Is the Tea Party Selfish and Bigoted?

Recently an acquaintance  wrote a Blog entitled: Who's Sorry Now.  In the Blog the writer begins with some statements that are allegedly attributed to the "Tea Party" and then goes on to state that their views on who makes up the tea party and their motivations.

Below is my point by point response to their allegations.  Tell me what you think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red,

I have a different take on your characterization of the tea party. 

In your post, you begin by stating, “The Tea Partiers have a lot of interests, most of which consist of things they are against.”

This is not how I find people who support the tea party.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I find members of the tea party to be genuinely for principles of liberty and the values embedded in the constitution.  In fact, this is it’s mission statement taken from the teaparty.net website…

The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded, Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:

• Limited federal government • Individual freedoms • Personal responsibility • Free markets • Returning political power to the states and the people

You claim the “They are against government”.  I disagree, as noted above they are for limited government which is something quite different from “against government”.   You state that they “aren’t all that concerned over its regulating Wall Street.”  On this one, you may have a point.  But you see it is not because no one cares about the corruption and self-serving actions taken by individuals during the Wall Street meltdown.  Rather, the tea-party is for “Personal Responsibility” and holding those individuals who contributed to the meltdown accountable for their actions.  The best way to do this is to have a vibrant court system in which injured parties have the right to recourse.  In addition, where federal and state laws have been broken, those responsible should be brought to justice.  Additional regulation makes companies and institutions beholden to bureaucrats rather than clients and customers.  An environment where bureaucrats  hold significant sway on businesses and business decisions often leads to inefficient responses to customer needs and higher costs to meet the regulations which we the consumer then pay for.  Further, and perhaps more dangerous, is the risk that what may start out as a well-intentioned program with well-meaning civil servants evolves into a corrupt system in which government bureaucrats become susceptible to bribes and other forms of corruption so that companies yield to a temptation of focus on achieving influence rather than serving customer needs.  This is the dark side of regulation.

You said, “ They’re against immigration”. First, I go back to the mission statement and ask, in what part do you see anything that has to do with immigration?  What evidence exists that they are against immigrants.  The tea party members that I know don’t hate immigrants, they respect and admire immigrants.  A mantra that is shared with the tea party is one that is on all of our money, “E Pluribus Unum” , “Out of many, One”.  This is a uniquely American principle that says, the rights embedded in our constitution are available for all regardless of blood line or ethnic background.  Yes, we may have come from many different backgrounds but regardless of our ethnic heritage, we are all Americans and have a common creed that binds us such that any individual is free to pursue happiness in their own way.  Finally, I personally have enormous respect for those who came to this country and properly pursued citizenship.  A wonderful couple I know have shared with me their long a arduous journey to citizenship from their native Nairobi.  My respect for them is unbounded.  Regardless of your stance on the issue of immigration, I simply think that is unfair that this wonderful couple invested themselves into the legal immigration process while others simply cross the borders and take up residence.  What is fair about that?  Either we should allow all people from all countries to come to the US without regard to any standards or immigration policy or we respect the need for a rationale policy of how we manage the process of integrating those from other countries into our society.  It is absolutely unfair to single out one group, primarily from one country and provide them with a special standard that is not applied to others from the rest of the world.

You said, “They don’t like paying taxes, but don’t seem to care much one way or the other about high income tax cuts or other benefits like the multitude of loopholes that benefit the very rich.”  The issue here is one of free markets vs government solutions.  First, it is well documented that the top earners in our country already pay a disproportionate share of taxes.  According to the National Taxpayers Union, The top 1% of all Adjusted gross earners pay 36.73% of the Federal Income Tax.  The top 5% of AGI pays 58.67% of the Federal Income Tax.  Now you apparently feel that is not enough.  My question is what do you think is the right % that the top 5% should pay?  Nearly 60% is not enough????????  From my point of view, this a a grossly unfair burden on a very limited number of individuals and makes us as a nation even more dependent on the success of these individuals for our total tax revenue.  This seems like a risky proposition to me.  Our revenue fortunes rise on these individuals success.   With so much of our present revenues dependent on the success of these individuals, wouldn’t it make sense to encourage even more success for them as this would translate into higher government revenues?

