Has everyone been following all the craziness with the Tea Party? They only started last year.
I just learned through the New York Times that the very first Tea Party activist was a young 30 year old woman named Keli Carender. That’s right, she was the very first in a growing list of protesters. Her political philosophy is to have less government intervention in markets, and from the article, it seems that her very first political act was to try to get Senators to vote against the stimulus bill. Thank God they didn’t listen to her.
Some biographical info:
The daughter of Democrats who became disaffected in the Clinton years, Ms. Carender, 30, began paying attention to politics during the 2008 campaign, but none of the candidates appealed to her. She had studied math at Western Washington University before earning a teaching certificate at Oxford — she teaches basic math to adult learners — and began reading more on economics, particularly the writings of Thomas Sowell, the libertarian economist, and National Review.
So she’s been studying politics for…two years? And she gets her info from the National Review? I may be acting like an elitist, but doesn’t this say something about the movement? (Although it does sound like she knows more about economics than Sarah Palin…) I do appreciate that despite her desire to cut, she still thinks about Medicare and Medicaid.
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
This is a great example of where a little education is dangerous. She states that somedays she feels more “Randian”. Right there is the problem: objectivism. An ideology just as dangerous as communism, if you ask me.
Is objectivism even a real economic philosophy? You hear of Keynesian economics, trickle down, Marxism, Reaganomics, etc. Does any economist ever say “Randian?” I know Greenspan liked her, but do economists even treat it as something with enough complexity to discuss and debate?
I’m the wrong person to ask since I have an obvious disdain for this school of thought! Ayn Rand is perhaps one of the most divisive figures, inspiring cult-like allegiances and outright apoplexy from her detractors.
I met a few objectivist followers in college—what a bunch of arrogant prigs. You want to talk about intellectual elitism (I call it intellectual chicanery), as was mentioned in your other post, there you have it. What they can’t see is that they are the different side of the same coin with all the stupid left wing socialist/Marxist flakes. For all their supposed logic and clarity they see the world in which we don’t, I find it ironic.
There was a great letter someone wrote into the New Yorker magazine re: a book review on Ayr Rand. She wrote:
“[Rand] detested Communism and revered what textbooks term ‘unfettered’ capitalism. But capitalism, in its most extreme form, is the mirror image of Communism—cold, inhuman, inhumane, intractably greedy, and full of contempt for the individual, as well as for societal ideas as a whole. By delcaring herself and her followers to be the world’s superlatively reasonable people, Rand dehumanized those who disagreed with her, just as the Bolsheviks dehumanized those who disagreed with them. Rand exhibited the qualities she loathed: narcissism, intellectual laziness, and emotional immaturity.”
I don’t think this young woman really understands what she is advocating when she says that some days she feels “Randian”. Sure, she may feel strongly about rising deficits and goverment spending, but she also sounds like a knee jerk reactionary.
I think my main problem is when people take Ayn Rand seriously. Economic self-interest? Did she really invent that concept? I don’t think so. Did she describe it better than other people? I don’t think so. To me it’s just like pseudo-literature.
j,
like i said, a little education is dangerous! If this young woman takes Rand’s “philsophy” seriously, well, I find that just as dangerous as those who subscribe to communism or Marxist ideology.
And why do I think it dangerous? Because it’s an excuse and rationalizes the worst kind of behavior in humans: excessive greed.
—mr
Man! It’s crazy busy @ work!
Anyway, Objectivism is a pretty broad philosophy, as I understand it. Rand’s economic implications are extracted from a much larger school of thinking on the nature of reality and specific to the realties of social hierarchy, personal freedom, and the limits of collective power. There’s plenty of thing to both agree and disagree with, as in most philosophies.
Relly? Do you find ‘plenty’ you can agree with? Plenty to me sounds like accepting the core fundamentals/premise of the philosophy and when you do that accepting plenty of it’s tenets and teachings would only naturally follow.
Did you know that Ayn Rand found inspiration in a serial killer?
http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer?page=entire
Do you know Ayn Rand’s views on the genocide of Native Americans?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand
MT, every of Ayn Rand’s personal beliefs does not figure into the larger philosophy of Objectivism. Every Philosopher is wrong about issues and choices, but their stated body of philosophy stands aside from their personal beliefs outside of the defined structure of their philosophical system.
Unless you’re saying that this these opinions were pillars of her Objectivist philosophy?
Margaret Sanger supported and advocated eugenics and euthanasia, specifically against “inferior” ethnic breeds. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Planned Parenthood is wholly based on that thinking.
King, oh boi, okay will get back to you later…also meant to get back to you on ethnically ambiguous bitch too. Too much work now…Later
Got you… I’m kinda in the same boat this week. Stupid Work! (leave it alone Eric—I was just joking!)
I read Atlas and it was a fun read, I imagine The Fountainhead is good too, but Objectivism is basically classical American liberalism, the same thing those old guys had who wrote the Constitution, which is why the Tea Party loves her, which is why Republicans love the Tea Party. Progressives then dislike the Tea Party, and we arrive here.
But the woman couldn’t take a lick of criticism. I’m not sure I can buy into a philosophy founded by someone who couldn’t handle her opponents.
