“Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black” – Tim Wise
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
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 a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
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.
Game Over.
Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.
#1 by Michael Reis on April 24, 2010 - 8:11 am
Mr. Wise – diversify your circle of friends.
This is not the world we live in anymore save for the craggy, decrepit, neolithic fossils with their eyes cast into the dirt of the past and not the bright light of the youthful future. I’m talking about the handful of racists that exists in isolated pockets of the world who believe that their race (black, white, brown, whatever, each of them is represented here) is somehow superior. I’m also talking about those all-too-vocal “I’m not a racist” racists who still believe that racism is all about superiority rather than the truth – that racism is about the deep-set belief that somehow a person’s race or racial history makes them different.
The truth that we, the youth, have managed to glean from this world is that people are people are people, and culture lines are not delineated by the color of anyone’s skin but rather by the common elements of their lives.
So go find some new friends to influence your world-view, because the idea that you would lump me and my friends into the outdated, inaccurate take on the way of the world in this article makes me sick to my stomach.
I hope to god or the universe at large that your message doesn’t stick to the older crowd, because I know that the youth know better.
#2 by Richard Warnick on April 24, 2010 - 8:11 am
I was going to say, where is H. Rap Brown when we really need him? But Wikipedia has the answer. He’s currently serving a life sentence for homicide.
#3 by Anonymous on April 24, 2010 - 7:04 pm
wow michael. wow. wow. if only one of your statements was true. such innocence
#4 by AL on April 24, 2010 - 8:29 pm
Do you live under a rock or are you just unbelievably hypocritical?
What do you think was happening when Bush was in office?
Imagine if a movie was made about the assassination of Obama. It happened to Bush.
Kanye West came out and said that Bush hates White People. How is that different from what Nugent did?
Imagine if groups were marching in Washington with kill Obama signs. It happened to Bush.
Imagine if they burned Obama in effigy. It happened to Bush.
Please gives us a link to your post showing indignation what all of that was going on.
#5 by James Farmer on April 24, 2010 - 9:33 pm
AL:
Go back and read the top post again, very carefully. You should then realize your comment reads as if it were drafted by a moron!
#6 by Rahana Zellars on April 25, 2010 - 8:58 am
Thank you. This is the best article I’ve read in a long time. As a black and white female I see both sides. People with their crazy antics and one who just sit by and watch like nothing is going on. I am writing an article on discrimination right now and feel much more inspired after reading this. I am glad you wrote this, because this needed to be said. Brilliant… in a few words or more.
#7 by John on April 25, 2010 - 1:19 pm
This is a typical simpleton’s argument. From a guy named wise. Funny, the world is funny.
#8 by James Farmer on April 25, 2010 - 3:09 pm
John:
Is the “imagine” part to much for your teabagger mind to comprehend?
#9 by AL on April 25, 2010 - 4:10 pm
James – I did read it. This is just an attempt to marginalize anyone that criticizes Obama. The fact that it is done by calling them racist makes no difference. Everything that progressives are complaining is being done to Obama, was done to Bush by progressives. The Progressive slogan should be ‘Yeah, but that’s different’.
#10 by Richard Warnick on April 25, 2010 - 5:19 pm
We criticize the President and his entire administration frequently, but we try to make sense. Insane ranting has become the hallmark of the Tea Partyers.
#11 by AL on April 25, 2010 - 6:50 pm
Calling everyone that disagrees with Obamacare racist is just as insane.
#12 by Doug on April 25, 2010 - 8:02 pm
Great story Mr. Wise. From the comments I’ve read attacking you and this story I’d say you have made some of the far-right sheep very uncomfortable. Like vampires who can’t take the light of day your story has hit them where they continue to lie to each other about how they’re not a bunch of knuckle dragging racist buffoons. Bravo!!!
#13 by kwais on April 26, 2010 - 4:01 am
Well this article is all over the place., at first I really liked it.
What if their was a mainly black tea party movement?
I would really like that, as a limited government tea party guy myself, i think that would be awesome. Lets not pretend for a second that most of the problems of race and racism in American are not driven by unconstitutional government programs.
Mainly drug laws and gun control laws.
So, yeah I liked the beginning of the article, and I was really excited by the idea.
But then the article got tiresome and became just another attempt to call non leftists racists, in a very blind and self unaware way at that. Yo, there ARE racists on the left. There ARE black racists. Jesse Jackson anyone? The mayor of NO anyone? Al Sharpton? Kanye West has been brought up by the commenters. Imagine the writer looking at the record doing some actual research.
How about this, imagine a leftist writer actually being against racism, actually wanting to do something about it. Instead of using it racism and the race card as a crutch to support socialist programs that in fact do more to further racism than any private citizen could ever do.
Meh,
But what if there really was a mainly black anti government group? How cool would that be? How cool would it be if there was such a group that said “we don’t want government help, we want to be left alone by the government”.? Hell yeah, I would support such a group.
Kind of like the guys in DC who want a voucher program I suppose. Guys that oppose the NEA, and want government to stop destroying the future of their kids. I am sure that if they weren’t black that Mr Wise would call them racists too.
#14 by Uncle Rico on April 26, 2010 - 6:23 am
Ted Nugent on Obama: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.”
Kanye West on Bush: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
Yeah, that’s the same. I see your point Al.
#15 by AL on April 26, 2010 - 7:21 am
“Yeah, but that’s different”
#16 by AL on April 26, 2010 - 7:43 am
Uncle Rico – Will these do?
John Kerry – “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone”
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams – “Right now, I would love to kill George Bush”
Craig Kilborn – Had the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush during his acceptance speech.
Stevo (Jackass) – “F**k George Bush, I’ll kill him”
Rage Against the Machine – Called for all Bush administration officials to be hung and tried and shot.
