Too Hard to sort out the Pro-Business from Pro-Cronyims, from Republican Socialism

The TEA-Party movement is Pro-Business, the Republican Establishment is not Pro-business they are Pro-Cronyism. While the bail-outs have illuminated a few of the corporate-welfare recipients, the Republicans have been building a list with ...many more government-created monopolies. They call it the Donor list.
So when the new comer TEA-Party folks come on the seen and amateurishly take the Pro-Business mantra out on the campaign trail they mistakenly apply the political support to all business including; small businesses, new business, green businesses and emerging markets. You can see how this leads to conflict, each of these new businesses is seen as an immediate threat capturing market share from existing government-supported monopolies.
Farm subsidies, Oil Subsidies, Insurance Company protections just don't fit into the TEA-Parties expectation of Pro-business and limited government.

The Republicans have had a horrible time trying to maintain a big tent. Excluding others and keeping the party pure is a never ending vigilance that central committee members exercise fervently.
2010 is make of break for the TEA-PARTY and Liberty Movements. These movements might do better by migrating to the Democratic Party.

Campaign for Liberty Republicans are against government spending. Except when they are for it.

Republican Socialism

www.campaignforliberty.com

The Tea Party movement can do much to improve American politics. One of its most important tasks is simply to hold both major parties to account for their inconsistencies and hypocrisies. And "military Keynesianism" is a good place to start.

Republican Socialism

Posted by Doug Bandow on 10/27/10 10:34 AM   [Older: Democrats and Republicans, Interventionist Twins]

Republicans are against government spending. Except when they are for it.
Justin Logan of the Cato Institute recently made this point:

There's been a lot of talk on the right in recent months about President Obama's "socialist" policies. While much of that talk seems overheated, so does the furious pushback from the left. Would President Obama's domestic policies really be so out of step in what in Europe would be called a "Social Democratic" party? I don't think so. But for understandable Hartzian reasons, lots of American liberals seem to get squeamish about allegations of socialism.
However, Republicans may want to examine the plank in their own eyes before casting aspersions on the one in the eyes of Democrats. Military Keynesianism has long been a centerpiece in the Republican platform, and it still is.

If government spending inefficiently diverts money from the productive private sector, it does so whether the end result is public housing or advanced submarines. The latter may be necessary for America's defense, but then that is the reason, and the only reason, to spend money on the military. Not because building unnecessary tanks "creates jobs."
The Tea Party movement can do much to improve American politics. One of its most important tasks is simply to hold both major parties to account for their inconsistencies and hypocrisies. And "military Keynesianism" is a good place to start.