Unfortunately, I’ve had conversations like this.
(via)
Recent Comments
- TrickQuestion: i just imagine the guy sitting there in a diaper, smacking a physics book with a... on Still Earth
- TrickQuestion: Generally,. that is the definition of reality, although certain mental... on Case For a Creator?
- ExpatPaul: Now that’s good advice ;-) on Give Up Religion For Lent
- Troutbane: OK, I only got to the part with the helicopter so let me offer a similar yet different... on Still Earth
- bogga: I’ve got just lately began a blog, the info you offer here has helped me personally... on Here We Go Again
- Rich: Well, if you limit reality to what can be seen, you might have a point. on Case For a Creator?
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
A follower of mine on twitter tweeted this to me a few days ago. I promptly sent it out to all the Republicans I know. There’s already a painfully ignorant and bigoted video done in the same way on a website called the Conservative Atheist. I think I need to start a blog called the Liberal Atheist.
The Liberal GREEN Atheist.
It’s easy to find ignorant or bigoted individuals on any side of the political spectrum. I’ve had conversations with liberals and progressives who spew similar nonsense.
The above video doesn’t make any new revelations or prove anything. It’s not clear why it was even posted.
unreasonable faith
reasonable thoughts on religion, science, and skepticism…
…and pushing ridiculous liberal propaganda.
There was nothing about religion in this video, just an attempt to make tea party members look bad.
No, the Tea Partiers make the Tea Partiers look bad.
They claim not to be racists, but if the sheet fits…
Cha-Ching!!! Bingo, We have a Winner!!!
I can find evidence that Tea Party members’ claim not to be racists is factual.
What is your evidence to the contrary?
I see your “evidence” and raise you:
http://teapartynationalism.com/index.php
The site provides evidence that some Tea Party individuals are racists, but fails to substantiate any claim that the movement as a whole is animated by racism.
Really, that’s pretty weak stuff…Have anything better?
Oooh, so they’re not TRUE Tea Partiers then?
/everyone else sees where I’m goin’ with this, right?
Robert is technically right though, the Tea Party movement isn’t as overtly racist as people make it out to be.
I still think the movement is racist, but for very different reasons. And I’m not sure the Teabaggers themselves are racists.
True, true. From what I’ve seen, they’re not really racist. They’re more xenophobic. The fact that Obama’s father was African and he’s got an unusual name just adds to their fear of him as “the other”. I think the core of it is that he’s an intellectual liberal and literal “student of the world” who approaches things from a different perspective than they’re used to.
The teacups are animated by the desire to increase the profits of the corporations who pull their strings. Fear and racism are just tools used to make the poor ignorant sods to vote for candidates who will act against their voters interests to help the rich people who bought their seat in congress for them.
Yea… cause factually examining the major claims made by members of a US political party who JUST won seats in our government isn’t at all skeptical or something.
*head desk*
I just love these videos because the cute animals with robotic voices discussing things are funny. They remind me of my childhood.
Also when did this stop being Daniel’s personal blog? Is he not allowed to post videos that he finds funny or politically interesting on his own damn blog?
Of course. So sorry that I expected the content to stay true to the title, enjoy the political spin I will no longer be following.
This is a gigantic case of “WAHHHHHH!”
Seriously, there are many people here with many disagreements, including political ones. If you can’t stand contributing to or reading in a place that isn’t in lockstep with yours, perhaps the Internet is just too scary a place for you.
Well, James, I’m certain that Daniel is absolutely crushed that you will no longer read his blog. CRUSHED, I tell you!
Daniel, you just lost a tea partier who can’t stand criticism about his political opinions
Hush now, Francesc. Can’t you see that Daniel is in deep mourning over this? /sarcasm
Rather, he can’t stand that we’re picking on the stupid people that represent his political leanings. Those people are scary, and they need to be challenged by someone. James isn’t going to challenge them to be smart or shut up, and he’s very depressed the people on his side are the loudest and dumbest people, so he’s blaming the liberals because that’s one of the things they are told to do.
A visitor is unhappy with me? How can I live with myself?! This has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!!!
If you cannot live with the dishonor I will stand as kaishakunin for you.
Daniel, you must ask yourself, “What would a dishonoured Klingon do?”
The video is about Tea Party members. Last I checked, the Tea Party is not a “US political party”.
If the video is intended to claim that most or all Tea Party members are ignorant and bigoted, then let’s see the evidence. As far as I can tell, the video is intended to disparage an entire group some people don’t like. It skirts the fallacy of hasty generalization.
It’s a political movement in the US that is running candidates in major elections, and has the word “party” in the title. And yet somehow, it’s not a political party? Wha-?
It’s true that there may be intelligent, rational Tea Party members who can articulate their positions better than “no more big government”; but they haven’t appeared. The only people I’ve ever seen come out of the “movement” are the crazy, reality denying, Glenn Beck diatribe fueled tea-baggers.
They haven’t appeared where exactly? Where have you looked?
It’s my responsibility to go looking? Oooooh no no no sir. It’s the one making the claim that needs to provide the evidence.
The movement pushes it’s craziest members to the forefront. Your Glenn Becks and Christine O’Donnells. They are the outward face of the Tea-Party, right there in living color on Fox News and The Daily Show every day. If the more “rational” members are having problems being seen, then they either need to steer the good ship TeaParty back into Public Relations Bay; or break off and start a new non-crazy movement. My hunch though… those people just don’t exist.
I didn’t make a claim, you did, I’m just looking for you to elaborate with some details. I didn’t even say you were wrong, I just asked where you have been getting your knowledge.
Ok, fair enough.
The Tea Party, as portrayed in the media is irrational, crude, and anti-intellectual. Also, while they proclaim a non-political, libertarian “small government” mindset, they frequently betray their socially conservative reactionary roots through their signs or even the things their candidates (such as Christine O’Donnell) say. And I get this info from The Daily Show, NPR, and even Fox News. And considering Fox is largely behind it all (Beck, Palin, et al), I’m surprised that they haven’t done a better job of negating the crazy elements and doing everything they can to make the movement look better on their own channel. This leads me to believe that it’s not some lunatic fringe, but that is the core membership of the group.
Like I said, if there are Tea Partiers who can make cogent, rational arguments with a more nuanced view of the issues beyond “liberals and big government are destroying the country”, I’d like to meet them. Do you know where they are? You seem to be claiming that they exist somewhere. They certainly aren’t showing up at those rallies.
Are you a Tea Partier? Can you explain your position beyond what the cartoon cat-bunny-thing is saying?
Seriously. Even Rand Paul (who seems somewhat sane) makes wacko statements from time to time.
From the Wikipedia entry on the Tea Party movement:
“As of 2010, it is not a national political party, does not officially run Congressional candidates, and its name has not appeared on any ballots.”
It appears you need to revise your understanding of what a political party is.
And you need to stop being so pedantic. siveambrai called them a political party as shorthand. For all intents and purposes, they are now operating as an offshoot party of the GOP. Just because they haven’t officially registered as a party (yet) doesn’t mean that they aren’t developing all the trappings of one.
Also, I think it’s funny that you and James are just refuting the posting of the video itself, or claiming that the Tea Party is somehow misunderstood or has not gotten its due respect. And yet, neither of you have explained why we’re wrong, or how the mindset of the average Tea Partier differs from the cartoon caricature in the video.
Pardon? I simply prefer to use terms in the way they mean. If you find that “pedantic”, I can’t help that.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I think this one is way off-base and has virtually no evidence to support it.
If the video is essentially making the claim that Tea Party members are for the most part ignorant and bigoted, then it should provide some evidence. If you agree, then please, provide the evidence besides your “say so”. It’s up to the person making the claim to substantiate it, right?
I already refuted the notion above that it’s comprised of racists, and other posters agreed with me.
The 96-page NAACP report doesn’t qualify as evidence? Really?
http://www.teapartynationalism.com/pdf/TeaPartyNationalism.pdf
I already refuted the notion above that it’s comprised of racists, and other posters agreed with me.
Really? Cause all I saw you do was go “Nu-uh”. Not the best of refutations.
Political party, social movement, whatever. In this case the overlap and perceived intent to create a cohesive ideology and support and fund politicians which support that ideology is similar enough to a political party that I just skipped ahead in how I referred to it. There is a great deal of equivalence between how the Tea Party is acting right now and the historical formation of similar social movements/political parties in the American past. Since you are the sole authority on the entire purpose of the tea party I’ll have to bow to your knowledge about them eventually forming an official political party. But I’d also warn you to get the others in line because it seems like some of them have different ideas.
You keep using this word “refuted.” I do not think it means what you think it means. But hey, ignore or handwave away a report that asserts that the Tea Party provides a platform for bigots and racists.
It could technically be said that the tea party is not exactly racist as the group’s real goal is to win elections for republicans. But racism is the fuel that the tea party runs on.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43901.html
There you go. The NAACP – which knows a little something about racism – seems to think the tea party is racist.
While there is a legitimate point that the NAACP would have some expertise at pointing out and addressing racism, by dint of that experience they are also not an uninterested party to the accusation. While I tend to agree with the general thrust of the point that racism has *enabled* the Tea Party to coalesce as a political force (since, as has been said by Nox and others, where were they when George W. bush was ruining the American economy with profligate spending and encroaching civil liberties?), it is too far to claim that a report from the NAACP should be accepted on its face as *evidence* in a contested claim about racism.
Nope – the only way I see it as being too far is if you buy the premise that the NAACP has some interest in finding racism where none exists. I don’t buy that premise.
Beyond that report though, my own observation of tea party “leaders” and the behavior of it’s rank and file members leads me to believe that racism is a core part of the tea party movement.
Nope – the only way I see it as being too far is if you buy the premise that the NAACP has some interest in finding racism where none exists. I don’t buy that premise.
I would definitely say that objectively the NAACP has a pecuniary interest in racism being a problem, if not an existential one. It is a simply structural problem with all advocacy organizations; if they win/get what they want, they ironically cease to matter (and in most cases, then cease to exist). Nobody believes that racism has ceased to exist in America, but the bare fact is that the NAACP’s influence correlates directly with how serious the problem of racism is viewed as being.
