Tea bagging at its finest
This is sort of a continuation of this post about the apparent phenomenon known as “tea bagging,” which is an action of protest against what some feel has become a government system of overtaxation vis-à-vis the Boston Tea Party, in light of the recent large stimulus package and corporate bailouts.
Reteaparty.com says this about the organization:
PEAC is a political action committee that campaigns on behalf of issues, candidates, and potential candidates that promote honesty and Constitutional leadership. Currently, PEAC has launched campaigns to draft three unconventionally honest candidates: Rand Paul, Andrew “The Judge” Napolitano, and Peter Schiff. Additionally, PEAC has launched ReTeaParty.com, to organize a national Tea Party and fundraiser for the Goodwill on July 4, 2009, to promote the cause of honest and Constitutional government, voluntarism, and to organize an historic display of protest against our lack of representation. At ReTeaParty.com, thousands of people sent their representatives a Tea Bag in the mail on April 1, 2009, as a sign of our unrest over D.C.’s foolish solutions and overspending. — reteaparty.com
And during a recent broadcast by FOX News, the organization’s founder, Chad Peace (PEAC?), had this to say:
It’s not a reaction to any one person in particular it’s not a reaction against Obama or Pelosi or against Dodd or Barney Frank — any of these guys in particular. It’s against the whole idea of Washington that they can take our money and solve our problems for us.
And here we come to the hang of it all: the very reason why the Republican ideals of personal liberty and small government married to notions of moral uprightness do not work. Many on the right attempt to coerce folks in leadership or pray for them or lobby them or whatever on social issues like abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, hoping federal or state governments would, indeed, solve our problems. They believe federal and state governments can and should solve what they perceive to be our social ills. Government should preserve the institution of marriage. It should uphold certain moral codes that would prohibit heinous dabblings in abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Government should get drugs off the streets and prosecute drug dealers to the fullest extent of the law. State laws should keep the sabbath holy by disallowing the purchase of alcohol on Sunday (and in some states, disallowing even retail purchases before 1 p.m.!) Government should more fully represent our moral values, they say.
And in the same breath, what do we see? The same folks turn an about-face, and speak out against gun control, against big business regulations and against taxes. Thus, they favor big government in some areas and those of moral or social concerns, but not others like taxes or gun control. But they can’t have it both ways, and the logic just does not add up. Small government taken to its fullest end would mean this: the legalization of controlled substances, the continued or even a relaxing of gun control laws, allowing states to decide gay rights, relaxing regulations on abortion and stem cell research and some states disbanning their ridiculous blue laws. True, big government would mean the opposite. But both Dems and Reps want to pick and choose which causes they will champion.
Now, I come to the issue of the tea baggers. Obviously, it’s ludicrous to fain any comparison to folks today protesting taxes to those of the Revolutionary War era protesting taxation without representation by the British government. We have taxation with representation, and taxes are quite necessary to get things done. If there were no taxes, the country as we know it would crumble. If the tea baggers are protesting the stimulus plan and the bailouts, fine, but I fear this movement is another incarnation of those who throw the word “freedom” around like it’s a Hacky Sack. Witness this video:
Richard Behney, tea party organizer in Indianapolis, who clearly is trying to equate himself and piggy back on the fame of Joe the Plumber (By now, if phlegm is not forming in your gut and ready to spew upward, something is wrong), said,
To hear that a segment of our society and our politicians want to come in and take everything away and spread it around, umm, that’s when I said enough.”
Later, he said, “This is a freedom-loving, American thing,” when talking about the movement, noting that “they’re (politicians in Washington) all part of the problem and it’s time to stand up for freedom.”
What incoherency is this? What the hell does freedom have to do with anything? Throughout this whole debacle, has our freedom ever, ever, ever been in question? Or is this slick-haired baffoon just throwing out those four or five right wing buzz words that might give him instant cred with ignorants, including words like freedom, America, God, independence and country? I posit the latter.
