the 1980's and 2000's is far more fiscally responsible than spending a trillion dollars that the federal government does not have to "create or save jobs" mostly of non-productive government employees.
For the record, fiscal responsibility can be defined as 'budgeting to spend less than you collect, saving the difference for contingencies.'
The Democratically controlled House did not pass a federal budget last year - that throws any pretext of fiscal responsibility out the window. Saving the difference? Well, since they spend more than they take in, there is no difference to save.
Next...
A signing statement is the Presidential effort to influence how a law will be executed by the executive branch headed up by the the President; the Constitution is not very heavy on means and methods of how the executive is supposed to run the Branch's daily affairs.
Is the naming of forty Czars (cf. Caesars) who answer to no one, are not subject to Congressional review or oversight who routinely assume authority clearly not provided in the Constitution a constitutional act?
Constitutionally limited government means "government that follows the specific written directives contained in the Constitution."
Failing to protect our borders, suing states for subsuming federal law into their own, while willy-nilly dismissing legal charges against entire groups of breaking those laws, is NOT constitutionally limited government.
An oligopoly is a far more free market than a monopoly. And an open, unregulated market is far more free than an oligopoly. Whatever, surely you know that monopoly is almost impossible when you consider "substitutes."
A free market is one in which there is no outside interference with the behavior of the sellers and the buyers.
Legislating that citizens are obligated to purchase insurance from anybody, public or private, is the antithesis of a free market.
Whatever; you assailed people on this forum as sociopaths, you posed what you thought were hard questions, then you derided those who responded to you briefly.
Now I predict that you will respond to me with more irrelevant questions, call me a couple of names, and then slink away.
As for me, I am going to go back to work, where I produce productive work that creates real wealth.
Whatever, back into your hole! Be gone.
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 10:36AM
Dan, you make a valiant reply to my queries and then throw it all away with some cheap shots at the end. I would have been willing to go on discussing these points with you but you have revealed that your mind just isn't capable of a sustained rational discussion. Even your insults are pathetic. I've heard better from a 14-year old.
It's good you are going back to work. It will keep you out of trouble. Of course, you don't have to bother worrying about those (how many is it? 10 million? 20 million?) whose jobs have disappeared out from under them and whose prospects have evaporated. That's just the way the free market works!
As for me, I have already and will continue to create far more wealth than you ever will. You are probably benefiting from some the things I have done and you don't even know it.
Bob K.| 9.21.10 @ 11:27AM
I'm impressed by your last paragraph! Tell us what you have done!
You have to put up or shut up now!
Huggy Bear| 9.21.10 @ 12:18PM
You invented the internet? Al, baby! Is that you? C'mon over and gimme a kiss, baby! Man! You are one screwed up motha! I was wit ya on the "I invented the internet" scam, but when ya started scammin on the Glo-War thing? Baby, you lost me! Can't be givin' up my Caddie fo no one, specially fo some white ass bear up in honky country! But you da man, Al! How dem hos I sent ya fo your message work out? Hop they be cool. Peace out, bro.
Doorgunner| 9.21.10 @ 2:49PM
"Even your insults are pathetic. I've heard better from a 14-year old."
You've really got to quit 'cruising' the playgrounds; the kids are never going to think your Prius, or your Eddie Vedder mixtape, is cool.
Quartermaster| 9.21.10 @ 6:21PM
The answers to your questions are quite easy "Whatever." We take the constitution and compare every line of the budget to the enumerated powers given to the FedGov by the constitution. If it isn't within the purview of the enumerated powers it is stricken. 90%+ of the FedGov's activities are patently illegal.
Given you political opinions, it is exceedingly unlikely you have created anything of real value. One thing I have observed is the creators strongly tend to be conservative. People like Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates, who have acquired wealth through speculation (Buffett) or simply buying some others out (Gates) are more often than not liberals. I'll bet a dollar to a donut you fall into the latter class.
Negro X| 9.21.10 @ 10:35PM
Moron, how about you explain what hope and changes is or how when obama increases the defict it's good but when Bush did it , it was bad. go lick ed schultz's ass.
