A certain segment of our population, the ones called teabaggers, have been making fools of themselves for months now. They call themselves patriots and defenders of the Constitution, but they have shouted down those who would disagree with them and refused to allow civil discussion of issues in town hall meetings. They have carried signs and made statements that were racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and anti-immigrant.
They have spit on our elected representatives and called them names. They have even threatened government officials and others who dared to disagree with them. And all the while they claim to be just good Americans who are only doing what any American of any color or creed would do to protect their values and their country. Is this really true? Is their really no racial or racist component to what they are doing?
Tim Wise, an anti-racist writer and activist, doesn't think so. He's written an excellent post (and you can read the entire post here) -- and I encourage you to do so. It will make you think, and possibly open your eyes to the reality of what is happening with the teabaggers. Here is some of what he said:
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
they'd be calling the national guard and have their asses in jail so fast they wouldn't know what hit them..
ReplyDeletethat is one angry white woman
First of all, this isn't what the "Tea Party Movement" (not teabaggers) is about. I'm tired of constant attempts to make it something that it isn't. And YOU ought to learn how to spell, and punctuate properly, before you post another article if you want people to consider any arguments you "attempt" to make as valid.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Stella!
ReplyDelete190 days and counting...
Stella and CT-
ReplyDeleteThe teabaggers' actions and words speak much louder than whatever you think they're supposed to stand for.
"Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama." [Emphasis added]
ReplyDeleteI don't think calling anyone (black or white, president or ordinary citizen) a "piece of shit" and telling them to "suck on my machine gun" is anything but disgusting. But Tim Wise is being totally disingenous by trying to lay this on the Tea Party's doorstep.
Barack Obama wasn't President when Nugent went off on him. It was in August of 2007, fully a year and a half before the first Tea Party rally. And he said it at a rock concert, not exactly the most serious of venues.
Here's a link to the video.
You've got to be pretty hard up to dig back that far, and then falsely imply that it happened at a Tea Party rally this month.
yes because the spelling and grammar is substantially less important than the big message; take the details and pick them apart if you must, but others know its all you have to "fight back with" because you cannot paint a bigger picture with your logic...it's weak b.s
ReplyDeleteWell, when you don't edit what you're writing, that tells me something. First of all, you're lazy. Second, it tells me that you're knee-jerk responding to "specific images" that come your way. I doubt that you're digging a little deeper to get the full story, so what you say has little credibility. It's called jumping on a bandwagon and spouting what you hear others say because it's EASY and it supports what you FEEL. That's the lazy way.
ReplyDeleteName calling seems to be what is going on here. And it starts with calling the Tea Party movement "teabaggers." So let's examine the Tea Party rhetoric intelligently rather than call them names. The majority critics (and I use that descriptive word loosely) don't seem to be interested in a dialogue about this group--they seem more intent on bashing it.
I'm not a Tea Party supporter. I've never been to a rally. But that doesn't mean that I'm against them, either. My position is this: They have something to say and the rest of us ought to be listening/examining what they're saying rather than demonizing them. Here's a radical thought - maybe we could attend at least one rally. Then we could take what we hear and see and come to OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS (at least about the particular group that we observe).
That's my challenge to the critics (and even the people on the fence) - attend a rally and form YOUR OWN OPINION about the movement. Your opinion may be similar to what it was before you attended, but at least you'll know that you've reached a conclusion based on a reality that you observed rather than on the tenuous arguments of the party-bashers. And then you can post an intelligent comment that you can support. And the rest of us can take you seriously.
By the way, Anonymous. In my first comment, I wasn't trying to "fight back." I wasn't trying to paint a bigger picture. And I wasn't trying to be logical. I was just making a point. And calling what I said "weak b.s." in your posted response to my first comment only strengthens my remarks in this post. Using profanity, or calling people names, is the lazy way to argue/debate. Use your brain and think before you speak/type.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHow did I miss your point earlier that "the spelling and grammar is substantially less important than the big message?" If that's true, then why are people calling Tea Party attendees "f...in retards" because they've seen images of the Tea Party people (supposedly) holding signs with grossly misspelled words? This ought to apply on both sides, don't you agree? The Tea Party's big message is more important than their spelling and grammar? If we're being logical, then we have to apply the same point to both sides, am I not right?
Digging in your heels and being dead-set against a particular idea/movement/people, etc. is ridiculous. And dangerous. There is no black and white. But, for sure, there is always an in between: A blending of ideas/facts/opinions/feelings/biases, etc. But we ought to at least try, with solid information/evidence (call it what you will), to support where we fall in that "in between" area. More importantly, we should know HOW/WHY we think the way we do. And, we ought to be able to explain it to others. That's called true enlightenment.