You said. “They dislike people of color on general principle” again, where do you find that in any of the tea party principles?  This is not my experience at all.  Have I ever seen a nut who claims some tea party affiliation ever rant in a thoughtless bigoted manner?  Simple answer yes!  Still that is not an indictment of the entire group.  Evidence of bigotry and stupidity is something that is not limited to a few kooks who claim tea party affiliation.  I see evidence of crazy bigoted behavior on all sides of the spectrum.  (I can send you a you tube link that documents clearly racist behavior against a group of white supporters of a candidate in the Richmond, VA area from the last election cycle, while police simply looked on with little regard)  My point here is that the bigoted and senseless behavior of a few should not indict an entire group.

Finally, you state, “Most of them don’t care about outsourcing jobs because their number is currently top heavy with pensioners”.  I have a different interpretation, going to the principle of free market ideals.  Another way to describe outsourcing is “free market” of capital and labor.  If a shoe manufacturer is forced to maintain a US work force and the labor costs are much more that a competitor, then the finished goods for each will have different prices for similar quality shoes.  The US company must either charge higher prices to maintain margin and therefore lose share or they choose to charge the same price in which case their margins are squeezed.  In either case, this ultimately leads to the shoe manufacturer going out of business and then all of the jobs are lost.  That is not how to create jobs my friend.

Ok, that is enough for today.  Thank you for letting me offer you my point by point response to your provocative post.  I welcome your respectful response back.

LetFreedom_Ring

Xenophobia and the Tea Party

Though I am not a tea party member, I have sympathies to many of their positions. People have a badly understood interpretation of who these people are & what they really stand for.
Recently a person I respect wrote a piece on Xenophobia? on his Blog Fare and Fowl.  In his piece, he had some interesting musings on some distressing trends in our society.  He stated, "A Large number of the Tea Partiers seen on TV are perceptibly eligible for Social Security and Medicare. My feeling is that they are motivated by the fear that some of their benefits and tax dollars may go to the less fortunate.”
I wrote this in response……

---

While there will always be kooks & crazies who do & say outrageous things that attract all sorts of outsized attention, this is not something that is unique to the tea party. (I have heard some pretty outrageous & crazy things spoken by more than a few Democrats.)
If we focus on the outliers & extrapolate these behaviors to the majority of members, we miss a terrific opportunity for dialogue & moving our society forward. I believe that what lies at the heart of the liberal view of America, is a commitment to fairness, justice & compassion to the less fortunate. These are noble endeavors & deserve respect regardless of where a person stands on the political spectrum. Conservatives focus on preserving freedom, defending our country, being responsible & respecting traditions & values.

These values, all of them, are very American. Aspiring to these ideals is what makes our country admired. When we place too much emphasis on a subset of values, we end up in a shouting match in which nothing of value gets accomplished.

Here is my view on the tea party:

As Peter Berkowitz recently noted, “Born in response to President Obama's self-declared desire to fundamentally change America, the tea party movement has made its central goals abundantly clear. Activists & the sizeable swath of voters who sympathize with them want to reduce the massively ballooning national debt, cut runaway federal spending, keep taxes in check, reinvigorate the economy, & block the expansion of the state into citizens' lives.

In other words, the tea party movement is inspired above all by a commitment to limited government. & that does distinguish it from the competition.

… the devotion to limited government lies at the heart of the American experiment in liberal democracy. The Federalists who won ratification of the Constitution—most notably Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay—shared with their Anti-Federalist opponents the view that centralized power presented a formidable & abiding threat to the individual liberty that it was government's primary task to secure. They differed over how to deal with the threat.”

If you listen to what is being discussed it does not have anything to do with being xenophobic or ignoring the needs of a race or disrespecting an ethnic group.

Many people who profess liberal causes, often move the argument to characterize the conservative (or tea party member) as being one of four things; A Bigot, A Racist, A Fool or Heartless or some combination.

By changing the conversation to these petty characterizations, they deflect attention away from these more fundamental questions that might actually mean something & make a difference.

When everything is said & done, it is the nature of the true conservative to ask this question”

“At what cost?”

Here, we do not mean simply how government will pay for something. No, the question is more profound. What are the total costs to implement the proposed solution, both monetary & social.

Often conservatives get these labels because they do not agree that a government program or response is needed to a problem. The question that many thoughtful conservatives reflect upon is; what is the most efficient, cost effective way to address our common concerns?