I’m still struggling over whether she was a thought pioneer. It’s like, okay, great, self-interest. I think self-interest is good. It makes people happy. Woo hoo.
If she’s not a thought pioneer, can’t we just say that we like self-interest? It’s not as if she broke things down mathematically, or even logically.
If anything she wrote about self-interest in dramatic fashion. VERY dramatic. It’d make a great MST3K episode.
I would say that she was extremist in promoting self-interest, but you have to remember the context of the times. She, having fled Russia, was writing and formulating her “philosophy” in vehement opposition to the rise of communism. As I’ve stated before, different side of the same coin. Pendulum swung too far in reaction to communism, but for the time, I can understand those sentiments if placed in the context of the era.
If I remember correctly, and I’m probably not, she was in opposition to altruism and any sort of collective good or common good, fervently proposing that the only morality is the pursuit of rational self interest. She had no use for any other human emotion other than logic. No compassion or empathy. Pure reason towards the maximization of rational self interest was her guide to happiness and the only morality. She created a school of thought that rationalizes bad qualities in humans. what kind of world is that? Certainly not one in which I want to live. Who wants to live with a bunch of humorless Spocks and Vulcans?
And who says people are always rational and logical? I refer you to Garrett Hardin’s concept of “the tragedy of the commons”. Every one maximizes their self interest but in the end it only hurts him or herself and therefore the greater common good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Rand also didn’t really have a great answer to how to deal with inevitable expansion of the kind of government that SHE favored. The notion that we could just disband the US Government into 3 agencies (Department of Police, Dept. of Military, Dept. of Courts) and just expect it to stay shriveled up like that is a pipe dream shared by Rand and the Objectivists.
But this is definitely not a Reactionary idea. It’s Conservative, but that’s not the same as Reactionary. Conservative because it’s non-Progressive, but still within the framework of Americanism. If you want Reactionism you have to dig into some Tory literature, much of which is very reasonable, or read some Mein Kampf, all of which is insane. There’s a decent amount of Reactionism out there, but the Tea Party is about as Reactionary as a manual Ford pickup.
I doubt many people subscribe fully to Objectivism. Philanthropy and charity are obviously good qualities and the contempt she held for them is sort of obnoxious. She’d probably oppose the Tea Party because it’s not profitable.
* when I said “shared by Rand and the Objectivists” I meant “shared by the Tea Party and the Objectivists”, but that might even be slightly wrong, since I doubt the Tea Party would go that far. But who knows.
“[Objectivism] But this is definitely not a Reactionary idea. It’s Conservative, but that’s not the same as Reactionary. Conservative because it’s non-Progressive, but still within the framework of Americanism.”
Actually, Objectivism is quite radical and progressive, it’s just not liberal. Conservatism seeks to conserve a certain status quo, or at least to return to a historic ideal, however, Rand’s philosophy seeks to transform the status quo into a new theory of governance (or perhaps non-governance as the case may be).
How is her theory of governance any different than the one the US started with? The same ideals apply. It’s “liberal” in the classical sense (Byron and I talk about this in the “Liberals have higher IQ” post, but here’s the link of death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism), but how is it Progressive? I think any Progressive would hate the idea! I guess I’m interested in your definitions of “Conservatism” and “Progressivism” since they seem to vary among people.
Her theory of governance is much more extreme, much more Laissez-faire, and more atheistic in nature than was that of the founding fathers of the United States. Ayn Rand would never have signed a Declaration of Independence peppered with so many references to God in it. She was not on the same page as say… Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton.
Therefore she is not “Conserving” anything. She is trying to make “Progress” in a different direction. That doesn’t mean she’d fit in on MSNBC, she is a different kind of Progressive. All Conservatives are not Reganesque, all Progressives are not Liberals.
Again, I’d characterize Rand as an extremist—progressive, or classical liberal, whatever. It’s an extreme ideology from someone who, ironically, doesn’t seem to have been a happy person. i can’t say that for sure because I haven’t read any biographies on her (nor do I particularly care to). But would you want to hang out with her or hang out with someone like, let’s say, Dorothy Parker?
But to get back to the Tea Baggers, do THEY even know what the hell they believe in? Or is just angry white people trying to find a place to express themselves? I don’t see any people of color at these rallies in any news photos. Do they, and this young woman, really feel like they’re being oppressed? I would counter that they don’t know what real oppression is. if they don’t even know what they believe in, or have any clear cut leaders of this “movement”, I’d relegate them to the lunatic fringes. I mean, really—which is it? Is the prez a socialist or a fascist or a nazi? Make up your bloody minds!
She was probably as happy as your everyday disturbed artist. Just because she had personal problems doesn’t necessarily mean her philosophy creates depression.