#17 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 26, 2010 - 8:23 am
John Kerry in context: http://newsbusters.org/node/8175
The “real bird” isn’t Bush. It’s the white house and the presidency. It’s a metaphor, doofus.
Betty Williams: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-peace_12nat.ART.State.Edition1.43b8067.html
She apologized, which is more than can be said for the tea party, which tends to defend, laugh at, trivialize, or ignore similar statements by its members.
Craig Kilborn put those words in place in jest on a comedy show. Even then, his network suspended him briefly and apologized for the incident. Glenn Beck, on the other hand, does such things not in jest, then is interviewed seriously about his perspectives, paid huge speaking fees at conservative conventions, and has become a kind of conservative hero for his antics. This by the serious angry guy, while the jokester gets punished. Hmmmm. . .
As for Stevo and Rage Against the Machine, their statements in context were deplorable. It’s a good thing they’re fringe counterculture and not a mass nonpartisan movement attempting to represent the mainstream American!
Your examples are poor. If you want to challenge the argument of the top post, defend the particular speakers and put their words in context. Conservatives have for too long said, “Yeah, well you do it, too!” Maybe the TP could try denouncing some of these college dropouts instead of holding them up on multi-million dollar pedestals, hoisted on the backs of a “leaderless” political movement.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#18 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 26, 2010 - 8:38 am
Kwais–
Please explain to me how drug laws and gun control are the primary drivers of modern racism. As I see it, racism is driven largely by the Christian Identity movement, Confederacy nostalgia, and a news media which overemphasizes black criminality in order to keep its predominantly white viewership glued to the screen.
Michael Reis–
I’m glad that you and the rising generation are so free of racial baggage. That’s great, and that’s exactly what I and many others on this site want to see happen. Unfortunately, as you will likely discover, there are many in this country (and not just the fringe racists) who still have too much racial baggage. This article, to me, isn’t saying that racism is prevalent in our society to any great extent; it’s merely asking an important question: would we tolerate or defend this kind of behavior from a minority? Many whites have no problem getting along with blacks, but would feel somewhat greater tension seeing a hundred blacks with machine-guns gathered in D.C. than we would a thousand whites.
Racism need not be overt, be directed at a particular race, or even be negative in order to exist. I’m not among the doomsayers who think that our nation is insanely racist to the core, or even that conservatives are. But there’s a bit of the old racial distrust and tension that lingers yet today.
Should we really be tolerating the behavior coming from the more radical members of the TP? Should the conservative right? More importantly, should the TP? It lets itself become what it will become. There comes a point where the TP has to denounce such people or welcome them, and so far all I’ve really seen is acceptance or denial. A little rejection could be healthy (that goes for the Birthers on the fringe, too).
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#19 by AL on April 26, 2010 - 8:46 am
Dwight – Yeah but that’s different lives!!
I guess Stevo and RATM are fringe counterculture, just like Nugent.
The problem I have with posts like this is that progressives were not writing blogs about how deplorable it was when people were holding signs in parades in San Francisco, that said “Kill Bush”, depicted Bush as Hilter, with a noose around his neck, or burning Bush in effigy.
A movie was made about the assassination of Bush, but I did not see the same indignation from progressives as I see when people criticize Obama.
Progressives cry racism every time someone is critical of Obama policies, and it is wrong. I disliked and protested against Bush policies, but no one called me racist. They do when I protest Obama policies.
#20 by james farmer on April 26, 2010 - 9:04 am
AL:
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Bush started a war of aggressions based on arrogance, lies and misrepresentations that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.
You should really wake up and see the trees amidst the forest. Teabaggers hate the fact that a black man is president, a woman is speaker of the house, a wise latina sits on the supreme court and homosexuals have positions of power in the congress. Teabaggers, including you, I suspect, harbor extreme distaste for that fact; otherwise there would be little for you to complain about.
#21 by AL on April 26, 2010 - 9:20 am
I hate the things Bush did as much as anyone, and we continue to pay for the problems he caused.
I am sure there are racist Tea Partyers, just like there are racist progressives, but in general, the Tea Party is not racist. I, by the way, am not Tea Partyer, but I support their right to protest.
#22 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 26, 2010 - 9:35 am
AL–
Here’s some news to you: that’s a “problem” that each side has with the other from time to time. A common progressive accusation today is, “Where were you small-government nuts when Bush was in office?” The accusations of party complacency go both ways, and deservedly so.
Nevertheless, James makes a point: the “kill Obama” crap is a reaction to a perceived threat to our “way of life” (whatever that definitively is), while the “kill Bush” crap generally came after years of real threats to our “way of life.” Whereas the threat posed by universal healthcare is based primarily upon very broad assumptions about the Constitution and the slippery slope argument, Bush’s illegal wiretaps, indefinite detentions, torture, and so on were concretely in contravention of longstanding laws and standards. He actually did challenge basic enumerated rights (writ of habeas corpus, etc.), as opposed to Obama supporting laws which the prognosticating right wing tells all sorts of horror stories about. People said “kill Bush” over lost rights, exploding deficits, the loss of our standing in the international community, and the deaths of soldiers and innocent civilians overseas. People are saying “kill Obama” because of a phantom of socialism that they’ve created in their head—but none of the actual outrages that Bush committed except for a huge deficit.
On the other hand, we as progressives have to keep in mind that the TP side is responding to what they consider to be a much greater threat than illegal wars, minor invasions of civil rights domestically, and grave loss of civil rights abroad. To the TP, big government is a greater threat to our American “self” than any of the Bush behaviors were (which “self” is, of course, far more valuable than any of those foreign “others”). Bush’s actions didn’t affect us personally very much, but Obama’s creeping socialism will. While I disagree with this domestic-rights-only, short-sighted, antisocial perspective, I recognize where the TP is coming from and that, in their own minds, this situational outrage is justified.