We operate with a faith that when each of us has maximum freedom to exercise our talents while respecting the rights of our fellow men & women, we have a kind of crucible in which the best ideas & methods ultimately triumph & society as a whole is best served.

This does not mean that there is no pain or suffering along the way. (When the calculator triumphed over the slide rule, it was damn painful to the people of the Pickett slide rule company.) So, in a society where people are free to choose, those who make bad decisions suffer. However, society as a whole wins.

Again, as Mr. Berkowitz states, “To be sure, the tea party sports its share of clowns, kooks & creeps. & some of its favored candidates & loudest voices have made embarrassing statements & embraced reckless policies.”

To be clear, I am committed to LIMITED government not NO government. Most rational tea party members do not seek to repeal social security or Medicare. We do however, first seek market place solutions for the challenges we have.

Leadership & responsibility often mean that we slow down & consider how to best address a common issue. Simply because someone does not propose a government solution or regulation, does not mean that they agree that the problem is illegitimate. This inaction should not be interpreted as “not caring”. It simply means that the person feels that government may not be the best vehicle to solve the problem.

We have major challenges. Our economy is whacked. Our state & federal governments are spending in a manner that accelerates our government debt. Our debt currently stands at an unprecedented level & without a significant change in our economy or government spending; we will soon be at a point where all of our tax revenue goes to servicing debt. At that point, there will be no money for any programs for the needy, no money for health care, no money for seniors, no money for education, no money for defense. Only servicing the debt. As cruel as ignoring the needs of our less fortunate members of our society is, it would be more cruel to operate in such a manner that we saddle our children with a debt that stifles their will & saps our country of the energy we need to survive & thrive.

We must change direction. This is what I am committed to. I hope you will consider my invitation to join me in preserving freedom & operating with responsibility. Let’s end the acrimony & shrill name-calling. Let’s join in a meaningful dialogue where issues can be addressed in a vigorous but consequential debate.

Do not do this for you & me but as our way of paving the road for future generations.

Let Freedom Ring

When Tag Turns into a Nasty Game

When I was a child one of my favorite neighborhood games to play was tag. My friends and I would run around our neighborhood in Whittier, California often into the twilight and early evening hours running and chasing each other with shouts of "Your IT!" when the IT person tagged someone else.


Often there would be a refrain, a sort of rule we would use called "no tag backs" meaning we would not be able to quickly tag back the person who had just tagged us. This, of course, made the game more interesting. Though we had a great deal of fun. The game was essentially pointless. It was simply a lot of running, shouting, and figuring out who we could "tag" and how we could "tag" them.

We seem to be playing another version of this today. Also with a great deal of shouting and running around. None of which accomplishes much, but can give the illusion of excitement. That is not to say that people don't ever get hurt. Like the childhood game where sometimes in the exuberance of tagging someone, your enthusiasm would get the best of you and when you tagged another, they would fall down. If it happened on the pavement, scuffed knees and tears would sometimes be the result. Today's version of "tag" can have consequences and sometimes innocent people, who did not even sign up to be in the game get hurt.

I am speaking, of course, about the on-going tempest associated with the NAACP, the tea party movement, Shirley Sherrod. The back and forth between the tea party movement and the NAACP led up to the embarrassing debacle of the firing of Shirley Sherrod on Monday. It appears that nearly everyone from the blogger, to the administration to the media, to Bill O'Reilly and I say even the NAACP itself, had a role to play and contributed to this unnecessary ugly incident.


I am most sympathetic to Ms Sherrod. Here she was trying to make a point about overcoming bigotry, to do the the right thing and a knucklehead with an agenda pulls out a snip of her talk, out of context, and displays it for all to see so that he can make the point that bigotry is not one-sided. I also blame the NAACP itself for creating this environment in which members of the tea party movement felt compelled to "tag back" after they were "tagged" with the brush of racism.

Racism has nothing to do with the fundamental tenants of this movement.

The Tea Party Movement is most fundamentally about freedom.

The goals of limiting the government (especially the federal government), keeping taxes low, minimizing regulation, etc. are all means to maintain that core American value - Freedom.

Charges of racism and racist remarks do not belong in this conversation. I am troubled and sad that people involved in this from both people associated with the tea party to the NAACP with the support of news organizations of all persuasions, have allowed the conversation to be hijacked into this senseless shouting match in which, not only is no one listening to the other, but they are not even having the right conversation.