Thus from an outside perspective, they are too interested in the outcome of the determination of the presence of racism (especially on a scale this large) to be trusted as a primary source, especially one providing *evidence*. Now, their role is perfect for providing subjective analysis, and as such it is reasonable to take seriously their analysis of what evidence does exists, though to treat a subjective analysis as dispositive would be a mistake.
The only way someone can come to a different conclusion is to assume before-the-fact that the NAACP is unlike other organizations of its kind in a fundamental way. There is nothing in history to suggest it should be treated any differently. Hence, this reveals a latent bias to believe the NAACP as an organization beyond what would be prudent given its nature as an advocacy organization; a courtesy that may be emotionally fulfilling but is bad practice for an empirical analysis.
——————-
Beyond that report though, my own observation of tea party “leaders” and the behavior of it’s rank and file members leads me to believe that racism is a core part of the tea party movement.
I tend to agree that if it is not a core of the movement, it is at least a necessary element that makes its disparate coalition and amalgam of social issues coalesce into a unitary coalition; at the very least built on an intrinsic distrust of the president due to his perceived racial difference and origin.
Elemenope, I have to disagree with you here. Are you saying that any “watchdog” group is, by dint of its particular focus, so inured to “finding” racism/sexism/homophobia that it will necessarily find such where it might not exist? Even if such is the case–and if that is indeed what you’re saying, then how do you square that with your comment that the “Tea Party” is “built on an intrinsic distrust of the president due to his perceived racial difference and origin”? Is that not racism?
Are you saying that any “watchdog” group is, by dint of its particular focus, so inured to “finding” racism/sexism/homophobia that it will necessarily find such where it might not exist?
Not quite. What I am saying is that the possibility is strong enough that it is inappropriate to ignore the potential for bias and accept their statements as *evidence* uncritically. Seriously, look at this thread. A couple of people are actually making the argument that a report by the NAACP is evidence of racism. Can you think of *any other circumstance* in which the mere report of an interested party is trusted as evidence? Now, like I said, they analysis of the evidence shouldn’t be dismissed outright. It simply shouldn’t be swallowed uncritically or be trumpeted as a piece of primary evidence. It is not.
I am also saying that the general willingness to trust the NAACP in this matter betrays a bias in their favor that is unearned. It is an intellectual sin to leave one’s own biases unexamined, and that is certainly in play when the claim is made that the report of an interested party should be accepted as evidence.
Even if such is the case–and if that is indeed what you’re saying, then how do you square that with your comment that the “Tea Party” is “built on an intrinsic distrust of the president due to his perceived racial difference and origin”? Is that not racism?
It is racism, and it is easy to square. I’m basing my opinion not directly on the NAACP’s reports but on a huge number of independent observations, including my own. A serious amount of intersubjectivity lends more weight to the conclusion. I don’t think, particularly, that the NAACP is incorrect in their conclusion; the Tea Party, in my view, buttressed by many other reports, does contain a serious strain of racism. See what I’m saying? They aren’t necessarily wrong, they’re just an interested party and so can’t be depended upon to give evidence.
The article you linked to doesn’t actually have the NAACP making the claim you suggest it’s making. Moreover, the report cited in the article has already been posted, and it doesn’t make the claim that the tea party movement is racist or even that racism is what propels the movement.
Elemenope makes some solid points regarding the self-interest of the NAACP in ballooning the issue. It would not be the first time an organization has demonized a group of people as a way to rally support for its cause and increase donations. This is why it’s important to examine the evidence–and the evidence presented so far is extremely thin gruel. I believe I’ve presented compelling evidence that the tea party movement is not fueled by racism and no one has challenged or refuted it.
Correction to my post above: the NAACP does call the tea party movement racist. However, the remainder of my post remains valid.
I wouldn’t call the Tea Party intrinsically racist. But would it be fair to claim that they have an above average representation of racist members? I’d say so.
This may be late to the discussion, but … does anyone remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uneOOclsaPs
The NAACP has a demonstrated tendency to jump at shadows.
@Robert.
It would not be the first time an organization has demonized a group of people as a way to rally support for its cause and increase donations.
Kind of like what the Tea party and Fix noise are doing to Muslims and Hispanics.
I believe I’ve presented compelling evidence that the tea party movement is not fueled by racism and no one has challenged or refuted it.
A picture of one black person in a tea party rally is hardly compelling evidence, Also in the same page there is another picture that can be viewed as at least somewhat racist. Like I said before I don’t think racism was the main motivation of the tea party but it is an important element in it.
I was referring to picture #9.
<blockquote cite="me"For all intents and purposes, they are now operating as an offshoot party of the GOP.
Really? That’s not an opinion, it’s an analyses, one shared by many in the media. The fact that they endorsed fringe Republican candidates in the primaries against the core GOP base- that doesn’t count as operating as an offshoot of the GOP? Really? What does that count as then?
So let me get this straight, they’re not a separate political party, and yet they’re also not an offshoot of the Republican party trying push a more conservative agenda from within. Plus, they’re not the ignorant reactionary dunderheads that their own biggest cheerleaders (Beck and Palin) present them as, right? So what are they Robert? What are they? All you can tell is what they’re not, you haven’t once said what they are.
I know what they are though Robert. I know what you are. They’re scared. You’re scared that maybe a half-African guy with a funny name and a fancy law degree who studied around the world as a kid is the best man for the job. You’re scared that the party of progressive social values like equal rights for all genders and protection of the environment actually has the right idea about the economy. You’re not scared that the country is going down the tubes; you’re scared it’s on the upswing and that you chose the wrong side.
@Yoav
I had something else in mind, namely, how Christians demonize non-believers like us.
The picture was not my evidence, although the participation of persons of color seems to undermine the assertion that the movement is racist.
No, what I was really referring to was the study the UCLA graduate student did. Read the article.
@CoffeeJedi
And as we all know, the media are always right…. /facepalm
Really, read the article I linked to. It actually discusses the media’s reporting of the Tea Party movement.
I think Elemenope mostly captured it:
—————–
Let me guess. You know this about me – someone you’ve never met – because the media told you so?
Robert, regardless of what you meant, are you arguing that demonetization of Muslims and Hispanics is not a major theme in tea party rhetoric?
What’s the problem about being a political party? I thin that those two sentences are too much alike:
“Tea party is not a political party but a social movement”
and
“[insert here your particular sect of christianism] is not a religion but a relationship with god”
Do tea partiers have a problem if their organisation is labelled as a party? Then maybe they shouldn’t push their candidates into elections.
A newspaper article that says a tea party rally in 2010 had fewer racist signs than a tea party rally in 2009 is not exactly the same thing as “compelling evidence that the tea party is not fueled by racism”.
If the Tea Party was fueled by racism, then you should expect to see the majority of signs expressing racist sentiments. In any case, we’re still awaiting evidence for the positive claim that it is. The only thing that’s been presented is a NAACP-commissioned report which doesn’t actually make or support that claim. Please, read that report. It’s quite laughable.
So unless the tea party come with a press release declaring themselves racist no claim about racism in the tea party can be accepted since there are some non racist tea partiers.
GODWIN ALERT !!!!!
I’m sure that there were many Nazis who weren’t really racist, they were angry and concerned about the economy and about real and imaginary slights against Germany in the aftermath of WWI This anger together with a background racism that was part of European culture for centuries was then used by cynical politicians to gain power for themselves. however while racism may not have been the prime motive of every Nazi you can’t argue that racism was not part of the Nazi party.
/ GODWIN end
Like me and other have argued, while racism may not have been the prime motivation behind the creation of the tea party if there wasn’t a strong racist undercurrent in the american right then the hate mongers would have find it a lot harder to stir the xenophobia and racial fears you see in the tea party.
“If the Tea Party was fueled by racism, then you should expect to see the majority of signs expressing racist sentiments. In any case, we’re still awaiting evidence for the positive claim that it is.”
Robert – please tell us what evidence you would accept as sufficient to show that the tea party movement is racist. I’m genuinely interested.
Sure. It seems to me a racist movement would include the following:
1) Welcome, identify, and celebrate racists in its ranks, not seek to remove them.
2) Racist literature would be widely read.
3) Persons of hated races in the movement would be harassed and driven out.
4) Members of the movement would be identified as committing violence against other races.
5) The agenda of the movement would be focused on racial policies.
6) Demonstrations would be dominated by racist symbols, slogans, placards, and signs.
A racist movement would not have to contain all of the above to qualify.
Do you agree with the above? What to you is a “racist movement”?
You are describing overt racism. You’ve never heard of latent racism, have you?
Or institutional racism, for that matter?
Yeah, well they’re not separating the water fountains yet, so they’re obviously not racist!
So Rand Paul and Christine O’Donnell and Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman arent’ Tea Partiers???? Cuz last time I checked they were speaking at, speaking for, or speaking in favor of the Tea Party.
I would also like to add Gov. Rick “Goodhair” Perry to that list.
This reminds me of the way atheists are vilified, often portrayed as evil, moral less, criminals. Some atheists may be evil, some may lack morality, some may even be convicted criminals, but as a group I’m sure we all agree it’s not true of all atheists. Making claims that the bad qualities that are true of some apply to all is dishonest. I find it sad that a group of intelligent people who pride themselves on thinking critically would stoop to this level.
I find it sad that people are so stupid as to form something as ridiculous as the Tea Party to begin with. And since the Tea Party is chock full o’ religious morons (aka morans), it seems perfectly reasonable to me for a blog on skepticism and religion to address it.
So the blog should have addressed the tea party and it’s faults… in an honest factual way. This blog is better than this. It addresses religion in such a sophisticated way, showing factual or historical arguments for the odd sometimes stupid behavior it exhibits, why does that critical thinking go straight out the window once the topic is political?
So, what exactly about the video didn’t ring true for you? It sounded to me perfectly consonant with the claims and rhetoric of prominent Tea partiers. The video itself did get a bit less nuanced towards the end when it became about what one assumes was the original political reason the video was created (to urge people to vote against tea-party backed candidates), but certainly the main point hit pretty flush on.
Sorry, John, but I cannot buy into this equivalency. In this case, the topic is regarding a group whose leaders actively discourage resort to factual analysis, push hard-line anti-intellectualism, encourage hate and disdain of their political and ideological opponents, and have decided that ideological purity is more important than policy analysis or building a coalition of philosophically-diverse allies. I really can’t take a group seriously when they read people like David Frum, Conor Friedersdorf, Andrew Sullivan, or Meghan McCain out of the movement for pointing out common sense criticisms or being insufficiently “pure”, nor when they adhere to personality cults, and reify counterfactuals as not just a virtue-in-itself but a shibboleth for belonging to the movement.