I disagree with “cry[ing] racism every time someone is critical of Obama policies,” and I criticize those who do. But don’t make the mistake of denying that a racial element exists in many TPers decisions—don’t react to stupidity by taking a position of opposite, albeit equally great, stupidity.
James–
If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say nothin’ at all.
Your first paragraph was enough to explain your position without welcoming criticism with this silly straw-man. I’m sure some “Teabaggers” hate those things. I’m sure lots of conservatives hate at least the last one. But this idea that the TP represents in full every oft-caricaturized form of bigotry America has to offer is ridiculous. The worst I would say is that the TP’s zeal is blinding it to the fact that it’s harboring these types of personalities, and that it should make an effort to distance itself from its more radical participants.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#23 by AL on April 26, 2010 - 9:45 am
Dwight – Good post.
My issue is not in the specifics. It is with progressives trying to marginalize everyone that disagrees with Obama. I disagreed with Bush, and it had nothing to do with race. I also disagree with Obama, and it has nothing to do with Race.
The TP certainly has racists, but so does the progressive movement, just a different kind. Neither want to admit it.
#24 by james farmer on April 26, 2010 - 11:04 am
DSA:
Sorry, but I beg to disagree. I think the sentence you quote from me is spot on – read the stuff the baggers write and say. Maybe it does not, however, apply to AL, and I gracefully retract my suggestion that it does.
#25 by cav on April 26, 2010 - 11:28 am
I want to kill others as much as the next guy – that’s what rag-heads and gooks are for – not preznits.
So, the time-tested recipe for acting on these feelings is to let the duly elected / appointed indicate just who we should be hot to rub out -and to provide sufficient remove as to asuage our guilt when we do.
If done properly this can go on for a very long time (through several administrations certainly) and generate incredible wealth all the while.
The problem here is that the present leader of the free world is sort of, kind of of the very same group we would normally target in these wealth-creating endeavors, and thus has sort of kind of caused us to think about it all a little differently.
But, not to worry, the wars will go on – none of us can really imagine any alternative.
Post-millenial marketing know-how. It’s really quite refined. A wonder to behold.
#26 by Richard Warnick on April 26, 2010 - 12:48 pm
AL–
I think you are comparing far-left fringe groups that are completely ignored by the media with the Tea Partyers, who get way more coverage than they deserve thanks to Faux News Channel.
I don’t like the coarsening of political dialogue. However, it’s hard to blame those whose ideas are routinely suppressed by the corporate media.
“Death of a President” was a British film. Although it got good reviews, few theaters showed it and CNN, Fox and NPR refused to accept paid advertisements for it. I never got to see it in Utah, obviously, but it has been described as a thoughtful analysis of American politics post-9/11.
#27 by Snide on April 26, 2010 - 10:22 pm
http://whitemaleoppressor.com/category/political/page/2/
Imagine if anything this guy based his imaginary imagining on was actually not imagined.
#28 by brewski on April 27, 2010 - 2:55 am
And just think, she could have been one-heartbeat away from being President. So, based on the evidence and the James “if I can find one racist in a group then the whole group must be racists” rule, then all Democrats must be racists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12campaign.html
#29 by cav on April 27, 2010 - 5:42 am
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2010/04/26-2
“Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. 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.”
#30 by jazzfli on April 27, 2010 - 9:57 am
Guess all these opinions all show we just can’t get along. How can we know what’s good if bad is not defined. Color is always going to be an issue. Many youth(M.Reis) is off the frkn chain. It’s aconstant “alpha” battle. There was never a president that did ALL of what I would like them to do or despite my thoughts what NEEDS to be done. I dont know it all.
The article says IMAGINE. keep it simple people. Its like and “if” “then” statement in a computer program.
Capital hill has and always will have corruption. “It ain’t never gonna change.” But that’s just me. Need proof. Read all the answers above this. The thing I like about Obama…. LAWD HE’S SHAKEN THE FRKN CHERRY TREE AIN’T HE???? HE WASN’T LYING ABOUT CHANGE. Want to Make the world a better place? Start here:
http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm
ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN
(a guide for Global Leadership)
All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.
These are the things I learned:
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don’t hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life – learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup – they all die. So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned – the biggest word of all – LOOK.
Is this the truth or WHAT???
http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-Kindergarten/dp/080410526X
Just want to emphasize form Obama and everyone else, ESPECIALLY ME,
—CLEAN UP YOUR FRKN MESS—
Do that and 60% of problems are solved.
Have a GREAT day people… REALLY I mean it!
#31 by White Male Oppressor on April 27, 2010 - 1:12 pm
Imaginary imagining? Did you actually read the piece or is it that you believe the sound bytes I did watch numerious tea party videos from that day inorder to see if the acusations were real and could not for the life of me find one racial slur outside of the congressional acusation. If there had been you would imagine as hard as liberals and progressives are trying to discredit the movement the media cnn, msnbc and the other liberal news agencies would have been playing them every 30 seconds for about a month however there has been no noted violence or racial slurs at the tea parties. If you want to see violence and racial slurs look at the liberal protesters in Arizona.
#32 by kwais on April 27, 2010 - 3:11 pm
The Christian Identity movement is a result of racism, not a cause of it.
How drug laws and gun laws cause racism, and further racist causes is simple it is almost self evident.
For drug laws, you make something illegal that is not in itself wrong, and is going to be continued to be practiced whether illegal or not. Then when law enforcement tries to stop it, do they primarily go after the kids of their neighbors, their friends, or the kids of those more powerful than themselves? No, they go after the disenfranchised of society, and those less able to defend themselves in against prosecution.
The same number of whites as blacks do drugs and deal drugs, but look at the disproportionate number of blacks in prison for that offense. Do you think that is just chance?
Once you have been in prison once, you are a criminal for life in the eyes of our society. The first drug laws were passed by progressives specifically to target minorities.
Gun Laws:
The first gun laws were specifically to prevent black from being able to defend themselves from the riders of the KKK, local law enforcement wasn’t going to protect them, the only thing the riders of the KKK had to fear were blacks defending themselves.