Stella-
ReplyDelete1. The teabaggers are the worst at "being dead-set against a particular idea/movement/people." And I agree that they are ridiculous and dangerous.
2. I call them teabaggers because that's what they called themselves before they realized what it meant in street slang, and because I don't respect them.
3. Unlike you, I have actually attended a teabagger rally, though I will admit I didn't stay very long.
Re: 1.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean:
the "idea" that we can spend our way into prosperity;
the "movement" to bankrupt our country through trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see (Don't think it can happen here? Have you been watching what's been going on in Greece lately? Portugal's probably next); and
the "people" who want to perpetuate their power by creating a dependency class that will guarantee them a majority in every election,
then maybe you can call me a "teabagger" too.
Re: 2.
Couldn't the same be said by racists who call African-Americans the "n-word"? After all, Blacks call themselves that, so it's OK for me to call them that too, right? Name calling is lazy way to stifle dialogue.
Re: 3.
You obviously didn't stay long enough it hear what the speakers had to say. Superfluous impressions don't capture the essence of the Tea Party movement.
To be sure, there are a wide variety of people that call themselves Tea Partiers, and some are clearly on the fringe. But the main reason that the Left harps on the "Teabagger = Racist" meme is that they don't have an answer to the major question that's posed by the movement:
How are we going to sustain these huge deficits without either defaulting or taxing ourselves into oblivion?
Want to take a stab at it, Ted?
A sign often seen at the rallies that anticipates these inevitable tax increases explains one meaning of the TEA in Tea Party:
Taxed
Enough
Already
So tell me what the movement is "dead-set against." Specifically. And tell me how their ideas are "ridiculous" and "dangerous." Specifics, please. Don't just make a statement. Give me credible evidence to support your statements/opinions. Convince me that your feelings can be supported by hard evidence.
ReplyDeleteAnd, by the way, you have a couple comma splices in your post. But I won't judge your intelligence by that. I'm waiting for you to state something intelligent and then I'll judge you by that.
And please explain to me how attending one rally, and staying briefly, enables you to make judgments about the Tea Party movement as a whole?
I'm sick and tired of people, including the media, focusing on the negative behavior of some of the people and saying that everyone is like that. You know that's not true. The steady criticism of this group reminds me of the constant criticism of Bill Clinton. Yes, Clinton did some things that he shouldn't have done, but he did some good things, too. I didn't vote for Clinton, but I couldn't take the constant negative comments about him. We need to examine things/ideas/other people with a clear head. When we constantly throw out negative, derogative comments about something, other people stop listening.
wow. sounds like there are some angry teabaggers on here. the tea party folks are CRAZY. period. I have said for quite a while..we need a KING not a president. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS. oh and screw you stella. you are pissing in the wind for a cause you arent even a part of. redamndiculous. all you folks need to get a damn hobby and shut up. let obama do his job. your bullcrap isnt gonna change anything. freaks.
ReplyDeletePs. I like you ted. you seem like a smart person. dont let the crazies bring you down.
ta ta ..I wont be back..I stumbled on this through a friend. Im just a ghost passing through.
Hey Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHow are we going to sustain these huge deficits without either defaulting or taxing ourselves into oblivion?
[Crickets chirping]
All the name calling in the world isn't going to address the real issue.
"the tea party folks are CRAZY. period...let obama do his job. your bullcrap isnt gonna change anything. freaks."
Sound an awful lot like the Bushies just a few short years ago, doesn't it?
"the moveon.org(Code Pink, Not in My Name) people are CRAZY. period...let bush do his job. your bullcrap isnt gonna change anything. freaks."
We'll see.
187 days and counting...
What did the Left used to say? Dissent is the highest form a patriotism.
"ta ta ..I wont be back..I stumbled on this through a friend. Im just a ghost passing through."
Thanks for your keen insight. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I wouldn't want you to actually be confused by the facts.
(I'm writing this because unless I miss my guess, you're still lurking around here. Anyone angry enough to write what you wrote - without even taking the time to proofread it - is probably dying to know how we reacted to it.)
CT-
ReplyDelete1. I'm not really worried about the deficit. I'm far more worried about creating jobs for working folks. If we have to run a deficit to do that, so be it. When the economy is booming again, there will be a lot more taxes revenue coming in. It also wouldn't hurt to cut out all the corporate welfare and close tax loopholes. Then if the rich have to pay a little more in taxes, that's alright too. And if the government has to print a little more money, then they should do it, and I don't care what the Chinese and the rich think about that. Frankly, the deficit is the last thing we should be worrying about right now.
