The Tea Party Movement and the "Race Card"

Did Obama have to contend with Code Pink and the anti-war movement to thrive in 2008? Did the Democrats need to in the 2006 midterms?

Face it, the Dems didn't exactly run Michael Moore out of their convention on a rail in 2004, either. Bush was fair game then. So why shouldn't Obama be fair game now?

 

Of course Obama is "fair game" if by that you mean anyone is free to protest or otherwise oppose the president's political agenda. Who has suggested otherwise?

Personally, I think the president's approach to energy policy and financial re-regulation is wishy-washy and half-assed, representing his capture by big corporate interests. I don't know how to express my opposition adequately, but it may not involve a big poster that includes a hand-drawn caricature of the president eating a watermelon.

 

Even though I am a "loon" who does think Obama is a flaming liberal despite his rhetoric (which I think is often empty politics--"no guys really, I'm not a radical, vote for me!"), I know that there are people who compare him to Bush. If he truly is comparable to Bush, why shouldn't he be criticized just as much or expect to be attacked just as much?

Of course there are also those who think Obama can do no wrong, is a perfect centrist, charming, intellectual, etc. He's the best president ever! Those pesky folks on the right who disagree with virtually everything he does, they're stupid, ignorant, and above all, racist. They should be wiped off the face of the earth. Yeah, that's not hateful, one-sided, or anything like that.

That's what bothers me about the two-party system, it's like...two warring religions or something. "Oh, so you're a democrat? Geez...did you know you're going to hell?" "Oh so, you're a Republican, so...you don't believe in evolution and you're a racist?" "I can't believe you're friends with [person of other political affiliation]"

It would be nice for the hate to stop, and it comes from both sides, in my opinion. I guess it's hard to have civil debate, though, because many issues are quite emotional for people or they otherwise tie up their dignity/reputation with their political views so much so that if they are even found wanting in an argument, they resort to name-calling, mockery, etc.

It's a shame that some tea party protesters feel the need to compare Obama to Hitler, and pick on his skin-color/heritage. I think there are plenty of issues to pick at without picking at the man, personally. So, I really don't approve of Tea Party folks doing that, but I really don't think it does people good, to then turn the blame on all members of the tea party and stereotype them instead of Obama. There's plenty to pick at with them too. It would be nice if it weren't all so personal--that's the part about politics I really hate.

 

What I wouldn't give to read just one astute, thoughtful, non ideologically driven critique of the president's policies in this forum. It's like waiting for a heart of gold. And I'm getting old.

 

I believe the phrase is hooker with a heart of gold.

Jabba why are you looking for a hooker?

 

I believe it's a Neil Young reference.

 

I'm not saying it shouldn't be ideologically driven, but that it would be nice if people could separate ideology from the person, and stick to political debate above personal debate. I think everyone has some form of an ideology that they come from, and it's debate/questioning that helps keep people from becoming ideologues.

 

I know, but who wouldn't jump at the chance of accusing jabba of renting love by the hour?

 

True. I can't sleep at night until I imply that he has herpes.

 

Did they really have influence? Because if so I don't think I noticed it. I did think of them as crazies back then, and I felt pretty certain other people felt the same way. Would I be wrong to say that conservatives/traditionalists are by far more successful in creating devoted followers out of their base?

So, is this entire discussion based on resentment? That the left's protesters are marginalized, while the right's are somehow accepted? I still say it's still more of a melding of protest methods. Traditionally, the right represented the "silent majority" and was suppose to grumble in their homes, while the left always engaged in the "in your face" demonstrations. Now, the line isn't so clear between the two, because the reason for protesting is anger. Some people will channel that anger in a productive manner. While others will channel it in a destructive manner. I suppose the act of the "popular protest" is the point where the two meet.

Honestly, I can't recall the last time any protest, save for the late 60's, brought about any kind of change. Civil rights was successful because people from both sides came together. The Vietnam protests were probably next, but they were extremely focused in their results. They brought about age based voting reforms, as well as helping to end conscription, but it's fair to say that the anti-war movement didn't bring about an end to war.

Because to get tailored results, you need a tailored focus. I think that's what is missing in contemporary protests no matter what the slant is. Everyone wants to capture the popular sentiment, but no one knows what they want anymore. I'd still say one of the more meaningless protest movements was the "no blood for oil" group, because 1)for the most part, they didn't stop driving their own Jettas, and 2)The slogan didn't stop Iraq from getting the snot beat out of them anyway. I suppose examples like this is what fuels the "left protest marginalized, right protest legitimate" perception. But I still wouldn't say that the fringe of one movement has any more pull than the fringe in any other movement.