Eric Cartman| 9.21.10 @ 12:08PM
Who are the parasites, entitlement-society losers who demand their bread for sitting on their asses selling "dope and hos!"and generally wrecking the country? Is that your question, whatever? Okay, if you're such a dumbass that you have no clue who these people are, I'll fill you in: 90% of Detroit. Got it? A great example of this would be the apprentice crack-whore who when asked what she was standing in the long government -gimmies line for, answered "Money!" Where does the money come from? "I don't know! It's Obama money! Obama's stash!"
And who are the smug little pecker-nose enablers who think keeping people in the above condition is doing them a great favor and who are responsible for the giant slum that is Detroit? You are, whatever. You and your great Democrats like Rangel, Waters, Conyers and the Liberal assholes who kiss their collective asses - the Democrat Party. Oh! Sorry - Circle D party. It's that simple, simpleton.
The Big Mick| 9.21.10 @ 5:46PM
Re. your "questions"
1. entitlement society=people too stupid to get out of the way of a Hurricane.
2. yes they are a significantly parasitical segment of the population.
3. The characteristics can be found in this Ode to Katrina sung to the tune of "The House of the Rising Sun"
There is a town called New Orleans
As “Chocolate” as they come.
Where you can live the Big Easy Life,
On a check from the gub-ba-munt.
My daddy was a half-white trash,
he cheated, lied, and stole.
My momma was a Choclat beech,
and a stinkn crack-head-ho.
Da hurricane came rolling down,
they tole us all to run.
But daddy said we’d stay rat cheer,
for our check from the Gub-ba-munt.
Now choclat mommas tell you choclat babies,
just to do what I has done.
And they will live The Big Easy Life.
On a check from da gub-ba-munt.
Now choclat may be dark and hot.
And you know the smell of it.
But choclat still don’t taste worth a damn.
When it’s just a pile-o-$#! +
4. no I consider them to be illegitimate. That is the tradition when one's Father, and in this case often the Mother is unrecognized.
Your questions are answered Socialist.
Eric Cartman| 9.21.10 @ 5:59PM
Now, now Mick. They were raised by Democrats. You can't expect them to be anything BUT useless, can ya?
Love the ode LOL
Troll Hunter| 9.21.10 @ 1:03PM
Whatever is a troll. A particularly hateful one.
Haters need attention. If you stop engaging him, he'll go away. It's no fun playing by yourself.
TR| 9.21.10 @ 5:43PM
That is the very reason I didn't grace his posts with a response at all. I saw through him from his 1st post.
Those sad little liberal losers are so pathetic.
The Big Mick| 9.21.10 @ 5:50PM
Alas, I needs confess to a low taste in Dwarf Tossing.
Call it a weakness.
But I do enjoy it.
Harry the Horrible| 9.21.10 @ 9:10AM
Ain't that just like a commie?
Anyone who indulges in thoughts of which he doesn't approve, must be mentally ill.
Personally, I think "Sociopathy" describes people who seize other folks' hard-earned income to redistribute.
They're probably Delusional, too, since they seem to think that constitutes "compassion."
coal carrier| 9.21.10 @ 9:12AM
I am 65 years old. Never protested in the 60’s (I was busy raising a family). I attended the Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. on 9/12. Let me tell you first hand, I didn’t see one Sociopath in that gathering.
vtwin| 9.21.10 @ 10:38AM
Blind by 65, sad.
Eric Cartman| 9.21.10 @ 12:23PM
Wow, vtwin - that reply to an elderly guy must have exhausted your brain capacity for the day. Have your mom bring you down some more Mac & Cheese and take a nap. Recharge yourself and come back rested and ready to amaze us with more of your brilliance, k?
blackknights1802| 9.22.10 @ 7:21AM
A typical liberal response. When you can’t add to the debate, reply with innuendo, name-calling or character assassination.
TR | 9.21.10 @ 5:45PM
That's because vtwin and his fellow regressives weren't there.
Oh, they call themselves "progressives". sorry.
