Why all the “racist” smears against the Tea Party movement? Easy to answer – as in the primary elections in 2008, it’s a way to pump up the Obama Dimocratic vote – in a year with all the energy and enthusiasm coming from the NObama Coalition. It’s a Chicago Thug way to pump up the Dimocratic vote and (as we wrote a year ago) bring down the Tea Party – and if that means race-baiting, then race-baiting it is.
Barack Obama does not have much going for him other than a near monolithic but unenthused and drifting African-American vote along with the comfortable White Liberal vote represented by unthinking, screaming Big Blog boys. So the strategy is demonize the Tea Party activists as “racist” and scare off potential supporters while at the same time race-baiting to pump up the black vote and the liberal white vote. It’s race-baiting for fun and profit just like we had during the Democratic primaries in 2008.
And where there is Barack Obama race-baiting, gay-bashing is sure to follow. Recently, protests by a group of Gay activists (remember when we Democrats loved protests and booing establishment liars?) who care more for the Gay community than Barack Obama, were announced. Soon thereafter, the usual Obama tricks came to the fore. Obama quietly (so only Gay activists -and no one else – would know) signed a memorandum which tried to head off the protests – but as usual the memorandum was meaningless. “This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”
The protests, despite the flowery worded memorandum, proceeded and Obama was rightly heckled in California as he campaigned for the drowning Senator Boxer. It’s what we have advised Women, Gays and Jews to do because the mainline organizations for these groups are more interested in protecting Obama than in protecting their constituents.
Obama, as can be seen by the video did not like being heckled. Obama was clearly angered at the challenge from the Left and not the easier to demonize Right. The Hopium guzzlers in the California audience, the ones who gave farm animals more respect than gay people on election day 2008, instead of defending the Gay activists, defended Barack Obama. Retaliation from Obama followed against the boo happy Gay people.
In a report from Politico sarcastically called “Most transparent White House ever…” Gay activists in the military chained themselves to the White House fence and the White House tried to erase them from history. From the hypocrites on the Left – silence. Silence as in Silence = Death. Gay-bashing is back on the Obama menu and the hypocrites of the Big Blog Left are sitting at his table.
This story is far from over because these genuine Gay activists will not protect Barack Obama in the same way the mainline and useless “Gay” organizations and the hypocrite Left and the Big Blog boys protect their object of adulation. Do not be surprised if these Gay activists are branded as “racists”, even if they are black, brown, yellow, red, or green. They will soon become “Teabaggers” and not in a way they will like. Which brings us, as we promised, to a discussion of the Tea Party movement, so we can finish tomorrow with a final discussion about Bill Clinton’s recent comments on the Tea Party movement.
* * * * * *
To understand the Tea Party movement we will quote from Leftist Noam Chomsky and borrow liberally from a thoughtful article at the Left oriented Third Estate Sunday Review.
What did Noam Chomsky, lion hero of the Left have to say about the Tea Party movement? The Progressive on a recent Chomsky speech:
“The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime,” he said.
He cited a statistic from a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters say the average tea party member is closer to them than anyone else.
“Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said.
Their attitudes “are understandable,” he said. “For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.”
There is class resentment, he noted. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels,” he said.
And Obama is linked to the bankers, Chomsky explained.
“The financial industry preferred Obama to McCain,” he said. “They expected to be rewarded and they were. Then Obama began to criticize greedy bankers and proposed measures to regulate them. And the punishment for this was very swift: They were going to shift their money to the Republicans. So Obama said bankers are “fine guys” and assured the business world: ‘I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.’
People see that and are not happy about it.”
He said “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism” is what is fueling “the indignation and rage of those cast aside.”
“People want some answers,” Chomsky said. “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.”
We don’t know what “shenanigans” Chomsky refers to and the use of that word clearly violates Chomsky’s own advice. But where Chomsky is correct is in lucidly cataloging the rational response from the electorate to what they are witnessing – with their own eyes – while Big Media describes an ‘all is right in Barack World’ fakeness.
We wrote repeatedly on the “financilization” of the American economy and the consequences of that hijacking of the American economy. [See The Rise Of The Obama Crimelords and Celestial Dirge] We quoted Kevin Phillips in the former article saying:
Asked if he was at the point of “despairing”, Phillips replied “my sense of histories previous goes to the one or two percent leading world economic power is you don’t get back on the right track.”