“Tea Baggers.” Yay for mud-slinging! Disgruntled fringe groups thrive off playground insults like that. For a while there was no real party line for the Tea Party except “make government smaller”, but thanks to all the anti-Tea Baggery from CNN and all the other media outlets they’ve been adopted by the Republican party. It’s safe to say that by November 2012 they’ll be grown-up Republicans. Ahh nobody ever wins…
But to answer the question about the woman: yes they feel like they’re being oppressed, but in the classic anti-Tory, anti-English way: government is too big, taxes are too high, freedoms are withering, etc. Let’s change things. Except their solution is to rewind the tape back to 1776, which is a funny idea. Progressives want the tape to keep playing. I want to switch to DVD.
“MT, every of Ayn Rand’s personal beliefs does not figure into the larger philosophy of Objectivism. Every Philosopher is wrong about issues and choices, but their stated body of philosophy stands aside from their personal beliefs outside of the defined structure of their philosophical system.
Unless you’re saying that this these opinions were pillars of her Objectivist philosophy?”
Correct me if I am wrong but Objectivism was wholly created from the little mind of Ayn Rand (I don’t think she even has a formal degree of any kind). So of course her personal beliefs will play a very much real and integral part in the philosophy she created and lived by. Her justifications and language she used for the dessimination of Native Americans were based entirely on her philosophy. A person’s philosophy and their beliefs, opinions, and even choices are really the same thing if you break it down. So, I strongly disagree that you can separate a philosophy from the philosopher. Why do you think that the majority of people who follow her philosophy are these racist, border line racist, angry, insecure white idiots? I like understanding the roots to all truths, lies, and bullshit. And obviously people who subscribe to her philosophy understand roots.
Another point is her philosophy is not bigger than she is, otherwise people would actaully be specifically talking about the merits and demerits of the so called philosophy. But instead every other word in this thread is Ayn Rand this and Ayn Rand that. The point is she embodies objectivism.
Margaret Sanger supported and advocated eugenics and euthanasia, specifically against “inferior” ethnic breeds. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Planned Parenthood is wholly based on that thinking.”
You are not comparing apples to apples. And I’ll just leave it at that.
I think I’ll have to agree with mT here; Rand was the founder of this movement, it was HER mind that came up with reactionary ideology to communism. Wouldn’t it be hard to separate her personal beliefs from her stated world view/philsophy? This wasn’t just a purely academic exercise for intellectual wanking off, where some academicians can lead a life separate and perhaps different from their academic pursuits.
And no, her personal problems don’t necessarily mean her school of thought leads to depression for her advocates. But i still think she, herself, was unhappy. I mean, why grim and dour and super serious all the damn time? “Lighten up, Francis.”
What motivates someone to construct an ideology like this? I would say that she was damaged inside, as a human being, and it’s reflected in her ideology, IMO. Here is a person who lacked empathy, a non-emotive, non-feeling drone, full of anger and stridency.
And as for the “Tea Bagger” label, they coined themselves that in the beginning before being told it was slang for a crude sexual act. My piling on won’t affect their feelings of paranoia or disenfranchisement! Unless they can form a 3rd party, then yeah, they’ll probably go running back to the Republicans and it’s “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” time.
However, I have to disagree about the opression thing. Sorry, but that isn’t true opression. Try talking to Holocaust survivors. Or victims of genocide policies. Or life under Pinochet, Castro, et al…Just having feelings that your freedom is withering away when you’re living in an open society is much different than when you’re living in under authoritarian or totalitarian rule.
Just saying that’s how they feel.
As for the “tea bagger” label, Anderson Cooper disagrees with you: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/anderson_cooper_says_teabagging_comment_was_stupid_silly_116894.asp
The rest of the media still uses the term, though. Unless you can point to something that says the tea party came up with the term themselves.
No, I understand what you meant. People are entitled to what they feel, it’s human. But it’s hard to take it seriously. years ago, during the Clinton administration, a co-worker of mine (very conservative, Marine Corp reservist, and avid Rush Limbaugh listener) told me and my fellow co-workers that as a white man under the Clinton Administration, he felt he was being oppressed.
My co-workers rolled their eyes (even the conservative ones) and I laughed and I said, seriously? Really? You grew up on Long Island and summered at your grandmother’s beach house. You have two cars and own a single family house. Sounds like you’re in good shape to me. He smiled sheepishly and then back tracked saying, okay, maybe that wasn’t the right word.
The world is slowly sinking and dying from the weight of the human race, and as for the origins of the term, who knows, who cares? In the game of tit for tat among the demagogues, does it really even mean anything in the overall picture? Liberal media says crap, Ann Coulter and Rush say crap. It’s back and forth nonsense after awhile.
Haha! Clinton, that ruthless oppressor of Caucasians!
But, to be fair, (I’m always the devil’s advocate lately) there are also plenty of Asians driving BMWs, making high five or six figure salaries, and living in good neighborhood, who also feel oppressed.
King, I’d say that those AA’s can feel what they feel but they still aren’t being oppressed by the government! They may feel unaccepted by the society at large, or whatever, but that does not mean oppression. It’s hard to be oppressed when your butler announces to you that it’s time for dinner!
And besides, that one co-worker who made that ridiculous comment was always going on about how the stock market was going to hit 10,000 and that he was in the market and making money. So I guess Clinton was really coming down on him!
Was she oppressed?
I think that while Lena was given more privileges as an entertainer, she still suffered under segregation laws, still subjected to the Jim Crow era laws.