Sam Vaughn| 9.21.10 @ 9:32AM
Whatever, I'm sorry for you. You sound like a number of people I know who have never found the liberation of realizing that happiness is not the responsibility of others. Your welfare, success, failure is your own. Liberation comes when you let go of the bitterness of blaming others. I hope for your sake that liberation comes soon. A life chewing the meal of bitterness is no life at all.
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 9:37AM
Sam, thanks for you amateur psychology but I haven't the faintest idea what your remarks have to do with the discussion here,
leaving aside the fact that they are totally wide of the mark.
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 10:01AM
Obamaboy Whatever is The Bus callin' The Lemon Pie "Yellow " .
More of the same Pseudo-Intellectual Negative Attention Seekin' Crap .
vtwin| 9.21.10 @ 10:51AM
Not to worry Whatever, San comments never follow the discussion.
vtwin| 9.21.10 @ 10:52AM
Sorry, Sam's comments.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.21.10 @ 7:04PM
We're buying shrimp, vtwin. Thanks for hanging in there. Nate is gone. RCV is no where to be seen. Countless trolls are exhausted defending me but you are still here. I have to say you seem a little tired. It used to be you would only get a little roughed up by Tim* but now he just has his way with you. Take a couple days off and get recharged. In fact I don't want to hear anymore of your stupid ideas until January, 2013. I am exhausted as well but it from playing a lot of golf. Don't ask, don't tell for ever, baby.
Neanderthal| 9.21.10 @ 10:07AM
Whatever-
Typical. Where do you get the idea that the government "gives a damn" about the general run of the population? I've had my run-ins with stupid businesses and obnoxious individuals, but for really, really frustrating, arrogant, unhelpful, take it or leave it attitude, you just can't beat a government bureaucrat.
Warrior | 9.21.10 @ 10:30AM
Actually, Progressives and BHO are almost the word for word definition of sociopaths.
Albert| 9.21.10 @ 3:32PM
Sociopath: "a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Please demonstrate for us here how Tea Party members are "antisocial" and "lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." Be specific. You made the charge. The very fact that Tea Party members are organized and that they defend society and morals, and promote fiscal responsibility, and are SELF-reliant, not government-reliant, proves that, by definition, they are not "sociopaths." And Tea Party members, being "more successful" are statistically more generous to charities. Of course, one like yourself thinks "charity" is the government taking money from people who earn it and giving it to those to whom it does not belong. Your comments are self-evidently false and betray a hostility, probably borne of envy. It is clear that you are not very bright, but you are arrogant, perhaps even narcissistic.
The Big Mick| 9.21.10 @ 5:36PM
And there is a word for people who think the Prosperity of the Successful should be STOLEN from them by the Parasitical:
SOCIALIST
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 8:24AM
Gee Mr.Whatever , You Seem So Cranky This Fine Mornin'.
Did Ya Have Your Coffee Yet ?
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
We Can See November From Our Houses .
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 8:26AM
Tim - You have just provided a good demonstration of my assessment.
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 9:15AM
Well now ObamaBoy Whatever , many of us employ the general run of the population ,which enables them , in turn , to have disposable income to buy products and services made by other American Freemen , who employ others .
It's The Invisible Hand .
Got It ?
Get It !
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Freedom Was Never Free .
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 9:28AM
Tut, tut Tim, try to control you partisan instincts. It's really undermining your credibility.
Are you making a distinction between "American Freemen" and all other Americans? If so, perhaps you might like to inform us who they are.
By the way, what you have described has nothing to do with the "Invisible Hand".
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 9:43AM
Sure It Does Pseudo-EconomistBoy .
Aaaaand , Pooh Pooh ObamaBoy Whatever, try to control your stink about American Freemen .
The Invisible Hand :
Term used by Adam Smith to describe the natural force that guides free market capitalism through competition for scarce resources. According to Adam Smith, in a free market each participant will try to maximize self-interest, and the interaction of market participants, leading to exchange of goods and services, 'enables each participant to be better of than when simply producing for himself/herself. 'He further said that in a free market, no regulation of any type would be needed to ensure that the mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services took place, since this "invisible hand" would guide market participants to trade in the most mutually beneficial manner."