As an addendum, this particular rally on April 15th is supposed to feature a guy playing Thomas Paine, who was, I must note, a deist, and whose arguments would fly in the face of Glenn Beck’s and (probably) Richard Behney’s belief that the Bible is true, for Paine believed nothing of the sort, and that’s quite evident from reading “The Age of Reason.” (Side note: Deism isn’t valid either, for it says that, while God exists, he is out there somewhere, did not author the Bible and is sort of an impersonal watcher on the world and personal events. He watches “from a distance” as the song goes. Thus, if he isn’t personally engaged in this world, it seems to follow that he is irrelevant and of no consequence for us.) Further, it’s a bit of an insult to the legacy and great work of Paine to have these types of folks parading his name around as if he would agree with them on every point. He would probably agree with them on very few points. But that’s where the idiocy of this generation has gotten us.
Well said, Jeremy. It’s amazing to me that these people are choosing to use Paine as a model, which reflects their general ignorance of history. After all, Paine believed that everyone had a right to free land and fair treatment, and, as you noted, tended to be anti-religious.
He also believed in a large inheritance taxes (what modern conservatives have managed to denegrate as “the death tax”), because like other people who truly believe in freedom he didn’t believe in royalty or pseudo-royalty like that created by unearned, handed-down wealth.
Paine also favored various kinds of so-called “welfare,” including (but not limited to) public works, maternity benefits, free public elementary education, old-age pensions, and aid to poor people.
In short, as you suggested, it would do these folks some good to consult “The Age of Reason”–and perhaps an online dictionary, so they can see why so many people have trouble keeping a straight face when they hear all these conservatives talking about “tea bagging.”
James McPherson
12 Apr 09 at 10:31 am
Good insight James. I appreciate you reading. By the way, I enjoyed your post about Disney cutting jobs and the fact that you seemed to have fun in supplying all the Disney references despite the disheartening nature of the content.
Jeremy Styron
12 Apr 09 at 10:13 pm
[...] Jeremy Styron (who is not opposed to tweaking Fox News, himself) is among those who has pointed out the historical ignorance of many modern conservatives who keep using Thomas Paine as a [...]
Subjects of history and economics too taxing for tea party organizers « James McPherson’s Media & Politics Blog
16 Apr 09 at 9:55 am
I would love to talk to you about our professed ignorance anytime. Its funny, because during the Presidential election, the so-called “right wing” which you conveniently label as anyone who disagrees with the current state of government, apparently includes me. But, during the election, the same right wing that I am supposedly a part of (and thus must agree with every ignorant talking point that comes out of them, called us “left wing” radicals because we bashed Bush for the same things that Obama is doing now. By the way, did you know your “anti-war candidate just sent thousands more troops to Afghanistan? Did you know that he is now going to use government money to bail out commercial real estate companies? Why don’t you talk about the erosion of civil liberties when the Democrats tear them apart?
Stop making this a game of left vs/ right. If you would stop labeling everyone who favors self-responsibility as a hate-filled uneducated liberal bashers, maybe we could have honest conversation and realize that we actually agree with each other a lot more than we don’t.
Or, you can continue to attack the Republican party and the relatively small number of crazies that supposedly represent every single one of us on the “right”, whatever that means anyways.
By the way…the original tea party was about the political favoritism of the English Parliment giving tax breaks to the East India Company. If you turned off your TV and read most of the stuff from the real people (grassroots) behind the tea parties, and not the talking heads like Sean Hannity and Bill O’LieLy, you’d know that most the Tea Partiers are not rebelling against “taxes” per se, its the political favoritism, the mortgaging of our labor to bail out big business, and the destruction of our inalienable civil liberties under the pretense of security.
And yes, I bashed Bush even more than I bash Obama, because at least Obama doesn’t pretend to respect limited government and free markets. My problem, Bush and Obama are a lot alike.
Chad
19 Apr 09 at 3:51 pm
Chad,
I’m not sure whether you were referring to me or James, but I will assume it was to me since mine was the original post.
First, I don’t believe I labeled the right wing as anything. I merely pointed out the inconsistencies in the thinking of many, who on one day, seek the prohibition or censorship of certain activities (porn, drugs, Sunday alcohol sales, etc…), which demonstrates a notion of larger government intervention, and on the next day, seek relaxing gun control laws and lower taxes, which demonstrates smaller government intervention. If that hasn’t, for the last two decades or more, described the Republican Party, beginning with the evangelical movement, what does? I suppose there are Republicans who don’t focus on the fringe sociophobic issues, but they are and have been in the minority. In fact, I would argue that for the Republican Party to continue to exist, it must redefine itself and throw off policies and ideals grounded in religion and get back to sound fiscal policy, which is its breadwinning platform in the first place. Perhaps that’s the direction you would like the party head. If so, all the better.