But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them. [snip]
The invention of securitization, interest-rate swaps, and credit-default swaps greatly increased the volume of transactions that bankers could make money on. And an aging and increasingly wealthy population invested more and more money in securities, helped by the invention of the IRA and the 401(k) plan. Together, these developments vastly increased the profit opportunities in financial services.
Not surprisingly, Wall Street ran with these opportunities. From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.
The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight—a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man). In that period, the banking panic of 1907 could be stopped only by coordination among private-sector bankers: no government entity was able to offer an effective response. But that first age of banking oligarchs came to an end with the passage of significant banking regulation in response to the Great Depression; the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent.
Third Estate Sunday Review sums up the “Tea Party racism” fakery quite nicely:
It wasn’t racism when Democrats tapped into for victories and it’s not racism now that it’s turned against the Democrats.
And yet that’s what the left has repeatedly and wrongly insisted upon screaming. When not, of course, using homophobic terms to describe Tea Party activists (thereby implying that there is both something wrong with them and wrong with the LGBT community — the left scores a double on the insult playing field!). We’ve heard it from Lila Garrett (KPFK), we’ve heard it from Kris Welch (KPFA), we’ve heard it from alleged radical attorneys. Yeah, we’ve heard it from everyone and, guess what, so have other people.
That’s the Tea Party activists, that’s the middle. And when they want to look to someone to listen to, you really think that Lila Garrett’s going to be a go-to for them after all those insults? After all the hate she’s spewed?
We like this summation too:
“The left needs to take a moment to recall the way they recoiled in horror during 2001 and 2002 as Midge Decter, Jonah Goldberg and assorted others crawled on their bellies to worship at the feet of George W. Bush. That right wingers might be predisposed to like Bush, a Republican, wasn’t surprising. That they would disgrace themselves with the kind of political whoring for a leader that is rarely seen off mainland China was astounding. [snip]
When we on the left behave that way, we don’t just provide laughter for the right and the middle, we ensure that we will never reach them with anything we say because we have demonstrated we’re nothing but whores who will bash Bush with Guantanamo, for example, but rush to justify and excuse Barack breaking his promise (and his timeline) to close it.
You don’t come off as honest brokers when that’s how you present to the public.
Noam Chomsky is warning about the anger. The anger itself isn’t the problem. Even Chomsky notes that it’s justified. The problem is only one side is currently able to speak to the angry. The left has ensured that the angry have no reason to listen to them. They’ve done that by insisting they were just uneducated, they were racists and every other insult in the book. That’s not how you persuade anyone to listen to you.”
Bob Somersby at DailyHowler howled about the Tea Party denigraters (E.J. Dionne) too:
“During the reign of the last Democratic president, Dionne deferred to his colleagues in the mainstream press—to the Clinton/Gore-haters who gave us George Bush. In this era, he has made a switch—like Chris Matthews, he is now deferring to the views of the newly-emerged liberal world. But what follows is a peculiar analysis, however one might explain its provenance. This was the start of yesterday’s column, which we’d call “Death Wish Too:”
DIONNE (4/19/10): The Tea Party is nothing new. It represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics, and it will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections.”
Somersby notes Dionne’s contention that both parties will lose this November due to Tea Party anger. Somersby also mocks the notion of Tea Party activists as a “small minority”:
“In a two-party system, it’s odd to be told that both parties stand to lose if some notion gains purchase. But the basic assessment which opened this column strikes us as simply bizarre. The Tea Party is “a relatively small minority of Americans,” Dionne says, using a helpful weasel word. And not only that! This relatively small minority “will not determine the outcome” of November’s elections.
We have no idea why Dionne feels he can make that prediction. We were especially puzzled after he got more specific about the size of this group:[snip]
Uh-oh! This “relatively small minority” actually “accounts for about one-fifth of the country!” And not only that: Being disproportionately white, aged and affluent, this group is likely to vote at a disproportionate rate. Given the very low turn-out rates which characterize our off-year elections, we have no idea why Dionne would say that this group will not determine the outcome this fall.
(Turn-out rate in 2006: 36.8 percent.)
