The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[mheslep]

Unlike this news on Mark Williams (who?), elected to nothing, I missed the demand to expel the elected speaker of these http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/09/obama.reid/index.html" about Obama:

a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' "

Nor did I ever see 'nails in the coffin' predictions as a consequence of keeping the former http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan" in the ranks for so many years.

 

[mheslep]

Need I go on?

Only if you have a point.

 

[NeoDevin]

Only if you have a point.

That was directed more at KalamMekhar who seems to be suggesting that there isn't a problem with racism in the tea party.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry for butting in ...

 

[SixNein]

I consider every step forward for the Tea Party, and every primary Republican win for so-called grassroots leaders who appeal in particular to the tea drinkers, to be just more nails in the coffin for the GOP. While the Tea Party wants to claim the Independents, and while they help to fuel the anti-incumbent fervor, in fact, I think the entire movement is based on superficial claims - pandering to irrational fears and anger. The tea drinkers represent the death rattle of a failed conservative party. The Republicans cannot afford to embrace the Tea Party favorites, and they can't afford not to. Either choice means certain death for the foreseeable future.

I had to laugh when I saw that, just after winning the the Republican nomination, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, caused the Republicans to run for cover.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html?ref=politics

Please do tell us more, Mr. Paul. I am dying to hear all about it!

I think the tea party members are just insane.

If they did manage to gain power *shivers*.

 

[mheslep]

I think the tea party members are just insane.

Though the 'tea party' is not really a political party with its own candidates, Senator Scott Brown had substantial tea party support. Do you find him insane?

If they did manage to gain power *shivers*.

Me, I reserve shivers for severe cold and not politics, but if I did have political shivers it would be for a continuation in power of the current political party.

 

[SixNein]

Though the 'tea party' is not really a political party with its own candidates, Senator Scott Brown had substantial tea party support. Do you find him insane?

Me, I reserve shivers for severe cold and not politics, but if I did have political shivers it would be for a continuation in power of the current political party.

I've spoken to many tea party members, and most of them seemed to suffer from severe paranoia. Quite frankly, Ivan Seeking's comments were a very accurate assessment of the party.

No, the tea party is not a 3rd party. But the tea party does have its own ideal candidates that it attempts to place in power. And I'm not so sure Scott Brown is looked upon so favorably since his go-along with the recent financial regulations.

 

[mheslep]

What's wrong with this word picture:

I've spoken to many tea party members, and most of them seemed to suffer from severe paranoia.

If they did manage to gain power *shivers*.

 

[WhoWee]

I've spoken to many tea party members, and most of them seemed to suffer from severe paranoia. Quite frankly, Ivan Seeking's comments were a very accurate assessment of the party.

Can you please elaborate?

 

[SixNein]

What's wrong with this word picture:

Hehehe, let me rephrase. I would shiver if some of their constitutional suggestions were to be implemented.

 

[SixNein]

Can you please elaborate?

Most of the ones I talked to had a belief in a conspiracy theory called "new world order." Some seemed to be ready for an armed revolt to stop it.

 

[Galteeth]

The "tea party" is not a monolithic group. I am a bit surprised by the hatred this group seems to engender from the "left".
I would say it is vaguely a group of conservative leaning people who feel that the mainstream republican party no longer represents their interest.
There are various factions trying to ideologically dominate and controol the tea party.
It is not surprising that this group can't identify a single figure that represents them.

It is very common for the media and critics to try and paint the "tea party" as racist. Honestly, this is bizarre, as the conclusion seems to mainly stem from their being "anti-obama". It is inferred by the left that the only reason people could be so critical of Obama and his policies is because of a racist reaction. This is the height of arrogance.

As far as Rand Paul goes, the idea of allowing private business owners to discriminate is totally consistent with his libertarianesque view point. As someone who was supportive of Ron Paul, there are numerous things that trouble me about Rand Paul, but this is not one of them.

The fact of the matter is that private business can and does discriminate against people all the time. While this is not an ideal thing, it's preferable in the real world to the alternative (this is a complex conversation that would be off topic, I am not really focused on "race" here when i refer to discrimination).