What Lena Horne and others endured is far different than being pissed off about being asked to sacrifice a little, as a certain group, for the common good. I didn’t see these folks decrying the fact that the Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthiest far, far more than it did the average working class guy. So, I;’m guessing they’re all wealthy? Where were they then when Cheney stated that “deficits don’t matter?” Why wait until a bi-racial president is elected to suddenly start screaming bloody murder, we’re being oppressed? They’re going to come after our guns! They’re gonna tax us to death, here comes socialism and government take overs!
I really am curious as to just who comprises this tea bag party movement. Wealthy white folks who earn $250,000 or more? Working class folks? A combo? Glenn Beck holds this rally in DC and all these people show up—if these folks are so oppressed and suffering financially, how is it that they could spend the money to come to DC from all parts of the country? And if Dick Armey’s Freedom Works is shipping these folks in, then how organic and grass roots of a protest is this? Just what the hell is going on around here?
All I know is, that ain’t being oppressed, no matter how much their feelings are hurt.
You can poke all the fun you want at them and mock the name given by your favorite political commentators, that actually makes them feel more oppressed, ya’ll are doing a great job of that part. But if a gay dude in Nigeria read anything you’ve said here he’d laugh his @ss off at any of our definitions of “oppression”. Think segregation was bad? Try getting murdered by Shari’a law. All but a few Nigerians support it.
Eric- OMG, are you fucking serious? 99% of congress is white, most of the supreme court justices are white, most of the CEOs in the major businesses and on wall street are white, most of the people represented on mass media are white. Just who the hell is oppressing these tea baggers? Just because this country suddenly got itself a black president for the first time in its short history, white americans all over are feeling like the gov’t is out to get them. Jesus fucking christ, you people are spoiled. And now you’re trying to bring up the oppression of blacks from other countries to invalidate the experience of blacks in THIS country?
Dude, why the hell do Jaewhan and King even bother to waste time with you? This is a minority blog to discuss our issues. At first there were some vague hopes that some of us might educate your privileged white ass, but now it’s obvious you’re not interested in learning anything. You’re just here to wank off your own ego and spew your libertarian propaganda bullshit. You’re the prime example why most minorities don’t take libertarians seriously.
EJ – it’s rather amusing that you re-inforce my point and yet you don’t quite get my response to King.
We’re not applying scales of relativity for the poor Nigerian homosexuals being given death sentences to the American blacks. Yes, Nigerian homosexuals are being oppressed by this fanatical Christian bunch. But to compare the sets of circumstances and stating that a gay Nigerian would laugh at our definitions is being dismissive of black people’s history in this country and the terrible things that happened to them.
The point you’re missing here is that the Jim Crow laws set in place an INEQUALITY that led blacks and other people of color to be denied the rightful privileges of citizenship and equal protection under the rule of law that the majority freely enjoyed. These angry tea protesters are NOT being oppressed because they are not being singled out in any way or shape. We all are paying our taxes, living in a bad economy, living with debt—why should they be exempt from paying their taxes? I don’t see any inequality or a stated policy targeting these protesters—so just how are they being oppressed? First of all, they’re angry at the wrong people. You wanna get pissed off about something, then just look at the last 8 years under Bush and the Republicans where two wars helped drive this country into debt. We can thank them for having the Chinese finance our debt.
So, they can feel pissed off and oppressed, but they need to take the blinders off and realize they aren’t. Oh, and I don’t give a fuck about their hurt feelings or what media talking heads call them what. Why don’t they take the advice from one of their own. Ann Coulter is always saying liberals and Dems need to lighten up and have a sense of humor—maybe they need to do the same.
Jacobus,
You’re a Hollywood wannabe martial artist actor right? Why don’t you go practice kung fu kicking yourself in the face you fake. You might make better movies that way.
Mojorider, if I understood your point, it was that “Tea Baggers shouldn’t complain about being oppressed, because look at the Jim Crow laws”.
You say rightfully that Tea Party are less oppressed than segregated blacks. Yes, Tea Party activists have it far better than blacks ever had under Jim Crow laws in this country. Full agreement there. If I sounded dismissive it’s probably because I haven’t paid enough respect to the folks in the past who had it so bad here. They had it terrible, and I’d hate to have been them. If I could go back in time I’d like to think I’d be anti-slavery even when most of the population was pro-.
Doesn’t my argument have some validity though? That because someone’s less oppressed than a segregated black person that they still might have something they can complain about? Couldn’t it be that they would just like to have EVEN LESS than the minute amount of oppression they face? They’re just a non-violent political organization and want lower taxes and fewer abortions, and they feel the economic turmoil is caused by bad governance, which affects everybody. By calling them teabaggers and saying they have nothing to complain about totally bolsters their claims of oppression. It’s no wonder they’re turning into the next Republican party.
By the way your quip at Christianity is off by a few. Shari’a law is Islamic. But there are Islamic countries that don’t murder gay people.
