'Let Them Die' -- Latest Tea Party Slogan?

COMMENTARY | Did someone actually yell "Let them die!" at the CNN/Tea Party Express Republican Presidential Debate on Monday evening when Texas Congressman Ron Paul was asked the hypothetical question of whether or not he would treat an uninsured individual who needed immediate medical attention?

And were there shouts of encouragement and clapping and cheering as well? The answer to both questions is in the affirmative. Given that the debate was co-sponsored by the Tea Party Express and that the audience was predominantly filled with tea party members whose adherence to personal responsibility -- including the decision to have medical insurance -- is a core tenet of the movement, the outburst has focused the attention of the public on the seeming lack of compassion displayed by the tea party itself. Some might ask: Has the tea party gone from "Live Free Or Die" to "Let Them Die"?

The tea party has been beleaguered since it began to nationally organize in 2009 with the general perception that it was a bastion of conservative ethnocentric racist lunatic fringers. It also seemed to draw from the far right of the Republican Party that openly shouted racial slurs and hateful slogans about liberals, then-Sen. Barack Obama and their ties with socialism at McCain-Palin rallies in the ramp-up to the 2008 general election.

But since its acceptance as a legitimate political movement after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives following the 2010 midterm elections, it has managed to keep much of the generalizing and stereotyping at bay, although the adherence to strict and intransigent political positioning during the summer debate over raising the debt ceiling (the tea party position was to get spending cuts only to combat the federal fiscal budgetary issues and not raise the debt ceiling at all) cost the movement some popularity points in the polls.

Still, incidents such as the one in Tampa at the debate do not do much to further disseminate the message of individual liberty, less government, less regulation, and less taxation.

They display a callous disregard for humanity at such moments that then reflects poorly on the movement as a whole, reinforcing the stereotypes and generalizations already prevalent the tea party consists of disgruntled, self-important, self-interested, ethnocentric anti-nihilists that have theirs, will protect what is theirs at all costs, and will deny passionately that society or "others" had anything to do with their success or social positioning.

For his part and to his credit, Rep. Ron Paul immediately answered Wolf Blitzer's question with a resounding, "No!" It was nearly drowned out by the "Let them die!" comment and the subsequent round of encouragement the outburst received. Paul, who is often considered the father or godfather of the tea party movement (but, surprisingly, has little support within the present organization), had already explained his position on personal responsibility and choice and the government's role in individual matters should be severely limited, including concerns dealing with health care and individual insurance coverage.

Paul, who was once a physician, noted society often took care of those who could not support themselves via charities and religious support organizations.

"No," Paul replied to Blitzer's question that "society should just let them die." He explained, "I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends; our churches would do it. This whole idea - that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies, then the drug companies."

Agree or disagree with Paul, it could be argued a little more reasonably stated solutions and a lot fewer inhumane and insensitive remarks could go a long way in rectifying the tea party's reputation as heartless movement that finds some within the American populace expendable.