By the way, is it true? Is the Tea Party just the “old anti-government far right that has always been with us?” Surely, there’s a large overlap. But the last time this group got disproportionately motivated, it blew the doors off the Democratic Party in the 1994 off-year elections. (This was, of course, just two years after the last Democrat reached the White House.) And by the way: Are you happy the hear that the “far right” now comprises one-fifth of the nation? Good God! If that’s the size of just the far right, what makes us think that liberals and progressives have any chance at all?
As with Matthews, so with Dionne: If you thought it was bad when he pandered against you, it may be worse when he starts pandering to you. That said, we thought the unhelpful analysis only continued when Dionne stopped predicting November’s outcome and started telling us who these Tea Party supporters—this small minority—actually are.
Much of Dionne’s assessment of this question can be reduced to an absurdity: He marvels at the fact that supporters of a conservative (“far right”) movement adopt more conservative political positions than the population as a whole. In the following passage, for example, Dionne is shocked to learn that the “far right” is generally opposed to higher taxes and to increased federal spending! Incredibly, the far right oppose these approaches more than the rest of us do!”
“Pandering to you and yours, Dionne presents these preferences as “a tendency of Tea Party enthusiasts to side with the better-off against the poor.” He fails to note that many other voters share these views—many voters who don’t (yet) say they support the Tea Party. But that is because Dionne’s whole column is designed to insult the motives of Tea Party folk. This strikes us as another Death Wish—a good route to election defeat.
Pandering to you and yours, Dionne spends a good chunk of his column discussing the racial motives of Tea Parry supporters. Unlike the more clownish Rich-and-Blow, he does offer the standard disclaimers.”
And the coup de grace:
“Dionne’s prediction seems absurd; his discussions of motive are pure pander-jobs. [snip]
According to Dionne, “white Americans are reluctant to discuss” the idea that “part of the anger at President Obama among Tea Partiers does appear to be driven by racial concerns.” Too funny! In fact, white “liberals” seem inclined to discuss nothing else; [snip]
When we say and imply that these people are racists, it makes us ratty white liberals feel good—but we’re playing with electoral fire. You see, based on that “19 percent” figure, about 30 million additional voters also think that too much has been made of black problems in recent years—30 million additional voters who don’t (currently) describe themselves as Tea Party supporters. When we keep assailing the motives of Tea Party supporters, we’re assailing these peoples’ motives as well. This means there are 30 million additional people we are inviting to vote against us, added to the 36 million Dionne says are already lost. At this point, even Dionne might see an electoral problem looming in November: Could 66 million voters possibly tip November’s election?
In 2006, only 81 million people voted in all.
Dionne has picked-and-chosen his way through the data, selecting responses he can use to play his race and privilege cards. These cards make us soft-headed liberals feel good, but they’re very dangerous. Just read through that survey’s questions! Tea Party folk are different (on balance) from everyone else, but tens of millions of people who aren’t Tea Party supporters believe the same damn-fool things that are driving numbers against Obama. [snip]
What do we tell these people instead? We tell them the Tea Party people are racist privilege-lovers. In the case of tens of millions of other voters, this means that we are assailing their basic instincts too. Or those of their relatives.
Our side loves to assail the other tribe, telling ourselves that they’re very bad people. We love to hear ourselves call them racists. We love to hear how selfish they are.
And so what! That “small minority” can’t beat us, we say, as our fantasy lives grow even greater.
Could we possibly get any dumber? Have a more flagrant death wish?
Somersby can be classified as a supporter of Obama policies but he sees the race-baiting for what it is – and it is coming from “our” side.
Is there any wonder then that the Republican Party is seen as “hero” in this disgusting saga? Republicans know their need is to co-opt the Tea Party movement. This is what Bill Clinton did in 1992 and beyond when he co-opted the aims and language of the Perot movement.
* * * * * *
After the astounding New York Times/CBS News poll on Tea Party supporters (“very angry, generally well-educated, financially secure and deeply pessimistic about the direction of the country“) the Times asked “political analysts and historians what they found most illuminating about the poll’s findings and whether the views of the Tea Party backers have commonly run through American politics.” Many of the responses were slaps at “angry white men”, but David Gergen had this to say:
“I actually witnessed Wednesday’s rally in Boston. And while there was some tough rhetoric from the platform, contrary to the notion that these rallies are filled with anger and bitterness, the mood was festive and friendly.