Finally, "pragmatism", though the creed of the modern liberals and neo-conservatives, is not recognized by everyone as a good thing. Many people still believe in some sort of a morality or moral standard that trumps convenience or political expediency.

 

[NeoDevin]

It is very common for the media and critics to try and paint the "tea party" as racist. Honestly, this is bizarre, as the conclusion seems to mainly stem from their being "anti-obama". It is inferred by the left that the only reason people could be so critical of Obama and his policies is because of a racist reaction. This is the height of arrogance.

You apparently missed the posters which I posted earlier in the thread. Those (and many more like them), and not, as you claim, the fact that they are "anti-Obama", are why they are ("painted as") racist.

 

[Galteeth]

You apparently missed the posters which I posted earlier in the thread. Those (and many more like them), and not, as you claim, the fact that they are "anti-Obama", are why they are ("painted as") racist.

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist. The tea party is not a monolithic group, and there has definitely been an effort to paint them as racist by the left. Naturally, there are people who are both tea partiers and racists. However, the left and the media has made the effort to portray the tea party as motivated by racism, and in the worst cases, to advocate some sort of white supremacist ideology. I don't think this stands up under scrutiny, and is really sort of an ad hominem response to the tea party's arguments (We don't want to talk about the ever expanding role of government and national debt, so let's talk about how you have racists in your ranks.)

I would also note that while there is a lot of hyperbole against Obama, the same types of hyperbole were made against Bush (i.e. comparisons to hitler) and racism was not seen as a factor.

This video shows some of the media representation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf9BB6mrR3s&feature=player_embedded

It's worthy to note there is grey propaganda here as well.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...r-plans-to-destroy-the-tea-party-movement.php

Here is a Jack Conway supporter at a Rand Paul event posing as a racist Rand Paul supporter.



Here is an alleged infiltrator being thrown out of a tea partySome tea party infiltration weirdness:

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/04/16/crashing-the-crashers-tea-party-infiltrators-outmaneuvered-in-s-f/

 

[NeoDevin]

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist. The tea party is not a monolithic group, and there has definitely been an effort to paint them as racist by the left. Naturally, there are people who are both tea partiers and racists. However, the left and the media has made the effort to portray the tea party as motivated by racism, and in the worst cases, to advocate some sort of white supremacist ideology. I don't think this stands up under scrutiny, and is really sort of an ad hominem response to the tea party's arguments (We don't want to talk about the ever expanding role of government and national debt, so let's talk about how you have racists in your ranks.)

I would also note that while there is a lot of hyperbole against Obama, the same types of hyperbole were made against Bush (i.e. comparisons to hitler) and racism was not seen as a factor.

They are not being called racist because of the "hyperbole against Obama", but because a good number of them are racist. If there was any backlash from the rest of the group against these racists, if they were shouted down by the tea party, and shown to be a minority, then they wouldn't be called racist. Instead, they welcome these people, and deny that there is a problem.

 

[mugaliens]

They are not being called racist because of the "hyperbole against Obama", but because a good number of them are racist. If there was any backlash from the rest of the group against these racists, if they were shouted down by the tea party, and shown to be a minority, then they wouldn't be called racist. Instead, they welcome these people, and deny that there is a problem.

I do not believe this is an accurate description of the issue.

Rather, I think as has been said earlier by several folks, there are radicals in all camps of thought, and they sort of give the rest a bad reputation. Also, given the basic human nature of pointing fingers at the opposition, people in all camps are... pointing fingers at the opposition. I believe debating the merits of one camp's position over another here on PF is futile. All have their own reasons for believing what they do, and despite the fact they've been endlessly debated elsewhere, few from either side have crossed over.

Most people are either moderate or indifferent anyway, regardless of their party affiliation. I think what's not working here is our two-party system, as it results in polarization of just about every single issue, along with a huge waste of resources.

It fact, the current structure loggerjams most issues. Interestingly, however, our Founding Fathers sort of wanted things that way, so perhaps that's not such a bad thing after all. :)

I think the bigger issue are the huge waste of America's resources. Parasitic economics i.e. taxing Peter to create jobs for Paul is circular reasoning at its worst. To a limited extent it does help stabilize the economy, but it's not a substitute for production and the creation of valid goods and services.

