Michael Merritt
You seem to suggest that the tea-party movement is not necessarily a sign that those people are "going more conservative." Perhaps they're not "more conservative," but simply wish to implement the existing conservative policies they feel are being undermined by liberal ones?
It’s possible that some attitudes have slightly reversed in the last few years in response to aggressive efforts to institutionalize gay marriage, etc., but that is not necessarily the case.I've also primarily seen the movement as an economic one, rather than a social one. I think some have perhaps attached to it, hoping to return to the "good old days" of a more socially conservative world, but I think the economic arguments are what have attracted most.
When the coercive power of the state begins to elevate the priorities of multiculti group-based identity politics over “liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency,” the nation’s long-term prosperity is in jeopardy.You just spent part of this article telling us that Democrats have attempted to frame all conservatives as reactionaries, and yet the article you choose to link to seems very reactionary to me. It is not just saying that raising multiculturalism up at the expense of American values is a bad thing. Instead, it crafts the story of a conspiracy to destroy America by recruiting gays (which are specifically targeted in the article as undesirable, through the misapplied use of a Freud theory), atheists, sexual deviants and, judging by some of the arguments made toward the end of the article, just about anyone to the left of the conservative base.
/