Today, look at areas where you are allowed to carry a gun and areas where you are not. You will find that the darker the skin color of the population the stronger the gun control laws are likely to be.
Criminals will have guns, no matter what the law says. So, where gun control is high, the only two groups to have guns will be (usually white) cops, (usually black) criminals. Tell me that is not a recipe for the perpetuation of racism?
#33 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 28, 2010 - 10:54 am
Kwais–
Regardless of why and where gun laws first were enacted in the U.S., the issue here is what drives modern racism. I couldn’t care less if the KKK wanted to restrict black people’s access to guns. What matters is whether “most of the problems of race and racism in American are. . .driven by unconstitutional government programs. . .[like] drug laws and gun control laws.” That’s what you claimed, and that’s what I contend with.
In that context, I beg to differ on a few points. First, I said the Christian Identity movement is one of the drivers of modern racism, not its origin or cause. Racism’s origins are ancient, but the ways that it is perpetuated are of a necessity quite modern. Christian Identity defies modern social reform on the pretext that the non-white (and sometimes even non-American non-white) races don’t have a spirit, are not favored of God, or are descended from Satan or Cain. It justifies and encourages racism. As such, it is definitely one of the causes of the form of modern racism.
On the matter of gun laws, there were many gun laws that existed before the Civil War, but it is true that many of them excluded blacks from gun ownership (or simply didn’t protect their gun rights). I don’t personally believe that modern gun control laws are tailored around controlling black criminals, but it may be true that they perpetuate certain racial stereotypes (black criminality) by pitting one race against another. I think that this goes along with my assertion that media obsession with the black criminal contributes to racist perspectives.
Regarding drug laws, the argument you’ve made is true of all laws if it is true of any. I could replace your references to drug crimes with references to crimes of theft and it would be equally reasonable. What you’re really arguing against is racial preference amongst law enforcers, not drug laws.
The problem with your argument lies in its lack of specificity. There is nothing in the concepts of gun and drug laws that of a necessity generates or perpetuates racism. If you want to attack specific drug and gun laws, be my guest. You’ll just have to convince me that the KKK inspired Bill Clinton’s “War on Drugs,” and that modern lawmakers favor gun laws that target minorities—and that those very lawmakers are in no way tied to the ideology of the tea parties, Confederate nostalgia, or conservatism. Good luck.
From a conflict perspective, supposing that race is unequally distributed in society or is a powerful part of cultural identity, it makes sense that laws restricting access to a thing or defining criminality by possession and not behavior would be lenient to the ruling class and harsh to minorities. It is certainly not, however, the goal of the majority of modern progressives to employ drug and gun laws to keep minorities in a state of governmental thrall, or to encourage or perpetuate racism. It would make more sense for progressives to target conservatives than to target a significant part of their voting base.
So, in specific, many of our drug and gun laws have origins in racism (or at least were designed in such a way that one race wasn’t as easily criminalized as another), and even perpetuate race stereotypes—but it isn’t fair to say, as you have, that modern racism is driven primarily by unconstitutional government programs. You haven’t the evidence to support such a hypothesis, and it is absurd to assume that, in the absence of gun and drug laws, racism would have faded away. Racism existed before gun and drug laws; it will continue regardless of them. That’s so obvious that it is
almostself evident.On a final note, let me introduce you to my little friend: evidence.
http://www.cagvedfund.org/CAGV%20OpEd%20Gun%20Death.pdf
http://www.ipoaa.com/us_black_population.htm
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/stategunlaws/scorecard/BradyScorecard.pdf
Notice that Massechusetts (5.3% black population), a state with extremely strict gun laws, has a very low per capita gun death rate. Louisiana, on the other hand, with gun laws at almost nil, has a black population of 32.4% and almost 6 times the gun death rate. Maybe modern gun control laws exist for a reason other than to disenfranchise minorities. And maybe they work. Whaddya think?
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#34 by kwais on April 28, 2010 - 11:59 am
Dwight,
First about the drug laws.
Certain laws are moral, and pretty much everyone accepts that they are moral. Laws against stealing, raping, kidnapping, murder ect.. Everyone recognizes that those things are wrong, and a moral people police eachother, and try to prevent such things.
An effective police force CAN diminish those truly immoral activities, and in doing so bring the population closer to the police, and legitimizes police operations.
Selling drugs is not by any objective measure immoral, and policing CANNOT diminish the activity, and attempts to do so will only alienate the police from the community and reduce the police’s ability to prevent real crimes.
An alienated ineffectual police force, with a rise in crime amongst any ethnicity, is a real cause of racism and racist thoughts even in the most liberal fair minded people.
Next if I have time the gun laws.
Both this about the drug laws, and about your assumptions about gun laws have been amply written about.
#35 by kwais on April 28, 2010 - 12:12 pm
New Hampshire is the state with the most liberal gun laws, and also it is the state with the lowest crime rate.
That of course proves nothing, correlation is not an indicator of causation. I just mentioned it because of your non sequitor about Louisiana and Massachusetts.
If you want to find out if gun laws, or a gun law is effective, show where they have passed a law and crime has gone down. I think you will generally find the opposite.
Gun laws like crime laws alienate a populace from the police, generally speaking.
#36 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 28, 2010 - 1:06 pm
Kwais–
This argument wasn’t about whether gun laws are effective or not, or whether drug laws are based on a clear moral or not. Your assertion that the lack of moral basis for drug laws and the supposed ineffectiveness of gun laws equates to a promotion of racism is specious.
The non-sequiter about Louisiana and Massechusetts is to prove a point, but perhaps not the one you think. Even if it doesn’t prove that gun laws diminish crime (which is complex enough to be somewhat unprovable, anyway), perhaps you remember this statement:
The evidence shows that, whether they are effective or not, the existence of gun control laws is not as powerfully-driven by race makeup as you suppose. Which, of course, was the point of the original argument.
