You will find much Tea Party company here with your devout antifederalist ideology and perhaps even with your eccentric southern secessionist viewpoint. ha. Welcome to political fantasy land!
Me, I'm a Hamiltonian conservative, which makes me a federalist. That was a choice made in a high school American history class election exercise choosing between the Federalists and Jefferson's Republican-Democrat Party. I had been a devout Taft Republican as a freshman at Central High School, Fountain City, Tennessee, so the conservative vs. liberal choice seemed obvious then. It's not quite so obvious now, because the "liberals" now represent the status quo (conservative position) and the "conservatives" would turn everything upside down (not exactly "liberal" but certainly radical). It wasn't until after Reagan's first term that I realized the two parties had reversed sides (probably during the Depression)--that the Democrats descended from Jefferson & Jackson had become the present-day Federalists and that the Republicans in historical line from Federalists to Whigs to the GOP had become the present-day Jeffersonians. It's somewhat remarkable that the basic divide in American politics still comes down to pragmatic federalist vs. antifederalist ideology--but very confusing because the parties have circled to opposite positions on government action.
As an anti-federalist you might want to commit yourself to the GOP. As a secessionist I'm not sure what's out there in reality, but political fantasy land here will be comfortable. Of course, you could also reconsider joining political reality and the necessity of national programs like the interstate highway system, perhaps reconstruction of a national rail passenger network on a high speed model, national defense and foreign relations, bank regulation, etc., etc. Simple to second-guess or say get rid of, and complicated to put together, but some central government area of action are real necessities in the end.
An historical footnote on secession--East Tennessee was unionist, not secessionist, although it would have seceded from Tennessee like West Virginia did from Virginia but was prevented because it was literally occupied by the Confederacy during the Civil War. Tennessee's 2nd Congressional district is the only Congressional seat that has remained Republican for 150 some years. Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was an East Tennessean.
Fountain City, now part of Knoxville, was in the 1950s before annexation the largest unincorporated city in the world (population 25,000), and got along quite well with minimal county services and no local government decisions of its own and arguably today is paying city taxes with no noticeable benefit over what it had before annexation and higher taxes. That's the situation with many suburban situations as opposed to urban situations--even more so if one lives out in the country.
I'm not sure how these localized examples might be used for anti-central government and secessionist argument (should Ftn.City have the right to secede from Knoxville and other suburband enclaves in other cities, for example, to govern themselves?), but I believe there is always a larger picture to consider as well as the local one, and individual pictures in the local picture...individuals, corporate entities, organizations, local, county, state, regional, national areas of decision--all with rights in decision and limits in decision. Complicated but these are the realities. An example of complication or seeming contradictions is how our Wisconsin "Tea Party" governor & legislature (bought & paid for by the Koch brothers, according to some) are anti-federalist but back state government measures that limit local annual meeting decision on school taxes, right of public employee organizations to negotiate salaries and work conditions, etc. It is complicated. What is too much and what is too little in decisions and rights, especially when they affect others?
OK--complicated for sure. Yes, differences of opinion on extent and limitation in specific decisions is ordinary. The present extremes regarding disagreement on overall extent and limitation of all decision is not ordinary, however, and perhaps a danger to reasonable decisions in a changed word.
I suspect the extremes and almost paranoia of current politics comes from the situation of bigness of organizations and corporate entities (including government) that dwarf individual status. 100 years ago the majority of citizens were independent farmers. My grandparents in Michigan and Indiana could choose to be farmers (they did) or owners of businesses or workers for others. Over half of citizens were independent individual farmers or small business persons. Today a tiny percent are. Huge corporations (many global) are the reality and "Main Street" in effect is gone. Franchises have replaced independent businesses.
By some accident, my Central High School in Fountain City, Tennessee, had all umpteen volumes of Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and there or perhaps in a related history of Rome I found stated as one reason for the end of the Roman Republic the consolidation of farms and the end of the independent farmer citizen class that was the foundation of the Republic. The consolidated farms became the basis of the Manorial system of the Middle Ages. Thus, my freshman English class thesis at U-T in 1956 was "The Untimely Parallel Between Farm Consolidation in the Roman Republic and in America" based on the farm consolidation that had occurred around my grandparents' and uncle's and assorted relatives' farms in Clarendon Township, Calhoun County, Michigan. My professor suggested revising the paper and having it published, but I though my idea a bit alarmist and exaggerated--and also not important because there was still a large class of independent business persons distinguishing our republic's situation from the end situation of the Roman Republic. Besides, the other main reason for the end of the Republic was inability to form a larger political representative republic incorporate the Greek, Egyptian, Celtic, etc. societies that resulted in the necessities of the empire's central government. Our federation constitution established a pattern that resolved union and rights of parts as well as various divisions of decision (not only between states and federal but also among branches and by extension between state and local and also between government and individual and corporate entities). Moreover, we created the League of Nations and then the United Nations on our model, potentially resolving the large power situation that in effect cancelled the government of the Roman Republic (same power situation had resulted in the end of the Greek republics).
Fifty some years later, it's obvious economic bigness is real and places individuals within several layers of decision-making both in regard to their own individual lives and public life. In this situation people can understandably panic and be paranoid and extreme about "politics"--or we can remain calm and see how to deal positively with changed circumstances so that individualism is bigger to match corporate bigness and organization and government bigness. Secession from society is one answer and works for the individuals themselves. Becoming more individual within society is another answer and involves interacting within the complicated larger picture.