Many of We Tea Party Rebels , as American Freemen employ other American Freemen in a mutually beneficial Free Market ,guided by The Invisible Hand .
Talk To The Hand ObamaBoy .
whatever| 9.21.10 @ 10:18AM
Yet another cut-and-paste from Tim, the computer whiz.
Tim, my friend, if you are going to refer to Adam Smith I suggest you read all of what he had to say (you can read, can't you?). Look up his discussion of corporations (what he called joint-stock companies). You might be in for some unpleasant surprises.
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 10:36AM
You're Not My Friend Pseudo-Intellect Boy .
I've also read von Hayek's works and Von Mises works .
We , American Freemen take the risk of investing our own hard earned money in Public Corporations , Sport .
Are ya tellin' us that you , yourself hold no investments in corporations ?
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 10:47AM
Do your Homework Pseudo-Intellect Whatever.
Learn the difference between Smith's "Joint Owned Stock Companies " and today's U.S. Corporations .
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.10 @ 9:51AM
Whatever,
If you want to identify the "entitlement society", go peek in the mirror. There you go.
"American Freemen" are who? Well it is every American man and woman who gets up in the morning, (or night), and does something constructive with the day God has gifted them.
PS: Whining and finger pointing is not constructive.
Ray| 9.21.10 @ 12:55PM
whatever, it seems that every statement that disagrees or contradict your is, to you,, more evidence, more "proof" of your "assessment" that the people like myself, who understand and agree with the Tea party movement and who disagree with you "assessment,", are all "Sociopaths." That belief that you are right and everyone disagrees with you is wrong, is, in itself, a symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
JeffW| 9.21.10 @ 2:45PM
Ray, you may be on to something. I was thinking "Whatever" was suffering Schizophrenia due to delusions, impaired cognitive ability and his disorganized behaviour of playing the childrens game of constantly saying the same thing just to be annoying. Lets hope his hygiene hasnt begun to slip.
Whatever does not understand the difference between a "Hand up" and a "Hand Out"
vtwin| 9.21.10 @ 8:45AM
Gallup Poll: Democrats 46%, Republicans 45%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143.....icans.aspx
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 9:20AM
" Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, September 19, 2010.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of respondents say they would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate, while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
Still, while the margin has varied somewhat from week-to-week, Republicans have been consistently ahead in the Generic Ballot for over a year. During 2010, the GOP edge has never fallen below five points and has run as high as 12 points. When Barack Obama first took office as president of the United States, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead on the Generic Ballot. "
vtwin| 9.21.10 @ 8:32AM
Yes, but with the accent of the anti chicken choking faction within the tea party movement one wonders how long will the American male truly remain a “freeman.”
Dan Hirsch| 9.21.10 @ 9:20AM
V-twin;
Exactly what are you trying to say? Chicken choking is your most prized freedom? You might want to find yourself some professional mental health care. Doublequick!
Tim*| 9.21.10 @ 9:27AM
Next , desperate ObamaBoy vtwin will pander for the Carnival Geek Vote .
Albert| 9.21.10 @ 10:46PM
I would like to say that this comment is beneath even Mr. twin, but let's face reality.
Curly Smith| 9.21.10 @ 8:32AM
I'm not sure Tucker's Law is correct. If we look to Hugo Chavez for a proof then we'll see that his agenda was wildly popular. Further disproof can be seen in Europe where centralization is king. And look to the Bush era GOP and the Obama Democrats... the arguments weren't so much about the centralization as they were about the pace of centralization.
When you look at Washington it's pretty clear that there's a leadership vacuum in both parties. They have to control everything because they have no unifying ideas. It's not really that the people disagree with the agenda, it's more that they don't have an agenda beyond controlling everything.
