Christopher Hartman writing for The Daily Caller argues that the tea party needs to come up with a foreign policy or something.
A tea party foreign policy? Not going to happen because it can't happen. It is a theoretical and ideological impossibility.
Asking a coalition of Randian libertarians, Reagan conservatives, neo-cons, paleo-cons, so-cons, independents and yes, Democrats who have rallied under the banners of fiscal discipline, free markets, entitlement reform, Constitutional fidelity and limited government to come up with a coherent foreign policy would be a counter-productive exercise in futility. Why bother?
Foreign policy is rarely, if ever, even discussed at our periodic SLOB beer summits here in San Diego as it's acknowledged before the first round hits the table that even in our intimate gatherings of 6-10 people, there will not be anything resembling a consensus on the matter.
So what's Hartman's contribution towards assisting this formulation of a foreign policy:
Conservative estimates put the number of American military bases around the world at over 1,000. This Leviathan supports a massive American interventionism that costs extraordinary sums to maintain, with no end in sight. If one wants to get really tough on deficits, defense spending — whether weapon systems, bases or personnel — must be a major part of the debate.That's right. Hartman's opening salvo is base closures. Now closing our bases overseas may or may not have merit on its own standing but if that's his "big idea", it simply reinforces the impossibility of developing any sort of tea party foreign policy.
Hartman submits that a foreign policy is necessary if the tea party wants to be taken seriously as a player which is complete non-sense as the tea party is already a player as it provided the passion and energy to swing 63 House seats to the GOP side while quite possibly limiting gains in the Senate to six seats (a grudging admission to which we have been slow to admit).
What Hartman isn't saying but we believe he is implying is lacking a foreign policy prohibits the tea party from being a third party, which, at this time would be the absolute wrong course of action. Leveraging influence within if not taking over outright portions of an established political entity with its party infrastructure already in place remains the best way to achieve the objectives as laid out in the 3rd paragraph above.
We already have our hands full with how to handle social issues, we don't need to completely gum up the works with being at each others' throats over foreign policy.