 

I just don't want the wife to find out. If she knew everything I've been infected with she would put on a hazmat suit every night before coming to bed.

 

The reason for their protesting is anger? Well...yeah, anger that a black man's president, angry that their 'side' lost, angry that people aren't listening to them. So racist needy attention whore anger is more apt than anger over anything substantive.

 

Have you paid attention to statements about the War Protesters and the anti-semitism?
How about the fact that nooses have been called racist, yet I was able to quickly find 3 examples of nooses for Bush.
Both sides are identical.

Where exactly would I find the right to Trespass where one pleases, or the right to demand right of way?
Not in the Constitution of the United States, and not in the Platform of the Libertarian Party,and no mention by the ACLU.
So please, since you are a complete expert on Civil Liberties, do educate me. WHERE?


Racially resentful, is not the same thing as being racist.

 

Sweetpea: Wouldn't the rough translation of that gibberish be, "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican"? I'm thinking it is.

 

Come on, FID, even with your signature sardonicism, that post seems exceptionally single-minded. Rather, it represents a single slice of perception. It's not the totality of anyone's viewpoint, but I'm quite sure you already knew this.

I think that is the point. One can accept your post without also overly expanding it or simply using it for marginalization purposes.

 

Due Process, feel free to look it up.

And you apparently don't understand context. It's really quite confusing. For example, if one were to say that Obama likes Arugula, what does that mean? Well it means he enjoys a leafy vegetable of the cabbage family. Obviously... wrong. The argument isn't about which vegetables are enjoyable, it's about perceived elitism. How does a vegetable get tied to elitism? Who cares, the leaf eater's a socialist!

A picture of the White House Lawn covwred in watermelons. What's racist about that? context.

And there is a very different context between left wing protesters hanging Bus in effigy and right wing protesters hanging Obama in effigy.

"Well that's not fair" tough **** fairness has nothing to do with it. In America nazi comparisons get thrown around like nothing. Doing the same thing in Germany is going to have a far greater impact.
A bunch of white guys talking hanging the black guy has parallels in our history you can't simply ignore because you find it inconvenient or unfair.

 

Republicans have enjoyed tremendous political success in the last few decades parsing that distinction.

 

Hey Jabba I think we're making progress. Someones willing to say tea partiers are resentful of blacks.

But not admit it's racist. Well we're working upstream but we'll get there someday.

 

Republicans have enjoyed tremendous political success in the last few decades parsing that distinction.

Both parties have enjoyed tremendous political success parsing that distinction, least you forget one party practically has a lock on promoting the victim mentality in order to score votes. And both are equally harmful for different reasons. It's why race relations in the US always seem to face an uphill battle, because no one can simply acknowledge it without being defensive.

 

Due Process is when someone is accused of a crime.
Protecting the border, whatever force necessary, is a security measure.

Bringing up Due Process is like, bringing up muzzle velocity when talking about landmines....wait that's it, deploy landmines on the border! No bullets needed, just put them out like we do at South Korea! Finally we can stop the flood of lumberjacks terrorists from Canada. So there, I withdraw my "shoot the trespassers" with, deploy landmines like we do in South Korea.
Happy now, Mr. Expert-on-all-things-of-the-universe-especially-civil-liberties-and-libertarians?

When was the last time I supported a Republican?

 

The only parts I disagree with are 1) the word "equally." I come out a little bit differently trying to calculate the relative harms of different kinds of race politics, otherwise I wouldn't vote the way I vote, and 2) I'd rephrase the last sentence to read "It's [a reason] race relations..."

Just a little bit of redrafting and we can issue a joint press release.

 

Hahahaha. No

Due process is the requirement to protect the rights someone has according to the law. It takes the form of judicial proceedings to ensure those rights are maintained. Ignorance can be corrected, but the first step is realizing it. Put aside you bloodlust for a minute and read something that isn't a novel based around the authors intellectual hard on for libertarianism.

 

In the American legal system, until they were convicted in a court of law, they are only "accused of a crime." In this case, the crime would be violating US immigration law. But they'd still be subject to due process, by the definition you just offered. Things aren't magically waived because they represent "a security measure."

. . .

 

Actually, deterrent isn't bloodlust.
Who says I haven't read something that isn't a novel?
Arrogance can be corrected, but the first step is realizing you're not as hot as you think you are.

 

And democrats have not?! The dems still haven't managed to sweep all their racist heritage under the rug.

And then we have the opposite side: those lying filthy politicians who claimed to be called racial slurs and spat upon by Tea Partiers.

Where is the evidence race hustlers?