From this conservative, the incredulous derision is well-deserved.
The report says the Tea Party has racist elements. It provides no evidence it’s driven or fueled my racism, as some here were alleging.
If this is what you’re claiming, please feel free to substantiate it.
Actually, it does say that, though not explicitly. The introduction makes it abundantly clear that all major Tea Party organizations knowingly harbor racists, provide a platform for racists, have outspoken racists in their leadership, and support policies the NAACP considers racist. Furthermore, the only organization that has made any real attempt to fix this is FreedomWorks, and even then with no success. That’s pretty unequivocal.
On the last point, the one about racist policies, I find this paragraph especially telling. Note that it is possible for the Tea Partiers themselves not to be racists but still to promote racist policies:
Is that really a party you want to support?
The presence of such elements does not entail it’s what fuels the movement as a whole. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Any mass movement, particularly one born spontaneously, will have its share of kooks and creeps, as well as fringe groups who seek to co-opt it for their own. The anti-war protests during the Bush years, for example, were largely organized by the ANSWER Coalition, a pretty hard-core leftist organization primarily led by members of the Workers’ World Party. Would it then be accurate to characterize the anti-war movement at that time as “socialist”?
I suppose it depends on what you regard as racist policies. The report, like the NAACP which commissioned it, seems to take a rather expansive definition.
What I said: “The site provides evidence that some Tea Party individuals are racists, but fails to substantiate any claim that the movement as a whole is animated by racism.”
What’s more, the link I provided demonstrated this.
You disagree? Please post something substantial. A poll of self-identified Tea Party members who agree that their race is superior to other races would be good evidence. Otherwise…
“That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
If tea party individuals are not racist…
Where were they when George Bush was in office?
It is rather suspicious that the same people who supported the Patriot Act and the Iraq War started yelling about losing freedoms and wasteful spending as soon as the black guy got elected.
Exactly. This is all the evidence you need.
Simple: the Patriot Act and Iraq War are not on the tea party movement’s agenda. Also, the explosive growth in government spending, TARP, and so-called massive stimulus, not to mention the unprecedented power grab over individual liberty inherent in the health-care overhaul bill, are all relatively recent, occuring during the last 3 years.
Where are all the people who opposed the Patriot Act and Iraq War during the Bush years? Does the fact that they’re silent now since “the black guy got elected” mean they’re racist too (against whites)?
: [T]he Patriot Act and Iraq War are not on the tea party movement’s agenda. Also, the explosive growth in government spending, TARP, and so-called massive stimulus, not to mention the unprecedented power grab over individual liberty inherent in the health-care overhaul bill, are all relatively recent, occuring during the last 3 years.
Er, that’s an outright contradictory statement in several respects. Number one, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars represent the single largest sustained growth in government spending. Number two, Medicare Part D (which happened under W. Bush) represents the largest increase in discretionary spending *ever*. And the Tea Party anger occurred before Health Care Reform was really live on the table. TARP started under W. Bush as well, though I’ll give you the stimulus and GM bailout.
At the very least, it makes the Tea Partiers out to be…very selective in what spending they choose to care about, which gives lie to their rhetoric.
Ugh. The Tea Party has no defense. Period. End of story.
Robert, quit wasting everybody’s time.
Ugh. The Tea Party has no defense. Period. End of story.
Not for nothing LRA, but Robert has at least one point going for him. Regardless of the Tea Party’s many political sins, at the very least one could say that the balance of the reaction here has been less than rational.
Tea Partiers are an inchoate group with many different political grievances, of wildly differing sophistication, rationality, and empirical foundation. Undergirding that and motivating it into something like a coherent group is this unfortunate undercurrent of xenophobia, but I think that to focus on that is to improperly dismiss the underlying claims as baseless, and is also to fail to recognize that much if not most of the anger and frustration does *not* proceed from the selfsame xenophobia, but has real, addressable roots in government policies that are not immune to criticism nor should be rendered so.
Everyone has been resorting to personal bias to sort through this thing (one of the reasons I am taking people to task for uncritically accepting a report from an advocacy group, the *very same* complaint that is often leveled at Tea Partiers for uncritically accepting their sources), and really nobody is coming out sounding at all reasonable in doing so. Taking a step back and looking at the claims individually, and not the unfortunate sociopolitical framework they are bound up in, may be more fruitful.
Here’s the problem with this argument. Any group has diverse members who may not agree with all the underlying beliefs or premises on which the group is founded, But we have to generalize in some way about what the groups characteristics are. In this case, I think the evidence shows a fundamentally racists/xenophobic bent within the tea party. Whether it’s through the report of an “advocacy group” or my own observation.
As to the critical roots is “government policy,” you would have a fair point but for the fact that those criticisms are easily addressed by other groups that don’t include the racism/xenophobia angle. For instance, while I disagree strongly with most libertarians I know, I respect their opinions as one of many viable ones in the political spectrum. Libertarians have been screaming about smaller government, reduced spending etc… for decades – a policy position that is allegedlt at the heart of tea partyism – bu they haven’t been coupling that message with racist rhetoric as well.
If small govermnet is your concern, there is a perfectly viable group available through which to voice your concerns without also tossing in commentary about a “muslim problem”, “dirty mexicans crossing the borders.” “the president is an undocumented worker” etc…
I agree with Bill. I keep hearing the same thing, that we’re unfairly categorizing everyone in the Tea Party to be the same incoherent, ignorant “sky-is-falling” xenophobic dumbass. I don’t feel that I’m unfairly labeling anyone. If you get a moderately-voiced, knowledgeable person who agrees mostly with this Tea Party, and knows how to speak articulately upon these issues they care about, let them. Where are they? Why are they blaming everyone else for their poor image and not confronting the problems of their self-appointed image-makers?
It’s not really upon me to listen to what a raving lunatic is going on about and wonder if they have a point deep down, to search for someone who has thorough answers to those questions. They are creators of their own problem image, and the ones who can speak well for the issues of concern should take over. How am I to blame for calling them what they appear to be? How is the maker of this video to blame for portraying them as they are?
Isn’t this similar to the concern of moderate, liberal Christians, to accuse atheists of painting them all with the broad brush rather than put the blame where it should be, on the fundamentalists?
How is it our fault anyone is so stupid? Take your image problems to your own stupid people and out-speak them, run them into the fringe, into the background, so that we can get some clarity on the issues you care about. How did it get to be the dumbest got to such prominence? It doesn’t speak well of the party if the simpletons got to public office, or even got your party’s nominations at all. Liberals/Dems didn’t vote for them. What should we think? Where is the intelligence and why do they put up with it, why do they cheer it on?
Everyone has been resorting to personal bias to sort through this thing (one of the reasons I am taking people to task for uncritically accepting a report from an advocacy group, the *very same* complaint that is often leveled at Tea Partiers for uncritically accepting their sources), and really nobody is coming out sounding at all reasonable in doing so.
Oh, give me a break, Elemenope. It would be one thing if people on here were saying that the Tea Party has racist overtones/is fueled by xenophobia and racism just because the majority of its members/advocates/what-have-you are white. It would be one thing if one person in the group said something racist and then everyone said, “Oh, the Tea Party is racist!!!” It’d even be another thing if people here based their views of the Tea Party based on anecdotal evidence (My mother’s cousin’s sister’s baby’s daddy told me that he might have possibly seen a vaguely racist sign at a Tea Party event), but that’s not the case. Hell, the NAACP report came after the racist elements of this “movement” had already been made public. Also, the report came from the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights–not the NAACP, although the NAACP assisted in the production of this report.
I normally find your arguments persuasive and well-formed, but simply saying that we on here are “uncritically accepting” this report is just plain balderdash. “Robert” made a specific claim:
I can find evidence that Tea Party members’ claim not to be racists is factual.
What is your evidence to the contrary?
This report is evidence to the contrary. If, as you seem to be intimating, that the evidence is suspect because the group that assisted in the production of said report is an advocacy group, then please, let us know where this report is wrong or misinformed or so riddled with bias as to not be taken seriously.
@ Bill
As to the critical roots is “government policy,” you would have a fair point but for the fact that those criticisms are easily addressed by other groups that don’t include the racism/xenophobia angle. For instance, while I disagree strongly with most libertarians I know, I respect their opinions as one of many viable ones in the political spectrum. Libertarians have been screaming about smaller government, reduced spending etc… for decades – a policy position that is allegedlt at the heart of tea partyism – bu they haven’t been coupling that message with racist rhetoric as well.
And yet they *aren’t* easily addressed by those groups in the simple sense that alone those groups have never had much luck actually changing policy. Being in a position to actually change policy means coalitions of disparate folks which necessarily means strange (and probably unsavory) bedfellows. As much as you may not like it, tea partiers have succeeded where those before them, like libertarians, have failed, in actually getting these items on the agenda and being positioned in a way so as to possibly do something about them. So, no, I reject the notion (as overly cynical) that they should have simply been happy in isolated irrelevance instead of banding together with disreputable sorts in common cause to actually achieve something, much as every other successful social movement before them has done.
@Skippy
Sorry, but you are just simply debasing standards of evidence to make your argument. The report is not evidence, it is simply contrary assertion by an equally interested party. The IREHR is self-admittedly just as much of an advocacy organization as the NAACP, with very similar expected biases to boot. Either you didn’t know that or didn’t care, which again makes your assertions of “evidence” uncritical in the same sense that I outlined earlier.
“As much as you may not like it, tea partiers have succeeded where those before them, like libertarians, have failed, in actually getting these items on the agenda and being positioned in a way so as to possibly do something about them.”
I don’t doubt this at all. But one of the ways they have done that is by appealing to racists. If you use racism as a means to an end, don’t be surprised if people rightly call you a racist.
But one of the ways they have done that is by appealing to racists. If you use racism as a means to an end, don’t be surprised if people rightly call you a racist.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I just think *on this thread* the “evidence” that this is the case, so far presented, has been flimsy in a rather embarrassing way for people who profess professional skepticism.
I think Yoav best nailed the actual consequence of being right about this in his Godwin comment.
