Is The Tea Party All About Race?

[rjwould]

Bob Cesca makes a compelling case it is. Race is a tricky subject though because many people with racist views point to the fact that they have or have had at least friendly casual relationships with people outside their own race. They make the case that if they are going to be labeled as 'racist' without specifics applied, the label doesn't fit. One can see the logic to the argument put forward, but it also reveals the fallacy of it too. One can of course contain racist views toward only one race of people. White people with racist constructs who put forward the argument I've just mentioned are quick to point to 'reverse discrimination' under those exact parameters they deny.

Anyway, Cesca's piece in the Huffington Post (I know the Huffington Post is not like that bastion of credible news, Fox, but go with it for just a short read) offers some insights worth considering.

Quote:

I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention."

The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all.

Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

I hasten to note that I'm talking about real racism, insofar as it's impossible for the majority race -- the 70 percent white majority -- to be on the receiving end of racism. That is unless white males, for example, are suddenly an oppressed racial demographic. But judging by the racial composition of, say, the Senate or AM talk radio or the cast members playing the Obamas on SNL, I don't think white people have anything to worry about.

This isn't an epiphany by any stretch. From the beginning, with their witch doctor imagery, watermelon agitprop and Curious George effigies, the wingnut right has been dying to blurt out, as Lee Atwater famously said, "******, ******, ******!"

But they can't.

Strike that. Correction. TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson brandished a sign with the (misspelled) word "niggar." So they're not even as restrained as the generally unstrung Atwater anymore.

Full Story; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce..._b_484229.html
__________________

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I thought it was all about stupid.

Of course, racists are stupid, so I suppose they would be welcome in the party.

[rjwould]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I thought it was all about stupid.

Of course, racists are stupid, so I suppose they would be welcome in the party.

My description would be racists are fearful and therefore easily manipulated.

[samm]

OK, well the piece is kind of silly. I am white male and I have been in my lifetime the receiving end of racism. I have personal experience where the majority (70 percent identified in this piece) was on the receiving end of racism in the form of an oppressed racial demographic.

But aside from my personal experience, a simple philosophic examination identifies it as demagoguery. Or is that your intention? To discuss it as such?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by rjwould

My description would be racists are fearful and therefore easily manipulated.

Hmmm....interesting. You have a point.

[rjwould]

Originally Posted by samm

OK, well the piece is kind of silly. I am white male and I have been in my lifetime the receiving end of racism. I have personal experience where the majority (70 percent identified in this piece) was on the receiving end of racism in the form of an oppressed racial demographic.

But aside from my personal experience, a simple philosophic examination identifies it as demagoguery. Or is that your intention? To discuss it as such?

I've experienced racism as well, but what does that have to do with the article? Taking the position of victim status goes nowhere really.

Labeling the article as 'silly' is a non sequitur. Perhaps you'd like to argue the merits of the piece instead?

[samm]

Originally Posted by rjwould

Labeling the article as 'silly' is a non sequitur. Perhaps you'd like to argue the merits of the piece instead?

No, the article appears to be obvious demagoguery. As such I find it is silly. If your thread is to discuss demagoguery, then hmmm... well this article is a silly example of such because it is so obvious.

If your thread is in support of this particular allegation that the tea party is fundamentally racist. OK, well that is silly.

If your thread is to discuss whether or not the tea party is actually racist. Well then why would you cite an article so obviously over the top?

(Just so you know where I'm coming from, I don't vote-- by choice not because I am unable to-- and I find all political parties fundamentally flawed.)

[casebro]

No it's about Nazism.

I just thought that a thread that plays the race card in the opening subject line, ought to have a second card played, just to up the ante.

[samm]

Originally Posted by casebro

No it's about Nazism.

You may be right, I just wonder what these nazis got against the tea party...

[KingMerv00]

The point of the article is that if you remove all of the things he thinks don't make sense, all you have left is racism. I disagree. I think if you boil all of that stuff away, you have NOTHING left. Where is he getting the idea that everyone in the tea party is united by racism? Sure he can point out some loons but you can do that in any political movement.

I think the broad brush is unfair and I'm no fan of the tea party.

[rjwould]

So choose an allegation in the article and lets discuss it. Attempting to make me out to be anything other than a person looking for a conversation gets us no place.