2. The teagaggers ARE crazy. . .and racist and dangerous. That is my opinion, and I don't really care if you (and Stella) like that or not.
3. And don't you ever dare tell any of my readers "Don't let the door hit you on the way out"!!! This is my blog - not yours, and you have no right to run anyone off. You stepped over the line there, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from ever doing it again.
I'm not sure why I EVER thought a rational, logical discussion of issues could take place on this blog between people. We're back to name-calling again... And, for sure, I won't be back because it's a waste of time to try to talk to someone who thinks he has all the answers.
ReplyDeleteTed,
ReplyDeleteRe: 3.
You're absolutely right; I did step over the line. Anonymous, if you're still out there, I had no right to say that. My apologies.
CT- Thanks for the apology. That restores my faith in your common decency.
ReplyDeleteStella - You won't be missed.
I would like to apologize for everyone who didn't understand your article.
ReplyDeleteYou are not racist. You are very intelligent actually, and you have an excellent point. If the Tea Baggers were any other race, people would be much more terrified and upset, I imagine the SWAT team out there with tear gas and more security around congress members who feel threated.
But now I wonder if we just are not afraid of white people. We don't take them seriously. These people should definitely be taken seriously they are nasty and rude, and make a lot of people feel deeply threatened.
Perhaps if the tea party was made up a majority of a different race, the media would tell the stories more frighteningly and people would realize how nasty these people are being.
what is interesting about the tea party movement is that they are specifically targeting obama's fiscal policies and stating that they have been Taxed Enough Already. that is what TEA stands for, or so i've gathered. the interesting part is this: last year, obama passed a historically large tax cut ($282 billion over two years). that's more of a tax cut than ANY republican president has ever passed.
ReplyDeletejust pointing out the racism and hypocrisy of tea party-ers. :)
Fae,
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't answer the question:
"How are we going to sustain these huge deficits without either defaulting or taxing ourselves into oblivion?" [Emphasis added]
Watch very carefully for the recommendations that come out of the Presidential Debt Commission, conveniently scheduled for after the mid-term elections to avoid any negative political impact.
President Obama has already said that a Value Added Tax (i.e. national sales tax) is not off the table. That kind of across-the-board, non-progressive tax will far offset any income tax cut, and unlike the FairTax (designed to replace the IRS, to include a pre-bate feature for low-income citizens) is in addition to, not in place of, the income tax.
Just ask the Greeks, Spaniards and Portuguese how out-of-control spending has worked for them (or the Germans who are having to bail out their less responsible European Union partners).
Good points, glad to see that reasoned arguments are being put out there.
ReplyDeleteResponsibility and rights need to balance, this is not the case with representative government, nor with systems of class such as white supremacy.
People with privilege can't easily conceive of this because they have not had to work, act or endeavor to realize these rights and liberties. Only inherited they only need maintain the systems of power and privileged.
It seems like the tea baggers are demonstrating the disconnection that they feel with the decision making process, seems like it stings them so deep when they only know the smallest amount of loosing involvement in the decision making process AKA disenfranchisement. in their loosing privileges, they loose their social position, they are without a place in society to effect change and they are loosing their frame of reality, they are loosing the privilege grown accustomed to from white supremacy rather than a reduction in "rights"
Like spoiled brats with privileges from white supremacy being removed they recoil and revolt in loosing their delusion of superiority simply due to the creed they were born into and not what they did in creating the content of their chater. Being judged on their actions and productivity is the lot they have having a hard time dealing with.
Strangely Star Ship Troopers is one of the best books I have come across in the political philosophy or the science of moral philosophy.
Like Dr. Cornel West said in the title of his book: "Race Matters" in America...
Democracy Matters:
The concentrations of power that corporations have as a result of their legal status, access and involvement in the decision making process.
Class Maters: Class in America? Here is a test: Stop Working for 8 years, if bad things happen because your not working. Than you are in the working class.
If not either not in the working class or there is no classes...
David,
ReplyDeleteI'm all for "reasoned arguments" too. Please help me understand yours:
"Responsibility and rights need to balance, this is not the case with representative government..."
Are you advocating against representative government? If so, what's the alternative? Monarchy? Theocracy? Dictatorship of the proletariat? I'm sorry, but we've been there, done that. Maybe there's a "third way" I'm missing. Enlighten me.
"... nor with systems of class such as white supremacy."
What are you referring to exactly?
"People with privilege can't easily conceive of this because they have not had to work, act or endeavor to realize these rights and liberties."
Who are these "people with privilege"? The idle rich (e.g. the Kennedys and Rockefellers), or someone else? I served twenty years in the United States Army. Does that disqualify from being a "person of privilege," because I had to "work, act or endeavor to realize these rights and liberties."
