Bigotry at the Tea Party Protest

[readherring.livejournal.com]

Given some of the discussions generated from my last post, I wanted to share with you one last picture from the April 15 Tea Party protest.

But first, I wanted to thank everyone for all of the positive comments. I was trying very hard to be open minded and fair, and I am genuinely happy that people found my post to be so. I am even more happy that people from "both sides" liked it for that reason. This is an incredibly positive political sentiment - that we have a common preference for fair and balanced presentation. It gives me some hope that this hyper-polarized climate might collapse one day.

I also wanted to apologize for not being on line much after posting - I'm on limited internet these days.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't destroy the fair and balanced vibes, but a lot of the commenters believed that the Tea Party is a bigoted movement. Not only do I insist that this is wrong, but I also believe that making this wrongful accusation needlessly pushes Tea Partiers and their liberal counterparts further away from ever listening to each other, or making any compromise. I therefore wish that I could say that I saw no evidence of bigotry at the Tea Party, but I can't. Here's the last picture:



This is one of the counter-protesters. Her shirt reads "F*ck your God". I didn't intentionally leave this out of the original post because I was embarrassed by it, although I am embarrassed by it. I only left it out because in choosing from my hundred photos to post, this one was just va poor quality shot.

I'm not trying to make liberals look bad with this picture. I'm just trying to show that while there are people with ugly beliefs on both sides, these ugly beliefs don't define those sides. The Anti-Tea-Party movement (or Coffee Party, or whatever) isn't an anti religion movement, even if some members of the Atheist Takfiri show up in the crowd. The same goes for racists (of which I saw none) or anti-abortionists (of which I saw the nutter truck driver - his rear billboard was all about fetuses) who show up for an anti-tax movement. The movement isn't about those other things, even if some of the participants go way off message.

Sorry if this post doesn't offer much new information over the last one, but given that there was such a strong belief in Tea Party racism in the first set of comments, I felt that I had done everyone a disservice by leaving this picture out.

Comments

Re: you're building a staw man

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It seems a bit strange that one would criticize the movement for being anti-democrat when democrats tend to be openly pro-spending. Republicans granted have only been nominally and selectively against spending, and I'll also grant that a good number of tea partiers aren't consistent in their views when it comes to recognizing spending patterns between parties. However, there are a good number of libertarian tea partiers, like myself, who opposed the practices of both, and criticized Bush over these issues as well as others. There are no lines for those attending these things to queue up in, one for people who are consistent, and those who are not, but both strains exist in the movement.

Re: you're building a staw man

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I wasn't criticizing the tea party for being anti democrat, I was criticizing them for trying to come off as bi partisan or non partisan, which is completely dishonest.
Many republican administrations have spent more than certain progressive ones, they just don't admit to it, and they spend on other things.
Fiscal concerns are used as a cover for the tea party agenda of opposing the Democratic party and it doesn't matter that the cover is genuine as well, it's still a cover, because there would be no tea party if there was a big spender Republican administration in charge right now.

There might have been some grumbling libertarians whining on the internet, but that's all it would come to. And libertarians aren't concerned with any or very few welfare or central gov. matters, they want to solve everything with charity and the lottery, so they should by default be opposed to every administration as of date. They were not. Libertarians are being the patsies of the tea party, and that's my firm view on the matter.

It doesn't matter that you as a person, and some others like you criticize Bush as well, you didn't go out and wave signs against spending when he was in charge, but you do it now, with anti democrat signs up in the air. This says it all really.

The agenda of the tea party is to have a conservative (republican) administration in command, and then a few libertarians would try to horse-trade some policies as a thank you for helping this happen.

Re: you're building a staw man

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"There might have been some grumbling libertarians whining on the internet, but that's all it would come to."

"It doesn't matter that you as a person, and some others like you criticize Bush as well, you didn't go out and wave signs against spending when he was in charge, but you do it now, with anti democrat signs up in the air. This says it all really."

