Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 Oct 2010, 11:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The validity of the message is independent of who is sponsoring it. Hanging an albatross around the neck of the sponsor or promoter is a form of agrumentum ad homonum.


For one, pointing out the association between the Tea Parties and Fox News was more of an attempt to refute the other poster's claim that the "national media" wasn't deep enough to air Tea Party ideas. Secondly, while excessive promotion by Fox doesn't necessarily mean that Tea Party ideas are bogus, one can make a pretty strong abductive inference that this limits their credibility. Simply put, if the Pravda newspaper had some claim about Mendelism being false, would the best explanation be that Mendelism has been refuted or that Stalin's propagandists are spewing ideological BS? While there's a chance the paper is right, some background info reduces that likelihood of said chance.

As for the actual Tea Party claims, a lot of them are outlandish and based on outright false information (most Tea Partisans, for instance, think Obama raised income taxes for most Americans rather than cutting them).

ruveyn wrote:
The main complaint of the Tea Party folk is that the U.S. government is acting in an unconstitutional manner which may be true or false. That is the "hot" issue. The U.S. government has been playing hob with the Constitution at least since the time of FDR. The particular offense is the perverse interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause which under current interpretation and usage gives Congress control over the minutest portion of our lives. I seriously doubt this is what the Founders had in mind in 1787. If the people of this country want the government to regulate every last aspect of their lives, they should seriously consider rewriting the constitution instead of distorting it.

ruveyn


Few have articulated the thesis of the Party that clearly. But if so, do Tea Partisans realize that the inital arrange of government was due more to gridlock between the North and South then due to any matter of deep principle.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Oct 2010, 11:39 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

Few have articulated the thesis of the Party that clearly. But if so, do Tea Partisans realize that the inital arrange of government was due more to gridlock between the North and South then due to any matter of deep principle.


A good point and one that is not widely understood. The constitution happened because the government under the Articles of Confederation was a failure. The Constitution was, at best, a compromise and people who were alive at the time did not think it would last. They were right. The Civil War is proof that it would not last. Unfortunately the U.S. did not reconstitute itself after the Civil War which it should have done.

The American public wants more from their government now than the public did back in 1787. The country has changed and the logical thing to do would be to reconstitute the nation under a different constitution. The Tea Party folk wish to go back in time, in a sense. I think they are out of synch with the general attitude that is in place these days. But they are right in believing that the government is acting in an arbitrary and unaccountable way.

It comes down to this: does the public want incomes redistributed? Do they want the government to set detailed and minute rules on how to live their lives day by day? If so, where does the public draw the line on how much government can insert itself into their lives? These are the questions that are being raised. Unfortunately they are not being answered in a calm logical manner. That is why American politics has become a pissing contest and a shouting match.

ruveyn
ruveyn



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 Oct 2010, 11:50 pm

While I'm not a Marxist, I do see some validity in the thesis that economics determines a society's legal and political superstructure. And, quite frankly, I don't think small government is what a global economy will need. Sure, to a degree the welfare states in European states have declined thanks the ability of financial capital to flee from one country to another, but this anarchistic model of trans-national economics has proven a failure. Unless various governments become much more protectionist (which they did after the Great Depression), the only logical outcome I can see is for the develop of global governance institutions. Despite all the spiel some corporate CEOs give about government intrusion, I think even they realize that their long-term greed can only be satisfied if a governing authority prevents their sort-term greed from strangling them to death.

Which is why I think, in the long run, neoliberalism and the "hands-off" economic policy of the Tea Partisans is dead.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Oct 2010, 11:55 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
While I'm not a Marxist, I do see some validity in the thesis that economics determines a society's legal and political superstructure. And, quite frankly, I don't think small government is what a global economy will need. Sure, to a degree the welfare states in European states have declined thanks the ability of financial capital to flee from one country to another, but this anarchistic model of trans-national economics has proven a failure. Unless various governments become much more protectionist (which they did after the Great Depression), the only logical outcome I can see is for the develop of global governance institutions. Despite all the spiel some corporate CEOs give about government intrusion, I think even they realize that their long-term greed can only be satisfied if a governing authority prevents their sort-term greed from strangling them to death.