If I was a cynical man, I might think that this was the agenda of the perpetrators all along.

In this world of imperfect men, Freedom is a fragile thing that needs to be protected, nurtured, respected and if maintained, represents our best hope for a future or wondrous innovation, prosperity and progress. Let us strive to stay on this message and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked with pointless games of "tag". Perhaps we can avoid skinned knees, bruised egos, and knee jerk reactions that devastates the lives of our citizens who are simply trying to do the right thing.

Let Freedom Ring

For something a little different, consider my thoughts on State of Independence

Double Standards? Black Panther Thugs vs Tea Party Patriots

Today Eugene Robinson wrote an article titled, "The Tea Party Poison".  In it he, like many liberal writers, continues to attempt to make the connection between this grass roots organization and a charge of racism.  I don't see it.  The Tea Party movement is about freedom.  It's stated purpose is as follows; "We are dedicated to uphold the Constitution and our rights as citizens of these United States of America. It is in our best interests to join in the "Tea Party Movement" to speak out and voice our thoughts on what we need to do in the United States to ensure our children have the ability to sustain this wonderful country. We are committed to keeping government from excessive spending and becoming so overpowering that we would lose our individual rights." Taken from http://www.jointheteaparty.us/aboutus.html. Can someone point out where anything about race is mentioned?  A commitment to freedom and stand against oppression is what I see, read and hear.  Are you kidding me? This should be a shared commitment honored by all thinking human beings regardless of color, class, race creed, sexual orientation and religion.

He asserts as proof of his allegation that , "On Saturday, the National Tea Party Federation announced it had expelled one of the movement's most prominent figures -- a California blowhard named Mark Williams -- because of the outrageously racist things he had said about the NAACP."

Now, let me get this straight.  Mr. Robinson considers the organization racist (or having racist elements) because it kicks out someone who is a moron and expresses himself in a racially insensitive way that would suggest a racist intent????

Hmm.  Let's compare this to the recent decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to the Black Panther incident in which our federal government decided to drop the case against members of Black Panther party who were engaged in voter intimidation.  Oh, wait a minute, perhaps you think I am making this up.  Well, here are two videos that show the incident.  I leave it up to you to decide whether this is racism or voter intimidation (a federal offense, I believe).





Now, here is my question for Mr. Robinson, "If you are committed as you say you are to balanced reporting and a society free of bigotry, where is your outrage not only for this incident, but more problematically, towards Attorney General Eric Holder dropping this investigation and prosecution of what appears to be not only racist rhetoric, but voter intimidation?"

I see no evidence, on any official tea party website or documentation that is officially connected to the tea party movement is there any discussion about race.  This movement is about freedom.  Limiting the size and role of the federal government and empowering private enterprise hearkens back to our founding fathers goals.  They intentionally designed a government system in order to reduce the likelihood that our country would ever drift back to tyranny as exemplified by the grievances listed against King George of England in our Declaration of Independence.  Despots can take many forms and a precursor to tyrants be they 18th century kings or modern day despots is the concentration of power.

Recently, we have seen an unprecedented concentration of power into the hands of relatively fewer and fewer men, mostly associated with our federal government.  This path is fraught with danger because as Nobel laureate, Milton Freedman said, ""Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

That is the mission of the tea party.  That is what drives these patriots to committed action.  This is something that men and women of all races, creeds, sexual orientation, or religion should be supportive of.  For it is ours and their freedom we are standing up for.

This attempt to discredit the tea party movement by tarring it with the brush of racism is disrespectful at best and dishonest at worst.  Mr. Robinson, I ask you to 1) Bring balance to your commentary, if you are going to point out racism, point it out without regard to race.  (Racist behavior is not limited to Mark Williams or King Samir Shabaz, but both need to be called out) 2) Just as King Samir does not speak for all African Americans, or the NAACP, Mark Williams does not speak for White Americans or the Tea Party Movement.  So any attempts to make those connections dishonors the work and intentions of many noble patriots.

Let Freedom Ring!