Furthermore, as you previously claimed, “The same number of whites as blacks do drugs and deal drugs.” You then state that “An alienated ineffectual police force, with a rise in crime amongst any ethnicity, is a real cause of racism and racist thoughts even in the most liberal fair minded people.” If both statements are true, then anti-white racism would be produced equally, and a general distrust of people would occur, rather than of a specific skin color. Unless we have primarily white officers policing black neighborhoods and vice versa. I have to concede, though, that there are more white police officers than black, which creates an authority conflict-of-interests on this issue–supposing that your original statements are true.
Still, if drugs were legal, people would still find reasons to be racist—they’d notice the drug-induced delinquency of other races more than their own, and that would be the new excuse.
Gripe all you want about the effectiveness of drug and gun laws. I made my concession already when I mentioned the conflict interpretation of gun and drug laws. I won’t deny that drug and gun laws may be structured in such a way that they encourage racism, even by accident. But that’s a far cry from the idea that they are the primary drivers of racism (your argument accidentally implies, for instance, that Christian Identity is a product of gun and drug laws).
Your arguments have likewise been amply written about. You have no stronger a claim on causation than I. You have provided no evidence, and instead gone off on a barely-related tangent about the morality of drug laws and effectiveness of gun legislation. It seems clear you have a problem with drug and gun laws, and that’s fair. But blaming racism on them? That’s like blaming racism on the tea party, which, if I’m not mistaken, is the precise kind of irresponsible judgmentalism and race politics you posted here to denounce.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#37 by jdberger on April 28, 2010 - 1:15 pm
And California, with the highest Brady rating of 79 (meaning the strictest laws in the Country – excluding the District of Columbia) and a 6.3% black population has a per capita homicide rate of 9.6. The same per capita rate as North Dakota, which has a 0.6% black population and Brady rating of 4, though it has almost 3 times the percentages of households with firearms.
Strangely, the CAGV report neglects to include the per capita homicide rate (by gun) for DC, which is 60.7% black and has, according to the Brady Campaign, “strong commonsense gun laws”. It’s murder rate is 35.4.
Think those gun control laws still work?
#38 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 29, 2010 - 9:54 am
Jdberger–
You’re running off on the same tangent as Kwais (which I admit that I provoked). I further admit that the facts don’t conclude that gun laws necessarily help the situation, although they don’t conclude the converse, either–not necessarily, anyway.
As a matter of the statistics, I can evidence my side of the argument as well as you can yours, if we continue to utilize the tools thus far utilized. On that basis, there is as much reason for gun laws as against, aside from any Constitutional qualms, which the courts have thus far handled in favor of both my side and yours, at varying times for varying reasons.
As far as the tangent is concerned, I believe that gun laws are effective in different places for different reasons and to different degrees, and ineffective in others. But the issue is more complex than a mere question of whether or not they work. It makes sense that getting rid of legal guns will make it harder for criminals to get them, but criminals will get them, anyway—and then the legal possessors, who likewise find it harder to get guns, will have less ability to defend themselves. It also makes sense that a high level of gun possession will scare some criminals, but that criminals in an environment of high risk will become gradually more bold, until high gun possession actually creates a higher-risk environment.
The statistics so far presented support neither position definitively, and as research regarding Australia’s gun laws has described, it’s too difficult to determine all of the factors that affect gun crime. The mentality of the populace (and the factors that affect it) no doubt has a lot to do with gun crime, which mentality then enters interplay with the gun laws of the area. Californians, no doubt, have a very different mentality than North Dakotans, on the average.
On the matter of the tangent, then, I apologize for bringing up the idea that gun laws work. I don’t have evidence that they do, merely suspicion and biased reasoning. The primary point, however, was not whether or not they work, but whether or not they or one of the main promoters of racism and/or are created for race-tinged purposes.
–Dwight
#39 by kwais on April 29, 2010 - 12:04 pm
Dwight,
Gun laws are not effective anywhere. There is NO evidence to suggest that they are. The onus of proving that they are effective is on the side that wants them, there is NO evidence that they are effective.
Twisting your arguments around and trying to get the other side to prove a negative, does not change that.
Of course you can *believe* that they are effective, just know that there is no evidence to support your position. None. And if it were true, there should be.
As for racism, you can accuse the identity movement, and the kkk all you want, but in the end they cannot, and do not cause racism. I mean, I don’t think they do. If you can show somewhere that a racist organization has taken a non racist person and converted them, I will hear you out. I have not heard of such a thing.
I have heard of people, including liberals, developing racist thoughts and attitudes despite themselves (because they don’t understand the causes of the disparity of crime by race, or maybe regardless of the causes).
Drug laws like the prohibition cause an increase of crime. This is well documented. Laws against stealing, murder, and rape do not cause an increase of crime, in fact quite the opposite. Also well documented.
And increase in victimless crime prosecution is also documented to affect proportionally larger segments of minority populations.
Gun laws, that is to say that arbitrary gun laws, and gun laws that allow government agents to have guns, that the population at large is not allowed is also going to adversely affect minority, particularly unpopular minorities.
Oh, another cause of racism is probably welfare.
Do you really think that the KKK *causes* racism?
#40 by AL on April 29, 2010 - 12:27 pm
Nice post kwais. Do you have an links for good articles on drug legalization? Google has too many links to wade through…
#41 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 29, 2010 - 1:21 pm
Kwais–
Do I have to tell you again? I don’t believe the Christian Identity movement is a cause of racism. I never said it was. You made up that straw-man yourself, and you’ve been dancing around it ever since. Got it?