Which is why I think, in the long run, neoliberalism and the "hands-off" economic policy of the Tea Partisans is dead.


Do you really want a World Government. The current government of lesser size and scope are incompetent. Do you wish to maximize the incompetence?

ruveyn



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

11 Oct 2010, 12:02 am

ruveyn wrote:

Do you really want a World Government. The current government of lesser size and scope are incompetent. Do you wish to maximize the incompetence?

ruveyn


That wasn't so much a prescription as an analysis of the institutional logic of the situation - either international trade will contract and the world will go towards neo-protectionism or the establishment of global governance organizations will occur to ensure trade occurs in some sort of rational framework. As a matter of policy prescription, I would like international trade to continue, but I would also like it to be done in a way that doens't wreck the global economy and earth. Therefore, I would support strengthening various mulilateral institutions - specifically the International Labor Organization, the UN General Assembly (I'd also like to see it democraticized), and I'd like to see reforms of the IMF so that it had accountability to its stakeholders. And I support a global financial transaction tax and a global carbon tax.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

11 Oct 2010, 2:48 am

I was just wanting to know how small government + low taxes = racism.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

11 Oct 2010, 3:38 am

No, your initial question was why the Tea Partisans/Republicans/(right) libertarains were viewed as racist even though they just advocated "small gov't + lower taxes". While right-libertarians may have PR problems when it comes to being associated with heartlessness and greed, I don't think racism is one of their biggest image issues.

The reason the GOP and Tea Parties are viewed as racist is because

a) They're filled with a lot of racists.
b) They pander to racists.

Of course a lot of "small government" rhetoric caries a lot of racially charged iconography in the background. "Welfare queens" anyone? Or, the belief of 52% of Tea Partisans that too much has been made of issues affecting African Americans (compared to 28% of Americans in general).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... ontentBody

One could be charitable and say this is just ignorance and if most Tea Partisans actually went into an inner-city they'd have a different perspective. Fair enough, but ignorance and racism are related and most Tea Partisans are more formally educated than the population at large, so this isn't as excusable.

My advice to the GOP - don't use racism to chip away the New Deal Coalition for years and play the race game with code words after it becomes unacceptable only to cry when people call you out for it. I, for one, am quite glad that the GOP's own wedge issues are tearing their coalition apart (pro-immigration businesses vs. xenophobes, socially liberal libertarians vs. socially conservative dominionists, paleoconservative isolationists vs. neoconservative interventionists, corporate globalizationists vs. paleocon protectionists, Ron Paul quasi-paleocons vs. strict paleocons, and anti-Cranick vs. pro-Cranick conservatives). The GOP coalition is going through the process of dismembering itself, I can only hope that some third partisans get IRV as a ballot initiative in the chaos that follows.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Oct 2010, 5:12 am

Master_Pedant wrote:

Of course a lot of "small government" rhetoric caries a lot of racially charged iconography in the background. "Welfare queens" anyone? Or, the belief of 52% of Tea Partisans that too much has been made of issues affecting African Americans (compared to 28% of Americans in general).



The largest "welfare queens" are large corporations receiving government subsidies at taxpayer expense. These companies are generally run by White Guys.

ruveyn



Katharsistwo
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 42

11 Oct 2010, 5:53 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
I have always learned that the Republicans were anti-big government, and anti-taxation. Same goes with Libertarians and the Tea Party followers.

But how did it go from being in favor of small government and little to no taxation, to being stereotyped as being racist and intolerant?


I think it's because the Tea Party isn't pro AIPAC enough.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Oct 2010, 8:08 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
The GOP coalition is going through the process of dismembering itself,

And the Democratic caucus is a paragon of unity? Skafather just recently posted Democratic campaign ads from definitively right-wing candidates (one even a self-professed conservative) and the divide between the Progressives and the New Way Democrats is still raging on.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Oct 2010, 8:10 am

ruveyn wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:

Of course a lot of "small government" rhetoric caries a lot of racially charged iconography in the background. "Welfare queens" anyone? Or, the belief of 52% of Tea Partisans that too much has been made of issues affecting African Americans (compared to 28% of Americans in general).