If you choose not to vote, why then do you choose to enter into political discussions at all?

[rjwould]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

The point of the article is that if you remove all of the things he thinks don't make sense, all you have left is racism. I disagree. I think if you boil all of that stuff away, you have NOTHING left. Where is he getting the idea that everyone in the tea party is united by racism? Sure he can point out some loons but you can do that in any political movement.

I think the broad brush is unfair and I'm no fan of the tea party.

I think thats a fair criticism.

Cesca is obviously using process of illimination, but I don't read him as saying all people in the tea party are racists, what I'm seeing is the movement itself is based on racism.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by rjwould

If you choose not to vote, why then do you choose to enter into political discussions at all?

I vote but I find that kind of thinking unfair. Not voting because you are lazy is one thing, but not voting because you choose not to is fine by me.

Just because you don't vote doesn't mean you aren't interested in politics.

[rjwould]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I vote but I find that kind of thinking unfair. Not voting because you are lazy is one thing, but not voting because you choose not to is fine by me.

Just because you don't vote doesn't mean you aren't interested in politics.

I should have quoted samm as that was a response to that members post.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by rjwould

...but I don't read him as saying all people in the tea party are racists, what I'm seeing is the movement itself is based on racism.

How can you NOT read it that way?

Quote:

The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

To him, the tea party is "all about race". You have to really twist his words to reach the conclusion you are suggesting.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by rjwould

I should have quoted samm as that was a response to that members post.

I know. I was defending him.

[samm]

Originally Posted by rjwould

If you choose not to vote, why then do you choose to enter into political discussions at all?

Politics is a branch of philosophy. I'm just offering a possible path of reasoning.

By raising my hand and saying I have experienced what they claim is not possible, then you or someone else who may think like the article (that it is not possible) may then choose to examine it in another light.

Personally I'm in favor of discrimination. Being subjected to it throughout my life made me a stronger person. However when I was younger and in the thick of it as the subject, I was pissed. But that is tangential to your thread and should not be discussed here.

[Random]

The TP movement is a giant blank sheet of paper that you can (and are encouraged to) project whatever opinions and attitudes you want onto it. Low taxes, keeping “other people” from taking over, Christian dominionism, supporting a police state, opposing a police state, gun rights, fiscal responsibility, supporting big business, opposing big business, etc. They just say to the crowds, “We are Conservatives. We support the good things and oppose the bad things”, then leave it to individuals in the crowds to decide what is good and what is bad. It doesn’t really matter what your actual beliefs are, all that matters in the end to the TP movement is that when the time comes, you vote for the guy with the “R” after his name.

It’s basically the populist face of the Great Conservative Walkback. They had the White house, Senate, House, and Supreme Court. They had everything they needed to implement their ideology. It turned into a giant disaster. Rather then question if their ideology was flawed, they are using a “no true conservative” argument, tied up with a “liberals are the enemy” ribbon. Convince the rubes that the problem was implementation, not the ideology, then create an “enemy” that they have to be united against, and voila! A brand spanking new Conservative movement.

A fresh coat of paint for a termite infested house.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wouldn't say the Tea Party is "all about race", but I also think it's a legitimate criticism to note that there is racism in the party (and to a greater degree than in most other political organizations, certainly those with mainstream aspirations).

I think the Tea Party movement was primarily a reaction against the rise of Obama to prominence in the presidential race. Claims that it's primarily about government transparency or fiscal responsibility don't wash simply because a great many Tea Baggers are people who supported the Bush administration.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Sure he can point out some loons but you can do that in any political movement.

I think the broad brush is unfair and I'm no fan of the tea party.

At the very least, you have to admit that the Tea Party has more than its fair share of loons. I think it's got more than its fair share of racists, too. Though I would agree that racism isn't what unites the movement.

Nothing unites the movement.

That's why every time I point out the lunacy of an apparent Tea Party spokesman, defenders of the movement claim that person or organization isn't the real Tea Party.

[rjwould]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

How can you NOT read it that way?



To him, the tea party is "all about race". You have to really twist his words to reach the conclusion you are suggesting.

