|
Edited on Tue Aug-31-10 11:47 AM by unpossibles
(This is not an attack on the people in it so much as a statement of what I find distasteful about the name and the people who are leading it, as well as a call to all of us to be more vigilant about propaganda - please feel free to share this. I posted this on the Tea Party Patriot's facebook page as well as congress.org and C-Span, so... hopefully I won't be trolled too much assuming anyone actually reads it)
Using the name "Tea Party" is historically inaccurate in that what motivated the Boston Tea Party is not the same thing which motivates the current "Tea Party." The real Tea Party came about not because they did not want to be taxed but because they did not want to be taxed by someone other than their own elected representatives. The tax amount was quite low, but the real issue was lack of representation. Now, while one could argue that the modern TP is not represented, this is simply not only not true, but an attempt to subjugate the election process and their disfavor at loss through bully tactics.
More importantly, the (mis)use of the Tea Party name and other Revolutionary War imagery implies that the modern small-government movement is on the side of righteousness and is more patriotic than its opposition. This is borne out repeatedly in the messages on TV and radio that those of us on the left are somehow anti-American, that progressive ideals lead to genocide, that we hate religion or freedom, that we are all angry people with an agenda to destroy our own country.
Does this madness truly make sense to anyone? Think about it rationally. What would I or others who disagree with the TP - both liberals and conservatives, mind you - have to gain from hating our own country, from wishing to destroy it? If I recall, it was Rush Limbaugh who expressed a desire to see Obama fail, without once stopping to consider that the only positive outcome for Obama failing is Rush and Beck's own career, whereas the negative outcome is that if Obama's policies fail, then that means that he was incapable of fixing the many things which were broken before he got into office. That means many of us fail along with him.
The right wants to "reclaim" its country without stopping to remember that the country is ALL of ours, We the People of all political persuasions, races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, cultures, or whatever other difference. We are all Americans, and the vast majority of us came from somewhere else or our ancestors did. No one has the right to co-opt the language or imagery of liberty, to say that WE are on the side of Freedom, honor, integrity, and morality and that THEY are therefore not. We all have the same rights. No one has stolen America from the right: they can claim to be brethren to the civil rights movement, but they are not being beaten, shot, and hanged for simply wanting equal rights, so that argument fails also. No one is calling out the national guard or denying them the right to vote or to assemble, much less telling them who they can marry, where they can eat or drink or sit on the bus. No one. You cannot simultaneously complain about your lack of rights then attempt to deny those same rights to your fellow citizens.
Furthermore, while I am also not happy with Congressional spending, I do recognize that in a nation as large and diverse as ours, almost no one will agree on just what is "necessary" and what is not. The call to shrink government just for the sake of shrinking government is well-intended but needs to be further thought out. Pointing to things like the recent egg recall or the oil spill as examples of why government agencies need to be removed is like buying a cheap door with a lock made my burglars, then when you get broken into, blaming the door and having it removed to prevent future break ins. The problem with corruption in regulatory systems is not that there are regulations but in how we manage (or mismanage them). If we continue to allow corporations to write favorable legislation and regulations, to get tax breaks, to avoid safety measures simply because they donated money, then nothing will change no matter who is in charge. You can blame congress, and sometimes rightfully so, but the real problem is the people who are essentially buying congress, and the laws which allow it to happen. Also, please remember that there are real repercussions from cutting budgets - many of the food-borne illness issues we are facing are due to reduction in the number and quality of inspections in an attempt to shrink government, and in allowing the industry to police itself.
Another problem is not even entertaining the idea that the government - which is essentially We the People - cannot do anything right. We all use government every day in our commutes, when we have safe food and water, when we use the internet or the TV or radio. We live in a complex society which has an amazingly complicated infrastructure, and that is part of what allows each of us the opportunity to succeed. Some things we spend money on I disagree with, but I am ok with that concept and can write my representatives to let them know if I agree or disagree on something. They may not listen, but again, there maybe more people who like a certain project than don't, so I cannot expect my individual desire to override others (assuming no one is abridging anyone's Constitutional Rights). We are not perfect, and our government will not be perfect, so while I respect the TP's passion to be stewards of government, I reject the opinion that theirs is the only way to do things.
Finally, what bothers me about their complaints when it comes to their fear of over-reaching government and out of control spending, is the timing. Where were they the eight years before Obama took office when Bush was expanding power of the Federal government and specifically the Executive Branch, when he was starting wars and giving tax breaks to the wealthy with no way to pay for them? The fact that they not only did not exist, that individuals within the TP did not speak out (other than Ron Paul and a very small minority) but in fact did the opposite, told those of us who were speaking out that we hate America if we disagree with the President, makes me question how genuine their concerns really are. If this movement is truly not partisan, then where were you a few years ago when the economy was already turning sour, when the wars were being promoted and marketed, when the government was actually expanding its powers over us?
I love my country. You can call me angry, but is it that unreasonable to be angry after being called a Nazi, a terrorist, a hater, someone who wants to destroy the country I love? Would you not be angry if the same message were pumped at you 24/7 from the media? I'm not a hater, but I am sick of the BS. If you are sincere about wanting to fix America's problems, then you have to be as responsible as you say you are, and that includes treating those with different opinions as fellow humans, Americans who also want to help. Stop demonizing and dehumanizing us and maybe we will stop being angry about it.
The recent Glenn Beck rally was allegedly about unity and inclusion. If you are sincere in those goals, then perhaps try working on being able to compromise, on recognizing that we all have different opinions on how things should be done. It's easy to pat yourselves on the back for a job well done when you are uniting those who already agree. Much harder is to unite those who see you as an adversary.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