 

[SixNein]

I do not believe this is an accurate description of the issue.

Rather, I think as has been said earlier by several folks, there are radicals in all camps of thought, and they sort of give the rest a bad reputation. Also, given the basic human nature of pointing fingers at the opposition, people in all camps are... pointing fingers at the opposition. I believe debating the merits of one camp's position over another here on PF is futile. All have their own reasons for believing what they do, and despite the fact they've been endlessly debated elsewhere, few from either side have crossed over.

Most people are either moderate or indifferent anyway, regardless of their party affiliation. I think what's not working here is our two-party system, as it results in polarization of just about every single issue, along with a huge waste of resources.

It fact, the current structure loggerjams most issues. Interestingly, however, our Founding Fathers sort of wanted things that way, so perhaps that's not such a bad thing after all. :)

I think the bigger issue are the huge waste of America's resources. Parasitic economics i.e. taxing Peter to create jobs for Paul is circular reasoning at its worst. To a limited extent it does help stabilize the economy, but it's not a substitute for production and the creation of valid goods and services.

Everyone thinks of his or her self as a moderate regardless of their place on the political spectrum. I think of myself as a moderate, but tea party members would refer to me a highly liberal. And many of them would call themselves moderates although I would consider them to be very far to the right. A decent discussion between myself and tea party members are impossible because our world views are so different.

 

[vertices]

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist.
...
I would also note that while there is a lot of hyperbole against Obama, the same types of hyperbole were made against Bush (i.e. comparisons to hitler) and racism was not seen as a factor.

Do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes way beyond mere 'hyperbole'? How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with America's first black president?

It is astonishing that such actions are sanctioned and supported by the mainstream tea party 'movement':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7888741/Barack-Obama-compared-to-Hitler-and-Lenin-in-Tea-Party-billboard.html

John White, state coordinator of the Iowa Tea Party movement... told Radio Iowa that he believed that everything Mr Obama had done was in "lock-step" with what Hitler did in his day.

yeah, like exterminating 6 million jews...

As as aside, the irony of this comparison is unbelievable. There are 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, which can be found here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

I think you will agree that comparisons between Bush and Hitler weren't hyperbolic at all..

 

[Galteeth]

Do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes way beyond mere 'hyperbole'? How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with America's first black president?

It is astonishing that such actions are sanctioned and supported by the mainstream tea party 'movement':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7888741/Barack-Obama-compared-to-Hitler-and-Lenin-in-Tea-Party-billboard.html



yeah, like exterminating 6 million jews...

As as aside, the irony of this comparison is unbelievable. There are 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, which can be found here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

I think you will agree that comparisons between Bush and Hitler weren't hyperbolic at all..

Is this post meant to ironically support my point? Honestly, I'm not sure.

 

[vertices]

Is this post meant to ironically support my point? Honestly, I'm not sure.

No, it was to ask you a question: namely, "do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes beyond mere 'hyperbole'?"

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm seeing some serious Ketl-Pott issues here.

 

[mheslep]

Do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes way beyond mere 'hyperbole'? How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with America's first black president?

I think you will agree that comparisons between Bush and Hitler weren't hyperbolic at all..

How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with an American President? Good grief.

BTW, one can find numerous references of sitting US Democratic politicians comparing opposing party politicians (e.g. Bush Sr) to Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Objections to some bozo in Iowa who went over the top, elected to nothing by nobody, might include those Dem. politicians for taking the discussion there in the first place.

Edit: I see CRGr beat me to it.

 

[vela]

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist. The tea party is not a monolithic group, and there has definitely been an effort to paint them as racist by the left. Naturally, there are people who are both tea partiers and racists.

They are not being called racist because of the "hyperbole against Obama", but because a good number of them are racist. If there was any backlash from the rest of the group against these racists, if they were shouted down by the tea party, and shown to be a minority, then they wouldn't be called racist. Instead, they welcome these people, and deny that there is a problem.

The Tea Party has a significant problem in that its core belief of reining in government appeals to racists. Simply put, limiting the reach of government allows them more freedom to discriminate, which is exactly what racists want.

