The Tea Party Movement and the "Race Card"

The Tea Party has racists in it -- how I view it is: big deal, some of the leftmost organizations you can imagine have racists in them. Is the Tea Party a "haven" for racists? Sure, but I bet there were a lot of racists in the anti-Iraq war rallies too, although a greater percentage perhaps would not have admitted it.

We are talking about the wrong thing here. Questions of race pervade both sides of the political spectrum just as there were plenty of racist soldiers in the Union in 1860. If we want to argue which side has more racists towards blacks sure: we're going to end up with the political spectrum on the right. No surprise.

But neither racism, NOR CONCERN FOR THE ISSUES is what drives this on. Any more than the sob story of Vietnamese peasants motivated hippies to go out and protest the war in Vietnam.

Why did the hippies protest? Becuase they didn't want to fight! That it was a crummy war they probably shouldn't have fought in is also true, but it wasn't really for the lip service of peace love and harmony that the counterculture took place. Most of them really didn't give a damn about any of that, otherwise we'd hear more from them today and more effectively.

The right is pretty much the same way. They don't give a damn about the debt. If they did this would have started up earlier. Since when have there been protests in favor of debt reduction and less public services? Come on, someone is not being truthful about this. Americans are just SO special and SO politically engaged in economic theory that they, alone, on the planet will protest this stuff? Right.

Although it's related to race, I present the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE6uVGQaCsU&feature=channel

TYT is as leftist as you like but what they're talking about is important, which is the underlying reasons of why this stuff happens. But THEY don't quite get it either. They speak of the decision to deny tax relief to unsegregated churches first of all, as if that were the touch-off. Frankly Civil Rights was before it.

But it doesn't explain why it's still going on.

And that's because: it's not about race. Not really. Like when the Nazis persectued the Jews, it was no longer about religion or genetics. With the right, it's no longer about the blacks in any way, shape or form.

It's becuase people are used to feeling a certain way and refuting certain things, and they pass this on to others around them. And those people then carry this on in a more placatable form, both for themselves and for thier appearances.

The average Tea Party member does not throw hate at Obama because he's racist. Even if he thinks Obama was born in Kenya, it's not REALLY becuase of racism that he thinks this (although that could be for some -- those that would in fact spend thier time otherwise in Neo Nazi rallies and KKK organizations). He thinks this becuase he's being proven wrong on too many things that he was told were true too quickly. These people are not going to just let themselves be told they are wrong without a fight, they're not going to give you the satisfaction. That's too much of a humiliation. They're not going to stand for a shutout in thier culture war, despite the fact that it began as a reaction to Civil Rights.

Becuase it's not about racism or civil rights any more. It's about dignity. The dignity of the obstinate.

 

The hyper-defensiveness. The denial. The attempts to cover it up and pretend it's not happening at all

You may be right, but this could also be anyone's response to being called a racist. When you're suddenly labeled racist, there really isn't anything you can do or say, regardless of it being true or not. If you simply disagree, you're in denial. If you attempt to prove that you're not--you're covering it up. If you attempt to disagree or defend yourself at all--you're hyper-defensive.

I think that many people accusing the Tea Party of being a racist movement would continue to do so, no matter how much evidence was offered that seemed to suggest the majority of its followers are actually not racist--that the movement has nothing to do with race. All you need to do is find someone who is racist and say--"see? racist." It really all just fits the common "conservatives are racist" narrative. The movement could be largely racist, but I'm wary to accept it--mostly because it seems like another bandwagon belief that "informed" citizens are supposed to jump on i.e. the idea that the movement was racist originated from hyper-coverage of several racist people. The intent behind that reporting seems to me, clearly an effort to sabotage a movement that those who were reporting, largely disagreed with (especially since the coverage was mostly based around racist signs for weeks--rather than the actual movement, it seemed very one-sided). Throw the word "racist" out there, and it will often stick.

 

BINGO!!

Today I was labeled a racist because I said: The solution to the border problem is to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then have them guard the border. Anyone who crosses the border illegally, gets shot.

My statement had nothing to do with race it's about how to secure the border.
I'm at a place in my life when I hear accusations of racism, I just laugh and think there needs to be a new Godwin's Law.

 

And yesterday I was accused of racism for saying the way to reduce crime was to kill poor people.

It's so unfair. I'm just talking about mass murder for fake social gains based on a worldview where such a thing is acceptable because it's done to outgroups.

I mean.. really!

Edit// Frankly though I'd suggest you embrace the term racism for that since the other apparent option is sociopathy.

 

[image=http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b222/tleivo/hitler.jpg]

 

Bravo my good man.

 

Well now, I'd say that proves my point quite nicely, You have no real counter argument, so you just fall back on the "racism" thing.
Someone breaks into my house, they'd get shot, regardless of how much skin pigment they have per square inch.
Same with carjacking, mugging, piracy on the open seas, oh Wait WE DID Shoot Pirates, guess the Commander in Chief is racist too!

