Andrew Sullivan for the win:
Protesting government spending is meaningless unless you say what you’d cut.
If you favor no bailouts, then say so. If you want to see the banking system collapse, then say so. If you think the recession demands no fiscal stimulus, then say so. If you favor big cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, social security and defense, then say so. I keep waiting for Reynolds to tell us what these protests are for; and he can only spin what they they are against.
All protests against spending that do not tell us how to reduce it are fatuous pieces of theater, not constructive acts of politics. And until the right is able to make a constructive and specific argument about how they intend to reduce spending and debt and borrowing, they deserve to be dismissed as performance artists in a desperate search for coherence in an age that has left them bewilderingly behind.
My friend Sean organized one of these teabagging “protests” in Carson City. After perusing his website I asked him point blank what specific issue he was advocating. Where he would make cuts in the budget. Basically, what the hell he actually wanted the government to do.
Of course, he had nothing to say, as they rarely do:
I’m tempted to point out the hypocrisy of the protests after no one protested the last eight years of massive government expansion and waste from the Bush Administration. But of course, that requires too much consistency and common sense for conservatives.