However, the left and the media has made the effort to portray the tea party as motivated by racism, and in the worst cases, to advocate some sort of white supremacist ideology. I don't think this stands up under scrutiny, and is really sort of an ad hominem response to the tea party's arguments (We don't want to talk about the ever expanding role of government and national debt, so let's talk about how you have racists in your ranks.)

This is just standard operating procedure for both sides, isn't it? Latch on to some controversial issue to divert attention away from more important issues. And the media just play along because controversy sells.

 

[vela]

How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with an American President?

It's because Hitler was responsible for more than just the Holocaust. It may not be fair to equate Hitler with Bush or Obama, but it is fair to compare their political tactics. Secret courts, warrantless eavesdropping? These are examples of things you'd expect from a ruler like Hitler, not from presidents of a supposedly free society.

And to bring this back on topic with the thread, does anybody know what the Tea Party's take is on this aspect of expanding governmental powers? Are they only interested in opposing the government's economic influence, or do they also want to repeal the Patriot Act, in part or in full?

 

[mheslep]

It's because Hitler was responsible for more than just the Holocaust.

I know, I used Vert's phrasing almost word for word to draw attention to the double standard in that post.

It may not be fair to equate Hitler with Bush or Obama, but it is fair to compare their political tactics.

Yes, but such as?

Secret courts, warrantless eavesdropping? These are examples of things you'd expect from a ruler like Hitler, not from presidents of a supposedly free society.

I might disagree with those policies, but I find specious the suggestion that they are in anyway comparable as political tactics to those of Hitler's, especially given I can't point to an actual US citizen innocent of violating US laws yet oppressed by FISA courts or taps on international phone calls to Al Qaeda suspects. I have my own list of oppressive political actions by US federal and local governments, and those are not on it.

 

[mheslep]

The Tea Party has a significant problem in that its core belief of reining in government appeals to racists. Simply put, limiting the reach of government allows them more freedom to discriminate, which is exactly what racists want.

That's a good point, in that I agree the likely perception of some white racists is that less government intrusion would allow them more freedom to discriminate. However, I think the reality is more complicated, possibly the reverse is true. After all, it was government itself at the heart of the Jim Crow era by way of the law, and not just some nebulous background current in society that segregated Rosa Park's bus.

 

[mheslep]

And to bring this back on topic with the thread, does anybody know what the Tea Party's take is on this aspect of expanding governmental powers? Are they only interested in opposing the government's economic influence, or do they also want to repeal the Patriot Act, in part or in full?

Rand Paul, candidate for Senate in Kentucky, had substantial Tea Party support:

Whether it’s passing the 315 page Patriot Act without a single member of Congress ever reading the bill, proposing a National ID Card, establishing FISA courts and utilizing warrantless searches, or betraying the medical privacy of ordinary citizens, the Federal Government has overstepped its limited powers as stipulated in the Constitution.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/privacy-liberty/

 

[vertices]

How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with an American President? Good grief.

Obama dared to push hard to redress the systemic unfairness and unsustainability of having millions of poor, uninsured, families - this elicited that ugly Hitler comparison.

The whole tea party "argument" (more like pretext) for that ad was that "big goverment"=>fascism, therefore Obama=Hitler. This is easy to disprove by counterexample - take your pick: are any of the following countries fascist states: Sweden, Norway, UK? Remember, Obama didn't even push for a "public option" - he himself ruled it out.

It is easy to show, however, that America, under Bush, did display some fascist tendencies (hence, Bush-Hitler comparisons were in some cases perfectly valid). The link I posted in my previous post is telling..

BTW, one can find numerous references of sitting US Democratic politicians comparing opposing party politicians (e.g. Bush Sr) to Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Objections to some bozo in Iowa who went over the top, elected to nothing by nobody, might include those Dem. politicians for taking the discussion there in the first place.

Edit: I see CRGr beat me to it.

Context is everything, hint: what would have happened to a black person in Nazi Germany... Did Bush Sr, or any other US president for that matter, ever have their face superimposed on Hitler's? With Obama, I get the impression that people hate the guy rather than his politics.