I could go on, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I have a job that I'm expected to return to in about seven minutes.
I'm just curious (hence the name): Are you by any chance a college student? I finished my undergraduate studies way back in 1972, and although I did graduate work in the '80's and early '90's, I'm afraid the entire paradigm has shifted quite a bit since then.
It seems like you filter everything through race, class and gender. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as you don't lose sight of the more important paradigm of right and wrong.
And at the risk of sounding a little too nitpicky, you might want to proofread your spelling a little more carefully. I think you meant "lose" and "losing," instead of "loose" and "loosing"; "matters" instead of "maters"; "you're" instead of "your"; and "then" instead of "than." Having to stop every few sentences (or even words) to re-read what you wrote makes it even harder to follow your train of thought.
And one last bit of advice: With the economy the way it is these days, you may not have a choice - but for the sake of the country and your own self-esteem, DON'T stop working for 8 years!
I know I am late to the game here on the discussion but C.T I've read what you have said and you seem like a pretty smart guy and you do seem worried about our deficit. What do you think should be done to go from a deficit into a surplus? Hopefully you read this and can respond.
ReplyDeleteAdam,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliment. I'm not a trained economist, so I'll have to defer to a bona fide smart guy.
In looking for a good explanation of "baseline budgeting" (one of great frauds perpetrated on the public), I stumbled across an policy report by Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute entitle Seven Reforms to Balance the Budget. Although written nearly 14 years ago, it still provides some interesting ideas on how to balance the budget (Bear in mind that in 1996, few could imagine that there would actually be budget surpluses in the final years of the Clinton Administration).
One of the things that's refreshing about this report (especially in the highly partisan atmosphere of 2010) is that Moore praises Democrats like Dick Gephardt as well as Republicans like John Kasich for their efforts to bring the budget under control. It's important to remember that no single party has the market cornered on fiscal responsibility (or, for that matter, fiscal irresponsibility).
Let me try to sum it up as succinctly as possible:
Cut spending first.
I know that may sound cruel in the midst of a recession, but to go from huge deficits to even a balanced budget (much less a surplus), spending has to be decreased. And not just decreases in the "rate of increase" (that's the dirty little secret of baseline budgeting), but real, honest-to-goodness cuts. Increasing taxes will only stifle the recovery and shrink the tax base even further. At a minimum, we need to hold Congress's feet to the fire on the "pay-go" legislation passed in February. No new spending without carving it out of existing programs.
To be fair, these cuts can be across the board, but we can't continue to have trillion-dollar deficits without it eventually bankrupting our country.
Nearly a month ago on this very thread (04/27/10 to be exact), I pointed out the impending problems that Greece was facing. A lot has happened in that month, to include huge budget cuts, riots by those who had become overly dependent on runaway government spending, and the threat of the Euro collapsing.
For those who think it can't happen here, take a look at what Moody's had to say just today (Moody’s Reiterates U.S. Spending Risks Credit Rating). If the U.S. government loses its Aaa bond rating, we'll be facing the same kinds of problems in the future that Greece faces today: lenders won't be willing to take the risk, and when the credit dries up, we'll either have to either 1) print more money (leading to hyper-inflation); 2) default on our current debt (and destroy the economy in the process); or 3) make huge budget cuts. Unlike Greece, there probably won't be anyone willing or able to bail us out.
This won't happen overnight - it could take up to a decade - but if we continue on our current course, it will happen. Like Humphrey Bogart said in Casablanca, "Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life."
So the real choices are twofold: 1) Start cutting spending now - rationally, gradually; or 2) Cut spending later - drastically, at a rate that will cause social turmoil.
Calling them teabaggers is in no way similar to using the n- word. That's just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe BIG message behind the the picketing and rallying and such is being clouded by people who are looking simply to exploit faults and not actually work towards a resolution. You sound ignorant. The point of the post was to argue that some of them are going overboard, and had this been by another group of people, blacks, arabs, (i apologize if u feel i shouldn't be using those specific words) then it'd be a HUGE deal. Go get lives.
"Calling them teabaggers is in no way similar to using the n- word. That's just ridiculous."
ReplyDeleteAlthough not as egregious as a racial epithet, using the term "teabagger" is similar in that it totally dismisses a group of people by calling them names rather than by seriously looking into who they are.
"You sound ignorant."
Ignorance comes from a lack of knowledge.
Here's the latest survey on what tea party supporters believe, not from a partisan organization with an axe to grind, but from Gallup, one of the oldest and most respected polling organizations.
So Gulliam, on what do you base your opinion about what "the BIG message" of the Tea Party movement is?