On numerous websites and blogs, I had noticed a lot of mention regarding the four planks of the tea party movement. I had even found a post on Free Republic asking what readers believed should be the four planks of the Republican party. According to the author of the article, dagogo redux, tension "between the Tea Party movement and the Progessive/statist RINOs" are a detriment to the conservative movement, presumably because the GOP is inhabited by people too liberal to call themselves conservative, and so the only solution would be to change the GOP from within (much like the teabaggers like Glenn Beck claim the communists, Marxists, and socialists have been doing to the Democratic party for over a century).
From what I gather, taking the numerous posts around, the four planks of the Tea Party movement are fiscal responsibility, constitutionality, national security, and limited government. To be true to one's conservatism, one must abide by these four rules, but I laugh at the thought, mainly because the Tea Party claims that these are essential but they show no evidence in adhering to them, so as far as I am concerned, these four planks are nothing but lip service from the right-wing elite to their base, who follow blindly.
Considering fiscal responsibility, the Tea Party claim the Democrats offer no self control and will spend the nation out of existence, but these same people are willing to represent the federal government when spending federal money - just consider the ribbon cutting ceremonies these conservatives attend or Richard Shelby's extortion of Congress to get projects for his state. In my opinion, from what I have read and studied, the Democrats are the only ones who have offered comprehensive plans for financial solvency while Republicans and teabaggers have consistently railed against any policy.
When considering constitutionality, it appears that conservatives wish to corrupt the constitution with their views of religion and moral code. While the liberals want to apply our enlightened constitution broadly, conservatives wish to limit the rights of man. The constitution was created to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Conservatives seem to attack Democrats while they ignore the very thing they claim they wish to protect. What does it mean to "insure domestic Tranquility," "promote general welfare," or to "secure the Blessings of Liberty?" Would universal health care fall under jurisdiction of the federal government? I believe so. Would the guarantee of rights for homosexuals also fall under the constitution? I believe so. It seems the conservatives want to limit freedoms because they are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
Thinking of national security, I am drawn to the comments made by Colin Powell regarding statements made by Dick Cheney. National security is not "much less safer" as conservatives would like you to believe, and considering their other plank of fiscal responsibility, I don't believe the creation of two wars of limitless funding in the name of national security would fall under the other tenant.
It is also funny that conservatives want a limited federal government, with a preference for stronger state governments, but I believe that has been tried out in the past and it did not work. I also find it funny that conservatives claim to want a limited government, but then argue that the federal government should protect the sanctity of life and the family, using the federal government to deny homosexuals rights, even going as far as wanting to amend the constitution to define marriage. I guess it is easy to claim you want a limited government while also claiming constitutionality by simply changing the constitution to fit your agenda.
The Tea Party movement does not wish to rewrite the Republican platform. Essentially, they aim to rewrite America in their image.