Attacking the Tea Party

Elitism

This post is in response to: The Tea Party: Populism of the privileged published April 19, 2010 in the Washington Post by: E. J. Dione

OK, Is that the new attack line?  "fellow liberals, so now that we have analyzed who participates and sympathizes with the Tea Party we can feel better because we can now neatly fit them into a shoebox of old clichés".  I understand this.  The movement has generated a lot of buzz and for a while liberals everywhere were confused.  I mean what in heaven’s name could be driving these people that they would even elect a Republican to the sacred blue states of New Jersey and Massachusetts.

So, instead of actually listening to the reasoning and argument of the people in the movement, now begins the (mis)characterization of the people of the movement.  This is typical of the liberal eggheads media elite and consistent with the tactics of Saul Alinsky.  Don’t engage in the discussion, instead characterize and demonize the participants.

Mr. Dionne, you have done this in a particularly clever manner because you hide your contempt around the mantle of academic study.  This makes your tactics more refined, but at the end of the day, you are guilty of the same old cry to “ignore the message” “shoot the messenger”.
Yesterday I wrote in a commentary on a similar topic that the core values of the Tea Party Movement are:

• 1) Limited Government
• 2) Freedom and Responsibility
• 3) Lower Taxes for everyone
• 4) Living within our means at every level

These simple values are the ones that drive the movement.  So now let’s compare these values with your statements.

You said: “Their (New York Times/CBS) findings suggest that the Tea Party is essentially the reappearance of an old anti-government far right that has always been with us”.  Please see core value number 1.  Limited government is not “anti-government”.  It is our belief that government power should be wielded only when it is absolutely necessary.  Our founding fathers understood only too well that concentration of power, especially in government becomes a breeding ground for corruption and abuse.  What we are protesting here is not a mindless drive to anarchy, but rather a tempering of the drive by politicians to aggregate power in the name of  the people.  History shows that the more power is concentrated in the hands of the few, tyranny soon follows.  So like Paul Revere before us, we cry out with arguments that are intended to alert the citizenry to the current and potential abuse of government power.  Paul Revere stated “The British are coming” our cry might be “The ‘Government’ is coming.

Now let’s look at point number two.  You said that the statement “…do you think too much has been made of problems facing black people…” Your evidence that the tea party “race is part of picture” comes from the results of the poll that 52% of tea party sympathizers agree with that statement.  Further, you extrapolate a privileged elitism because 73% of tea party members believe that “providing government benefits to poor people encourages them to remain poor.” 

The answer to both of these comes from principle #2.  Freedom and Responsibility should be cornerstones of American values.  There are few who would deny support to those who are truly needy.  The question is not, should the poor and historically disenfranchised be abandoned and offered no support.  That is the wrong question.  The question should be “What is the most effective way to support those who have suffered from misfortune and bigotry?”  “What role, (how much), should government play in providing this support?”  Is it possible that when (government) support is offered that there are unintended consequences and potential for dependencies that keep in place the very thing that we are trying to eliminate? 

Next up taxes.  It was very interesting the way the NYT/CBS poll phrased the question…. “Asked about raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year to provide health care for the uninsured, 54 percent of Americans favored doing so vs. only 17 percent of Tea Party backers.”  The very phrasing of the question paints a picture that supporters of the tea party are only concerned about taxes on the wealthy.  Well, if you actually read what the tea party stands for it is for lower taxes on EVERYONE.  However, since many in America pay no income taxes, this point gets muffled and obscured.  the truth is that every day Americans, even those who pay no federal income taxes are seeing an ever increasing amount of their money being vacuumed up in government fees, sales taxes, social security and real estate taxes.  So while many liberals such as yourself tends to focus on income taxes and the tea party stand against them, the facts are that tea party members and sympathizers are wanting EVERYONE to retain as much of their own money as possible.

Which leads to the fourth principle, Living within our means at every level.  This is so much common sense that it is often completely ignored by liberal blowhards such as yourself.  Nothing can exist forever with more money flowing out than flowing in.  However, it is not simply a matter of raising revenue (taxes) to balance the books, even thoughtful economists such as Alan Greenspan note that raising taxes alone will not being the books into balance.  We must make choices that will lead to spending cuts.  Some of these are difficult and personal.  I personally have an expectation that even though I have paid into the Social Security system for nearly forty years, I fully expect to see my benefits throttled.

I offer these as a principled argument.  I ask you to respond to the argument rather than hide behind a curtain of (mis)characterization.

Respectfully,