MojoRider- you nailed it right on the head. This whole issue cracks me up. How exactly is the ‘oppression’ of these people played out? Does their ‘oppresson’ come in the form of lack of representation in the gov’t and in the media? Does it come in the form of racial profiling and police beatings? Do they face extra hurdles to get bank loans, jobs, and promotions? Or a history of other social injustices and laws passed specifically against them? No, they’re angry because they’re getting shafted…just like everybody else.
Massive gov’t expansion happened under Bush Jr., who also believed in huge bailouts, wasteful world policing, and steamrolling of individual rights but I didn’t see any of these tea baggers outside the white house lawn. Nor do I see any of these wankers protesting the highly racist and wasteful Homeland Security, or calling for fair treatment of Muslims, or blacks, or Native American Indians, etc. Maybe they were too busy buying houses they couldn’t afford, and taking out 2nd mortgages for shit they didn’t need. And when their beloved free market came back and bit them in the ass, they cry foul.
“Massive gov’t expansion happened under Bush Jr., who also believed in huge bailouts, wasteful world policing, and steamrolling of individual rights but I didn’t see any of these tea baggers outside the white house lawn. Nor do I see any of these wankers protesting the highly racist and wasteful Homeland Security, or calling for fair treatment of Muslims, or blacks, or Native American Indians, etc. Maybe they were too busy buying houses they couldn’t afford, and taking out 2nd mortgages for shit they didn’t need. And when their beloved free market came back and bit them in the ass, they cry foul.”
How is it that a “free market” is biting them in the ass immediately after you correctly state that Bush expanded government?
EJ – sorry, you really have misunderstood my point. My point wasn’t that these tea protesters shouldn’t complain about being oppressed in light of Jim Crow laws. You’ve taken my and distorted the focus. First, the Jim Crow laws I initially referenced was in response to King’s musings.
Second, I’ve had said that this faction of angry and frustrated people are entitled to feel however they feel—I simply don’t agree with how they’re perceiving the world. But they are NOT being oppressed or persecuted. They have simply fallen on hard times like everyone else in this country due to this economy. There is no inequality or separate TARGETED status that they are undergoing like what people of color went thru in the US under segregation laws.
They still have the freedom to make choices every day. They are free to move about and participate in an open society with the full equal protection of the law and rights of being a citizen. They are not being discriminated against, they are not being lynched, they are not being told they have to ride in the back of the bus or to drink from these water fountains only.
Third, your argument does not carry any weight because you haven’t pointed out exactly where there is oppression. I’m not buying into the idea that they are oppressed to begin with! So how can I even consider them “less oppressed” when compared to a segregated black person? Sure, they can complain about something; I’m not arguing against them being able to express frustration. I just don’t agree with their views or rhetoric or their acceptance of fringe elements, like the conspiracy theorists over Obama’s legitimacy and where he was born, or showing up to town hall meeting rallies with AR-15 rifles, talk of secession and revolution.
And look, I’m not cold hearted like you might think I am. I feel bad that there are people are confused by the way American economy has gone and are struggling to understand what’s going on. I just see their anger being misplaced. But I especially feel bad because I see some of them who are ignorant being cynically manipulated for political purposes by those on the right.
And no, it was not a quip about Christianity but about extremist Christianity. I was wrong about the country. I mixed up Nigeria with Uganda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html
“How is it that a “free market” is biting them in the ass immediately after you correctly state that Bush expanded government?”
Ok, we can just call it the ‘market’ if that makes it better. Now is there anything else that you’d care to address?
This thread is amusing. Libertarians vs. Social Demorats and Keynesian welfare statists. But ultimately, they are all different sides of the same coin: American Empire.
America is an empire, and a predatory and exploitative one at that. Freedom and Democracy (cough) are its political masks.
The precious American Way of Life ™ is fundamentally based upon exploitating other nations, whether that be through American exploitation of Third World labor (i.e. so-called outsourcing) or through what is called Dollar Imperialism.
As Michael Hudson puts it, America has benefitted from the greatest economic “free ride” in history–yet this is still not enough for entitled Americans!
As I believe Edward Said once put it, America is the perfect combination of ignorance and arrogance.
America: Host or Parasite?
http://noliesradio.org/archives/814
Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance
http://www.michael-hudson.com/books/super_imperialism_II_press_release.html
I think it’s fair now to mention a few of the Tea Party’s concerns to show how they believe oppression exists towards them in America. Again, this isn’t my endorsement of their views:
- Marginal taxes are too high. They’re some of the highest in the world, among the top 3 I believe.
- Health care should not be mandatory. Mandatory health coverage is an integral part of any health care legislation of late.
- The state should not allow, let alone sponsor, abortion because these people consider it murder.
This is just a few of the issues. They’re not entirely consistent I’m sure. More than a handful of tea party-ists are for the Iraq war, against gay marriage, and still think President Obama isn’t a US citizen. So what? California voted for Prop 8. Every group of people has its crazies. But the Tea Partyists have legitimate concerns, even if we disagree with them. The main one is abortion. What to do? Tell em to shove it? That’s about as close-minded as it gets right there.