Not to say that the tea partiers will lead to anything like nazism, but merely that arguing that the movement isn’t majority or overtly racist doesn’t get it anywhere near out of the racism woods. Buried racism, intentionally repressed racism, is still racism, and can in “perfect storm-like” circumstances (which we are nowhere near) be just as virulent.
“I agree with this wholeheartedly. I just think *on this thread* the “evidence” that this is the case, so far presented, has been flimsy in a rather embarrassing way for people who profess professional skepticism.”
Maybe we are talking past each other here. First, I think the proposition being debated is whether the tea party movement is racist. (Unless I’m misunderstanding you – you agree that it is in some way although there are likely individuals in it who are not.)
I think the evidence being presented to support that proposition consists of two things. 1. A report by a well respected watchdog group on the very topic of racism. (Evidence I think you discount as biased, although I’m not sure why.) 2. People’s observations of the leadership and rank and file members of the tea party. (Evidence you believe supports the proposition that there is at least an undercurrent of racism in the movement.)
What exactly is your criticism? Do you think people are overstating the prevalence of racism in the movement? Is it that the evidence – which you seem to think supports a finding of racism in the movement – is not sufficient?
I think the evidence being presented to support that proposition consists of two things.
Yep.
1. A report by a well respected watchdog group on the very topic of racism. (Evidence I think you discount as biased, although I’m not sure why.)
The notion of it being well-respected depends a great deal on one’s prior affiliations and opinions. In any case, I’m not attacking the study directly; I’m attacking the prevailing attitude exhibited on this thread that the study should be accepted uncritically as lacking bias before investigating the possibility of such. This concern is amplified by it being the product of an interested party.
2. People’s observations of the leadership and rank and file members of the tea party. (Evidence you believe supports the proposition that there is at least an undercurrent of racism in the movement.)
Well, and here’s where it gets sticky. I’d consider myself fairly media savvy and very well-exposed to the general media ecology (including upfront ideologically biased sources, like The Nation, The American Prospect, National Review, Reason Hit & Run, The Volokh conspiracy, et al.). From those experiences and various filters I have come to a *personal belief* that the tea party harbors a motivating kernel of racism that has allowed it to coalesce and become an effective political force. I am unwilling to assign that personal judgment more weight than any other such observation, though my confidence in its fidelity to reality is fairly high given that it is supported intersubjectively to a high degree and from many different ideological angles.
But I wouldn’t call that evidence either. The thing that actually comes closest to *evidence* in a real sense is the type of study that LRA posted above from the University of Washington, and even then there are serious methodological concerns.
What’s frustrating is that the Tea Party is only two years old, and so finding comprehensive, well done studies is difficult. My opinions have formed because I have observed the behavior and stances of individual tea party members (including the stances on their websites) and I find them to be ridiculous. There is NO way that they can be so concerned about illegal immigration issues without being racist against hispanics, for example.
It’s a bit like my attitudes in general toward “believers”. I have formed my opinions based on my experiences with them, my observations of their behaviors and their stances and I find them to be ridiculous.
I feel like there’s a “no true Scotsman” attitude going on with those people defending the tea partiers. It’s like we can’t judge the Tea Party by their worst offenders. Well, I’m here to say we can. In the same way we judge “believers” by their worst offenders.
I feel like there’s a “no true Scotsman” attitude going on with those people defending the tea partiers. It’s like we can’t judge the Tea Party by their worst offenders. Well, I’m here to say we can. In the same way we judge “believers” by their worst offenders.
And I’m here to say, well, that’s illegitimate. When making judgments about a group in general, one should make judgments based on the normal and standard deviations therefrom, with the normal representing the paradigmatic of the group under scrutiny. Judging any group by its best or its worst leads to simply non-functional analysis, unless there is *good* *independent* reason to believe that the deviant subgroups hold outsized influence over the normal in a way not measurable by the original analysis.
Then why do you come here at all when we clearly poke fun at the worst of the worst of xians on a regular basis? Not to mention that the worst of the worst of the Tea Party could actually get elected at some point? It frightens me to think that Sarah Palin ACTUALLY could get elected! Rand Paul WAS elected! These things are disturbing, and the views that this group espouses needs to be clearly examined– especially it’s worst views.
Then why do you come here at all when we clearly poke fun at the worst of the worst of xians on a regular basis?
I’ve expressed my displeasure on several occasions with *eliding the distinction* between the normal and the deviation being poked. It’s not that the worst can’t be criticized, it’s that it is inappropriate to call the worst equivalent to the normal, paradigmatic example when they clearly represent a sub-group several deviations from the norm.
And honestly that doesn’t happen too often, here. It happens a lot *more* in politics, or at least with more reckless abandon.
Not to mention that the worst of the worst of the Tea Party could actually get elected at some point? It frightens me to think that Sarah Palin ACTUALLY could get elected! Rand Paul WAS elected! These things are disturbing, and the views that this group espouses needs to be clearly examined– especially it’s worst views.
Rand Paul and Sarah Palin are a world-and-a-half apart ideologically and practically, and this here is why I feel confident that some dirty eliding is going on in your arguments. And given most polls of the electorate re:Palin, something *massive* would have to change for her to come close to being a viable candidate. The GOP hierarchy is terrified that she may hoodwink the primary constituency into giving her the nomination because that would *utterly kill* the GOP’s presidential ambitions in 2012 (and have a consequently devastating effect on down-ticket races).
This more than anything is why I am completely perplexed by the liberal reaction to the Tea Party. They are *the best possible thing* that could have happened to the GOP from the liberal perspective, because they are busy hamstringing the Republicans at a time where they could have been stronger. Nominating a Tea Partier in Nevada and Delaware handed what should have been lost-for-sure senate seats to the democrats on a silver platter, as well as the governorship of California. The 2010 election by all rights should have been *much worse* for the dems, but they were the beneficiary of what is essentially their adversary being in a state of civil war. And that’s only going to get worse as the tea-party candidates actually try to implement their ideas in Congress.
I chose Sarah Palin as an example because she has been affiliated with the Tea Party (getting paid to speak to them, ie, and speaking for them/in favor of them on Fox news) and her social conservatism (because of her religious bent) is utterly appalling. It is the opposite of freedom to tell people how to live their private lives.
I chose Rand Paul because he too has been affiliated with the Tea Party and while he seems a bit more socially liberal than Palin, he still has some shocking views (such as abortion illegal even in the cases of rape an incest). Further, his other “libertarian” views, (such as returning education to local control, thereby eliminating the Dept. of Education) are also shocking.
Why, as a liberal, would I be upset by these people running? Because they are getting significant portions of the vote– it’s not like they are a 3rd party only getting 5% of the vote. It is possible that support for these people could grow. And despite what you think, I think the American people might just be dumb enough to elect Sarah Palin.
The whole political mess makes me want to get the heck outta dodge. If these fools ever do get real power, I’m going to have to move to Europe or Australia. I don’t want to live in a theocracy or in relative anarchy. As a “minority” I want my rights protected, and I just don’t think that’s going to happen in a nation where Tea Partiers are taken seriously and elected.
Really??? How on earth did my comment trip the filter this time? I didn’t even use the word “socializt”!
Really??? How on earth did my comment trip the filter this time? I didn’t even use the word “socializt”!
I dunno. The filter has several words in it, so I’m sure other innocuous words trip it, Just the other day one of my comments tripped it and I couldn’t figure out why.
Anyway, should be fixed now. :)
@LRA
Congratulations on actually trying to dig up some relevant evidence! Unfortunately, the study doesn’t support what’s disputed here, namely, that the Tea Party movement is “racist”, as the NAACP and others here charge. Do some people within it harbor racist attitudes. No doubt; that’s not disputed. But that’s a far cry from saying racism is what fuels the movement. If you disagree, feel free to cite specifically where you believe it makes or supports that claim.
By the way, these numbers actually refer white Tea Party supporters. In any case, what does it show? Only that white Tea Party supporters are more likely than white Tea Party opponents to harbor racist attitudes. Wooop-dee-doo. When you look more closely at the data, a complex picture emerges, something that the study’s author acknowledged:
“Although more white Tea Party skeptics considered black people trustworthy than did white Tea Party supporters (57 percent to 41 percent, respectively), those white Tea Party skeptics also found whites more trustworthy than blacks (72 percent of them saw whites as trustworthy). The white Tea Partiers were only a little more likely to think blacks are less intelligent than whites than white Tea Party skeptics.”
Besides failing to prove what you want it to prove, the study is questionable in its view of “racial resentment”. For example, is it really a mark of racial resentment to agree with the statement that “Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors”?
Having utterly failed to substantiate your claims, you resort to telling me to basically shut up.
It seems to me you’re on par with those whom you denigrate.
Where’s your long-form birth certificate?
Whatever. You want to defend a bunch of ignorant old white people who want to vote against their own self interests because they really are that stupid, then go ahead.
The fact is that these people have spit on a member of Congress because he is BLACK. They are screaming for the birth certificate of our President because he is BLACK –they don’t believe that he was born in Hawaii (while John McCain being born in Panama is just fine) and they think he’s a Muslim despite that fact that Obama was skewered for his connection to a controversial BLACK CHRISTIAN preacher during his election campaign. Further, they think that them MESSICANS are ruining the US despite the fact that illegal workers are a significant portion of our functioning economy. They scream about MESSICAN women running over the border to squat and pop out a baby that is a US citizen (GOD FORBID!!) and how them MESSICANS took our jobs. (Hey! They took our jobs!!!) Then they go on and on about the Hallowed Ground (TM) at a f*cking Burlington Coat Factory that Muslims want to make into a cultural center. You know why? Because this nation is a CHRISTIAN nation and it is our GOD given right to be racists, stupid, a$$h*les who scream and scream that we’re living in Nazi Germany which is apparently a socialist Marxist dystopia.
You have no credibility. You are defending the indefensible. Period. End of story.
DAMN! I used the word “socializt’ and now my comment is stuck in the moderator.
Arrg!
No LRA, I’m defending evidence-based belief. You may not like what some Tea Party people say, but to paint them all in derogatory terms makes you no better than the religious who do the very same thing to non-believers.
You can’t defend your claims with any evidence, and when I point out that fact, you cry, whine, and tell me to shut up.
I already provided evidence…
Further, the behavior of these people is also clear evidence.
I find you reprehensible for defending these ugly Americans.
