Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had a “progressive” moment when he ignorantly declared that the Tea Party is a group of anarchists. From The Right Scoop:

Now about 40% of my Republican Senators vote with the Tea Party all of the time. So when we have absolute gridlock, we have those folks, the Tea Party who represent five, not even 10 percent of the people in America, but they’re vetoing everything. Just, without belaboring the point, who is the tea party? Well, understand, when I was in school, I studied government, among other things, and prior to World War I and after World War I we had the anarchists. Now they were violent — you know, some say that’s what started World War I, the anarchy moment — but they were violent. They did damage to property and they did physical damage to people.

The modern anarchists don’t do that — that’s the tea party. But they have the same philosophy as the early anarchists: They do not believe in government. Anytime anything bad happens to government, that’s a victory for them. And that’s what’s happened. We have absolute gridlock created by a group of people who represent few Americans. But it makes it extremely difficult to get things done.

The irony here is quite entertaining. According to Merriam-Webster’s site, anarchy is defined as “a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.” This sounds more like what Washington looks like under Obamacare. Arbitrary, king-like delays of the employer mandate, a dozen other delays, and waivers for well-connected businesses and unions sound like anything but law and order.

Second, this is ridiculous because the Tea Party movement wants constitutionally-limited government, not the elimination of all government. Working towards a government smaller than the current behemoth is hardly anarchy. Before expounding upon what the Tea Party wants, Senator Reid may want to learn exactly our goals are.

Despite Reid’s… colorful description of lawlessness, President Obama’s big government aspirations have taken place outside of Constitutional authority given to the Executive Branch. The President cannot delay the employer mandate legally – yet he did so, and Senator Reid refuses to hold him accountable. Once again, party loyalty trumped the rule of law in Congress, but instead of acknowledging this, Senator Reid is shifting blame to the Beltway’s favorite target.

American’s aren’t buying his soundbytes anymore, so he needs a boogeyman to scapegoat.  It’s no wonder he chose the Tea Party: We believe in the rule of law, not party.