Utilizing your own standard for evidence, try to find some evidence that gun laws and drug laws have taken a non-racist person and converted them. Anecdotes about what you’ve “heard of” don’t count. If you don’t think there are any converts to racism, then you’re more naive than I thought. There are always people who can be converted to ridiculous ideas. And then there are babies. Racists do have children, don’t they? They do make friends, don’t they? Social groups that validate their beliefs and give them a sense of belonging can only serve to embolden them in spreading their ideology, even in subtextual and seemingly gentle ways.
Nevertheless, the question of causes is yours, not mine. I simply assert that modern racism is driven (furthered, perpetuated, provided a base ideology) by things like Christian Identity, the KKK (you added that one to the list), media, and Confederacy nostalgia. Gun and drug laws no doubt play a part (based on their crafting and the context of their application), but they’re not center-stage like you think they are.
I will agree that welfare plays a big part in perpetuating racism—but that’s largely because the white population that depends on welfare is ignored, not because it doesn’t exist. The welfare system needs to be overhauled to be more of a hand up, rather than a hand-out, and our media needs to stop focusing on black “welfare queens,” when you are more likely to find a white person on welfare in the U.S. than a black person—the black people just tend to be congregated in high density in the inner-city, where, by the way, white flight has played a large part in perpetuating poverty (which is probably a greater cause of racism than just about anything else).
Again, many of the problems you describe are race-related only because of context (attitudes amongst law enforcement, prior conditions such as poverty which exist predominantly amongst a particular race, the tendency to interpret events in racial terms, etc.). Blaming them on racism is like blaming Ford for racism if one of its lower-quality cars becomes associated with black people in the white mind because black people are more likely to be able to afford it. It’s likely that thinking in racial terms before the car was built and throughout its use was the culprit, not the production, purchase, or operation of the car itself.
If we’re discussing minorities from a perspective of social power, it would probably serve us to talk about the origins of criminality in poverty as a part of that—like how the fact that blacks are underrepresented as leaders in the workplace drives racism, and the underfunding of schools in predominantly minority regions drives racism, and so on. The poverty minority—not the black minority—is the number one minority which is criminalized by drug and gun laws and perpetuated by welfare. You think that drug, gun, and welfare laws have monopolized the creation of racist perspectives? Try poverty, delinquincy, and violence, the very things that drug, gun, and welfare laws are attempting to combat, and that urban sprawl, discrimination, and race politics have produced—perspectives, by the way, that existed long before drug, gun, and welfare laws and that have been perpetuated by racist groups ever since. As one of the original sources of racial discomfort, distrust, and poverty, I would say that racism is its own greatest cause.
You have provided a flimsy basis for your assertion about the driving forces of racism, which basis is essentially little more than questionable reasoning which ignores countless other potential factors (some of which I addressed). I, on the other hand, have provided concrete examples of organized movements and subcultures which willfully preserve and attempt to spread an ideology of intolerance, subjugation, and hate. Yet, surprisingly, you’re the one who’s too sure of yourself to yield to anything, when all you’ve offered is predictions and interpretations rooted in your personal, bias-confirming vision of the world. It seems obvious at this point that programs you term “unconstitutional” are your scapegoat, and I have to wonder what other ills you’ve ascribed to them out of sheer habit.
Summary of our argument:
You: gun laws drive most race problems in the U.S.
Me: I thought racists did that.
You: You think the CI movement causes racism???
Me: I didn’t say that. I said they drive racism, and that gun laws are only vaguely linked to racism.
You: You think the KKK causes racism???
Me: I didn’t say that. I said they drive racism, and that gun laws are only vaguely linked to racism.
I can guess what your next comment will be (it starts with “You” and ends with “think white supremacy causes racism???”). I have little interest in discussing this issue with you anymore, as you obviously have a one-sided interest in attacking government social laws or anything else that has the stamp of liberalism on it, regardless of its potential merits. I have made numerous concessions and attempted to discuss this issue fairly, but that’s not good enough, and if you are just going to keep banging your head into the wall of your own ideas, then I’m done. I’m wrong. You’re right. Discussion over. You can have the last word if it’s important to ya, and I’ll read it and consider it. Satisfied?
–Dwight
#42 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on April 29, 2010 - 1:26 pm
One last thing, Kwais:
Justice Stephen G. Breyer disagrees. You can read his dissenting opinion if you want. I won’t waste time posting a link. If you aren’t willing to look it up yourself, you aren’t willing to believe it. You’ve amply shown you’re not willing to do either.
That sounds like a faith-based claim, to me. Did you read any of my links? I know, though, that no evidence will be sufficient for you. There’s always a way to work around statistics so that you don’t have to believe them.
I don’t believe I did that.
By the way, I’m not in favor of strict gun laws, despite what you may think, and I’m in the middle on drug laws. I believe in welfare reform, too. I’m sure that, with your stellar record for (pre)judging/(mis)interpreting my beliefs, you didn’t suspect that. Understand that part of my reason for commenting here is to dissect ridiculous statements and reveal them for what they are—like the statements you made that precipitated our little chat.
#43 by kwais on April 30, 2010 - 11:28 am
Dwight, you are going to have to explain what you mean by “drive racism” then.
Utilizing my standard of evidence to say that the drug war causes racism:
Well, i suppose in a strict sense, evidence is not convincing. But it is generally accepted that increased crime and violence causes normally liberal people to hold racist beliefs, and have reservations about certain members of the different races, particularly races that are generally poorer and more crime ridden.
The drug war does increase crime. As did the prohibition. I don’t really think there are any really serious disputes about that.
Now, if you want to contend that an increase in crime, and an increase in violence in a minority neighborhood does not cause and increase in negative attitudes of other people towards them generalizing the people as a group. I would have to say that I don’t really have any evidence. I mean having traveled to Israel, and many of the more dangerous American cities, and being interested in human behavior I would say that it seems to me that higher crime and violence causes racism, but I could be wrong.
About the gun control thing:
To say that “there is no evidence” is not a statement of faith. It is a statement of fact. Easily trumped by saying “no, here is the evidence”, if you have the evidence, or have seen any.