There were lots of homemade signs protesting taxes, health reform and big government — and notably, several proclaiming that being anti-Obama does not mean a white person is a racist. Clearly, many feel stung by what they see as misrepresentations in the press.
My overall impression was one that was fortified by The New York Times/CBS News survey: these Tea Partiers seem an awful lot like the Ross Perot voters of 1992. Those who supported Mr. Perot were mostly white, a little better educated than the general population and much more concerned about government deficits than government peeking into bedrooms. They were also more from the West and South but had pockets of support scattered around the country.
While there are differences, that is also the profile of the Tea Partiers. And get this: 18 percent of the public identify themselves as Tea Party supporters; Mr. Perot attracted 19 percent of the national vote.
There has always been a populist strain in American politics — in Massachusetts, stretching back to the Shays’ Rebellion in the 1780s. Harsh times deepen personal insecurity and frustration, and spirit of rebellion pushes to the surface. Many of these Tea Partiers are fearful of how the country is changing. Some circles look down upon them; it would be far wiser to listen, understand and find ways to heal.”
That’s what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s – listen, understand, heal.
Opposite Gergen, Rick Perlstein, was in the majority with his Glenn Beck obsession and preferred insult to clear-headed analysis and understanding. After noting his frustrations with a movement that “is ugly and seeks to traduce so many of the values I hold dear“, Perlstein drops this pearl of venom:
“…the Tea Partiers are overwhelming Republican or right-of-Republican — they are the same angry, ill-informed, overwhelmingly white, crypto-corporate paranoiacs that accompany every ascendancy of liberalism within U.S. government.” [snip]
There will be shrieking. It will be the shrieking of a small minority. Democrats stand nothing to gain by paying overmuch attention.”
Forget that they are voters, insults are so much more satisfying.
Other commenters chose derision and noted that well-off Tea Party activists support programs, like Social Security, which benefit them. That voters will approve of programs that genuinely benefit them, and are not looting schemes, is a shock to the intellectual “creative class” at the New York Times.
Steven Hayward preferred to look to the data in the poll, not his prejudices. Hayward noted:
“This populist movement is not your father’s culture war; in fact, 57 percent (question 67) favor gay marriage or civil unions, 65 percent favor access to abortion; an equal number (question 70) support some gun restrictions.” [snip]
Second, the poll offers only scant evidence that racism or racial animosity is a dominant factor of the Tea Partiers, though there is some evidence of polarization that is a problem for the Tea Party as a movement.[snip]
The fact that so many Tea Partiers are new to political participation suggests that, like the Perot voters of 1992 who were said to represent the “angry middle,” a plurality of Tea Partiers are moderates who are simply shocked by Obama’s great leap forward in the size of government.
The difference between 1992 and today is that the person — Perot — came first, and a weak movement followed for a time. This time the Tea Party came first, and it is unclear if it will coalesce into a clear movement or unite behind a political figure.”
Paul Butler, an African-American egghead, apparently unaware that the first Tea Party related violence was an attack on an African-American man called the “N” word by union thugs, has this contribution:
“If I were an old white Republican, and had money, and a young black man took over the government talking about change, I’d be scared too. My problem with Obama is that, so far, he hasn’t given wealthy white Republicans enough to be scared about.”
Eugene Robinson, not to be undone by the New York Times in unwarranted hysterics has his own contribution on “trust” in the Washington Post:
“The overhyped tea party phenomenon is more about symbolism and screaming than anything else. A “movement” that encompasses gun nuts, tax protesters, devotees of the gold standard, Sarah Palin, insurance company lobbyists, “constitutionalists” who have not read the Constitution, Medicare recipients who oppose government-run health care, crazy “birthers” who claim President Obama was born in another country, a contingent of outright racists (come on, people, let’s be real) and a bunch of fat-cat professional politicians pretending to be “outsiders” is not a coherent intellectual or political force.”
The race-baiting from Robinson is well known to Hillary Clinton supporters, even as Robinson bemoans the “lost trust in institutions”. And let’s not forget that it was African-American Hillary supporters who carried the heaviest burden for Hillary because Obama Dimocrats demanded support for Obama based on the color of his skin. Now, as Ani has taken note of, African-Americans who support the Tea Party are denounced in the vilest terms possible, because they dare speak their minds and call out the race-baiters. You don’t have to be a member of, or support, the Tea Party movement to feel the sting of the “racist” or “Oreo” charge, you just have to remember when it was done to us. [And for the record, the gentleman in the yellow T-shirt is right about the heartbreaking “Uncle Tom” in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s monumental abolitionist work Uncle Tom’s Cabin.]