The largest "welfare queens" are large corporations receiving government subsidies at taxpayer expense. These companies are generally run by White Guys.

ruveyn

That is correct. But according to GOP rhetoric, those are the hardest-working, best Americans in the country who create all the jobs and deserve every penny of the billions they plunder from the taxpayers.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

11 Oct 2010, 9:12 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
I have always learned that the Republicans were anti-big government, and anti-taxation.


Then you obviously conflate rhetoric with policy.

Tim Tex wrote:
But how did it go from being in favor of small government and little to no taxation, to being stereotyped as being racist and intolerant?


I sorta think incidents like this may be to blame:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI[/youtube]

And you really would have to be ignorant as hell of the past 50 years of US history to think the claim of racism is out of the blue. The GOP's Southern Strategy relied on racism and much of Ronald Reagan's (public consultant's) rhetoric relied on code words racists would salivate to ("Welfare Queens" or "State's Rights" in a place where Civil Rights activists had been shot down by the original states' rights activists).


I agree. The fact that President Obama is black seems to infuriate them more than his actual policies. Mainstream Republicans react to his actual policies and complain about those, but Tea Party people react to things which aren't his policies but which in their fantasies might someday become his policies.

Former President Clinton was a Democrat too and with many fairly liberal policies...and he tried to bring about health care reform too. But the criticism he got from the Right was not so hysterical and there wasn't an End of the World As We Know It tone to their criticisms-- nor was there a grassroots movement galvanized by a horror of him. They just disagreed. Often angrily, but not hysterically. The difference between Clinton and Obama? Race.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

11 Oct 2010, 9:43 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
But how did it go from being in favor of small government and little to no taxation, to being stereotyped as being racist and intolerant?


Because politics is all about applying labels to people.

The established powers HATE the idea of common people having a voice, so every effort for them to organize is labeled with negative images to demonize the movement.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 Oct 2010, 10:53 am

Janissy wrote:
I agree. The fact that President Obama is black seems to infuriate them more than his actual policies. Mainstream Republicans react to his actual policies and complain about those, but Tea Party people react to things which aren't his policies but which in their fantasies might someday become his policies.

Former President Clinton was a Democrat too and with many fairly liberal policies...and he tried to bring about health care reform too. But the criticism he got from the Right was not so hysterical and there wasn't an End of the World As We Know It tone to their criticisms-- nor was there a grassroots movement galvanized by a horror of him. They just disagreed. Often angrily, but not hysterically. The difference between Clinton and Obama? Race.

To be fair, there is also more of a climate of fear these days than there was in the 90s. Wacky beleifs and conspiracy theories seem to have escalated on both sides of the political isle since 9/11 and the Bush Jr. era.



BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

11 Oct 2010, 11:03 am

Janissy wrote:
Former President Clinton was a Democrat too and with many fairly liberal policies...and he tried to bring about health care reform too. But the criticism he got from the Right was not so hysterical and there wasn't an End of the World As We Know It tone to their criticisms-- nor was there a grassroots movement galvanized by a horror of him. They just disagreed. Often angrily, but not hysterically. The difference between Clinton and Obama? Race.


Yeah but Clinton is an American Christian not a foreign Muslim.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 Oct 2010, 11:25 am

BigK wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Former President Clinton was a Democrat too and with many fairly liberal policies...and he tried to bring about health care reform too. But the criticism he got from the Right was not so hysterical and there wasn't an End of the World As We Know It tone to their criticisms-- nor was there a grassroots movement galvanized by a horror of him. They just disagreed. Often angrily, but not hysterically. The difference between Clinton and Obama? Race.


Yeah but Clinton is an American Christian not a foreign Muslim.


:lol:

You forget though, Clinton isn't a True Christian(TM) either. Neither is Jimmy Carter. Everyone knows only Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have God's personal seal of approval. Democrats are baby killers you know. :roll: