Tea Partiers Mobilize To Take It 'To The Next Level'

[geni]

A lot of it is just anger looking for a focus. Traditionaly that might mean a jump to the hard left but the hard left isn't much good at anger at the moment and we are dealing with people who are effectivy indictrinated to hate socialism which further limits the appeal of that dirrection.

 

[sackett]

Ulikely though it may seem,

given my posting history,* my above little contribution had a serious intent: I meant to emphasize the emotionality of the Baggers' politics, as against any kind of rationality. (Of course they don't have rational convictions. How could they? They don't read, they can hardly write, and they despise and resent intellectualism.) I think that these folks can be characterized most usefully as reactionaries rather than as right-wingers per se.

But the trouble with being a reactionary in America, i.e., the trouble with wanting to return to some earlier time, is that these still are the Good Old Days: American social institutions are remarkably backward for a developed country; old times here are not forgotten. Probably that's because America's wealth is so prodigious that we can afford to lag behind the times. (I'd argue that the country's immense wealth makes it possible for us to be more socially progressive; but that's just an aside.) Except for the Cold War (which I think they enjoyed, those of them old enough to recall it), these poor people have no history. Perhaps they have no real society.

So what can the Baggers hanker for? Like all nativists, they construct a fantasy past and then believe in it, but that doesn't get them very far if they can't persuade any large number of voters to believe with them. Hence their disproportionate anger and hatred, their virulence, their frustrated yelling. XBox and geni have them about right: the Baggers don't know what in the hell they stand for, so by God they're going to stamp and yell and cavort all the harder.

They're nothing new. I'm old enough to remember when Barry Goldwater ran for prez, and the same species of bellowing emotionalists were in your face back then -- hell, it may have been their greatest hour, as they understand greatness.

I wish I had the Googleness to find an old Feiffer political cartoon from those days. It was a dialogue between Lil' Empty and Bang-Bang Barry, and it summarized the incoherent nature of this type of politics better than all of my already too-plentiful words.




*I was once a finalist for Forum Rodeo Clown. I didn't make the final cut.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nevermind--I misread something.

 

[cwalner]

"We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country!" they write in advertising the convention.

What I find most disturbing about this quote is what is not mentioned and could easily be covered by replacing "...Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment ..." with "...The Constitution..."

Why is the 2nd amendment singled out as more important than any other amendment? Why is only Free Spech mentioned of the guarantees of the 1st amendment? Why are freedom of religion and assembly less important?

As this is thier own words taken from a flyer that they used to advertise themselves, this is how they want to present themselves. To me, what is not mentioned makes it very clear that they are not one bit concerned with defending the constitution, only the pieces of it that fit thier ideology.

While this makes them not much different from any other party, they are also trying to claim to be strict constitutionalists and critizice thier opposition for disregarding the constitution.

I am also curious what a poll of Tea-Partiers would show regarding agreement with the SCOTUS decision that burning a US flag is constitutionally protected free speech. While I have no proof, I imagine that it would show they believe on some limits to free speech

 

[Upchurch]

What I find most disturbing about this quote is what is not mentioned and could easily be covered by replacing "...Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment ..." with "...The Constitution..."

Why is the 2nd amendment singled out as more important than any other amendment? Why is only Free Spech mentioned of the guarantees of the 1st amendment? Why are freedom of religion and assembly less important?

My guess is that it are those aspects of the Constitution they perceive as being at risk and they are highlighting those to make their point.

 

[Eyeron]

Now, I'm still interested in the more moderate right's take on these people, and hope we can all have a reasonable discussion about them without the normal 'right vs left' ad-hom, tu quoque, etc, that we all tend to trot out when defending the extreme of 'our side'.

I'll give it a shot.

I myself am in favor of these basic concepts and don't consider them meaningless catch phrases. However, I'm not entirely like them because when most people say they want small and limited government, that's usually a code word for leaving people to their own devices.

I am not opposed to the government offering programs to give people resources to help them get their lives together and to get jobs. In their eyes, that would make me a statist authoritarian. But let's face it, when people don't have an incentive, however small or large, people just won't do anything to help other people. So I feel there needs to be a third option, and that option is the government.

 

[cwalner]

My guess is that it are those aspects of the Constitution they perceive as being at risk and they are highlighting those to make their point.

Oh, I am sure of that. It is just that I, as well as many other atheists, feel that our 1st amendment right to freedom of religion is very much at risk. What makes it worse is that they have as an advertised speaker, one of the people we feel is at the forefront of putting this right at risk.

This is what I find most objectionable about thier claim of strict constitutionalism.

 

[Eyeron]

Why? What's wrong with following the Constitution?

 

[Upchurch]

Why? What's wrong with following the Constitution?

Nothing at all. The problem comes when you creatively define "following the Constitution".

 

[dudalb]

A lot of it is just anger looking for a focus. Traditionaly that might mean a jump to the hard left but the hard left isn't much good at anger at the moment and we are dealing with people who are effectivy indictrinated to hate socialism which further limits the appeal of that dirrection.

With some of these people, I swear it is a coin flip that decides whether they go to the loony right of the equally loony left.

 

[dudalb]

With no exaggeration, I can attribute some specific beliefs to the "Tea-Bags"... presented as reasonably as I can

- Higher taxes are a measure of the government taking over functions that should be left to the private sector instead--thus indicate a slide towards socialism.
- Christianity should have a privileged status with respect to our government. A very few might openly state that they disagree with the Establishment clause--but not many. Some have argued that the clause is a restriction only on the US Congress and not the states. Some point out that the Constitution doesn't use the phrase "Separation of Church and State" and place the desired privileged status somewhere between their definitions of "Separation" and "Establishment".
- Welfare creates a dependency that traps the poor in a cycle of poverty. Said dependency is desired by liberals to provide a power base.
- The government cannot perform or manage any tasks competently or efficiently compared to the private sector--and thus any attempt for the government to interfere in a private industry is doomed to fail.

To be fair, quite a few people who are NOT teabaggers share the first view.
It's the religious fanatacism and the paranoia that make them dangerous.

 

[dudalb]

What I find funny is the idiots that use the slogan "going Galt", because they believe that work of fiction is even close to reality. My attitude is more than supportive. I really want them to strike...for a long time. Because I would be more than happy to fill in.

Though chances are they will simply take a vacation for a single day, which is nothing. Why? Because they are not as important as they think they are.

And they seem to be unaware that Ayn Rand was a militant Athiests whose attack on religon even a lot of atheists find over the top.

 

[Pardalis]

As we've reported, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the keynoter for the Feb. 4-6 event, and Rep. Michele Bachmann will be the highlight luncheon speaker.

Among them is the Ten Commandments Judge Roy Moore, who also is running for governor of Alabama.

Speakers include World Net Daily's Joseph Farah and Fox News Contributor Angela McGlowan

And you as a Belgian care because...?

 

[dudalb]

Wow, it's a real pain to try to get a reasonable discussion with, or about, the Tea Parties.

Who would have thought?

It a combination of "they might be kooks but they are kooks are our side" with " this shows that all people on the other side are kooks".

It's the paranoia, the hysteria, and their wanting to make some kind of semi official relgion out of Christianity that turns me off to the tea baggers.

 

[Cleon]

And you as a Belgian care because...?

...Asks the Canadian.

 

[tyr_13]

You commie dupes just don't get the True Meaning of that Negr- I mean black woman with the gun! Look again!

That's a RUSSIAN rifle! It was made in RED COMMUNIST RUSSIA! It shoots commie bullets to kill Traditional Americans and their Family Values!

Don't you see the fiendish simplicity of it? Or do I mean fiendish complexity?

(Did I spell feindish right? Anyways.)

I'm going back to my double-wide and fry something.

Actually the fact that she is holding a Mosin Nagant is one of the first things I noticed about that picture.

They probably used it because it is the cheapest gun they could find that they didn't need a handgun permit for, and is full sized. The Nagant can be a very nice rifle and had very cheaply.

 

[dudalb]

And you as a Belgian care because...?

Belgium much have really boring politics for a Belgian to have such an obssesion with American Domestic Politics. I can understand concern with American Foreign Policy because that might have an impact on Belgium, but his constant comments on purely domestic politics reaches the point where I want to scream "Mind Your Own Damn Business".

 

[dudalb]

Actually the fact that she is holding a Mosin Nagant is one of the first things I noticed about that picture.

They probably used it because it is the cheapest gun they could find that they didn't need a handgun permit for, and is full sized. The Nagant can be a very nice rifle and had very cheaply.

Actually it was adapted under Tsar Nicholas The Second.
If you want a Communist small arm try the PPsh 41 Submachingun or AK 47.
I prefer the Springfield 03 or the Lee Enfield as far as Bolt Action Rifles go, but the Mosin is a good weapon. But if you are in the market, try to get one made in Finland. They are much more accurate then the RUssian made versions.
Damn it, now you make me want to go watch "Enemy At The Gates" tonight.....

 

[dudalb]

...Asks the Canadian.

Paradalis makes comments about US domestic politics occasionally, but does not obssess about them like some people do.
The problem some of have with certain people is they come off like they are lecturing us simple minded Yanks on how to manage their affairs.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

Because this way they get the best of both words. Free trade when they're selling (which maximizes the amount of sales they make), with trade barriers when their competitors are selling.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Imagine how much money I could accumulate if I managed to have it written into law that every dollar I spend is worth $10, but everyone else spends at a dollar per dollar.

Yes, but that's a normative position. This is supposed to be a party platform. Surely all of their current supporters aren't working for American companies which export products to the world. And there is no way they can be benefiting the people they are trying to get behind them by restricting imports.

My point is that they seem to be for limited government intervention, but don't really understand or care why. They're not actually interested in the benefits of limited government, just the fashion of individualism.