@Mojorider
You’re saying that in Uganda, gay-a-cide is due to Christianity, not stupid/bad/intolerant governance. But there’s no gay-a-cide in the Vatican, which is OWNED by the Church itself. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s bad people, not religion, that is killing gays in Uganda? Nigeria? That bad people, not religions, illegalize gay sex in 36 African countries? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/16/malawi-operation-against-gays-lesbians)
“or showing up to town hall meeting rallies with AR-15 rifles, talk of secession and revolution. ” It sounds like you’re opposed to secession. Why?
@Larry
Surely you’re against foreign aid too, since it’s just imperialism of a different nature.
@Leon
The only thing I’d address is that they’re not making the same fiscal argument as progressives are. They say we’re in this rut because of bad policy. Fed policy in particular, which is (almost) non-controvercial. Yet there’s nothing being done about it. They’re being shafted like everyone else yes, but their policy ideas are regularly scorned by the media, unlike progressive policy ideas. Your thoughts?
I know you’re not endorsing their views, but you still haven’t convinced or proven to me that their concerns equal oppression. Where is the subjugation of their freedom just because we have a progressive tax system in the US whereupon ALL citizens are required to pay? Are all the Wall Street investment guys getting huge bonuses being oppressed because they are asked to pay more in taxes?
How the hell does abortion affect their lives outside of their disagreeing with the practice of it on a moral basis? How does that oppress them? it doesn’t. It OFFENDS them but it does not oppress them. No one is forcing them to have abortions. And if it affects them because someone in their family is contemplating the act, that isn’t oppression just because that female relative has been granted the freedom of choice to decide what to do with her body. That’s a personal family issue.
If the movement wants to be taken seriously, then they should seek to purge their membership of the lunatic fringe groups. Instead, it’s been encouraged and it only serves to inflame the dialogue and muddy the waters and get people more and more pissed off—about the WRONG THINGS (eg, constant questioning of birth place, etc) and it just fuels the fire of the racists and gives them the cover of legitimacy. Their movement has been hijacked, if you ask me. The secession talk is more of the same fringe element talk and those people in the patriot movement who are co-mingled in with the tea folks are promoting anti-American sentiments: hatred of the US government (or is it just hatred of a bi-racial president in power?), talk of revolution and implicit in it is violence. And it’s based nothing more than they disagree with who’s been elected.
I’m not even going to get into the Christianity thing with you because you’re putting spin on my words. I never said anything about “gay-a-cide” was the result of Christianity. Nor did I say I was anti-Christian as you keep wanting to imply. What I am is anti Christian fundamentalist because I equate that with being the different side of the same coin as the Islamic fundamentalists. And I don’t like the idea of US evangelicals sticking their noses into Uganda’s government affairs and inciting them on to punish gays and lesbians. But that’s a side issue and not even germane to the discussion at hand.
show me how the tea party members are being oppressed. You’ve outlined some of their concerns but you haven’t proven they’re being oppressed and you can’t because they aren’t, no matter how pissed off they feel about American life right now.
1. Secession is violent when USG disagrees with a state seceding. Secession by legal, non-violent means is far preferred by these people over violence, but USG won’t play that way. They never have. Elected officials have made no mention of violence in secession, you’re just quoting the rednecks who know full well the USG doesn’t play nice with secession.
2. To these people, abortion is state-sanctioned (or worse, -sponsored) murder, that the state allowing the disposal of fetuses is the same as allowing the disposal of unwanted children. It affects them as much as child murder might affect you or me.
I wonder why Christians are able to influence Ugandan leaders to murder gays but not able to influence The Papacy to murder gays. I would think we should expect Ugandans not to murder gays as much as we’d expect George Bush not murder gays at the request of American fundamentalists. Shouldn’t we hold Ugandan and American leaders to the same standards?
Eric- Sorry, man, I’m still not feeling it. These people may claim to be oppressed because of policies that conflict with their beliefs, but none of these policies effect their personal rights and freedoms. Nobody is forcing these people to have abortions against their will (real oppression). On the other hand, making abortions illegal (or even more difficult to access) directly oppresses women by denying them control over their own bodies.
I’m not suggesting that you’re supporting either side, I’m saying that there is a distinct difference between real oppression where your own rights to chose are being taken away, and simply being ‘offended’ by how someone else exercise her rights. To adopt the stance of victimhood simply because you’re angry at something and not everyone agrees with you reeks of a false sense of entitlement.
Bottom line is, as Leon is able to discern, there is no oppression occuring. What they object to is ideological differences that the prez has regarding the role of government in American life. But there is no subjugation of their rights as citizens and they have equal protection under the law.
All else you post is a distraction from our main point. Christianity, abortion, secession—that’s all diversionary. Feeling oppressed doesn’t mean you are. For them to constantly bemoan how America is being taken over by big government, it’s socialism…it’s all inflamatory rhetoric and adds nothing to the discourse. And the Republicans use the politics of fear and encourage it all. Hey, it’s politics—I don’t like it but that’s the game. I say the same thing for the Dems and the rhetoric coming from the left. Different side of the same coin.
“To adopt the stance of victimhood simply because you’re angry at something and not everyone agrees with you reeks of a false sense of entitlement.”
Well said, Leon. If the movement wants to be taken seriously, then weed out the fringe elements like the Patriot nut jobs and the gun rights advocates. Stay focused on the concerns about taxes, abortion, and the social policies of health care reform and you can eventually get to an honest debate. Instead, all you get are histrionics, distortions, and extremist talk that I suspect really masks some of the racist feelings some members have. But please don’t go crying that you’re being oppressed by this administration, tea protesters.
Leon -
“none of these policies effect their personal rights and freedoms.”
By your logic people have no reason to support high tax rates on high income earners, or limit corporate pay, or impose gun control. The reason people vote for these laws is they DO view their rights being infringed upon, but not from next door. More like, “If we don’t outlaw this activity, society will crumble, and that affects me.” See what they’re getting at?
Your views on a woman’s choice don’t matter to them. They won’t change their views that abortion is murder and that state-sanctioned murder is pure evil. So the two views can never debate this.
How can you reconcile the two groups under one roof? You can’t. Secession? Can’t do that either. What are they supposed to do? What’s the plan?
Eric-
“The reason people vote for these laws is they DO view their rights being infringed upon, but not from next door.”
And by that logic, people have plenty of reasons to support high tax rates on high income earners, or limit corporate pay, or impose gun control. Is this how you play the game? This kind of debate is useless.
“Your views on a woman’s choice don’t matter to them.”
So why should their views matter to me?
And I’m still trying to figure out how abortions oppress these people. Please explain this to me. The fact that abortions are happening already, and society hasn’t crumbled kinda works against their argument.
Do you have any consistency on how you decide when impositions on others’ rights/labor/body are okay and when they aren’t? Raising taxes on some of the population is okay, but restricting abortion is not? People can complain that their bodily rights are being infringed upon, but they can’t complain that their labor rights (tax rate, corporate pay) are being violated?
Both have legitimate complaints to make, but you claim one group can complain and one group can’t. Imposing ONE SET OF LAWS on 350 million people creates this problem. Calling em Tea Baggers and telling them to stop complaining does not help. And it’s definitely not open minded or liberal, it’s kinda redneck-y. Reminds me of bible thumpers who tell gays to stop parading around and stay in the closet.
Eric- Ah, so once again, we’re back to your favorite subject: taxes which are the root of all evil, and the gov’t which is the great satan. First of all, I never mentioned anything about taxes or corporate pay until you brought them up. Second, I never said they can’t complain.
What we’re debating here is the merit of these people claiming victimhood status, and comparing their dissatisfaction with the tax rate with the oppression of blacks. And seriously, the only ones who can say this with a straight face are these people, and those like you who believe there is absolutely no difference between your paycheck and a woman’s right to her body. Apples and motherfucking oranges, dude. This is yet another reason why I dislike libertarians.
So you feel they’re wrong, you’ve said this maybe 37 times. Judging by where we are I could’ve guessed it before the first. The woman’s right to choose is a civil right and should be country-wide. People who are pro-life are close-minded religious types and they just need some enlightenment. I get it. You can stop making the high school argument now.
But so long as there is Christian traditionalism/fundamentalism, these people will NEVER be pro-choice, and they will feel the state is sanctioning murder. To them it’s not choice, it’s something entirely different, something that’s defined in their religion. Consider that there are parts of the country where a pro-choice law would have zero use because the local population is so overwhelming traditional, in fact it’d be a terrible idea to have a pro-choice law there. In legal history there have been hosts of places where multiple religious groups coexist (middle east mostly), and members of different religions lived by different laws. One group has this law about food, and a different group had a different law, neither group’s law trampled upon another. These people all managed to live in the same neighborhood and avoid feeling oppressed by the majority. Differing, local legal systems are as old as the religions themselves. Similar laws exist in the states that allow native American tribes to arbitrate their disputes.
But what I’m reading here is that you (and progressives in general) think everyone should live under a pro-choice medical system. One broad-brush law for 350 million people, even the people who disagree to the point where they’ll murder abortion doctors.
If you believe in a broad-brush law, what do you do about the 100 million or so people who are opposed to this law, especially in those towns where everybody is pro-life? What’s to keep them from feeling marginalized? Do you feel it’s justified to marginalize these people? What do we do with them?
If you’re like me and think broad-brush laws are counter-productive and are about as advanced as dirt, that they fail to secure peace among diverse groups of people, then I assume you’re not in favor of a federal health plan with abortions included.
all apples-oranges-pears….
this isn’t even the focal point but a diversionary discussion. Just what does this tea protesting movement believe in? I think you’d be hard pressed to find a straight forward answer as to what that it and who your typical tea bagging protester is. A bunch of angry people, yes—but it’s all over the map. From gun rights, to state’s rights, to patriot movement, to John Birchers, to Glenn Beck 9/12 stuff, whatever. It’s a pile of confusion.
Where’s the coherent, intellectual center of this movement? Is it Dick Armey and Freedom Works? Is it Phil Graham? All else is nonsense and white noise. Where’s the Barry Goldwater of this movement or the William Buckley that’s willing to kick these extremist groups, who seem to have hijacked the movement, out so they can have a refined coherent message?
