News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[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.

 

[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'.

 

[Gokul43201]

@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.

Anecdotal inference vs statistics:

The percentage [of Tea Party supporters] holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters#

Personally, I like the principles of the Tea Party a whole lot more than I like its principals.

 

[Al68]

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.

Nonsense. It's perfectly clear that the comparison was based on similar (socialist) economic policies. In the billboard you linked to, the word "socialist" labeling Hitler, Obama, and Lenin should tip you off that socialist beliefs were the basis for the comparison, not "fascism" or "mass murder".

 

[turbo]

Nonsense. It's perfectly clear that the comparison was based on similar (socialist) economic policies. In the billboard you linked to, the word "socialist" labeling Hitler, Obama, and Lenin should tip you off that socialist beliefs were the basis for the comparison, not "fascism" or "mass murder".

The tea-baggers do not appear sophisticated enough to differentiate between social and economic policies. They respond quite well to knee-jerk stimuli, as you can see when you look at the posters that decry health-care-reform as "socialism" alongside the posters that say "hands off my Medicare". Talk about a logical disconnect!

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anecdotal inference vs statistics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1

http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters#

Personally, I like the principles of the Tea Party a whole lot more than I like its principals.

For a group of conservatives (with the odd libertarian thrown in every now and then), that's pretty anti-Bush.

 

[Office_Shredder]

For a group of conservatives (with the odd libertarian thrown in every now and then), that's pretty anti-Bush.

The claim basically was that the tea party is anti-Bush. Not less pro-Bush than the average Republican

 

[CRGreathouse]

The claim basically was that the tea party is anti-Bush. Not less pro-Bush than the average Republican

Technically, the claim (post #101) was that they're anti-neocon, not anti-Bush. But I don't see why you would fall prey to omitted variable bias here. If I claimed that a certain left-wing group was anti-free-market, but found that 60% of their members supported Bill Clinton, this would buttress my argument rather than hurt it, because for left-wingers they would be relatively unsupportive of that pro-trade Democrat. So in this situation, where 56% or something like that of the Tea Party group supports Bush, that's being unsupportive, for right-wingers.

 

[mugaliens]

I observe that I've thrown out some good, sound, rational points, to which almost no one ever responds. I'm now thinking that either people just like to argue, or perhaps they like to tackle the nonsensical points.

Perhaps we ought to create a political beliefs series of scales and simply discount the votes of anyone whose political beliefs fall outside, say, a three-sigma range on any normalized issue.

Perhaps we ought to use this as a cutoff for politicians running for office, as well!

 

[Gokul43201]

For a group of conservatives (with the odd libertarian thrown in every now and then), that's pretty anti-Bush.

So you disagree with the statement that "the Tea Party is pro-Bush" (i.e., you believe the polling data confirms Galteeth's statement)?

Also, from the same poll, 27% of Tea Party supporters hold a "not favorable" opinion of Bush. You would characterize a 27% unfavorable rating as "pretty anti-Bush"?

 

[vertices]

Don't be silly. Context matters, it is not 'everything'. Context is certainly no cover for the vile 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'.

Ofcourse it's vile to compare anyone to Hitler especially when the comparisons are unwarranted. Bush-Hitler comparisons however are not altogether that unreasonable. There are 14 defining characteristics of fascism (see my previous post). If you cast your mind back to the Bush presidency, many of those characteristics should be easily recognisable, if not self evident, eg. disdain for human rights (Guantanemo).

Comparisons between Obama and Hitler however, are most certainly unwarranted (it is absurd to suggest that pushing policies that tax the mega rich and insure millions of poor families amounts to fascism or even socialism).

So what was the motive behind that advert? What was the whole point of juxtaposing images of Hitler and Obama, with the word "Change" captioning both images? The people who came up with the ad cannot be referring to a change in the American political norm or system (which has been reflexively obstructive in responding to progressive legislative initiatives by Obama). No, the 'change' that is not so subtlety implied has to do with the President's race, the only thing teabaggers understand and get riled up about. This is what makes it so outrageous.

In anycase, Bush-Hitler comparisons can always be dismissed as hyperbole. But comparing America's first black president to a figure who epitomises the menace of racism is just twisted, how can you not see this?

 

[vertices]

Nonsense. It's perfectly clear that the comparison was based on similar (socialist) economic policies. In the billboard you linked to, the word "socialist" labeling Hitler, Obama, and Lenin should tip you off that socialist beliefs were the basis for the comparison, not "fascism" or "mass murder".

Obama has 'similar socialist economic policies' to Hitler and Lenin?

Pray tell, which of Obama's economic policies are even remotely socialist?

You see, the people who came up with that ad had to attach a theme to the images, otherwise the racism would have been too obvious. They chose "socialism", knowing full well the comparison was just absurd..

 

[mheslep]

Personally, I like the principles of the Tea Party a whole lot more than I like its principals.

Hey! Great mnemonic to remember the distinction between 'ples and 'pals, I never do.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Obama has 'similar socialist economic policies' to Hitler and Lenin?

