If You Want To Know What The Tea Party Thinks, Why Not Just Ask Them?
In recent days, we have been treated to a flood of rhetoric, often angry and frankly outright hateful, about what the “Tea Party” and Republicans want in the debt ceiling debate. What is remarkable about this flood is that almost none of the hundreds of posts on the subject show any sign of having even met a real live “Tea Party” member, let alone asking the “Tea Party” people what they actually think. It’s all just hateful stereotypes and sweeping generalizations.
It is a lot easier to caricature and demonize someone if they aren’t in the room, isn’t it?
That practice is morally and intellectually wrong and should be corrected. Here is a column from a “Tea Party” member describing his view on the debt ceiling debate.
If we are going to argue against someone, the least we should do is let that person describe their own arguments. If instead we have to put words into his mouth, extract out-of-context sound bites, or do mind-reading to report on his secret evil motives, well, that doesn’t have a lot of credibility, to put it mildly.
There is a lot to disagree with in the “Tea Party” position on this subject. For starters, I think the idea that spending has to be cut is true, but the “Tea Party’s” chosen method of abruptly cutting up the nation’s credit card and forcing a “cold turkey” conversion in the middle of a period of extended economic malaise is poorly considered at best and probably outright counterproductive. Moreover, even if we were to eliminate all of the earmarks and boondoggles that the “Tea Party” author uses as exemplars to whip up public resentment against government spending, we wouldn’t even make a significant dent in the current deficit, let alone the long-term budget problem. Many of his arguments are just red herrings.
But those arguments should be had face-to-face with real people, instead of shadow-boxing against demonic strawmen.
Share This
Logan – I have been to one local tea party meeting held at our local community center. I repeatedly asked for specifics on what they want to cut and how much should the total budget expenditures be. I got the same crap as outlined in the editorial – like the 2+ million spent on the Chinese – peanut crap.
I asked about SS and Medicare but aside from cutting waste there were no votes for that. Medicaid, Food Stamps, ADC payments were voted to be cut to zero. No military cuts were even discussed. Not one single person in the room could even tell me what our annual tax revenues and expenditures were. They all knew the debt limit but not s single person knew even how much money was spent on the various expenditures they wanted to cut.
In short I have never in my life met such an ill-informed group of 50 or so people. They were angry but only had a vague idea of what. The lady who leads the group is a substitute teacher in town and I asked her how much she pays in Federal income tax she said zero because of earned income credits and she was quite emphatic that was appropriate.
I realize this was only one meeting in one town so it would be inappropriate in generalize but it sure soured me on the Tea Party (not that I would have agreed with them in any event).
jdledell:
You have put your finger on why the Tea Party is so hapless, which is to say clueless. The one meeting that I attended was similar in every respect.
Alas, Logan is asking for the impossible in pleading that we try to understand what these people stand for when they don’t even know themselves except for abstract generalizations.
The Tea Party has had some time now to grow up. It hasn’t. And won’t.
jdledell, I had a similar experience of encountering that peculiar combination of gross ignorance and incoherent anger at both a precursor to a Tea Party group and at a corresponding far-left gathering (an anti-war protest). I learned that it is a feature of naive extremism that is not unique to the right or the left.
But the real point is not the “pleading” that Shaun suggests. The real point is that if you want to persuade moderates, you need to show that you actually know what the REAL arguments are on the other side. Using grotesque caricatures and demonic stereotypes, as many here prefer to do whenever dealing with anything from ALL conservatives (including but not limited to the “Tea Party” types) is not credible for many reasons.
We have three Tea Party groups in my county, and the atmosphere is different in each group. Just talking about “the” tea party is a little presumptuous.
Like all other groups, they tend to mature and settle down with time, as they figure out their purpose and methods. Ours has taken up tack of informing and promoting. We’ve heard from candidates, local and state officials, and even motivational speakers. The discussions and atmosphere would (and does) surprise many people that read the newspaper accounts.
Actions speak louder that words. I don’t want to here what they think, for I fear it a lie. They are evil.
I think that those who assume that everyone who disagrees with them is a liar and or “evil” are the bigger problem than the “Tea Party” will ever be (though the Tea Party itself contains almost as many of those types as leftist blogs seem to). That kind of Manichean worldview is what provokes and justifies violence and stifles any civil debate.
Also, it is tough to point a finger at other people and call them stupid when you can’t tell the difference between “here” and “hear”.
Those Tea Party darlings in Congress have already made clear what they want, Logan. It’s pretty public knowledge. If they’re poorly representing the interests of the Tea Party, nobody will be happier than I to see them voted out of office next year. I don’t really see a whole lot of Tea Party people protesting what the Tea Party Congresspeople are doing, but I am totally willing to be proven wrong on that front.
“They are evil.”
Because they are presumptuous and reactionary?
It is fair to say that they have made clear what policies they want.
It is not fair to say that they have made clear that they want particular consequences (i.e. all old people dying) without first proving that they know for a fact that those consequences will come from their preferred policies.
I honestly think both you and Allen are intelligent enough to see the difference.
Hell, Logan, it’s not my fault if someone is too dense to see that if you take away health care that is keeping someone alive, that they’re pretty likely to die. Lowering payments to someone on a fixed income is going to make that person less able to buy stuff they need; that that is anything but absolutely obvious to some is also not my fault. I really really want to fly, but the consequence of jumping off a cliff is still that I end up splatted on the ground below. If the only proof of that that I’m willing to accept is to run the actual experiment, at least I’m the only one dead in that case.