Your “evidence” doesn’t support your claim, as I pointed out on multiple occassions.
When people with faith-based opinions criticize me, I actually take it as a compliment.
Here’s more evidence:
University of Washington finds that Tea Partiers are more likely to be racist:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html
Specifically,
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/Stereotypes%20about%20Asians%20and%20whites%20by%20White%20tea%20Party%20Approval.pdf
Here is a Newsweek discussion of that study:
“”People who approve of the Tea Party, more than those who don’t approve, have more racist attitudes,” says Christopher Parker, a University of Washington professor who directed the survey. “And not only that, but more homophobic and xenophobic attitudes.” For instance, respondents were asked whether they agreed with various characterizations of different racial groups. Only 35 percent of those who strongly approve of the tea party agreed that blacks are hardworking, compared with 55 percent of those who strongly disapprove of the tea party. On whether blacks were intelligent, 45 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 59 percent of the tea-party opponents. And on the issue of whether blacks were trustworthy, 41 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of the tea-party opponents.”
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/04/09/new-poll-finds-tea-partiers-have-more-racist-attitudes.html
LRA, you are ready for major handwaving-away of the linked articles, yes? ;-)
LRA, you are ready for major handwaving-away of the linked articles, yes? ;-)
Hah. Rather than hand-waving, may I simply attack the elements they used in their regression analysis to strain out ideological cohorts as *piss poor*. In particular, using National Review as a paradigmatic conservative media piece is a poor choice because of their well-known ideological idiosyncrasies (especially on issues of immigration and drug policy) that in particular might skew the comparison to the normal. A much better approach would have been to take a basket of conservative media outlets, perhaps including the Weekly Standard and the American Conservative, which would have helped to control for editorial idiosyncrasy.
Also, unfortunately, they chose Rasmussen Reports as a major source of polling data. Unfortunately for them, particularly, because Rasmussen has long been considered an embarrassing joke in the industry, and so it is pretty embarrassing in turn that a study would use them to provide a data set.
Those are just the methodological flaws that popped out at me in the first five minutes.
Let’s see what the Tea Partier believe– from their website:
http://www.teaparty.org/about.php
*Non-negotiable core beliefs*
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. <– MESSICANS are taking our JOBS!
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.<– More "they took our JOBS!"
Stronger Military Is Essential.<– to get them Moslem terrorists!
Special Interests Eliminated.<– Unless it's OUR special interests!
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.<–Unless you are Ronald Reagan or GW Bush
Deficit Spending Will End.<– Unless you are Ronald Reagan or GW Bush.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.<– Unless you are GW Bush
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.<– especially for the rich
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.<– cuz those folks are rich!
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.<– cuz we want our beer buddies running the most powerful nation on the planet!
Intrusive Government Stopped.<– unless you are gay, pro-choice, or non-Christian
English As Core Language Is Required.<– CUZ WE'RE NOT RACIST!!!!
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.<– Cuz them gayz are sinners!
Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance <– Cuz them liberalz ain't deservin' no voice in government. We want a government of the peopl, for the people, and by the people… OUR PEOPLE. Cuz Obama wasn't really elected! He's a dictator!!!
http://www.teaparty.org/article.php?id=292
HURR DURR DURR!!!!!!!!!!
LRA,
Moving past the part where none of that in any way addresses my methodological concerns, you are forcing me with your cartoonish portrayal of tea party positions to do something fairly horrible: I’m going to provide a defense of (many, though not all) of those bullet points. For the sake of making this an argument about ideas and not caricatures.
***FOR THE RECORD, these will not represent in any way my personal opinions about these issues.
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. <– MESSICANS are taking our JOBS!
Well, actually it is a tautological truth that illegal aliens are here illegally, and this breach of law is something that liberal analyses of the issue like to gloss right over. Rule of law is incredibly important, and countenancing flagrant and widespread violations of one law encourages scofflaw against the whole edifice of law.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.<– More "they took our JOBS!"
Actually, internally diverse and mobile labor markets are crucial to the effective functioning of a modern economy, something that is affected often to the detriment of lower wage people by cheap labor competition oversees and domestically.
Stronger Military Is Essential.<– to get them Moslem terrorists!
Actually, capturing terrorists and frustrating their plans (regardless of their ethnicity or religious affiliation) is primarily a law enforcement function. The function of an increased military presence is entirely different; to project force worldwide (in order to stabilize regions of internal conflict so they do not turn into regional conflagrations), to defend national interests, and also to act as a counterweight to rising regional military powers (like China and India).
Special Interests Eliminated.<– Unless it's OUR special interests!
This one depends entirely on how cynical you’re willing to be about their actual motivations. If you hold a low opinion of their goals (and think that they are a mask for something else), then this criticism has some pull. Unfortunately, we have no idea whether this is the case or not, since they haven’t had a chance to actually do anything yet.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Gun ownership is a protected constitutional right, and more generally the right to self-defense does draw close to a natural right.
Government Must Be Downsized.
This one is vague enough to mean pretty much anything, though it is fairly uncontroversial that the government is bloated in certain areas and introduces unnecessary inefficiencies into some of its functions.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.<–Unless you are Ronald Reagan or GW Bush
Any (and I mean *any*) economist will tell you that trying to balance a budget during war time is foolish. Beyond that, the Tea Party is critical of those elements of those two presidents’ records, so I’m not sure what your point is.
Deficit Spending Will End.<– Unless you are Ronald Reagan or GW Bush.
Ditto above.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.<– Unless you are GW Bush
Congress controls all expenditures. Which party controlled congress when those bailouts and stimulus programs occurred?
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.<– especially for the rich
They are pretty consistent about across the board cuts. The cuts to the rich are more noticeable from a policy standpoint because they cause a greater loss of government revenue, proportionally.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.<– cuz those folks are rich!
Or, and this is crazy I know, but deadweight overhead (including taxes) prevents businesses from hiring people and producing products to their greatest capacity, keeping employment down (to the detriment of those seeking work) and drives up prices (to the detriment of everyone). No, wait, not crazy, but elementary microeconomics.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.<– cuz we want our beer buddies running the most powerful nation on the planet!
There are several levels of government where the expertise that you are alluding to is unnecessary and can in fact be a detriment to rational decision-making.
Intrusive Government Stopped.<– unless you are gay, pro-choice, or non-Christian
There are many ways that the government is intrusive, only some of which teh tea party cares about; however it stands to reason that a general reduction in the capacity of government to interfere would have lateral salutary effects even in areas where they are hostile.
English As Core Language Is Required.<– CUZ WE'RE NOT RACIST!!!!
Or having a shared language of commerce and government is important for efficiency and social comity.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.<– Cuz them gayz are sinners!
This too encompasses much more than your imputed monomania about homosexuality. Families as subsidiary units tend to create better objective outcomes than the lack of such families, regardless of the sexual orientations of its participants. There is also something to be said about temperamental conservatism; changing a society too quickly can have unintended consequences.
Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance <– Cuz them liberalz ain't deservin' no voice in government. We want a government of the peopl, for the people, and by the people… OUR PEOPLE. Cuz Obama wasn't really elected! He's a dictator!!!
Or just rhetorical flourish implying that government up till now hasn’t possessed much in the way of sense nor respect for the autonomy of individuals.
———————————
Honestly, it is very difficult to talk about ideas when you are busy (rather thoughtlessly) demonizing positions that have more dimension that you deign to give credit. I, personally, disagree with elements of all of the above positions, but I would say it is *always* foolish to dismiss outright any position without taking a charitable look and rationally analyzing.
Good grief! Really???
Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally. <– MESSICANS are taking our JOBS!
Well, actually it is a tautological truth that illegal aliens are here illegally, and this breach of law is something that liberal analyses of the issue like to gloss right over. Rule of law is incredibly important, and countenancing flagrant and widespread violations of one law encourages scofflaw against the whole edifice of law.
So change the law. But this isn’t about the law, this is about the fact that these white people are afraid of brown people. Never mind that brown people (namely Mexicans) pay TAXES in border states without REPRESENTATION. In Texas, we have no state income tax. Instead, we have all kinds of other taxes that everyone pays regardless of immigration status. Further, the Texas economy actually relies, to some extent, on illegal workers. For these reasons, I think that the situation with immigrants needs to be looked over again rather than the silly position the Tea Party takes. Besides, who is going to enforce the law about these immigrants? Government is supposed to be small, right?
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.<– More "they took our JOBS!"
Actually, internally diverse and mobile labor markets are crucial to the effective functioning of a modern economy, something that is affected often to the detriment of lower wage people by cheap labor competition oversees and domestically.
This is such a complicated problem. The fact is that we are globalizing, right? Doesn’t the modern economy encompass the whole globe? Is it possible, then, to expect America NOT to compete when we trade goods and services with other countries? I agree that jobs going over seas hurts lower skill/ unskilled labor in the US. Is more education for our people (to produce more skilled workers) not an option? I guess not for the Tea Party… they think the Department of Education is part of a bloated government.
Stronger Military Is Essential.<– to get them Moslem terrorists!
Actually, capturing terrorists and frustrating their plans (regardless of their ethnicity or religious affiliation) is primarily a law enforcement function. The function of an increased military presence is entirely different; to project force worldwide (in order to stabilize regions of internal conflict so they do not turn into regional conflagrations), to defend national interests, and also to act as a counterweight to rising regional military powers (like China and India).
Ummm. And how much does that cost? Seriously? How can you have smaller government, lower taxes, and less government spending while growing the military? That doesn’t make any logical sense. Yes, I think defending our country is important. Defending oil interests in the Middle East, however, is clearly wrong. Especially when we could have had alternative energies in place a long time ago if they had had a fighting chance to compete in our so-called “free market” which is run by big oil! The problem isn’t military, it’s energy.
Special Interests Eliminated.<– Unless it's OUR special interests!
This one depends entirely on how cynical you’re willing to be about their actual motivations. If you hold a low opinion of their goals (and think that they are a mask for something else), then this criticism has some pull. Unfortunately, we have no idea whether this is the case or not, since they haven’t had a chance to actually do anything yet.
Yeah, I’m cynical.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Gun ownership is a protected constitutional right, and more generally the right to self-defense does draw close to a natural right.
Never said it wasn’t. I suppose if we’re going to live in a country with less government (and by extension government entities like the police), we’re going to need guns to defend ourselves.
Government Must Be Downsized.
This one is vague enough to mean pretty much anything, though it is fairly uncontroversial that the government is bloated in certain areas and introduces unnecessary inefficiencies into some of its functions.
Sure.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.<–Unless you are Ronald Reagan or GW Bush
Any (and I mean *any*) economist will tell you that trying to balance a budget during war time is foolish. Beyond that, the Tea Party is critical of those elements of those two presidents’ records, so I’m not sure what your point is.
Right. So the Tea Party wants MORE military AND a balanced budget? And you don’t think these people are buffoons?
Deficit Spending Will End.<– Unless you are Ronald Reagan or GW Bush.
Ditto above.
Ditto my above, as well.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.<– Unless you are GW Bush
Congress controls all expenditures. Which party controlled congress when those bailouts and stimulus programs occurred?
And the Tea Party was busy protesting… wait.. where was the Tea Party then??? Hmmm…. the Tea Party formed from anti-Obama groups after the election of Obama…. suspicious.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.<– especially for the rich
They are pretty consistent about across the board cuts. The cuts to the rich are more noticeable from a policy standpoint because they cause a greater loss of government revenue, proportionally.
And how will they pay for their military expansion????
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.<– cuz those folks are rich!
Or, and this is crazy I know, but deadweight overhead (including taxes) prevents businesses from hiring people and producing products to their greatest capacity, keeping employment down (to the detriment of those seeking work) and drives up prices (to the detriment of everyone). No, wait, not crazy, but elementary microeconomics.
And the macroeconomics of this? Are you suggesting that businesses (especially corporations) shouldn’t be taxed?
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.<– cuz we want our beer buddies running the most powerful nation on the planet!
There are several levels of government where the expertise that you are alluding to is unnecessary and can in fact be a detriment to rational decision-making.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t trust the masses completely. Why should we? I think you need to have some kind of knowledge about the law, political science, economics, etc. if you’re going to make policy. That’s not to say that you must have a college education or be from an elite background, but you should have *some* kind of savvy if you’re going to be in power. I really don’t want the local manager of McDonalds as my Senator. (LOL!- That was an inside joke.)
Intrusive Government Stopped.<– unless you are gay, pro-choice, or non-Christian
There are many ways that the government is intrusive, only some of which teh tea party cares about; however it stands to reason that a general reduction in the capacity of government to interfere would have lateral salutary effects even in areas where they are hostile.
And yet the Tea Partiers hold the contradictory position that people should have “Traditional” family values.
English As Core Language Is Required.<– CUZ WE'RE NOT RACIST!!!!
Or having a shared language of commerce and government is important for efficiency and social comity.
Is there any reason that this language can’t be Spanish? Especially when Latinos will soon be the majority in this country? Why does it have to be English, specifically?
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.<– Cuz them gayz are sinners!
This too encompasses much more than your imputed monomania about homosexuality. Families as subsidiary units tend to create better objective outcomes than the lack of such families, regardless of the sexual orientations of its participants. There is also something to be said about temperamental conservatism; changing a society too quickly can have unintended consequences.
How is there freedom in dictating what kind of homelife people need to have? That is just silly.
Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance <– Cuz them liberalz ain't deservin' no voice in government. We want a government of the peopl, for the people, and by the people… OUR PEOPLE. Cuz Obama wasn't really elected! He's a dictator!!!
Or just rhetorical flourish implying that government up till now hasn’t possessed much in the way of sense nor respect for the autonomy of individuals.
And Tea Partiers have? They clearly don’t respect the individual rights of non-English speaking, non-Traditional Values believing people.
@LRA & Elemenope – I was thinking how nice it would be if the bears in the video made this much sense and could speak on these issues as articulately. It is like, Tea Party bear portrays the typical low-hanging fruit, and the liberal bear really doesn’t have to say too much in order for a viewer to have more confidence in him. It’s hard to tell if he’s right or wrong when you think of it like that.
I just think of all the times someone like we’ve had here takes offense at the portrayal of Tea Party conservatives, but does nothing to make up for the fact that besides being dumb, those loud voices tend to obscure any reasonable point of view that anyone on that side might have upon any given issue, what makes those issues more important to think about and address than just disagree with. It’s so easy to disagree with a dumbass than it is to agree with their issues at their base, to identify as one of those smart people I keep hearing about. People like that need to speak up more, clarify these issues more, and I don’t think any of those commenters who complained about the bears video have a right to complain and then not put forth on correcting the image – it’s their party, it’s their responsibility to sell it. If they want to take umbrage and step away instead, and name-call, that’s not proving that they’re not all like that, you see?
It also makes it easy for a liberal like me not to think too hard – how smart do you have to be to be smarter than a Tea Partisan? You just roll your eyes like the elitist I am and vote against them. If only they could say smarter things, it would force us not to come off so smug and actually address the issues, like you two did. Anyway, I’m so glad to see this come about all thorough-like.
Good grief! Really???
Really. I think that you (and many others on this thread) have been uncharacteristically unreasonable on this general subject, and I’ll admit it has started to irritate me. (No worries, though. I still think you’re fabulous. :)
———————–
So change the law. But this isn’t about the law, this is about the fact that these white people are afraid of brown people.
There is on some level an element of that, but even still that isn’t as based in racism, per se, as you seem to think it is. Let’s say that certain regions, due to natural immigration patterns, become de facto bilingual or even monolingual non-English speaking. Learning a language places a heavy burden (especially on adults who have less general facility with new languages) on those who do not have a skill in the imported language but nonetheless live/work in that area. This cost extends to pressures on businesses (financial and practical) to provide services in more than one language. In such a case, it is perfectly rational to be concerned about the effect of immigration with regards to language and lateral cultural effects.
For these reasons, I think that the situation with immigrants needs to be looked over again rather than the silly position the Tea Party takes.
Personally I agree (that it needs to be looked at again, not that the tea Party position is “silly”). It’s merely a rational and perfectly explicable position that we both disagree with.
This is such a complicated problem. The fact is that we are globalizing, right? Doesn’t the modern economy encompass the whole globe? Is it possible, then, to expect America NOT to compete when we trade goods and services with other countries? I agree that jobs going over seas hurts lower skill/ unskilled labor in the US. Is more education for our people (to produce more skilled workers) not an option? I guess not for the Tea Party… they think the Department of Education is part of a bloated government.
No amount of job retraining is going to help the average fifty-year-old transition from factory work to software design. The rhetoric on both sides of this is silly, but at least one side is aiming for achievable ridiculousness rather than pipe-dream absurdity.
Right. So the Tea Party wants MORE military AND a balanced budget? And you don’t think these people are buffoons?
Actually their position is that they want a *stronger* military, not a bigger one, and it is one point on which they have been consistent in the distinction. Rand Paul, for example, ran on cutting unnecessary programs out of the defense budget so that proven programs can be funded appropriately.
And the Tea Party was busy protesting… wait.. where was the Tea Party then??? Hmmm…. the Tea Party formed from anti-Obama groups after the election of Obama…. suspicious.
Not as suspicious as you think. Actually, it can be read merely as a coincidence of timing, since it was in late 2008 that the TARP was passed (to universal derision), which most Tea Partiers point to being the straw that broke the camel’s back, etc.. The market had *just* collapsed, and the response was passed hastily (if you will recall, both presidential candidates scrambled in the last three weeks of campaigning to respond to the situation). People in general don’t protest when times are good, they protest when times are bad. Obama had the singular misfortune of taking office pretty exactly at the moment things started turning bad.
And the macroeconomics of this? Are you suggesting that businesses (especially corporations) shouldn’t be taxed?
No, I’m suggesting that they shouldn’t be taxed *because they are doing well*, which seems to be your implication. The marginal value of any given dollar in the market is much greater than the marginal value of any given dollar extracted for government use. I think we can both agree that some government spending is necessary, but beyond whatever that level may be, every dollar extracted reduces the velocity of money (the amount of literal utility each dollar has by participating in a value-added transaction) directly. The US currently has the third *highest* corporate tax rate in the world; only Germany and Japan are higher.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t trust the masses completely. Why should we? I think you need to have some kind of knowledge about the law, political science, economics, etc. if you’re going to make policy. That’s not to say that you must have a college education or be from an elite background, but you should have *some* kind of savvy if you’re going to be in power.
Our Founding Fathers did believe in a concept of subsidiarity, of devolving responsibility down to the smallest competent unit. They weer also well aware that often times this meant trusting in the idiosyncratic conditions of different localities, and the relevant expertise includes understanding those idiosyncrasies. They distrusted the masses in the aggregate, to be sure.
Then again, they also distrusted women and thought black people were subhuman, so I wouldn’t recommend putting too much stock in their opinions of people, generally speaking.
And yet the Tea Partiers hold the contradictory position that people should have “Traditional” family values.
Actually, generally speaking while Tea Partiers as a group tend to be socially conservative, they also de-emphasize those issues much more than their vanilla conservative counterparts. I agree that the position itself is hard to square with other portions of the ideology.
Is there any reason that this language can’t be Spanish? Especially when Latinos will soon be the majority in this country? Why does it have to be English, specifically?
It’s my turn to indulge in a LOLWUT? The sheer practical problems in trying to move away from English *towards another language* as an official national language are mind-boggling, and “soon” in your conception apparently includes around 2080 or so if current trends continue (which they are not likely to; it is actually unlikely over the long-term that latinos will ever be a majority in the US).
How is there freedom in dictating what kind of homelife people need to have? That is just silly.
[...]
And Tea Partiers have? They clearly don’t respect the individual rights of non-English speaking, non-Traditional Values believing people.
There is a wide gulf between believing a thing is right or wrong and actively seeking to force its acceptance/ban. As I noted earlier, the Tea Party-strand of conservatism has actually deemphasized these issues tremendously from the conservative average.
@ Kodie
I just think of all the times someone like we’ve had here takes offense at the portrayal of Tea Party conservatives, but does nothing to make up for the fact that besides being dumb, those loud voices tend to obscure any reasonable point of view that anyone on that side might have upon any given issue, what makes those issues more important to think about and address than just disagree with. It’s so easy to disagree with a dumbass than it is to agree with their issues at their base, to identify as one of those smart people I keep hearing about. People like that need to speak up more, clarify these issues more, and I don’t think any of those commenters who complained about the bears video have a right to complain and then not put forth on correcting the image – it’s their party, it’s their responsibility to sell it. If they want to take umbrage and step away instead, and name-call, that’s not proving that they’re not all like that, you see?
Buffoonery drowns out the discourse in every part of the ideological spectrum. Take this clip, for example. I couldn’t watch more than about :45 seconds before I wanted to personally throttle everyone speaking, not because of their positions but because they think that the only way to express their positions is to shout over the other and repeat obnoxious soundbytes. And it has little to do with intelligence, either (both Greenwald and his rude interlocutor are obviously educated and smart); it has to do with the fact that the expectation is *this*. The expected behavior is the carnival show and the shouting and the none-too-witty repartee. Not analysis, not respectful discussion, not an exchange of ideas. A verbal food fight. The clip above comes from the left of the spectrum (and it is not alone there), but I don’t think I have to mention just how many come from the right.
I feel more than a little dirty defending Tea Party positions that I do not agree with and in many cases find actively distasteful, but my point in engaging with it on this thread is that it is far too easy to assume that the positions themselves are borne from unsavory motives and supported by idiocy. Quite the contrary, it is not hard even for a person who disagrees with them to come up with cogent defenses of them. The instinct to assume the intellectual superiority of one’s own side is a destructive one.
Nope– you know how I feel about ya! :D
Perhaps I’ll come back to these points and talk more about them as you have raised some interesting ideas here and they deserve to be addressed. I’m just getting tired because there are so many points and these issues are complicated.
You are correct in so far as it is easy to think of one’s position as intellectually superior– why would I believe something intellectually inferior?
The fact is that I think that I think that fiscal conservatism versus liberalism can be intellectually argued. I think that federalism versus states rights can be intellectually argued. I think that more and less free market can be intellectually argued. I think that personal freedoms versus harms to society can be argued.
But I don’t think that extremes of these positions can be rightly argued and I see the Tea Party as going to conservative extremes that make me very uncomfortable. People who go to extremes tend to be less intellectual as reflected in their black and white thinking– they want simple answers to complex problems, and that’s a problem. However irritating you find my positions, I don’t think that they are nearly as extreme as the Tea Party. If you think I’m irrational, perhaps you are just sensing my fear of these people.
If you consider yourself a skeptic, shouldn’t you be interested in what the opponents have to say in the discussion rather than poison the well against the side you disagree with?
LMNOP,
If it were granted that the tea party is not racist, would you disagree with the premise that the organizers of the tea party have intentionally exploited racism to further their goals?
Do you consider the tea party to be a separate entity from the republican party?
I can totally dig your central premise that ideas should be debated on their own merits rather than on an oversimplified version. I don’t like debating strawmen. The problem is that the tea party serves as it’s own strawman.
There is absolutely nothing racist about libertarian ideals. As I’ve said on a couple other threads, if I thought the tea party was about a smaller government I would be right there with Glenn Beck. I agree with a lot of the things the tea partiers claim to believe. I even agree with that thing Reagan said about government. So I can get why you’re annoyed with the implication that this model is somehow racist.
But it has to annoy you even more that these ideas are being annexed and perverted by a movement whose obvious (and badly disguised) goal is to serve the electoral interests of the republican party. A party that has already tipped it’s hand with respect to fiscal responsibility and respect for individual freedom.
Cause I gotta tell you man, I’ve been hearing about how John Boehner’s gonna have to answer to the tea party all week, and it just doesn’t mesh with my observations. As the tea-party candidates actually try to implement their ideas in Congress, they’re going to quickly find out that Congress doesn’t work that way, and the ones who have not already will come to bow to the leadership of the republican party (or be weeded out). That republican leadership consists entirely of guys who had a really really good opportunity to show that they actually believe in libertarian ideals not that long ago.
And now the tea party will have their own chance to earn some real libertarian credibility. If this civil war in the GOP that I keep hearing about is real, then we shall know them by their fruits, which in this case would be their voting records. The tea party won enough seats on Tuesday to stand as it’s own entity if that is what they choose to do. If I see tea party candidates actually do anything that is not in lockstep with Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor I will be pleasantly surprised.
If it were granted that the tea party is not racist, would you disagree with the premise that the organizers of the tea party have intentionally exploited racism to further their goals?
Certainly, I think my observations would accord with such a statement, as I’ve said a few times.
Do you consider the tea party to be a separate entity from the republican party?
We run into some category problems here. I would say, as an analogy, that the tea party is a malignant cancer that has infected the GOP. Whether that qualifies it for metaphysical separation is an open question. I know for certain that the GOP leadership wish that they were far, far away, for whatever that’s worth.
So I can get why you’re annoyed with the implication that this model is somehow racist.
No, no, you mistake the target of my annoyance. My complaint really is a process one, and has little if anything to do with the Tea party. What was making me cranky was the highly selective (and unconsciously biased) acceptance of certain sources of evidence here on this thread by people who claim to be (and usually are) more discerning about how they approach a question of evidential support. In short, I was bitching about skeptics being insufficiently and/or unevenly skeptical, because the sources either said something in accordance with their preconceptions or they were predisposed to believe those sources for ideological reasons.
But it has to annoy you even more that these ideas are being annexed and perverted by a movement whose obvious (and badly disguised) goal is to serve the electoral interests of the republican party. A party that has already tipped it’s hand with respect to fiscal responsibility and respect for individual freedom.
I gotta say, I get the impression that folks like Rubio and Paul are actually serious about their rhetoric, and so I don’t think they will be co-opted so much as they will bring the whole thing down in flames in the internecine battles that will inevitably follow when the old guard doesn’t play ball.
No, no, you mistake the target of my annoyance. My complaint really is a process one, and has little if anything to do with the Tea party. What was making me cranky was the highly selective (and unconsciously biased) acceptance of certain sources of evidence here on this thread by people who claim to be (and usually are) more discerning about how they approach a question of evidential support. In short, I was bitching about skeptics being insufficiently and/or unevenly skeptical, because the sources either said something in accordance with their preconceptions or they were predisposed to believe those sources for ideological reasons.
And this statement is what has been bugging me about this little contretemps. You dismiss the studies that I and LRA linked to (using, I might add, a rather cynical dismissal by saying that we and others “uncritically accepted” these studies, which is itself a rather uncritical assertion), but then say multiple times that you think that there are racist elements in this “party.” If, as I understand you, you agree that there is racism/are racist elements in the Tea Party, then how do you come to this conclusion? What sources inform your particular understanding of racism in this “movement”?
You dismiss the studies that I and LRA linked to (using, I might add, a rather cynical dismissal by saying that we and others “uncritically accepted” these studies, which is itself a rather uncritical assertion)
Well, no. What I actually did was say that the source of the first study should be flagged for bias, and so is due greater scrutiny for its conclusions than what seems to have been given. That the styudy was proffered to meet the criticism of an opponent as *evidence* is sufficient to assume that the one offering it accepts it as such, no?
The second study had two big methodological flaws that jumped out to me with just a cursory review, and I said as much.
…but then say multiple times that you think that there are racist elements in this “party.” If, as I understand you, you agree that there is racism/are racist elements in the Tea Party, then how do you come to this conclusion? What sources inform your particular understanding of racism in this “movement”?
Because they are my conclusions based on personal observation. I would *never* call those observations evidence that I could offer to someone else to demonstrate convincingly that they should think about the issue as I do. That’s my whole point; I’m perfectly comfortable calling it nothing more than my own opinion, whereas others are offering “evidence” that doesn’t live up to the general standards of the word. LRA’s posted study comes close, but is (IMO) fatally flawed.
Well, how was I supposed to know that National Review and Ramussen Reports are effed up? I’m a neurobiology/philosophy geek, not a political science expert. I figured that a university would put out a study that was at least *decent*!
C’mon, LRA! You’re a skeptic! That means you are supposed to do a longitudinal standard regression* on every study you read, not just the ones put out by Discovery Institute or Ray Comfort!
*Disclaimer: I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as a “longitudinal standard regression.”
Well, how was I supposed to know that National Review and Ramussen Reports are effed up? I’m a neurobiology/philosophy geek, not a political science expert. I figured that a university would put out a study that was at least *decent*!
LOL! Fair enough. I know when I venture into other fields I sometimes sound like a dumbass. It most commonly comes up because I’m a regular poster on a legal blog, and I am *not* a lawyer. Every once in a while I make a really stupid first-year-in-law-school mistake.
(This is not to say that you sound like a dumbass; only to highlight the dangers of posting studies from subjects from different subjects than one’s expertise!)
I mostly agree with Elemenope here – since about the only thing I really do know about statistics is that they can be used to report anything anyone wants, I tend to be evenly skeptical (by which I mean very) of all studies until several smarter people (whom I hope are as smart as I think they are) sufficiently go over the data to see the study was done correctly and the results are valid. I don’t care who makes the study – but especially a concerned party is probably not going to publish a paper that disagrees with their hypothesis. Yes, I did major in sociology, no, I do not know how to make a study, yes, there are valid issues that need to be studied, no, I don’t really trust anyone to make a study if they have an interest in the results coming out a certain way. Rather, I would be overly skeptical of X institution reporting that X is the subject of social dysfunction than an impartial organization would. Several studies around an issue concurring is much better.
This is soft science we’re talking about, as in, not really science. There’s something there that cannot always be measured accurately. The methods are not necessarily airtight and repeatable because they use people in their studies, not impartial objects, and more susceptible to competing results with the same problems – other studies carefully designed to have opposite results. That’s one example of how it is not like science. Social issues are hard to study objectively and not everyone even intends to.
I have arguments with a friend of mine who I believe to be exceptionally skeptical, and yet somewhat credulous of certain results that he is after. He will fight with evidence and data that I don’t believe he’s skeptical enough of, and win an argument because he has data, and all that counts to him is that he can point me to a study. He may be right sometimes, but I think he also chooses which studies to agree with his opinions whenever he likes to, and can’t tell the difference, or gets lawyer-y. Having even faulty data wins over no data to him, and I know that’s wrong, but this graph backs him up and I have nothing.
I haven’t read any of the links to any of the studies, so I don’t know if there’s in fact anything wrong with them, but they deserve skepticism at the source just as much as anything. You really cannot trust even a trustworthy source to collect data and manage it professionally to conclude an unbiased result, that’s why they print their methods just like a scientist, so you can see where they fail to account for things they should account for, see if and how they played dirty or sloppy for the sake of coming up with the results they like better.