I think Tucker's Law is really more basic: Real leaders don't micromanage
Sam Vaughn| 9.21.10 @ 9:35AM
Leaders lead people, managers micro-manage tasks. Could not agree more.
gearjammer| 9.21.10 @ 9:52AM
The late Michael Crichton wrote that the " totalitarian instinct "may be the natural order of things for much of mankind. The people who settled America and came in later saw it differently for the most part. It takes a child like population to fall under the spell of the totalitarian, especially the so called " friendly fascist ". Such people have and are entering America in droves-and they have a higher than average propensity to breed. We may end up in a breeding war before it is over. Will you be able to convince your children and grand children to make lots and lots of babies ? I know this is a rude, somewhat ugly subject. The dems are smug. In the end they believe they win. The new brand of progressive and leftist dies in peace and happiness knowing demographics is destiny. We are consumed with the ultra rich man's marginal tax rate-lowering it a few points is our holy grail.
The Big Mick| 9.21.10 @ 5:54PM
Bullsheite. Naw not even that HF4-CH4.
That's Heifer Methane to the uninitiate.
"When it ain't got the balls to be bull or the substance to be sheite."
I want ALL taxes slashed, and don't give a Grand Coolie Dam for anybody who thinks ANY problem is "the rich guy."
It AIN'T YOUR MONEY phooker, NOBODY's is, so YOU got NO SAY in how it is spent and NO ONE should cooperate in STEALING it for WHATEVER reason.
gearjammer| 9.23.10 @ 9:45AM
More like the thick mick.
Curly Smith| 9.21.10 @ 10:17AM
Upon further reflection, I'd suggest:
"The less successful a group's agenda is in the general population, the more intent it will be on centralizing authority."
Success drives support, whether in the private or public sector. The worst corporate and public decisions are driven by the unwillingness to admit that the decision was misguided in the first place. Corporations and governments adopt command and control procedures in order to turn failure into success because the policymaker thinks "it would work if I had more control".
If the big government policies worked then we'd be happy to have them centralized. The Soviet Union didn't centralize because a lack of support, they centralized because their polices were failures of epic proportions.
cnc| 9.21.10 @ 10:36AM
Support for enviromentalism is broad but shallow, but so is support for national defense. Given a choise people prefer that other people pay for a good, always do always will.
yougenic| 9.21.10 @ 10:36AM
I am amused by Lefties who come to boards like this. Each time they contribute reveals the extent of brainwashing and willingness to accept and parrot what is taught them. Never industrious or curious enough to investigate what is given, they regurgitate the failed ideology - poorly. Might as well don the New Democrat T-Shirt and stand blindly for the paintballs. History is troublesome for Lefties. There is no example of success for the government they prefer. What the history tells us is horrific crimes against humanity are required to enforce the "Collective" will upon man. What? 100-200 million deaths pursuing Marx's Utopia? Insignificant... unimportant... a bad rap we are told. New management will assure success this time. I want them to have the government the crave. I want the USA divided. I want each of them to personally pay for their Utopia. The rest of us can watch behind the border fence that keeps them out as their servitude consumes them and they turn upon one another. Watching them blame each other for its failure is a vision I dream about.
edward del colle| 9.21.10 @ 2:26PM
pretty spot on yougenic! consider china 1958-to 62, where the state destroyed a third of all homes to produce fertilizer's and the famine and starvatuions that ensued, and then the draconian punishment inflicted on families for such minor things as stealing a potatoe. think of pol pot and multiply it many times over that's the genocode that occured in china.
Steve A| 9.21.10 @ 11:20AM
Hey Whatever, You ask to have "what is the entitlement society," defined. Here you go. You are a charter member if you THINK the following. "Someone else should reach in their pocket, for $$ they earned, to pay for my stuff." "If they are unwilling to do so, I will vote for someone who will make them do it."
Tom Anderson| 9.21.10 @ 12:22PM
Excellent article by William Tucker. I wonder why so many of you rose to "Whatever's" obvious baiting? He has no wish to discuss these issues honestly or with any degree of intellectual honesty, so why waste time with him? He has failed to advance even one intelligible argument in all his commentary, yet he has managed to put most of you in a bad humor. He's just having some fun at your expense, gentlemen. Don't waste your time on him.
Irish22| 9.21.10 @ 2:30PM
Good point Tom -- apparently tying oneself in knots of self-deception is infinitely more satisfying than accepting simple truth.