Let’s get to the real root of why they’re angry (I have a notion why they are and am not unsympathetic) and have someone articulate it in a non-extremist fashion so it can be discussed/debated in a reasonable way. But enough with the intellectual dishonesty, the demagoguery from the likes of Palin and Beck and Limbaugh, and coded racism coming from some who are supposedly members of this movement.
“You can stop making the high school argument now.”
Oh the irony. Eric, all your BS still boils down to, “These people feel oppressed just because.”
You have yet to make a convincing argument as to why they’re really oppressed. This whole abortion angle is just a red herring. This isn’t even an organized protest by your typical pro-lifers. Like MojoRider said, this is more like a rabble, not a rally.
You try to draw comparison between ‘labor rights’ and ‘bodily rights’ and by that rationale, have us believe that these people could claim to be just as oppressed as the blacks were 70 years ago and be entitled to the same compensation and redress. Talk about painting with a broad brush.
Nobody here is suggesting these people aren’t allowed to bitch. Some of us just can’t take them seriously. And if they want the gov’t and the rest of the country to address their concerns, I think they should clarify their message first, then get to the BACK of the fucking line.
Well, I tried. Maybe you could try talking to one face to face some day so you get a better idea yourself.
You may have tried, but you didn’t try very hard. As Leon pointed out, you threw out red herrings and obfuscated the point about oppression. If you can get away from the rhetoric and demagoguery that permeates this movement, and if we can assume (or even agree) that the average person drawn to the movement is white and working to middle class, then we have a place to start. You could have started with:
- middle class wages being stagnant for a long time.
- the decline in manufacturing jobs as American corporations move jobs overseas.
- Most Americans not saving enough for retirement
- Americans accumulating far too much debt, easy access to credit
- rising costs of health care, gas, food
And you could’ve brought this up:
- housing bubble burst, foreclosures
- Wall Street meltdown
- recession
- massive layoffs
- new president
And what do they see? They see the end of the old administration and the new administration bailing out the banks before helping the American people get back to work. They see these investment bankers getting huge bonuses and compensation. They see a new president’s massive stimulus packages and money being spent but they don’t see how it affects them. They see a new president deciding to reform the health care system that will supposedly cut costs but it sure looks like it’s the government trying to get at what small slices of pie people have left. They don’t see how any of it benefits them.
There’s the root of your anger. THAT’s what you could’ve brought up but you didn’t.
Some played by the rules, saved their money, lived within their means and even they got burned. They saw their stock portfolios or retirement funds reduced in half and the anger just simmers. Then along comes your extremist elements, stirring the pot, villifying the president, denying his legitimacy as a US citizen, and the Republicans jump on board and stoke the flame even more and muddy the water about health care and we end up with “government take overs!” “DEATH panels!” “socialism!”
There’s plenty of blame to go around for the economic crisis we’re in. What bothers me is that, IMO, some of them are being manipulated against their own interests by the right. How well informed are some of these people? The NY Times article says “As Tea Party members observe the anniversary of the first mass protests nationwide this weekend, Carender’s path to activism offers a lens into how the movement has grown, taking many people who were not politically active — it is not uncommon to meet Tea Party advocates who say they have never voted…”
Keli Carender gets all upset about the US spending money it doesn’t have but she never was bothered that we had two unpaid wars going on at the same time, being financed by China because we couldn’t pay for it ourselves? And now we’re beholden to China for the time being. So maybe Carender and these others might want to see a different perspective on things before they get their minds twisted up in extremism. I think their anger is, at a lot of times, misplaced when they lay all the blame at the feet of Obama. You just can’t tax cut and deregulate your way out of this mess as Carender seems to suggest.
Not sure what you meant by “your anger” since I’ve really tried to separate myself from these guys but anyway, yes I could’ve brought those up and then received a slew of comments about stupid libertarians and their stupid talking points, but the reason progressives dislike the tea party so much is because the tea party is particularly known for its views on abortion. The media portrays that side, so that’s what I went for. If you wanna hear more standard, boring libertarian arguments then you can read every comment I’ve ever made on this blog. I’m kinda sick of em actually. Maybe that’s why I don’t make them anymore.
And yes, the Tea Party Activists are inconsistent. They weren’t protesting the war, Sarbox (Bush’s regulatory overhaul that Progressives would’ve loved had Obama done it, but otherwise it went pretty well undetected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbox), the bailouts, Tarpa, Fed interest rates, the excessive bureaucratic new-hires, etc. They’re just the other side of the aisle, inconsistent as their left-wing counterparts. Progressives still loved Obama despite his sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan after winning the Nobel peace prize. If you think the Tea Party is malinformed or inconsistent, then surely you think the Progressive Party is too.
On the way home I heard on the radio that self-proclaimed Tea Party activists have been making threats and even acting on threats. On the one hand, it was probably a bad call to enact such a far-reaching piece of legislation that was OBVIOUSLY going to piss these people off. On the other hand, this doesn’t give them the right to throw bricks through windows or fax a picture of a noose to a black congressman, any more than one act of police brutality gives thugs the right to torch four cars in downtown Oakland. I hope they lock every one of em up.