I did hone in on the anti-tax issue, correct, but I prefaced my comments by saying the tea party organizing was “in light of the recent large stimulus package and corporate bailouts.” So I’m not mistaken.
Again, I didn’t label anyone anything resembling, “hate-filled uneducated liberal bashers.” Those are your words, not mine. On your point about the left/right thing, I agree with you, the two-party system needs an overhauling. I would like to see third-parties get a bigger foothold in the country. That would be good for Democracy. Democrats and Independents may indeed support the teabagging efforts, but evidenced by the rallies and by your organization’s own statements, it’s awful hard to see. After all, right now, we have a Democratic White House and Congress. So quite literally, yes, the teabaggers are predominantly arguing from the right.
To finish, a word about your Web site. The organization has some good ideas, I think, about keeping bills shorter and citing specific articles in the Constitution to justify certain parts of acts, but if you want the confusion about what the tea party movement is all about, why don’t you make it more explicit on your Web site. The “About Us” page is quite vague on where you stand. Thus:
I would surmise that few people wouldn’t sign on to most of what you say here, but that’s clearly not all that the organization is about is it? It would be helpful if you cite specifically on the Web site what you feel is wrong about the bailouts, increases taxes, etc. etc. and not bury the thoughts in numerous blog posts, making folks only conjecture what you clearly feel is wrong.
On a completely unrelated topic, for whoever is responsible, kudos on a well-designed Web site.
Jeremy
22 Apr 09 at 10:58 am
[...] in my cutesy headline, but my argument about the tea baggers, as they have been called, is this, as reiterated here: Does anyone know what these folks actually stand for? Some say they are anti-tax, some say they [...]
Unrevolutionary tea at Our Daily Train | A blog by Jeremy Styron
24 Apr 09 at 12:30 am
Jeremy,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and research. You are right, in that there are many more conventional “Republicans” at the tea parties than conventional “Democrats”, which is rational, given the current make up of the legislature. However, the movement is largely attended and driven by those whose oppose both of the traditional Republican and Democratic policies (many of us consider them two sides of the same coin.
You are also correct about us not making our larger message more clear (as you mentioned..the “about us” page). Perhaps, this needs to be revisited by our team. In our defense, to get a better understanding of our objections, please see the widget on the right side of the website “What Are Tea Parties?) which links to: http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/04/17/what-tea-parties-are-and-are-not/ which may also address some of your questions at the end of your original article regarding freedom.
I understand that our “About” page is not controversial, as the point of the site in general is to get as many people of different viewpoints communicating among one another, rather than segregating ourselves to a social circle we are comfortable with…where everyone pats themselves on the back.
Thank you for both your input, addressing my post professionally and for your compliments on the site, which is completely done in house. If you are interested, I invite you to contribute a guest blog on our site, which will be posted unedited (aside from a short comment about who you are, which I will ask you to approve first).
Chad
24 Apr 09 at 1:25 am
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Chad. I’ll read the entire “What Tea Parties are and are not” post and perhaps submit a guest blog with my thoughts toward that end. Will I be able to post once I get a user name and password on the site or should I send it to you?
Jeremy
Jeremy
24 Apr 09 at 10:17 pm
[...] seems a bit silly. The feds are on board with banning novelty lighters as well. (Again, I return to the contradition that Republicans seem bent on increased government influence when it comes to certain areas, say, [...]
Need a light? Have a cow! at Our Daily Train | A blog by Jeremy Styron
29 Apr 09 at 2:18 pm
[...] clarify matters. Another point that I hope was clear in my post and in other posts on this blog, here and here, is that it’s awfully hard to know precisely on which side of current national issues [...]
Our forward-thinking Founders at Our Daily Train | A blog by Jeremy Styron
8 Jun 09 at 11:38 pm