F.Y.I. If you violate U.S. Air space you will likely get shot, refuse to answer U.S. Coast Guard when entering a port and see what happens to your boat. Land border should be no different. As I recall there were a few nations that shot people on their border when they tried to LEAVE, we can continue this in another thread.

 

I have no real counterpoint to summary executions of people who enter our country illegally?

I was unaware one was needed. Let me rack my brain for a few minutes and see if I can conjure one up.

 

Jabba, when you race-baited about the Tea Party (who is closer to my political philosophy than you are), you forced me to prove a negative. It was not only offensive to me as a person, but it also renders any sort of civil debate impossible.

How, exactly am I supposed to prove to you that I am not a racist? The only option would be to capitulate totally, and not object at all to a health care bill whose cost turned out to be grossly underestimated and was being pushed by the same part of the political spectrum that gave us the failed Great Society. And I not only have grown to have philosophical disagreements with the Great Society's approach, I also have come to the conclusion that it has done far more harm than good, and despite the intentions, the results are undeniably negative as a whole. So, you've given me the choice of doubling down on a colossal failure OR having you paint me as a racist (as I said earlier, I was at the 9/12 protest - and I support those folks' agenda).

**** that, I am not going to accept that either/or proposition.

If anything, the way the race card has been pulled out over the least 13 months, from Janean Garafolo's comments to yours just yesterday leads me to question whether you really want an honest debate, or if you have just decided that since you can't defend the 45-year track record of the Great Society and you can't defend the fiscal sanity of Obama's agenda, you've got to throw the race card out there because you are otherwise out of options.

So, how am I supposed to debate someone who either thinks I'm a racist/bigot or who is so out of arguments that he/she can only play the race card? How can I be sure you don't think I'm a racist/bigot?

 

misusing another term are we?


U.S. Constitution Article IV Section IV clearly states the Federal Government's role in this matter.
"...and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."

 

Oh, by shoot them did you mean shoot them to wound? I hear our soldiers are trained not to shoot to kill....

Oh by summary executions I see I meant the government killing people without due process.

Hey I made your new thread for you, lets go talk about your murderousness there and you can defend your belief that we should execute anyone who commits a crime to your heart's, or whatever you're using's, delight.

 

You know sweetpea, I think it's neat you know the Constitution exists, and even some of the words, but it's actually an entire document and not just a text files for snippets. The document as a whole has some interesting things to say, you should read it. Then you can read some scholarship(no poorly cited blog articles don't count) and maybe, just maybe they'll explain to you why what you're suggesting is actually unconstitutional as well as being morally repugnant.

I realize moral repugnance is fish with a bicycle territory here but I thought I'd mention it.

 

I'm gonna disagree with the idea that we should run the US like it's Mexico, which I thought has been criticised for having near that policy.

I've heard that claim a fair bit as well, and it goes roughly along the lines with things like how, when I've made the case that there's a sizable portion within the tea party legitimately concerned about reducing spending and not just Republicans bitter at the Democrats, I've been told that's a nonexistent group.
Are there racially motivated people in the Tea Party? Unfortunately, yes. Although I would say that applies to most other political organisations as well. The anti-SB1070 protest I passed in Flagstaff had signs that said "La Raza" which is Spanish for, I believe, "the race". The focus on race in politics is a problem across the board, imo, and should be pushed out wherever found.

And Glenn Miller ran for Congress in 2006 as well. He got around 40 votes. Near as I can tell, it's not as though he's a legitimate candidate and I'm not sure where fringe nutjobs not associated with the group in question fit into this equation.

It's official, Jabbadabbado's son is Michael J. Fox

 

The comparison is with the supposed Michelle Obama "whitey" video. The idea that the Obamas are anti-white predates the Tea parties, or at least their modern incarnation. That is actual "playing the race card" as defined int he opening post. In contrast you have a southern conservative white supremacist yelling about who immigrants are going to over run the country.

And then you have southern conservative whites worried about immigrants in the tea parties. But of course they can't be racist. Racism is something that only gets 40 votes and these people are "real America".

The difference is one of degree, not type. Is everyone in the tea parties a racist? No. Are there comparable underlying thought processes between tea parties and Glenn Miller's rant? Absolutely.

 

Well, I'd never heard the Michelle Obama thing, myself, til you mentioned it. Nor do I care what Michelle Obama has to say on anything, given that she's not actually a gov't official, nor do I think she should be thought of as one. Don't care what she says gov't should do, don't care what she may or may not have said in the past. Don't care about her new pet project about food or such.

Same went for Laura Bush, which is likely why I remember virtually nothing about her.


Granted, on the race thing, I also found this very cringe-worthy when this was said at the inauguration because of it's attitude towards race:
"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right."

 

Lowie the incident I'm talking about was from the campaign, and the tape didn't actually exist. It's an accusation that Michelle Obama hates whitey. I want to make that clear, since it appears you and possibly others are unfamiliar with the incident.

 

Feel free to add the word 'claim' in there in that I'd never heard that claim made about her, but I did pick up on the part of it being a 'claim'. I also generally don't trust any claim about anyone saying anything in politics until I see proof or get more verified accounts if recordings aren't available. Because as a rule, if someone is involved in politics such that they are making claims about other people in politics, they're a liar.