Steve A| 9.21.10 @ 12:45PM
Tom, Good points. I can only speak for myself in telling you that I get a bit bored & actively seek those with viewpoints that are idiotic in an effort to see if I can get them to vacate the discussion with 1 reply.
Ed| 9.21.10 @ 12:49PM
I loved the following quote from Alexis de Tocqueville: "In America there are so many ways of making a living that a man doesn't usually enter politics until he has failed at everything else."
Whatever.
Bob Miller| 9.21.10 @ 2:51PM
Tuckers Law, above, states, "The less support a group has for its agenda in the general population, the more intent it will be on centralizing authority so that its limited leverage will have the largest impact."
This follows from the obvious fact that people take the path of least resistance to get what they want. If popular support is readily available, the man with a plan will happily use that. But if it's lacking, and persuasion doesn't persuade too well, either, he "needs" to try some more forceful option.
In the US, we had a Constitution to protect us from abuse by obsessed activists until recently, when it was reinterpreted, falsified, and ignored out of existence. Now the forceful options are so much easier to use, so---surprise!---we've been overrun by czars and czarinas.
mac| 9.21.10 @ 3:22PM
The antidote to "Tuckers Law"....... Take the power from D.C. by repealing Amendment 17!! This is where president Wilson destroyed the checks and balances of the Constitution, so we now live with "Tuckers Law" instead.
Wally | 9.21.10 @ 3:48PM
Not to sound like a complete putz but did anyone else chuckle towards the end of the article when they read "The tea party is steeped..."
:D
On topic... the law (and it's immediate explanation) makes perfect sense. Only because we've given so much power to the government already is this law even possible. I've read that there are two lobbyists per congressman in office... sad.
PolishKnight| 9.21.10 @ 4:00PM
A minor quibble about the toilet example for the theory: Toilet water waste was an environmental red herring. Toilet water comprises a small percentage of overall water usage especially when industrial water usage is considered. Most home water waste is in the bathtub and the lawn.
This is why it was difficult to convince people to buy lo-flushes without a government mandate. On the other hand, many people are happily buying such environmental saving devices such as LED flashlights and pool lights because they really do save money in addition to energy.
Regarding politics and the economy. One of the classic examples of crony capitalism is the way that firestone and standard oil killed mass transit in Los Angeles. These large corporations ensured that mass transit right of ways wouldn't be established in order that massive congestion would sell more gasoline and tires. For good or ill, a simple "free market" doesn't work as much as Rush likes to say it will. Same thing with illegal imigration: there are elements of the right such as small businesses that welcome illegal immigrants because it means saving a few dollars on hotel staffing even if the taxpayer foots the larger bill. So even without leftism and communism, economics and politics will be joined at the hip whether we like it or not. What's amusing is how the left likes to pretend that somehow they're saving us from "evil corporations" even as the left now bails out bankers provided they slush the money back in the form of campaign contributions...
That said, Tucker's law is obvious (like all great laws are) but as far as I know never formally stated before. I have long observed that more populist movements don't feel a need to work in DC because they already have a strong local presence. Even so, it is worth noting that the status quo doesn't let that get in the way of still establishing a strong presence.
Pat| 9.21.10 @ 5:04PM
In desperation, the mainstream media folks have been searching for the Democrats’ version of the TEA Party – someone, somewhere out there must think Obama hasn’t lived up to his principles, that he hasn’t expanded government nearly enough. Here and there around the nation there have been grassroots groups holding small rallies for even more aggressive Liberal government reforms. For example, there were the short lived “Pay My Bills With Your Money” Party, the “Warriors for Obama” Party and the “Tupperware” Party (which also sold those cute, plastic refrigerator containers during rallies) – but apparently most Liberals are, at present, a smugly contented lot – no complaints, no anger and somewhat over aroused from being constantly “stimulated”.
