By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Recent policy proposals from a former president showcase a concerning trend of government overreach. These initiatives, including capping credit card interest rates, banning institutional investors from buying homes, and expanding government interference in private companies, echo the Democratic platform. Such policies, which also include government bailouts and stimulus checks, are presented as easy-button solutions that ultimately undermine free markets and economic growth. This shift towards a larger role for the government, both economically and in terms of corporate control, indicates a troubling trend away from limited government principles.
Read the original article here
Where have the “don’t tread on me” Republicans gone? The short answer, it seems, is that they’ve traded their iconic coiled snake for boots, and they’re doing the treading. The transformation, as it’s been perceived, is stark: a movement once defined by individual liberty and small government has seemingly morphed into something quite different. The whole “don’t tread on me” mantra appears to have been less about a universal defense of rights and more about a possessive claim on them.
The small-government rhetoric, often presented as the core of their ideology, is now seen by some as a flimsy facade, a convenient argument selectively deployed to oppose policies they dislike, particularly those originating from the left. This perspective argues that their concern was never truly about the size of government, but rather about the direction and policies that government supported. Suddenly, mandates like masks during a pandemic become “big government,” while measures that might, in other contexts, be considered an overreach of authority, are met with approval.
This shift suggests that the “don’t tread on me” crowd’s primary allegiance isn’t to a set of principles, but to their own group. Their values have been re-evaluated, prioritized. This “me” first mentality is revealed in their actions, where the focus shifts from broader concepts of liberty to a narrow self-interest. They’ve allegedly embraced the very actions they once claimed to oppose.
The “don’t tread on me” stance was never about treading on anyone, but only about protecting their own perceived rights, whatever those might be. This apparent hypocrisy isn’t surprising to those who view their ideology as inherently self-serving. They were never against state violence, the argument goes; they simply wanted to be the ones directing it.
The conservative freedom doctrine, in this view, is a selective application of principles. The Second Amendment, once championed as a bulwark against tyranny, has morphed into something very different. Now, the fear is of the government controlling things, unless that control benefits the group. The Tea Party, which emerged during a time of significant political change, is now perceived as a performative movement. The flag-waving was a performance to hide an insecurity, never a commitment to principle.
The destination of many of these Republicans is now considered the other side of the equation. Those once vocally opposed to government overreach are now reportedly found within the ranks of enforcement agencies, actively participating in the very acts they once condemned. The “don’t tread on me” slogan, it is said, has become the war cry of a particular group, not a universal defense of individual liberties.
The underlying motivations for this change are seen as a prioritization of power and control above all else. They are no longer the victims of treading; they are now the ones doing the treading. These individuals, according to this argument, aren’t even libertarian; they’re opportunists using slogans to gain power.
The rise of white supremacy in the USA is seen by many as connected to this shift. The original vision of the Founding Fathers, particularly the one espoused by George Washington, is being violated. This is no longer about supporting liberty and the Constitution, but about supporting one’s “team” above all else.
The criticism of those who were once staunch supporters of small government is that their core principles were not principles at all, but only justifications for supporting their political team. This perceived hypocrisy is a betrayal of the ideals they claim to uphold, prioritizing their own self-interest and the success of their political team over the broader principles of individual liberty and limited government.
It’s been suggested that conservatives have a simple rationale for these actions. It’s better than having “the other team” in charge. Their actions are perceived as a zero-sum game, where the only goal is to win, not to maintain a consistent set of principles.
The “don’t tread on me” slogan has been, it seems, replaced with a very different one. The MAGA flag guy, now sporting a “tread on them” flag, makes the point. The “don’t tread on me” crowd has become the very thing they once railed against.