It's a lot more personal than that for me. I've gotten into sometimes uncomfortable arguments with otherwise conservative members of my own family and friends over Bush long before it was trendy for neocons to suggest they suddenly found Bush objectionable after he left office. You think holding a sign means as much as that? As much as risking tension with the people you love and respect for the sake of defending principle? Please. If I may offer only one bit of advice, I would suggest to anyone willing to listen not to get wrapped up in divining what people are thinking, unless the person or persons in question tell you themselves.

Re: you're building a staw man

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

On a personal level it may matter to you and similar people, on a political level it doesn't matter one bit.

You're in bed with hypocrites and if a big spending republican administration was in power, you'd have no bed/platform.

At best, your efforts will lead to nothing, (same dissatisfied reps will vote rep, you and the likes will vote libertarian) at worst you'll have republicans in charge again, and then you'll be back to arguing your values in living rooms and on the internet, 75% of your "tea party" members will sit at home, sated with their mission accomplished.

And yes, I do think waving signs means something, when it's opposed to not waving signs, politically. So I'm totally calling libertarians on not waving signs to Bush but to Obama. That's why I say you're Patsies to the Republican party.

Re: you're building a staw man

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Then give me an effin' option. If I and other libertarian minded people don't try and take advantage of opportunities like this to advance a principled idea, it wouldn't even register in the media. There simply aren't enough of us for them to pay attention to and they don't seem inclined to cover us regardless, at least when, as you say, a Republican is in the White House. In other words, you wouldn't know if we did hold signs during Bush - you just wouldn't have heard about it. You need to reach a certain critical mass before that happens. So excuse us for not wasting and resources on an effort which will be summarily ignored. If nothing else, Fox News is at least pandering to us by giving us more air time with hosts like Napolitano and Stossel. And if a few more people hear that viewpoint, then perhaps its not a wasted effort.

So I ask you again. Give me a viable, real-world option that isn't a waste of time.

well bo-hoo

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

You actually have clear and present options, and that you don't see these tells me a lot. I will actually post options in a post soon, so wait for it.

As for your whining: stop being such a baby and own up to being Patsies to the Republicans for now. You're a small party, so what? you're not the first small party in the world, nor the last, sometimes it comes to noting, sometimes there is growth. Whining will give you no respect and dishonesty even less. If you like Fox News, then own it by admitting it, if you don't like them but use them as pimps, then take the criticism up your ass as the truth it is.

And the Libertarian party was absolutely strong enough to wave signs on tax day in DC during the Bush years, and media would definitively have registered it. Stop inventing excuses and whining.

Re: well bo-hoo

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see, here's the problem.

You might actually have something intelligent to contribute, but the more you talk the less that becomes clear. I will say that the moment someone tells me to 'own up' to their impression of an event by becoming the recipient of their 'truth enema' so to speak ("up the ass"? Really?), it tells me that person is not interested in having that conversation. This goes double for basing said understanding on one or two casual observations and a lot of assumptions about what those observations mean across the board. Forget about the fact that I basically agreed with you on some substantial things, like the composition of the tea parties, and the not inconsequential number of hypocrites therein which I cannot help but shake my head at. No, for daring to not live up to your arbitrary standards, regardless of reason, I have earned your designation as "Patsy" (a formal name now?).

If this is the impression you wished to leave, you have succeeded. However, as I have a low tolerance for such presumptuous condescension, I really don't care anymore what further you might say on the subject.

Re: well bo-hoo

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

You're mistaking what I said for something personal. Which might me my doing by all means, since my low respect for the general tea party libertarian is hard to hide.

This doesn't mean that I resent the whole libertarian movement or don't see different schools from within it.

You did sound an awful lot like whining. And I was harsh. I'm not going to apologize because you "agreed with me on some points" as you say, because a discussion is not a trade treaty, but I will apologize for treating you as any tiresome libertarian apologist, which you may or may not be.

In any case, it's not pleasure to me to insult you, and you didn't deserve it from what you wrote, so I'm sorry about the tone and wording, if not the content. And I really do have some thoughts on how libertarians can turn the tea party hoopla to their advantage without becoming complete republicans. I've drafted some points which I'll post here or elsewhere and notify you, and then you can choose to read it or ignore it.