Media outlets such as Salon, the Huffington Post, the New York Times and the Washington Post recently did a joint survey with the evocative title: “What More Should Obama Do?”, buttonholing voters in New York’s Time Square to seek answers and maybe encourage a wannabe Liberal TEA party to form and then rally for Democrats running re-election campaigns. Some citizens agreed to take the survey if the media folks bought them a free lunch, an old and respected Liberal tradition whenever asked to do a survey. Others were concerned about unemployment, but they weren’t demanding the government find them employment, they simply wanted a 3 year extension to their current unemployment checks. And, finally, some of those surveyed thought Obama has already gone too far. But the survey takers concluded these folks must be deliberate plants by the real TEA party organizations and refused to record their responses.
gearjammer| 9.21.10 @ 5:10PM
nobody worked harder to create a proletariat state than Bobby Byrd and the democrats did in West VA=but alas a new poll shows a republican in the lead ! Manchin is right out of central casting for the democrats deception machine. Chiseled, good looking yet hard faced working class hero. Talks and speech pattern like a coal miner who somehow beat the odds and went to college, but instead of running off and getting rich in some corporation came home to raise up his people. Ed Rendell has or had sorts the same shtick. Now he's losing. Hope springs eternal. I contend it is not in the DNA of these folks to we depending on the government for everything. They need a blue print for prosperity and economic independence.
The Big Mick| 9.21.10 @ 5:57PM
Now ya know why MY solutions START with a Gigantic "Red Dawn" "Hun Circle" just outside the Beltloop that Slays Every Living Creature Inside with Fire and Sword.
Ruling Class Aristos are never "voted out", they are Guillotined.
The Big Mick L.E.O.
Liberty's Extreme Offspring (The Sons of Liberty vXXX for the 21st Century)
mark| 9.21.10 @ 6:24PM
Such claptrap. Let's just hit the reset button, throw out the tax code, delete 90% of federal agencies and add a balanced budget amendment...then go back to work. Government ONLY EVER does 2 things: pass more laws that everyone else has to follow - while exempting itself, and 2, take money from the many and return it to the few....the fight always being over who those few will be. It's not rock science.....sheeesh!
gearjammer| 9.23.10 @ 9:51AM
You mean like eliminate EPA and transfer it's useful functions to the department of Interior ? What a waste of wasteful, non essential government spending. From Obama to Krugman to Matthews-an endless chain of frauds here-they'd be AGHAST !
Michael L. Hauschild| 9.21.10 @ 7:37PM
The blog today by this particular author enumerates the relevance, cognitive analysis and sensitivity to the issues leading up to the November election. It is obvious that the AS site is monitored quite closely by the progressive faction of the political spectrum. “Tucker’s Law” cuts to the quick; the vehemence and persistence of the trolls serves as testament. Kudos Mr. Tucker, this ranks inclusion with the “Ruling Class” piece.
RCV| 9.22.10 @ 1:10PM
Whatever hopes the Tea Party had as an independent movement are dead. Now that the candidates they backed have won the official GOP nominations, the party machinery has moved in and will manage their campaigns from here on out. Then, if they're elected, they'll fall in line with the McConnell-Boehner marching orders. Mark my words.
Martin Treptow| 9.22.10 @ 5:03PM
Whatever,
I am still waiting for your response when you were asked to expound on your wealth creation and other record of financial accomplishment. Does it really take this long to make something up? Or is it more likely that you don't possess a particularly strong personal record of job creation? Perhaps you have "saved" a bunch of jobs in the last two years, just like our Dear Leader.
Additionally, I'm not sure where you were trying to go with asking other posters to define such elementary constructs such as "fiscal responsibility". It sounded a heck of lot like just trying to make noise instead of actually engaging in debate. (BTW, President did not start two wars. Afghanistan and Iraq are just different theaters of the same war, and not really that far apart, to boot. Consult a map.)
Lastly, regarding your description of Tea Partiers as "sociopaths", I will borrow a quote from Inigo Montoya, "that word... I do not think it means what you think it means".
Troll.
Fail.
Cheers!
Democratic governance | 1.6.11 @ 2:39AM
I am really thankful to you for this great read!! You did a very great job, keep it up.
Mike| 4.14.11 @ 8:54PM
Actually Tuckers Law is...
http://www.urbandictionary.com.....erm=Tucker's Law