Tea Party Anarchists?

Column by Alex R. Knight III.

Exclusive to STR

On the floor of the U.S. Senate this April 23rd, Harry Reid of Nevada had this to say, on record:

“We have a situation where this country has been driven by the Tea Party for the last number of years. When I was in school, I studied government and I learned about the anarchists. Now, they were different than the Tea Party because they were violent. But they were anarchists because they did not believe in government at any level and they acknowledged it. The Tea Party kind of hides that.

“They don't say they're against government, but that is what it all amounts to. They're not doing physically destructive things to buildings and people, directly, but they are doing everything they can to throw a monkey-wrench into every form of government, whether it's local, state or federal. That's what it's all about. And so, anything they can do to throw a monkey-wrench in the wheels of government, they're happy doing that. And I'm sorry to say that my friend from Oklahoma [Senator Tom Coburn] is helping them. Maybe not directly, but indirectly, and that's wrong. Government is not inherently bad; government is inherently good. That's why we have a Constitution and that's what we direct the activities of this government based upon.”

Wow. If that doesn’t present you with a wholesale fireworks display of ignorance and skewed thinking, then I’m at a loss to ascertain what might. Let’s pull it apart, in brief:

The Tea Party has driven “this country” (i.e., tax farm) for the last number of years? That’s news to me. Last I looked, the Obama administration was still in the White House. Yes, there were people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries – as there are today – calling themselves anarchists who did and do violent things. Let’s set aside for the moment that the definition of Anarchy in its philosophical sense is the direct antithesis of violence (a point which is sadly lost on most uninitiated people). I’d like to know how Reid thinks that either the Tea Party or Democrats, in their intrinsic endorsement of government, are in any way not violent. Violence, to be certain, is the very basis of their each and every activity. And thus, how then are members of the Tea Party non-believers in government? Get real.

And yes, Tea Partiers and Democrats alike are doing many destructive things to buildings and people – as if Reid were actually concerned about such. Take a look at a typical day in Pakistan, or in the Drug War, or in domestic police brutality, or ten-thousand and one other things that government employees do on a routine basis without even giving any of it a second thought. Tea Partiers want to obstruct and stop all of that? If only, Harry.

And here’s the big kahuna (my apologies to all people and things Hawaiian): The Constitution was inherently designed – though very poorly -- to keep a notoriously bad organization of people in line by structuring their offices in such a way so as to prevent precisely the situation that prevails in 2013. Correspondingly, it has proven itself to be wholly and woefully inadequate to that task. And that is, for the most part, because words on pieces of paper are in no way sufficient to restrain power-mad and sociopathic people, such as Harry Reid, from perverting and disobeying those very words in the furtherance of their own self-serving ends. Even a Bill of Rights appended to this core document, has been little more than window-dressing. All of it has long since been trampled into the dust – even to the extent that utter authoritarians like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (he of the bans on trans-fats, salt, large sodas, and guns . . . not to mention advocacy of a 21 age limit on tobacco, and widespread proliferation of surveillance cameras and aerial blimps all operated by a post-9/11 NYPD that has almost unlimited multi-jurisdictional powers) have suggested it be dramatically altered right out in the open, or abolished altogether. Reid and his sick cohorts don’t direct any activities based on what any constitution contains – except as it may suit the further solidification of their own twisted power structures. This was a point made, incidentally, as early on as 1870, by Lysander Spooner, whose intellect soared above that of Reid, Bloomberg, and others of their substandard and condemnable cerebral caliber.

To pose a summary question, Harry Reid and those of his ilk think that the Tea Party is anti-government, and poses a threat to the continuation of the government’s ability to violently control the lives, liberty, and property of the American population?

Wait until they get to see at first hand what a non-coercive, voluntary free-market society looks like.

Your rating: None Average: 8 (1 vote)
Alex R. Knight III's picture
Columns on STR: 153

Alex R. Knight III is the author of numerous horror, science-fiction, and fantasy tales.  He has also written and published poetry, non-fiction articles, reviews, and essays for a variety of venues.  He currently lives and writes in rural southern Vermont where he holds a B.A. in Literature & Writing from Union Institute & University.  Alex's Amazon page can be found here, and his work may also be found at both Smashwords and Barnes & Noble.  His MeWe group can be found here.


Jim Davies's picture

Well spotted and said, Alex.  Reid must have worked really hard, to pack so many gross errors into such a short speech. Plainly, he's a highly skilled and practised Pol.
I think anarchism is the only philosophy that is nonviolent at root. We begin by acknowledging that each human being owns his own life. From that springs directly the ethical principle that no kind of attempt must be made to control or aggress against him.
Are Quakers that clear? - I doubt it. They base their nonviolence on a particular interpretation of a religion, and if that religion can be interpreted by other adherents to endorse the initiation of force, how can it be a clear and unambiguous foundation?

Glock27's picture

I truly appreciate your remarks. It is my personal opinion individuals during the 18th and 19th century were far, far more intelligent than any current legislator today, despite the influence they wielded at the time. I was personally stunned when Nevada re-elected Reids sagging ass back into the senate. I honestly believed there were more people in Nevada who, after four years, could see he was an illiterate moron. But when you are taught false history what can you expect. Reid is a gross error himself, among others.

The Constitution may not be the best forged document and I acknowledge it has faults. I think if the founders had more time to consider the document they may have uncovered some of its errors, but for today I would not have faith in current humans being able to forge anything better; I fear it would be a worse document than it currently is. Oh, yes, it can be rejected, even Spooners observations made no difference one-hundred and forty-three years later.

I fear the worst is coming, especially those who are ignoring all the obvious signs being presented. Hopefully when the cataclysm is completed its circle something new may arrive.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Double post. See below.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Alex, great job with this article. When people realize that the Constitution was merely a coup d'etat designed to gut the relative freedom of the Articles of Federation, they'll stop treating that piece of toilet paper as if it were more than that. Sadly, through the public schools -- the caesaropapism of our time -- their minds are unable to distinguish a syllogism from septic tank. My apologies that such are able to benefit from septic tanks.