I have been reading papers and studies about this sort of thing for a while now, and I am pretty sure that there is no evidence that holds up under scrutiny.
The links you provide pretty much confirm that.
I think the things that you say cause racism, are not causes of racism, but are inevitable results of racism.
And that drug laws, gun laws, and welfare laws *cause* delinquency, poverty and violence. I might be wrong, but it is a logical assumption. There are of course studies that go both ways on the above.
#44 by kwais on April 30, 2010 - 11:45 am
AL
LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition) is a good place to start:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Reason Magazine is usually a good place to go. They write well about abuses in the war on drugs, as far as recreational drugs, but also about abuses of the government dealing with legitimate doctors trying to prescribe legitimate medicine.
http://reason.com/archives/1994/10/17/drug-legalization-and-the-news
http://www.tnr.com/blog/john-mcwhorter/murder-the-bronx-business-usual-suggestion-obama-2014
#45 by kwais on April 30, 2010 - 11:54 am
Here is the racial history of the drug war:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_history.cfm
The goal of the current war on drugs might not be to incarcerate a disproportionate amount of minority males, but that is the result:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/17/drug-war-racism
#46 by jdberger on May 3, 2010 - 1:35 pm
Actually, this was exactly my point.
Not really, but you pretty much nailed it by mentioning “Constitutional qualms”.
I doubt the latter. Criminals are rational actors. They weigh consequences just as we do. We don’t play in traffic, they don’t rob obviously armed people (Hollywood aside). Those that do have short careers.
On the last part – you might be interested in The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer (wrote a couple of amici briefs for SCOTUS, is one of the leading scholars on the subject, is somewhat responsible for a revival of Second Amendment scholarship in the 80’s, etc…..
For the most part, I don’t think that gun control drives racism. I did get sucked into your tangent. However, much of gun control policies have been the product of racism.
“Saturday Night Special” bans for instance. Inexpensive handguns purchased by poor folks (read ‘negroes’) were determined to be a larger threat than larger caliber, better made and more expensive counterparts purchased by whites.
For a pretty disturbing history, check out “No Guns for Negroes“.
Thanks for keeping (mostly) an open mind.
#47 by Philip on May 6, 2010 - 9:29 am
Why do we need to always make this about race? I know plenty of races outside of white, including black that are supporters of the Tea Party and plenty races that are totally against President Obama…it is not about his color, it is about his politics. Please quit trying to make this a racist issue when it is not!
#48 by brewski on May 6, 2010 - 3:07 pm
Everything is always about race to lefties. Even Barack Obama can’t helo himself in thinking everything is about race. He even wants old white males to not vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-yR1HWkbM
Which is a sad cynical departure from his One America speech. Turns out that was just a con.
#49 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on May 7, 2010 - 7:08 am
Brewski–
Are you a professional ditch-digger, or is this just part of a comedy routine?
Let me one-up you:
“Everything is always about nothing but race to lefties.”
There. Now I sound as absolutely absurd as you do.
–Dwight
#50 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on May 7, 2010 - 7:23 am
Brewski–
As always, you reveal either a lack of fair judgment on the issue of Dems or a lack of intelligence. Obama clearly didn’t say that “He. . .wants old white males to not vote.” What he said is that he wants his supporters to help get those first-time voters who had felt disenfranchised prior to the 2008 voting season to know that their vote will matter again in 2010. Those supporters, demographically speaking, just so happen to be minorities: young, black, latino, and/or female.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html
Obama’s demographic is made up significantly by these groups. It’s natural that he would seek their support for his agenda, and that he would seek to keep them active in polling. Statistically speaking, they’re the group that most needs the encouragement. Politically speaking, they’re the part of his base that can turn the tide of an election.
Wanting certain people to vote is a far cry from not wanting certain people to vote. So stop being a moron.
–Dwight
#51 by brewski on May 9, 2010 - 2:37 pm
DSA,
So let’s accept your premise.
Then you would defend GWB making a speeech where he implores white peope to vote, where he implores men to vote, where he impores Christians to vote. On that note, you would support Chuck Schumer for imploring investmnet bankers to vote. Or Jack Rockefeller imploring coal industry executives to vote. Hey, it’s their base. Nothing wrong with that.
As for “lacking fair judgment”, having such would be a first on this site. I missed your criticizing Glenden or Cliff or Richard for “lacking fair judgment” on pretty much any of their Rachel Maddow said it so it must be true posts.
#52 by James Farmer on May 9, 2010 - 3:31 pm
brew:
First off, where has anyone on this site disputed Bush’s right to implore the various categories of persons you refer to vote? With that statement, you again wonder into the land of absurd analogies.
Second, you would do well to review the Latin phrase: “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” If you are going to apply this canon with consistency, then your failure to group me in with your criticism of Glendon, Cliff and Richard re Maddow necessarily implies that you agree with me every time I bring up what Maddow said.
PS. Congrats. It looks as though DSA finally maxed out on your crap.
#53 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on May 10, 2010 - 7:17 am
Brewski–
If GWB were saying the same things about a Christian, white, male demographic, and it happened to be true, then, yes, I would defend his speech. It’s not Obama’s fault that minorities and young people (a big part of his base) are less likely to vote. The fact that he points out a statistically marginalized group as one which needs to be encouraged to vote is nothing to scoff at. Although I doubt that his desire to get them to the polls is purely objective (it is, after all, politics), that desire is certainly a less outrageously reactive position than yours consistently tend to be.
The question is, Brewski, would you defend anything Obama did, truly and sincerely? My perspective isn’t suspect here—yours is, and as such you should probably focus on correcting your own instead of mine.