This I found an interesting article about how original assumptions in scientific studies can blind even very meticulous researchers from recognizing a significant effect or group, and how recognizing it from looking carefully through data anomalies can open up entirely new research avenues or refine the original question to better reflect the situation being analyzed.
Not so. The pace of spending under Obama in just his first term is set to surpass Bush’s two terms. This is not to say Bush wasn’t a prolifigate spender, but that Obama is even worse. And regardless of who’s in office, the fact remains that the debt load has increased dramatically in recent years. My view is that this is the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”.
And yes, while health care “reform” occurred following the birth of the movement, the manner in which it was pieced together, as well as the final product, simply added fuel to the fire. In the recently passed election, “nearly half (45%) of voters say their vote was a message to oppose the President’s [health care] plan”. [Source]
That cited CBS article doesn’t support your assertion at all. It says nothing about relative *spending*. The primary cause (outside war spending) for the mounting debt is the continuation of the Bush-era upper bracket tax cuts, which I think cannot be properly laid at Obama’s feet, especially since as that same article notes, he wants to end them.
I agree that they aren’t against the blak guy because of their racism; well, not only because of that. they are basically against Obama because they are the puppets in the hands of economic power, wich don’t understand the world around them.
I find it disturbing that you think that health-care bill is against your liberty. Do you think that not being able to access to a proper health-care because you don’t have the money, or even dying because of a curable disease is liberty? Also the contributors paying for a war so thsat a handful of enterprises can get benefits is not a wasting, I see. The political regulations after 9/11 that took away a part of your freedom to express also didn’t mean an attack to your liberties. Then, what are those liberties you are afraid of losing now? It’s all this about taxes? Do you want the liberty to opress other americans wich don’t think the way you do?
Racist against whites. I know you were being ironic, but it sounds stupid anyway.
*applause*
It’s the individual mandate contained in the bill. Essentially, it says the government can order you to do or buy anything it deems necessary for your welfare.
You don’t quite understand liberty.
It’s the individual mandate contained in the bill. Essentially, it says the government can order you to do or buy anything it deems necessary for your welfare.
It remains to be seen whether a mandate such as this would be constitutional, though the legal issues are quite a bit more complicated and nuanced, and teh situation quite a bit more moderate, than “the government can order you to do or buy anything it deems necessary…”.
You don’t quite understand liberty.
No, it’s just she’s using the liberal definition of liberty and you’re using the libertarian one. Both are incomplete (somewhat complementary, somewhat contradictory) conceptions of what is actually a complicated concept. A libertarian would argue that freedom is in liberty of formal choice, but a liberal might rejoin (as here) that formal choices are irrelevant of you are not in a position to take advantage of them.
“The Patriot Act and Iraq War are not on the tea party movement’s agenda”
Uh yeah, those things already happened (under a tea party administration). They wouldn’t be part of a current tea party agenda. My point wasn’t that the tea party’s current goal is to invade Iraq. My point was that if the stated agenda was the same as the actual agenda then these people probably would have started worrying about the Constitution a little earlier. The fact that the teabaggers started protesting the loss of freedoms they had suffered under Obama before Obama was even in office does suggest that the freedom the tea party is trying to protect is the freedom to have a white president.
Your comment here kinda illustrates what I’m getting at.
“The explosive growth in government spending, TARP, and so-called massive stimulus, not to mention the unprecedented power grab over individual liberty inherent in the health-care overhaul bill, are all relatively recent, occurring during the last 3 years.”
See this is where the narrative falls apart. The power grab in the health care bill (which I am opposed to and have not been silent about) is not unprecedented. There have been a frightening number of precedents. A disproportionate number of these occurred during the period of 2001-2008, a period that teabaggers seem to be completely unaware of (TARP was actually signed by George Bush before Obama was even in office). The practice of holding “suspected terrorists” for years without trial goes back a little more than 3 years. Invading Iraq on false pretenses? Yeah that was slightly more than 3 years ago as well.
By the way, I have not been silent in my opposition to Obama or Bush. But the tea party’s presence in the national debate has left little room for anyone who is opposed to Obama’s actual policies.
Here’s the thing. Our freedoms are precious. And they are threatened. But there are real threats and imaginary threats. When the same people who cheerlead the loudest for the real threats, scream the loudest about the imaginary threats, one can’t help but wonder what their subconscious motives might be. There are probably teabaggers who are not racist. But most are. The tea party could not exist without racism. David Koch and Dick Armey may or may not be racist. But they actively use the racism of their base to achieve their political goals.
But as I said. The tea party is not about racism. The tea party is not about taxes. The tea party is not about freedom. The tea party is not about religion. The tea party is not about tea. The tea party is about manufacturing consent.
I’ve seen you make these assertions frequently, but you’ve failed to actually support them. Do you have any evidence? Otherwise (as I’ve quoted before)…
“That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
What assertion?
That racism exists in the tea party is a given. The question was whether the tea party itself is racist. And what I actually asserted here was that racism was not the central tenet of the tea party. Try reading the whole thing.
What I put in blockquote is what needs to be substantiated.
The assertion that Dick Armey and David Koch are manipulating the tea partiers or the assertion that a central part of that manipulation relies on the tea partiers being racist?
Obama is constantly being criticized on the left for his policy in Afghanistan and on health care (by liberals who think he compromised too much). The evil individual mandate was originally a republican policy, as was cap and trade, and I don’t remember any outrage against them. I also don’t remember the outrage against bailout when John the orange was reduced to tears begging the congress to pass TARP or the teacup in chief Sarah Palin objecting when McCain made a big deal about suspending his campaign and going to Washington to make absolutely sure that TARP pass without delay.
I’m having a difficult time getting the ducks to admit to the pollsters that they’re ducks…
Perhaps they’re something else besides ducks then.
Obviously they’re dragons doing duck impersonations…
I’d suggest a heavy dose of Captain Obvious to help you with your racist litmus test
Perhaps you just want to see demons…
I was seeing ducks remember? I think you’re seeing angels… but I worry for your well being if you can’t determine that ducks are ducks, and a party with “several” leaders being removed for overt racist remarks is, in all probability, a racist party.
After all, those leaders had to have been comfortable enough in their racist views to feel they could freely say or do whatever they did and get away with it in their own party. I doubt any leader of any organization that wasn’t full of/fueled by racists would make that mistake…
Then, too, why would the party allow so many overtly racist people to lead?
Truly, thank you for your concern, but it seems to me that a movement that’s purging itself of racist elements is quite the opposite of a racist movement.
Well, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that every one of them just happened to be closet racists until it slipped their tongue… ya know, completely out of the blue, in front of everyone that supported them and worked with them.
Point is, lots of “movements” (how many ways are to not name a party “party”?) don’t need to purge outspoken racists, racists simply don’t want to join them
There are parts of this video that I agreed with and parts that I disagreed with. I don’t identify with a political party or ideology. My views are all over the place.
That being said, the only problem I have with this video being posted is that it confirms the stereotype that all atheists are politically liberal and favor democrats. While many atheists, agnostics fit this description, many do not. In the end, though, this Daniel’s blog and he has the right to post whatever he wants on it. I don’t have to agree with everything I see here to enjoy it or to benefit from it.
On a side note, I’m a dogmatic agnostic who was hardcore Christian fundie for just over a decade. The life issue is still important to me, and I’m definitely pro-life and would like abortion to be illegal.
When Rush Limbaugh played Barack the Magic Negro on his show I saw no outrage from his listeners.
This.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU
This link is what the Right wingers use. I actually heard this one first before this video. I showed the tea bagger video to my republican friend, and this was his response to it.
“Finally watched the whole thing. That was a really weak copy. Not only was the opposing person unable to defend the tea party talking points they weren’t using the correct terms either. By not giving an accurate counterpoint they fall short of making their point. They also dove straight into the foul language early. Typical”
Yeah, he lives in his own little world.
Seems typical of what we’re seeing on this same post. Teabaggers keep claiming that the portrayal is wrong, or that that’s not how they actually think. But then when asked for clarification or what they “really” believe, the evade and repeat the previous statement, or just straight-up run away.
The Tea Party isn’t a political party?
WTF? Please go on and tell me more about who the Real Scotsmen are.
They are not an autonomous party in the sense that the Green Party on Ross Perot’s Reform Party are/were. Tea Party Candidates Are listed as (R), not (T) or (I.)
And not only that, but (and this is the part that is really deeply amusing for me) they are *renegade* Republicans (to which the GOP establishment is bitterly hostile) who, if they actually are serious and try to start implementing their ideas, will implode the party.
So not only is it literally true that they are not their own political party, but it is also true that they aren’t particularly welcome where they are.
Maybe you could provide some evidence that the leaders of the movement have admonished their followers for holding racist signs or making racist comments?
Surely if their movement isn’t racist they could do so and still be a leader…
Even the NAACP admits, they’ve gone <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43901.html"beyond admonishment.
“In his introduction to the report, NAACP President Ben Jealous asserts that tea party supporters are “sincere, principled people of good will.” The report also notes that several tea party leaders have been expelled after making controversial racial statements.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43901.html#ixzz14RHdcJgD
And then…
I was concerned at first that you wouldn’t be able to provide that first quote for me, congratulations! Now we just have to determine if “share” meant “several” and if “several” means that the tea party movement was initially fueled by those who have been expelled.
who would later be expelled*
Seems to me a rather moot question if those leaders are being expelled.
Ok, ok, I got this one….
The Tea Party isn’t racist, but.
LOL! The some of the Tea Party’s best friends are black!!
And I’m sure they liked the Cosby Show…
They’re soooo not racist that they know what slavery is like!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn14RwuJJRg&feature=player_embedded#!
Holy craplakistan! Reminds me of the argument I got into with this classmate in our Race, Class and Gender sociology class. He said, “I know how Black people feel because I’m pledging a fraternity and they’re treating me like shit.”
By the way, I think Robert was trying to distract us: discussing about the (alleged) racism of tea party we forgot that their main handiccap may be that they are irrational and gullible people.
I concur. And the unreasonable “fear” of Obama’s supposed Kenyan Muslin S-wordialist brownness is part and parcel of that irrationality and gullibility.