As a "federalist," I personally hope bigger government action can balance bigger corporate presence and create occasion for bigger individual life--programs at the national, state, local, corporate, organizational, etc. levels. There are already programs that work at every level if one looks around. I believe our civilization can reach a high point where economic bigness is only a small side part in individuals' larger lives. Despite corporate bigness and government bigness, already some of us ordinary people have more choice and decision than preceding generations.
Are you kidding? Palin is somewhat a joke. Obama is serious whether you like him or not.
Paranoia, my dear. Not a big deal, however, since many of your persuasion engage in this type of thinking as a passtime or hobby. Nevertheless, perhaps you should look into counseling or treatment?
Apologies for previous comment--you are obviously not simple-minded. Regarding all politicians as irresponsible in funding, that is not exactly true. Democrats are somewhat conscientious about funding because they are committed to the success of federal programs...thus identified as being the party of taxation. Tax reduction to cause bankruptcy of federal programs has been a deliberate Republican tactic for 3 decades and is indeed difficult to resist. ha. As to which party is fiscally irresponsible, as a Hamiltonian conservative I attach that adjective to the GOP. I left the Republican Party after Reagan's first term when I realized the GOP had become Jacksonian. Regarding Democrat responsibility or irresponsibility, at least they are always trying to do something constructive. Of course some Dem programs have been too much or misconstructed and rightly questioned. Some carry that questioning to obsessive extremes and, in effect, call for destruction rather than reconstruction. And that's where we've been for a long time.
In regard to DennisDee's list of acts leading to our fiscal situation, he left out the obvious key act--the current deficits trace to the Bush tax cuts. If DennisDee and like thinkers triumph, history will judge them responsible for the resulting destruction of our civilization. They need to think responsibly and pragmatically, not make simple-minded lists.
You on the right are accusing the left of lying again??? Really, look to yourself and all the right's lies and misrepresentations!
Tea Party for "fiscal sanity and secure borders"? Willingness to shut down ALL government funding and to default on government debt (as shown in Newsmax poll) is fiscal sanity?? Coupling "secure borders" with government spending problems is indication of a Tea Party fixation--but not unexpected if one sees the historical parallel of the Tea Party to the 1850s Know Nothing opposition to Irish immigration. The solution is not fences but strict green carding and verification provision for employment AFTER legalization of existing immigrant population (Reaganistic "amnesty")--a pragmatic workable solution to tide us through to the years when declining birth rate and declining work population makes immigrant workers even more essential than they are now. We are the the world's model for the positive societal dynamic of diverse immigrant integrations. Many benefits and, of course, problems. Tea Partiers see only the problems (fiscal and immigrant) and "plain and simple" and "obvious" solutions and can't understand why other-minded citizens scold them for their blindness or simple-mindedness (or worse names for this Tea Party tendency). Of course, not that the other side doesn't have its own blindnesses and tendency to simplistic solutions. ha.
This Texas retired attorney knows the application of the Constitution better than our Supreme Court justices who found the Affordable Care Act constitutional??? The interpretation of the constitution is debatable both ways in many matters. For example, in Wisconsin the right of public employee unions to negotiate has been "abridged" by a law enacted by the GOP majority in the legislature at the urging of our GOP governor. Federal judges have ruled challenged provisions constitutional (presently under appeal). I suppose the point is that the Constitution gives some leeway in decision by elected representatives, some protection of rights of individuals to the contrary notwithstanding. Wisconsin Tea Party people would argue the union "abridgements" are constitutional but that the Affordable Care Act "abridgements" are unconstitutional. Same contradiction on the other side. Ironically it can be both ways, depending on specifics of interpretation...which itself is difficult to understand or accept. We move forward by understanding and conditional acceptance--conditional on further understanding, consideration, and decision. Pragmatism as well as principle.
Ironies on top of ironies. I had to laugh at Sen. Cruz's reading of the "green eggs" children story where green eggs were repulsive until tried--but when tried, realized to be wonderful. Apparently he didn't realize how the green eggs lesson applied to the Affordable Care Act!
Charged with treason? No. Regarded as extreme and a danger to our republic? Perhaps. In terms of extremes and ideological fixation, they are our equivalent of the Taliban and jihadists. ha. However, the extent of the danger posed by our "equivalents" is debatable. Our republic survived the phases of Jacksonian radicalism, the Know-Nothing movement, McCarthyism, and no doubt will survive the phenomenon of Tea Party extremes. Not exactly pleasant to see an extreme minority doing Bolshevikish domination over one side of our traditional political division.
For that matter, the 2 sides of our traditional political division have undergone an entire reversal--the Democrats, descendants of the Jefferson-Jacksonians, are the present-day Federalists; and the Republicans, in line from the Federalists and Whigs, are the present-day Jeffersonians with a Jacksonian radical tendency. Somewhat makes application of "conservative" and "liberal" labels ironic. Who are the defenders of the status quo and who would turn the status quo upside down? An additional irony is that the extremes of both parties often go so far that they meet at the rear of the political circle and the moderates of both parties meet at the front center of the circle. Can't say that I like either side of the rear part of the political circle. ha.
It seems to me that many Republicans, judging by their postings, remain toddlers for life. ha. I'll concede that many of us Democrats remain idealistic and unrealistic teenagers. It would be kinda nice (and kind) if some of the GOP toddlers matured to teenage viewpoint and some of the Democrat teenagers could grow up to be more realistic. Well, I suppose toddlers are cute and teenagers are promising--just that overall we need a little more generational balance.