Pray tell, which of Obama's economic policies are even remotely socialist?

You see, the people who came up with that ad had to attach a theme to the images, otherwise the racism would have been too obvious. They chose "socialism", knowing full well the comparison was just absurd..

Well Hitler promoted national health care for all citizens. Of course those who were considered citizens were a fairly restricted group. The Nazi Party essentially promoted "socialism" for the select and labeled themselves "socialist" to gain support from those who actually had political influence under their nationalist social structure.

Propaganda all the way. Its obviously more fascist than socialist but you can easily spin it the other way. Propaganda does not want for clear and proper definitions, then or now.

 

[mheslep]

Ofcourse it's vile to compare anyone to Hitler especially when the comparisons are unwarranted. Bush-Hitler comparisons however are not altogether that unreasonable. There are 14 defining characteristics of fascism (see my previous post).

Well so say's some author on the web. Defining facism precisely is a difficult task; I don't find a link to a non-mainstream source definitive.

If you cast your mind back to the Bush presidency, many of those characteristics should be easily recognisable, if not self evident, eg. disdain for human rights (Guantanemo).

Guantanamo is still open, with no plans to close it soon. Most of the http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms" , and so on. Thus Obama is also a fascist? As it happens, I think fascist comparisons to either President are unwarranted.

Comparisons between Obama and Hitler however, are most certainly unwarranted (it is absurd to suggest...

Phrases like 'most certainly', 'absurd to suggest' are by themselves, without facts, just so much hand waiving to me. There's no argument there.

In anycase, Bush-Hitler comparisons can always be dismissed as hyperbole. But comparing America's first black president to a figure who epitomises the menace of racism is just twisted, how can you not see this?

Change of topic? Racism and antisemitism are not fundamental to fascism; I'd say they were incidental to the Nazi National Socialism variety, as they were relatively absent in Italian fascism. It appears to me the above is an argument based solely on race, i.e he's black therefore he is or he can't be ...

 

[vertices]

Well so say's some author on the web. Defining facism precisely is a difficult task; I don't find a link to a non-mainstream source definitive.

Yes indeed - you can't get mainstream definitions of terms that are so abstract (eg. there is no mainstream definition of the word "terrorism").

That article was written by a political scientist, who studied fascist regimes and compiled a list of characteristics common to all of them... he wasn't seeking to precisely define fascism. It is however, instructive to look at his list.

Guantanamo is still open, with no plans to close it soon. Most of the http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms" , and so on.

Well it is simply not politically feasible for him reverse many of the morally contemptible policies of the Bush administration (eg. there are issues of where to settle innocent Guantanemo detainees-it would political suicide to do the right thing, ie. grant them residency in the US). But to give him credit, the first thing he did in office was to find ways to close down Guantanemo. And he has affirmed his commitment to human rights (he is on record as saying that torture is wrong), and he hasn't waged wars of aggression or unashamedly scapegoated muslims, nor is he obsessed with national security, etc. etc...

Thus Obama is also a fascist?

Read what I wrote - I did not say Bush was a fascist.

Change of topic? Racism and antisemitism are not fundamental to fascism; I'd say they were incidental to the Nazi National Socialism variety, as they were relatively absent in Italian fascism. It appears to me the above is an argument based solely on race, i.e he's black therefore he is or he can't be ...

This guy committed a friggin genocide against millions of people on the basis of his racist ideals, and you think this was just 'incidental' to his 'Socialist' agenda? Are you kidding me?

Can you honestly see no problem in comparing America's first black President (and what he symbolises) to the most powerful, racist person, ever?

 

[Al68]

Obama has 'similar socialist economic policies' to Hitler and Lenin?

Pray tell, which of Obama's economic policies are even remotely socialist?

First, this question is laughable on its face. The fact is that Obama/Democrats believe managing/controlling/regulating the economy is the role of government. That's what socialism means at its core.

Second, unless you deny that Tea party members tend to consider the economic policies of Obama/Democrats to be socialist, it's only relevant that they do, not whether you do.

There is no reason for you to pretend that you had no idea that right-wingers oppose government control of the economy (socialism).

You see, the people who came up with that ad had to attach a theme to the images, otherwise the racism would have been too obvious. They chose "socialism", knowing full well the comparison was just absurd..

Fabricating allegations of racism with no basis might work with the idiots that fall for that kind of hate mongering, but you have provided no reason to suspect that has any basis in reality. Do you have any evidence that racism has anything to do with it?

But such allegations would be irrelevant even if true. Ad hominem arguments are a well known logical fallacy. They are used as a last resort by those with no legitimate argument to make.

No, the 'change' that is not so subtlety implied has to do with the President's race, the only thing teabaggers understand and get riled up about. This is what makes it so outrageous.

What's outrageous is your continued unsubstantiated and absurd allegations of racism, and your continued use of it in ad hominem logical fallacies as a substitute for legitimate honest debate. This forum is for debate, not the propagation of hatespeech.