The Tea Party movement’s influence and rabid energy is being felt throughout the corridors of the capitol in Washington, D.C. as well as the hot pavement and dusty plains of America. The group, who believe in less government, is the driving force behind the republican party’s efforts to retake congress in this year’s midterm elections. But what do we really know about the movement– besides it’s disdain for big government?
Tea Party members tend to be white males, over 40, and wealthier and more educated than the general populace. This tends to fly in the face of those who’ve conjured images of Tea Partiers who live in rural communities, and have less education than other supporters of the republican party. Here’s a quick snapshot from the New York Times of what Tea Party supporters generally feel:
Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, despite some conservative leaders urging a boycott.
Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.
Let’s examine this more closely. Anger toward Washington may have nothing to do with high taxes, high deficits, or even Washington incumbency. The apparatus responsible for the formulation and growth of the Tea Party is a contempt and ambivalence toward the poor. Tea Party anger may not be aimed at health care reform directly, but for whom the actual reform is meant to help. Here’s more from the Times:
The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.
If the majority of Tea Party supporters believe that President Obama does not share their values, and his policies are intended to help minorities, then what’s gestating beneath the surface isn’t just antipathy toward politics as usual. In what manner is this White House’s policies benefiting black Americans, or minorities in general? Black unemployment is nearly twice as high as the American average. In fact, there is a strong cross-section of black leadership–including members of congress– who believe the exact opposite.
They’ve called on the president to create a Black Agenda in order to properly address the needs of black Americans. President Obama has rejected that notion, instead choosing to enact policies that benefit all Americans–particularly middle-class Americans. So this perception on the part of Tea Partiers is at best skewed, and at worst bigoted. So why would the Tea Party movement have this perception in the first place?
It stands to reason that they believe only the privileged few– those whose quantifiable worthiness is measured by their ability to project their “Americanness”– can reap the benefits of government benevolence. The idea of a new Contract With America, reinforces the notion the some whites in the movement refuse to relinquish their grip on the structures of power. This new Contract from America offers this basic tenet:
“The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders.”
In short; they believe in a limited government that restricts aid to minorities and the poor–those undeserving dregs of American society. It is the re-creation of a brand of white nationalism, meant to reawaken the spirit of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers– who at one time displayed their antipathy toward blacks and native Americans– by railing against full citizenship status for them–and instituting political structures to prevent it from occurring.
Could this be a coincidence? There have always been forms of white nationalism rooted into the framework of the American socio-political landscape. Tea Party members have become the progenitors of a slice of radical, racially charged American ideology, determined to jettison those deemed unworthy of America’s promise. Clearly a provocative statement, but given some of these quotes, is it really that far off?
“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”
Let me make three points here. One: Ms. Mayhugh is receiving medicare benefits– and as an American it is her right to do so– but she is participating in a program with many socialistic values. She, like many conservatives, refuse to engage in debate about scaling back the program to limit its size and scope. Here’s a quote from another Tea Partier about this very idea:
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
Of course she didn’t. She only wants other, less deserving people to lose things they might need. How is it be possible to reconcile your disdain for big government, while being complicit in its continued pattern of growth and waste?
Point two: Sarah Palin– the GOP superstar who headlines most of these tea party rallies– is a vocal critic of the president and his socialist agenda. Yet it was Palin who raised taxes on oil companies as governor of Alaska, then distributed the money to the state’s citizens. I don’t have an issue with her raising taxes–especially for the purpose of righting a corrupt tax loophole– I do have an issue with the hypocritical stance she’s taken, and the her lack of acknowledging her own socialistic past.
My point is simply this: Elements of this society–from medicare, to social security, to pell grants for college, to unemployment benefits are socialist in nature. There may be some who are critical of this point, but even they at some point will partake in one of this government programs. And they will be drinking from the same socialist fountain.
Point three: When I listen to the speakers, and the rhetoric, I hear words or terms such as patriot and American values. The movement seems to be using code words to denote the underlying theme in a lot of their protest. A good portion of these protesters don’t believe the president shares their values–and some believe he isn’t even a citizen of this country. Just read Ms. Mayhugh’s quote. She believes he’s a Muslim, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
His ascendance to Pennsylvania Avenue embodies every literal fear some white nationalists have about their nation. A black man, as alien and unrelatable to them as possible, gains power and begins to distribute it to his black and brown minions–amassing an army of militant minority militiamen, primed for the ultimate insurgency– to reshape their America into some unholy image. Take back our country indeed.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
White people are supposed to accept that they have no right to pursue their own political, cultural, and economic interests. Whites are told they must live according to the rules of “individualism” while everybody else (blacks, hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Asians, etc) are free to live by tribal rule-sets.
Whites are blamed for every evil in history, but then, if they attempt to defend themselves from this accusation, are told that Whites (as a people) don’t even exist.
To atone for their evil history, Whites must celebrate their own demise (“diversity is strength”) and accept mass immigration from the “developing world” into White countries and only White counties. Whites must then “assimilate” these immigrants into their communities, schools, work places, churches, and genetic material – Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for EVERYONE!
What this is is genocide by forced assimilation.
“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II”
Of course, anyone who opposes this program of genocide by forced assimilation is a “racist,” and therefore ANAZIWHOWANTSTOKILLSIXMILLIONJEWS.
The people who call Whites “racist” claim they are “anti-racist.”
What they are is anti-White.
“Anti-racism” is a code for anti-White.
White people are supposed to accept that they have no right to pursue their own political, cultural, and economic interests. Whites are told they must live according to the rules of “individualism” while everybody else (blacks, hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Asians, etc) are free to live by tribal rule-sets.