BTW the "bozo who went over the top" was only the state coordinator of the Iowa Tea Party movement...

 

[CRGreathouse]

The whole tea party "argument" (more like pretext) for that ad was that "big goverment"=>fascism, therefore Obama=Hitler. This is easy to disprove by counterexample - take your pick: are any of the following countries fascist states: Sweden, Norway, UK?

I think that a person who feels that the United States under Obama is fascist (or rather, proto-fascist) is unlikely to automatically agree that those countries are non-(proto-)fascist. This shows the essential weakness in argument by metaphor.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Did Bush Sr, or any other US president for that matter, ever have their face superimposed on Hitler's?

Almost surely. Comparisons of disliked persons with Hitler is an American pastime. :tongue:

 

[Galteeth]

@vertices I think it is a common misconception on the left that the tea party is pro-bush. From what I have seen, read, and heard, they are (for the most part) very anti-neo-conservatism.You can of course ask why such a movement didn't spring up during the Bush era. I don't think there is a simple answer, other then timing. I think many conservative inclined types saw the economic meltdown and the bailouts as the final nail in the creditability of the neo-con movement.
At this point, I think a lot of the GOPers saw it as time to hitch themselves to a new bandwagon. I see the tea party as being a more populist version of libertarianism, or in other words, a watered down version of the ideals Ron Paul was advocating, more partisan and less articulated.

 

[vertices]

I think many conservative inclined types saw the economic meltdown and the bailouts as the final nail in the creditability of the neo-con movement.

So you think many conservatives were against bank bailouts. Interesting...

At this point, I think a lot of the GOPers saw it as time to hitch themselves to a new bandwagon. I see the tea party as being a more populist version of libertarianism, or in other words, a watered down version of the ideals Ron Paul was advocating, more partisan and less articulated.

I get the impression that most people in tea party 'movement' have Obama down as this monied, liberal, communist elite who wants to control your life and kill your grandma, and who is a secret Muslim, not even American by birth and a closet racist...

Never mind that the healthcare plan insures millions or poor families, and that this 'elite' person wishes to tax the mega rich (in contrast to his predecessor gave them tax reliefs).

What you're saying may well be the case but quite frankly, it seems clear to me that the majority of tea party followers are just too dumb to understand complex political positions like libertarianism...

 

[mugaliens]

Everyone thinks of his or her self as a moderate regardless of their place on the political spectrum.

I disagree, as I think of myself as somewhat radical, and know others who claim to be highly liberal or highly conservative.

I think of myself as a moderate, but tea party members would refer to me a highly liberal.

Could it simply be relativity, albeit in a psychosocial manner?

And many of them would call themselves moderates although I would consider them to be very far to the right.

Ditto. There's a strong tendency among both humans as well as our nearer primates to accept an individual who adheres to group principles and behavioral dynamics, and reject them when they don't, often to the point of death.

A decent discussion between myself and tea party members are impossible because our world views are so different.

You said, "many of them would call themselves moderates," but you're already jumping to the conclusion that such a discussion would be "impossible."

Don't get me wrong - I'm no tea-partyer, but I'm no liberal, either, yet I've had meaninful conversations with both, just as I've had moments where both have tried to pigeonhold me on "just exactly what DO you believe in, Bub?" to the point where I was uncomfortable enough that I left.

You also wrote, "are impossible because our world views are so different." I've encountered that, so I know what you mean! But it's rare I can't find some political point about which we can discuss.

 

[mugaliens]

Another point: Lumping in all conservatives, or republicans for that matter, with the tea party movement is amiss, as it simply isn't true. The first is how one tends to feel in general about a wide variety of issues. The second is a registered US political party. The third is a socio-political movement.

I know people who are in one or two but either not in the others, or even protest against the others. There is overlap, but they are not synonomous.

 

[mheslep]

Context is everything.

Edit:

Context matters, it is not 'everything'. Context is certainly no cover for the double standard you propose here: equating Obama to Hitler lacks any modicum of 'sensitivity' but in the same post we get just an assertion, without argument, that 'Bush-Hitler comparisons were in some cases perfectly valid'.