Are the Tea Parties spreading half-truths?

    In a recent article in the Denver Post YourHub edition, Jack Van Ens accused the Tea Party patriots of slanting history, spreading half-truths, having a cloudy visage, shading the truth, and having a one-sided view of history because he claims they equate small government with limited government.  These charges certainly require a rebuttal to obtain a fair hearing.

    First, there is no entity that is the “Tea Party.”  There are a number of groups which call themselves by that name; however, they are not under any central control and are not an organized political party like Democrats or Republicans.   A Google search of the Internet quickly shows numerous tea party groups.  These tea parties are analogous to Christianity where there are multiple groups that call themselves Christians but no one, single Christian church.  Contrary to Van Ens’s harsh depiction, the tea parties are not a bunch of anarchists spreading lies and mistruths with an aim of abolishing the federal government.  Rather, they have the common goal of wanting to slow and reverse the excessive spending of the federal government that has exceeded its enumerated and limited powers as delineated in the US Constitution. 

    Van Ens names the “Tea Party patriots” as one of those groups incurring his wrath.  So, a look at the Tea Party Patriots websight might provide some insight into the accusations raised by Van Ens without evidence.   Tea Party Patriots describe themselves as a national grassroots organization that exists to serve and support the thousands of local organizations and millions of grassroots Patriots throughout our nation.  The Tea Party Patriots have three core principles:  Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Market Economics.

    Van Ens apparently confuses the Tea Party Patriots call for fiscal responsibility with a call for small government.   Fiscal responsibility means not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity [is] swindling futurity on a large scale.” A more fiscally responsible government will take fewer taxes from our paychecks.  So, taking fewer taxes from our paychecks may result in a smaller government.   They are honestly trying to get the government to operate more fiscally responsible so that our tax dollars are used effectively and not wasted. Isn't that what we all should want? 

    Van Ens also appears to believe that the various tea parties misrepresent their desire for a constitutionally limited government.   Tea Parties interpret limited government to mean that power resides with the people and not with the government.  Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable.   America’s founders believed that government power should be limited, enumerated, and constrained by our Constitution.   Tea parties believe the American people make this country great, not our government.    

    Wanting state government to retain the power it was instilled with is also not anti-government. Tea partiers feel that the federal government is involved in too many things and that it is getting worse and worse with things like EPA rules and laws which invade citizens' privacy.  Federal Government taxes and regulations are the major reasons employers go overseas to manufacture goods instead of using American workers.  They would like to reduce the size of the federal government and return the bulk of the power to the states as our Constitution intended.   They would also like for our elected officials to be accountable to us, their employers. TEA stands for taxed enough already and the only way for this to be addressed is to get actual representatives of the will of the people elected into the government and work to fix the issues that are a problem for the majority of the voters and citizens of the US. They do not support and expensive, punitive, vengeful, and wasteful government that is now $15 trillion in debt. They do not support a government that replaces personal choice and responsibility with one that mandates our choices for us.

    Van Ens claims that the tea parties have misread and distorted our history of individual liberty and free enterprise. Tea parties would tell him that free market economics made America an economic superpower that has provided generations of Americans with opportunities and ever higher standards of living.   Tea parties are not lying when they express their belief that an erosion of our free markets though government intervention is at the heart of America’s current economic decline, stagnating jobs, and spiraling debt and deficits.  There is no shading of the truth if one believes that failures in government programs and government-controlled financial markets helped spark the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.  Tea parties should not be defamed for their concerns that further government interventions and takeovers have made this Great Recession longer and deeper.  It is not one-sided to call for a renewed focus on free markets to lead to a more vibrant economy creating jobs and higher standards of living for future generations.

    Van Ens is overwrought with concern that Tea Partiers use the terms “small” and “limited” federal government interchangeably.  He sees Tea parties as devious manipulators of the truth when they misuse the terms.  Misstatements of some should not become an indictment of all with rash accusations of “shading the truth.”  Overgeneralization and simplification are not worthy of a historian or anyone describing a movement made up of many groups.  The various Tea parties are composed of patriotic Americans who strongly believe in the US Constitution, and they are concerned that it is being violated.  They seek responsible government that follows the Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  Let’s not malign them with accusations of spreading half-truths.