Your characterization is too simplistic. I stated it to avoid the following conversation.
I make a claim, that racism is a motivating factor. Someone else makes the counter claim that it is because they are against democrats, inferring that it therefore isn't racism. I state that they claim to be non-partisan. Thus by refuting the objection, the inference is void.
People make these types of claims all the time when issues of race are brought up. The inference comes about because it is distasteful to be considered racist: It is one thing, not the other, just as you point out.
We are seeing here a pattern of behavior. They claim not to be partisan, yet the evidence supports the belief that they are. They claim not to be racist, yet the evidence supports the belief that they are. The problem is that people often willfully fail to see indications of the latter.
Now the teabagger movement could be honest and say, yes part of our motivation is political party affiliation, and part of our motivation is race. The latter will never happen because "It's baaad to be racist." Which means either that they haven't thought out issues of race and how these issues play out, or they have but stating such would be bad for business. Alternatively they could say: Many of our members are motivated by race and partisan politics for sure, but we are working toward getting them past that and thinking about the specific issues. I'm not holding my breath because it would be the first time that any thinking was involved in any part of the teabagger movement.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/4/10 12:16 (UTC)I make a claim, that racism is a motivating factor.
Someone else makes the counter claim that it is because they are against democrats, inferring that it therefore isn't racism.
I state that they claim to be non-partisan. Thus by refuting the objection, the inference is void.
People make these types of claims all the time when issues of race are brought up. The inference comes about because it is distasteful to be considered racist: It is one thing, not the other, just as you point out.
We are seeing here a pattern of behavior. They claim not to be partisan, yet the evidence supports the belief that they are. They claim not to be racist, yet the evidence supports the belief that they are. The problem is that people often willfully fail to see indications of the latter.
Now the teabagger movement could be honest and say, yes part of our motivation is political party affiliation, and part of our motivation is race. The latter will never happen because "It's baaad to be racist." Which means either that they haven't thought out issues of race and how these issues play out, or they have but stating such would be bad for business. Alternatively they could say: Many of our members are motivated by race and partisan politics for sure, but we are working toward getting them past that and thinking about the specific issues. I'm not holding my breath because it would be the first time that any thinking was involved in any part of the teabagger movement.