 

U.S. Constitution Article IV Section IV clearly states the Federal Government's role in this matter.
"...and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."

Yeah, because when they wrote that they CLEARLY meant unarmed masses of people.

I don't know if you should have been called a racist Sweetpea, but if that's your argument you most certainly should have been called an oppertunist and/or a liar. If someone reads that and honestly doesn't know "invasion" means by use of armed forces -- or one of them carrying a club or something threatening at the very least -- then they're an idiot. If they read it, know it refers to armed forces and uses to justify shooting unarmed civilians anyway, then they're no better than lawyers chasing ambulences.

Farraday is right: oh the humanity of what has been done for you, for only suggesting we kill a few hundred to thousand people for the greater value of "sending a message".


As I recall there were a few nations that shot people on their border when they tried to LEAVE

Indeed -- Communist East Germany come to mind. But thank you for holding them up as an example for emulation. We didn't even have to wait for the socialist president to start suggesting the border policies of his chosen ideal. And how good of you to say "they shot people for trying to leave, and I'm not saying we even have to go THAT far, I'm so moderate!"

 

I would say, though, that 'racist' isn't just another way of saying 'wrong'. I disagree fully with his idea, but I think to say the idea, as he put it, is racist is very much incorrect.

 

No, that's right. It's not inherently anti-race.

It is however completely authoritarian and at odds with the very things the Tea Party claims to espouse... not that SweetPea claimed allegiance to them or anything.

But if he claims he's in any way a libertarian, I'd call shenenigans on such a statement. Shooting people as they cross the border unarmed into your country is a lot of things, but it sure ain't libertarian.

EDIT: And what do you know? Guess what he claims in his Bio! Yeah, libertarian until its ideals become inconvenient...

 

The solution to the border problem is to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then have them guard the border. Anyone who crosses the border illegally, gets shot.

If SP had written

The solution to the border problem is to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then have them guard the Mexican border. Anyone who crosses into the U.S. from the Mexican border illegally gets shot.

then I think a claim of racism might be warranted.

As it is, textually on its face, SP is advocating shooting Canadians too as well as U.S. citizens leaving the country illegally. I call that a fair plan.

 

To be fair, it's also more than just Canadians and Mexicans crossing the border. Though I can't get a percent on it for other countries.

 

To be honest, that is what has generally had me increasingly upset as well. Whose definition of "what is right" is being talked about? And throughout the entire health care debate, Pelosi has compared it to the Civil Rights Act - and that level of rhetoric can only mean that they seek to play the race card to protect the health care bill.

So why would the left use this? Again. the motive is clear: They need votes. Most Democrats need to pull 90% of the African-American vote in a given Presidential election to have a chance of winning. For the Hispanic vote, it's about 65%.

The motive to play the race card is there: They need to keep roughly the same percentage of the African-American and Hispanic votes that Obama got in 2008, and they need heavy turnout from those demographics. The race card is just what they need to do it. It's about electoral politics, not any real racism.

 

I don't think comparing health care to the Civil Rights Act can only lead to the race card. While I do think people like to try to link stuff to past causes to try to get more mileage than the idea does on its own (animal rights activists, mainly PETA, are who I think of first for doing this with links to slavery and the Holocaust) there is also that the Civil Rights Act is, quite arguably, the biggest government vote/change that has occurred in the lifespans of many of these politicians. So there is a grounds for it that's not setting up 'the race card'. And really, that comparison DOESN'T set up the race card from a logical standpoint, because the comparison doesn't make health care a race thing, to my knowledge. I don't think any good is done by overstating Pelosi's intent by saying it's clearly something that isn't that clear.

That said, I would agree that there's an element that does want to keep African-Americans tied to the Democrats, and to get that same level of control over Hispanic voters. And given that those two groups do have some strong social conservative trends that would align them more with Republicans, I would say there are some that use race to accomplish that. Not all, and I'd like to think it's not anywhere close to most, either. But racially-based statements from people on the left (I'll say at least anti-Republican, but won't say pro-Democrat since that's tough to back up) directed at minorities in the Republican party do show that there's at least some that figure just being a minority should mean you can't back the Republicans. Though I'd not argue that's a large group, or indeed, any major politicians in the party, without some numbers to back it up. (Or statements, in the case of politicians).

 

?The Libertarian Party Platform is clear, Libertarians support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property,? said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director."

Gonk, there is nothing "anti-libertarian" about a secure border. It's how we secure the border of Iraq and Syria,or, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Actually stop and think about the Libertarian mind set.
We legalize drugs- no more illegal border crossings.
We streamline immigration- no more illegal border crossings.





How do you KNOW they are unarmed? We're talking hypothetical here.


Libertarian Fiction even brings up this idea, in Freehold the characters had a similar discussion about anyone trying to enter the planet had to dock at an approved "skywheel" anyone else would be shot down, but why would you try you can bring in anything you want.