I would agree if he said "tea party membership is all about race." In my opinion hes referring to the organization. Choosing a couple of people as examples does mean hes implying all the members are racist, though they very well may be for all we know.

Lets take it from your angle though. What kind of people do you think this kind of behavior attracts, or put another way yet; what kind of person do you think it turns off?

http://dipshitconservatives.com/wp-c...eapartypic.jpg

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by rjwould

Bob Cesca makes a compelling case it is.

No he doesn't. In fact, he hardly makes a case at all. Let's take a look:

Originally Posted by Bob Cesca

Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race.

So he arrives at racism merely through a process of elimination. But what, exactly, did he eliminate on his way there? Strawmen, really. There's nothing nonsensical or contradictory about thinking that government has grown too large and is spending too much. You don't have to agree with that position, but it's at the heart of the tea party movement, and it's got nothing to do with race.

Quote:

Anyway, Cesca's piece in the Huffington Post (I know the Huffington Post is not like that bastion of credible news, Fox, but go with it for just a short read) offers some insights worth considering.

Well, no. It offers no insights whatsoever. It's a tired and threadbare accusation which gets trotted out to avoid actual substantive discussion. Are there racists in the tea party movement? Sure. Nutbags get drawn to any powerful political movement that they think can further their own petty grievances. Just recall all the Marxists who showed up at anti-Bush rallies. As for Cesca's claim that the left has no equivalent racism, well, I'm afraid he's wrong there too. Plenty of anti-semites find a home among the hard left's "pacifists". Is it "all about race"? Not even close.

Let me leave you with this bit from the Texas tea party, who responded to Keith Olbermann's accusation of racism:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So he arrives at racism merely through a process of elimination.

And worse, his logic implies that racism is rational (if it's what's left after you strip away rage and nonsensical stuff and contradictions).

I haven't read the piece, but this alone makes me not at all interested in reading it.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

At the very least, you have to admit that the Tea Party has more than its fair share of loons. I think it's got more than its fair share of racists, too.

I'd probably agree to that. It seems like they have a few too many birthers, truthers, and Glenn Beck fear mongers in the mix.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by rjwould

I would agree if he said "tea party membership is all about race." In my opinion hes referring to the organization. Choosing a couple of people as examples does mean hes implying all the members are racist, though they very well may be for all we know.

I think you are making a distinction without a difference. If an organization is "all about race" then membership in the organization is "all about race".

Quote:

Lets take it from your angle though. What kind of people do you think this kind of behavior attracts, or put another way yet; what kind of person do you think it turns off?

All grassroots movements whether they come from the left or right wing tend to pick up an excessive number of angry people. The problem with anger is that it stops you from thinking clearly.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Let me leave you with this bit from the Texas tea party, who responded to Keith Olbermann's accusation of racism:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That would be the Dallas Tea Party, and I find that funny since I live in Dallas and has seen some of the Tea Partier crowds. The folks in the video are nowhere near representative of a typical TP crowd here in Dallas when they gather, and it was obviously an attempt to redirect a typical Oblerman bluster attack back at him (and his "MSM Librul" network). Sadly, the TP crowd here in Dallas does consist of a huge number of racists, but they aren't the majority and that much is actually accurate in the video. The majority groups of the Dallas Tea Party are extreme fundamentalist (as in Creationism and teaching "the Bible" in schools) Christians, a lot of whom attend the dozens of megachurches here in the area where the TP-ers get to hand out leaflets and "raise awareness" to the thousands of folks ushering through them every Sunday-- anything but actually having the preacher actually start sermonizing during services, since the churches don't want to lose their tax exempt status.

Like KingMerv00, I think the article from the OP tries too hard to paint with a broad brush and in doing so produces an inaccurate picture of the group as a whole. The Tea Party groups aren't held together by racism, they're held together by populism and fear. As a result, racists and even a few smaller racist groups are naturally attracted to the Tea Parties since the core of racism is fear-based and prone to populist appeals. It's a plain reality that white power and militia groups are heavily represented in the Tea Party ranks, and attempts to avoid this reality are simply confirmation bias. However, that doesn't mean that the core or foundations of the Tea Party are based on these groups being represented, because as Random already pointed out (and well-put, by the way) the Tea Party is essentially a tabula rasa where people who sympathize with them project their own conservative anger onto the group and have it reflected back as the stance and principles of the Tea Party "movement."