If you review the site’s literature, you’ll find that I have come out against Glenden, Cliff, and Richard many many times—my initial disagreement with them is, in fact, the initial cause for my involvement on OneUtah. I’m not sure about any particular Rachel Maddow situation, though; I tend to not put much stock in your and Glenden’s locker-room tickle fights. In any case, you’re not exactly one to speak about having fair judgment on this site. Unlike me, you aren’t even trying to help the situation. It’s like Charles Manson complaining that society’s become too violent.
Regardless, the trollish personality you are tends to draw criticism. It’s like dealing with someone who gets defensive before he’s been criticized and has to be convinced over and over to calm down (it’s a glandular problem, probably). It’s ridiculous the number of times I have to remind you to drop your pants before you take a crap. However much I disagree with the others on the site, they never welcome accusations of intellectual retardedness like you do (Glenn, Shane, and Cliff dutifully excepted, on occasion). Anyway, you probably shouldn’t bicker with the few allies you have. Remember—I’ve defended you before, whether you wanted it or not. As long as you’re reasonable and gracious, I’m on your side, even if I disagree with you. Figure that out and you’ll spend less time defending your overinflated ego and more time actually deserving what pride you have.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#54 by brewski on May 11, 2010 - 8:23 pm
DSA,
I wish I could support or defend Obama on something. I was very skeptical of his campaign, but after he won the election in a very skillful and deserving fashion, I really wanted him to be who he said he was and I gave him the benefit of the doubt….for a while. Since then he has done nothing but renege on election promises and disappoint on pretty much every part of that whole hopey changey thing.
But don’t listen to me. Listen to Rocky Anderson, that well known right wingnut. (I’d like to hear Cliff comment on Rocky’s comments about the Africa Prince):
But this post was about the Tea Party. I don’t consider myself a Tea Partyer at all, but if you can bring yourself to look past all the misspelled signs and unsophisticated slogans, much of what they are really asking for is pretty mainstream stuff and some of it is the exact same stuff that Obama was saying as a candidate. What is funny about the lefties is that they can’t see past the old white guy element to listen to the content and realize that they have a lot in common with the Tea Partyers. Government is broken. Government is too cozy with lobbyists, Wall Street and big Corporations. Earmarks corrupt the process. Government is inefficient and has too many programs and functions which don’t accomplish much or are duplicative. Etc.
Sound familiar? It was the same “Change” message that we heard 2 years ago. In fact 20% of self identified Tea Partyers voted for Obama.
So this whole characterization of the Tea Party and those who are sympathize with the Tea Party-ers as being racists and just plain stupid is a giant mischaracterization as well as a missed opportunity. Some of those same people who are waving their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags would be waving Obama flags if he had done half of what he had promised to do.
Remember the promises? No lobbyists in his administration, high ethical standards, end earmarks, universal healthcare, lower premiums by $2,500/year, not one thin dime of tax increases on people making under $250k/year, go line by line through budget and eliminate all duplicative or ineffective programs or departments, end influence of lobbyists in writing bills, close Gitmo, pull out of Iraq in 90 days…….
Have any one of these been kept?
So you say I criticize anything Obama does. Well, I don’t see that he has done anything he said he would do. Right now Obama’s approval rating is up to 51%, which is up 6% from his low of 45%. So, it is hard to make the case that I am way off base and represent some fringe element. He has disappointed, he has not lived up to his own words and a big chunk of this country agree.
#55 by cav on May 12, 2010 - 7:11 am
It may have been here I read the reminder that it really took some time for many onetime Bush supporters to come to grips with the unpleasant realities of his administration; the same can be said for Obama supporters.
I believe brewski, Bubba V, and others (many of whom were once Obama supporters themselves) have made pretty good cases for such reassesment on the part of Obama supporters, for releasing ourselves from some supposed affiliation and for trying to wrap our efforts around achieving more of the kind of government we’d like to have.
Sadly, our situation is so laden with disaster, man-made and natural, that putting together such a tuned-up institution is down the priority list for many of us, even tho, deep down we know it could be a real component in any or all of the solutions that will be required.
#56 by cav on May 12, 2010 - 7:21 am
says of Obama: he’s hardly ever great, he’s sometimes awful and there is no possible alternative that is any better. In fact, there is no alternative except to put a Republican-fascist in office who will be much worse.
#57 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on May 12, 2010 - 7:42 am
Cav, Brewski–
Due to my own biases, I am factually incapable of always catching unfair, biased, or sometimes even ridiculous speech. I try to oppose it any time I can, however, except when opposing it seems pointless. I have little interest, for example, in getting involved in Larry and Richard’s 9/11 truther arguments, because it is, to me, irrelevant. For the same reason, I am usually not that interested in Glenden and Cliff’s anti-Bush rants. Obama, however, is present news, so I tend to fall on the side of defending him from the present and ongoing pitchfork parade. I haven’t heard that many “African Prince” arguments lately (e.g. “Obama’s the greatest thing since sliced bread”), so I haven’t been getting after his supporters all that much.
For both seeming and real biases, I apologize. Thanks, Brew, for your thoughtful comments. I disagree with certain points, I prefer that others be tweaked, but by and large I agree with the general sentiment of them.
And thanks, cav, for always providing a sensible, humorous, and needed dose of reality.
–Dwight
#58 by cav on May 12, 2010 - 10:15 am
You’re welcome Dwight, and thank you too.
I will say, in defense of Obama’s efforts, and to counter the accusations that he’s merely Bush lite, that they have made progress in changing the framework and shifting the possibilities in regards to diplomacy, parts of the economy, parts of the healthcare conundrum, and, given the mess we’ve been in, that in and of itself is an accomplishment.
My point is that the broader citizenry needs to do exactly what the tea-people are doing, only with more real heart, and ever so much less prompting and appropriation from the sharks who would profit so handily.
This would mean govt by, for and of…as opposed to what we’ve become.
#59 by Carl on May 12, 2010 - 1:49 pm
Obama, the Brown and Root Bush 3rd term.