Health care is important, but it seems obvious that it doesn't rally people around a deep and core set of irrefutable ideals. As the tea party movement grows, the rallying cry that comes streaming through the radio and the web that is gaining the most steam and fervor is the call for less government control and intervention. This rallying cry is really a shallow analysis of programs like welfare, income taxes, universal heatlhcare, etc. that touch on a fear of government takeover at a deep level. The complicated way in which Obama laid out healthcare reform allows tea party-goers to grab onto irrelevant, but basic fears of people who dislike Obama's way.

But, if Obama had focused on the banks, would this fear of government stepping in come off as justifiable? The economic crisis and the reckless behavior of an unregulated bank system is at least one point the tea party people would have to concede on. The tea partiers had huge anti-bailout protests and hated that the government was getting involved in the banking system by propping them up with tax dollars.

While we were deep into the economic crisis, Obama had the sentiment for reform behind him to have unveiled a plan that agreed with basic reactions around the bailouts. The plan could have pushed for the bad banks to resolve themselves, for the Fed to have less power, and for some agency that is accountable to Congress to keep the banks in check. What would the party of tea drinking really be able to say? Why did we get into health care in such a complicated way when we could have set an example of good and necessary governance because of one of the best examples of government absence in our country's history?

We need a new movement that stands for ideals, and ones that us other people can believe in. We need a new movement for "Prosperity, Economic Freedom, and and End to 0ut-of-control Corrupt-Corporate-Government Growth".

• tiffiniy's blog
• Add new comment