[dudalb]

The problem the Tea Party movement has is it has not yet learned that welcoming racists and extremist in always hurts you in the long run.
I think the Tea Party movement will fragment; already a lot of libertarians are breaking with it over the rising power of the Christian Wing which seems to want to make it a
Christian Political Movement.
WHich would be ironic since openly confessional political movements have never done well in the US.

[Skeptic]

Seems like the usual "if you don't agree with me, you're a RACIST!" stuff from the "Puffing-ton Host", as it is called by its detractors.

[rjwould]

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years? Didn't Bush and the republicans explode the deficit? Didn't Bush and the republicans increase Medicare (entitlement) spending?

What about all the reference and symbolism to slavery?

To me it looks like its a message that the white man is now the slave of the black plantation owner (Obama). And the white man ain't takin' no marchin' orders from no black man. Perhaps thats whats behind the republican resistance to anything 'Obama."

Why all this activity after Obama took the oath?

[rjwould]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I think you are making a distinction without a difference. If an organization is "all about race" then membership in the organization is "all about race".



All grassroots movements whether they come from the left or right wing tend to pick up an excessive number of angry people. The problem with anger is that it stops you from thinking clearly.

No comment on the photo? that was the founder of the tea party movement in that picture. The angry people you refer to are the founders and originators of this organization.

[rjwould]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No he doesn't. In fact, he hardly makes a case at all. Let's take a look:



So he arrives at racism merely through a process of elimination. But what, exactly, did he eliminate on his way there? Strawmen, really. There's nothing nonsensical or contradictory about thinking that government has grown too large and is spending too much. You don't have to agree with that position, but it's at the heart of the tea party movement, and it's got nothing to do with race.



Well, no. It offers no insights whatsoever. It's a tired and threadbare accusation which gets trotted out to avoid actual substantive discussion. Are there racists in the tea party movement? Sure. Nutbags get drawn to any powerful political movement that they think can further their own petty grievances. Just recall all the Marxists who showed up at anti-Bush rallies. As for Cesca's claim that the left has no equivalent racism, well, I'm afraid he's wrong there too. Plenty of anti-semites find a home among the hard left's "pacifists". Is it "all about race"? Not even close.

Let me leave you with this bit from the Texas tea party, who responded to Keith Olbermann's accusation of racism:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You've based this entire post on one sentence, and you're claiming the author of the piece is narrow minded? And you also call what you done here (critiquing one sentence) "taking a look?"

[NoScotsman]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Seems like the usual "if you don't agree with me, you're a RACIST!" stuff from the "Puffing-ton Host", as it is called by its detractors.

Crying racism is a good way of stifling real debate ... of dismissing someone so you don't have to argue substantive points. Pointing out one racist in a sea of thousands is all takes.... It's like when Republicans dismissed the anti-war movement based on the 9-11 conspiracy crowd that populated the anti-war rallies ... they didn't want to discuss the actual merits of the debate.

In the case of the tea-party crowd ... I'm not sure what they are complaining about. Maybe it's because all I've read about them are knee-jerk opinion pieces like the article on HuffPost.

As usual, this job of actually uncovering the truth will be left to political pollsters --you know ... scientists ... those rare folks actually interested in discovering the truth.

[Brainster]

Cesca must have one of those secret decoder rings that tells him that everything is about race. I love this part, where he quotes the New York Times:

Quote:

SANDPOINT, Idaho -- Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government. She remembers her years working in federal housing programs, watching government lift struggling families with job training and education. She beams at the memory of helping a Vietnamese woman get into junior college.

But all that was before the Great Recession and the bank bailouts, before Barack Obama took the White House by promising sweeping change on multiple fronts, before her son lost his job and his house. Mrs. Stout said she awoke to see Washington as a threat, a place where crisis is manipulated -- even manufactured -- by both parties to grab power.

Using his decoder ring, Cesca discovers that Mrs Stout is a racist. How?

Quote:

Now you might be saying to yourself, I don't see the racism here. But if you eliminate all of the reasons for Stout's participation in the tea party movement as being contradictory or nonsensical, all that's left is race.