What matters to the Tea Party people today is a problem Bill Clinton knows how to address:
“So why are the American people so angry and frustrated with their government?
It’s the economy, stupid.
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes, and millions more Americans are on the verge of losing their jobs and homes.
There are approximately 5.5 unemployed Americans for every job opening. RealtyTrac projects that there will be 4.5 million home foreclosures in 2010. The economic nightmare just keeps going from bad to worse.
The result is a massive horde of pissed off American voters.
As long as Americans are fat and happy and their wallets are full, most of them really could care less how involved the government is in their lives. But when things go bad economically, all of a sudden the government becomes a major annoyance.
And this is not a Republican v. Democrat thing either. The truth is that both parties have been radically expanding the size of the U.S. government for decades. Both parties have been spending taxpayer money like there is no tomorrow. Both parties have mortgaged the future of America to please their constituents. Now average Americans from both parties are alarmed at how large the government has become and how badly it is screwing things up. Just consider the following quote from USAToday.com….
“The government’s been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don’t follow through,” says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Pennsylvania who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. “There’s too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he’s certainly not helping fix it.”
We’ve written before in our continuing series “Mistake In ’08” about the historic mistake the Democratic Party made when the establishment gifted Barack Obama the nomination. There was a chance with Hillary Clinton as the nominee to heal the breach in the FDR coalition – and unite the White Working Class with African-Americans – a breach caused by the necessary passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But from what we read at the New York Times, the Hopium guzzler strategy is an intolerant attack on those that do not worship at the footstool of the Mess-iah.
A Bill Clinton pollster has sounded the warning already:
“To turn a corner, Democrats need to start embracing an agenda that speaks to the broad concerns of the American electorate. It should be somewhat familiar: It is the agenda that is driving the Tea Party movement and one that has the capacity to motivate a broadly based segment of the electorate.
To be sure, great efforts have been made recently to demonize the Tea Party movement. But polling suggests that the Tea Party movement has not been diminished but, in fact, has grown stronger. The Winston Group found, in three national surveys conducted from December through February and published April 1, that the Tea Party movement is composed of a broad cross-section of the American people — 40 to 50 percent of its supporters are non-Republicans. Indeed, one-third of self-identified Democrats say they support the Tea Party movement.
The electorate’s dissatisfaction with the established political order has led the Tea Party movement to become as potent a force as any U.S. political party.”
As Somersby, Chomsky and others have noted, the Tea Party is at least as popular as the Obama Dimocratic Party and garners broad public support “extending well beyond the movement”. And – it’s the swing voters, stupid:
“The swing voters, who are key to the fate of the Democratic Party, care most about three things: reigniting the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs.
These voters are outraged by the seeming indifference of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, who they believe wasted a year on health-care reform. These voters will not tolerate more diversion from their pressing economic concerns. They view the Obama administration as working systematically to protect the interests of public-sector employees and organized labor — by offering specific benefits such as pension protection and tax reductions at the expense of all taxpayers.
Democrats must understand that voters will not accept seeing their tax dollars used to pay for higher wages and better benefits for public-sector employees when they themselves are getting higher taxes and lower wages.”
Instead of taking care of ordinary Americans and restoring the economy and bringing back jobs Barack Obama and his circus of Congressional Dimocrats are busy breaking their word on budget discipline.
Instead of taking care of ordinary Americans, not insulting them as bitter and clingy, Barack Obama is busy with all his many friends at Goldman Sachs. And by “busy” we mean Obama privately collecting cash from the ones he is denouncing in public – the typical Obama conflict between flowery words and dirty actions.
For all the flowery corporate bashing words, it is the Obama Dimocrats who are now the allies of Wall Street. Even Judas Greg Craig has announced he is at Goldman Sachs. The Republicans are allies of Wall Street too, but they are not hypocrites about it.
Flowery words but dirty actions from Obama? It’s why we repeatedly write “Obama can’t be trusted – he simply can’t be trusted”.
[Part III next]