But of course what Cesca sees as nonsensical and contradictory may not be to the folks involved, who are not, after all, monolithic. For example:

Quote:

She claims to be against the bank bailouts, but the tea party is against the president's bank fee designed to recover the TARP money.

But is Mrs Sand opposed to the president's bank fee? Is the "tea party" itself opposed to the bank fees? Cesca provides no evidence to back up this claim. I found a tweet from the Racine Tea Party saying:

Quote:

Obama to announce bank fees on Thursday, which in turn will result in higher fees to customers. Thanks again Obama; for nothing!

It's certainly possible that the banks will just pass the fee on to their customers; of course it's also possible that they'll take it out of the dividends they pay to their shareholders.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by rjwould

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years? Didn't Bush and the republicans explode the deficit?

Yes, they did. Which made a lot of people very unhappy.
At the tea party I walked around up here, just about every sign that mentioned Obama actually condemned Bush and Obama, together, for their role in growing government and entitlement.
These people, by and large, aren't any happier with big-government Republicans than they are with Democrats.

[samm]

Originally Posted by rjwould

So where was all this Tea Party commotion during the Bush years?

For those with short memories or revisionist history sources:

These people have always been around.

The tea party is the spiritual decendent of many things. More recently though, in the early 1990s there was the Perot campaign without which Clinton would never have been elected into office. (This campaign siphoned off votes from both Bush Sr.--as well as the libertarian candidate.)

Perot's loss led to a diffusion of those supporters. Meanwhile, the libertarian party was having internal political troubles of its own (read not on the ball). The corruption of the Clinton administration led voters to swing to support Bush Jr. after 8 years. With the libertarians still in a mess and the bizarreness of the Bush administration, the disatisfied segment swung toward the "the Ron Paul Revolution". Once that avenue proved unsuccessful this segment settled into the Tea Party.

Immediately the republicans, displaying a rare cleverness, realized that they needed these guys, so as fast as they can they said, "I'm a tea party and so's my wife" Palin and others are running to the front of the crowd in order to steer them back to the republican side. Meanwhile the some hapless libertarians have been squeakily trying to say, "we're for freedom too... I mean first"...

The left sees the republicans may be successful in getting a hold of this segment as they did for the Bush jr. election and so you have them (Dems) doing everything they can to demonize them.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by samm

...More recently though, in the early 1990s there was the Perot campaign without which Clinton would never have been elected into office. (This campaign siphoned off votes from both Bush Sr.--as well as the libertarian candidate.)..

Perhaps a bit off topic, but my recollection was Perot's votes were siphoned equally from Bush and Clinton. There still seems to be contention about that either way but it doesn't seem certain that Clinton would have not won if Perot had not been involved.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by samm

For those with short memories or revisionist history sources:

These people have always been around.

Yeah, right.

The Tea Party movement as we know it is a reaction against Obama's ascendancy leading up to his election as president.

These people, largely from the right, were not criticizing the Bush administration over its massive spending and shoddy (or nonexistent) accounting particularly wrt the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were not clamoring for transparency in government during the Bush administration.

[samm]

Originally Posted by Denver

Perhaps a bit off topic, but my recollection was Perot's votes were siphoned equally from Bush and Clinton. There still seems to be contention about that either way but it doesn't seem certain that Clinton would have not won if Perot had not been involved.

You can find any number of sources that will say anything. You can believe me or doubt me and it makes no difference. I will not try and prove it to you. But the only truth you need to take away from this is that there is always a dissatisfied segment (you can look back into the 60s and find one).
That segment is going to be larger as the two main parties wield more power and they will coalesce at certain times based on leaders or ideas that have popularity.

And racism has nothing to do with it.

[samm]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

These people, largely from the right, were not criticizing the Bush administration over its massive spending and shoddy (or nonexistent) accounting particularly wrt the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were not clamoring for transparency in government during the Bush administration.

Look just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean they weren't screaming. I saw them everywhere but I don't rely on the same nightly news that nodded their heads when Bush said WMD in Iraq.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by rjwould

Why all this activity after Obama took the oath?

Because Obama is a Democrat. It is that simple. If Obama had been white, the same thing would have happened...well minus the N-word sign.