The Prof has a good point as I think the labeling has been applied with too broad a brush over the past two years to sweep in a variety of people with a variety of different points of grievance. Not sure even a titular head can speak to cover it.
Nonetheless, when a person is angry, they rarely do their best analytical thinking. I suspect the “TPs” are trying to implement the “get even” stage with this debt-ceiling issue, however, I think they might still be too trapped in the “get mad” stage to pull it off.
It has been my own observation that succeeding against your (political) opponent happens due to one of three conditions, you exert more power, you outfox/outmaneuver them or, as Joe Gandelman no doubt always does……charm, cajole, convince and come out with a net gain to your benefit.
Wins by means of 2 and 3 are most impressive, but few angry people can manage that. Ergo, you default to #1. The problem is is sometimes you’re not holding enough power.
Keith Hennessey does a pretty good job today of explaining that even though he prefers the Boehner Plan (and even then some), Obama holds more levers of the power, so now is not the time to stay in the ring. Settle for Reid if necessary and get better prepared to pick up the fight again at the opportune time.
Hey isn’t Bachman a TPer, and hasn’t she said what they want/don’t want.
I think most people that label themselves as Reps, Dems or TPers, have some vague idea and are slogan oriented. They (meaning me too) don’t know the details just the broad brush strokes. Big government bad, etc. Cradle to Grave protection,etc. Business knows best and trickle down your leg, etc. It’s not just the TPers, it’s all the rest too.
Logan,
Ok. I’m game. In response to your first response above, convince a moderate like myself you actually know what the REAL arguments are on the other side. I’m curious if you do. From what I have seen on this site, I don’t think you do. Prove me wrong.
roro, reforming Medicare does not mean abolishing it, so your characterization of “taking away health care that is keeping someone alive” is no more accurate than your previous 1000 iterations of anti-conservative stereotyping and hatred.
Please knock it off.
Mike, I posted a link and criticized the arguments. I know what many in the “Tea Party” believe. I agree with some of it (e.g. entitlement programs must be reformed and overall spending reduced). I disagree with some of it (e.g. that the transition must be sudden and immediate).
But the important thing, I think, is that I found out what they really say before identifying specific points of disagreement and I try to avoid using grotesque stereotypes and name-calling to express disagreement. That method makes for more substantive debate, I think, than the type of abuse and hateful generalizations (e.g. conservatives want all old people to die) that we see from far too many.
“roro, reforming Medicare does not mean abolishing it, so your characterization of “taking away health care that is keeping someone alive” is no more accurate than your previous 1000 iterations of anti-conservative stereotyping and hatred.
Please knock it off.
”
Hatred? Are you kidding? In what world is there anything remotely hateful about saying what I said? Are you — yet again — switching to what you think should happen from what we were talking about? Because I’ve read the bill. (Have you?) It doesn’t modify Medicare in such a way that it won’t take care away from the elderly. It doesn’t. It doesn’t do means testing for SS, it just lowers the benefits that everyone gets. So don’t give me your dishonest crap here. And don’t tell me to “knock it off” for saying the obvious. I know it’s devistating to your point of view, but that’s only my problem insomuch as other people unfortunately agree that the obvious is somehow untrue.
Logan – The article you cite merely says cut out the waste in government and cut inappropriate programs. No one questions that there is waste in the government, as there is in ALL private business. Even if the waste is as great as 10% of the total budget (I doubt it is that high) it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate 100% of it.
Now with inappropriate programs, the problem is one person’s inappropriate is another person’s necessity. The people in my town could care less if medicaid is abolished. The average income is $113,000 and none of them would even know a person on medicaid. I suspect if the tea party got explicit on the things that should be cut, the organization would splinter into a dozen factions.
Ryan’s plan for Medicare would kill it. Not immediately but if you know anything about health care inflation you would understand that if that program were in effect 10 years, medicare premiums would be virtually unaffordable except to the wealthy. That is the plan that conservatives passed – a killer of medicare. It’s time to call them on it not pussy foot around it like you do calling it reform. It is not reform – it is designed to kill it.
The Ryan plan (transforming Medicare into a federally-sponsored health insurance premium-partial-subsidy program, ignoring if the old and sick will simply be refused insurance or if they can pay the rest of the premiums) is not serious and is but a straw man for the more extreme and inflamed liberals here.
It failed the public opinion test, which cannot be discounted as the public so often is stupid, wanting no benefit reductions and no tax increases. The Ryan plan was so blatant (or overt) an attempt to destroy medicare (he doesn’t get credit for being highly enamored of the free market, with consequent BS, not sincere, views of “empowerment”) that even the ignorant hate it. It’s not a straw man — it got put into writing — but is just silly.
Overdue spending reform and entitlement reform eventually will happen. Note that the adults in both parties, not just the GOP, know that spending controls and reductions have long been needed, they’re working currently to establishing a feeble but significant precedent, and even if the Dems keep lying about entitlements, they’ll be forced eventually to join the GOP with reform of these programs.
I think the TP leaning folks here at TMV tend to be better informed than their cousins (meaning the ones I’ve spoken with who seem more representative). I agree with jdledell though, what they seem to have most in common is anger and misinformation. If they could jettison the misinformation part then at least they would have a bit of credibility. Sorry to say, that “if” has been growing steadily since thier advent. I sure wish William F. Buckley was still around; I would truly love to hear his take on the phenomenon.
Roro, no need to overreact or worry (or anguish) too much. The 2010 vote was a massive anti-Democratic (anti-too-leftist and anti-too-much-federal-overreach) vote, but never was pro-Republican.
If some (in the House) misinterpret public opinion and sentiment, look for the Dems to come back (in Congress, not just with Obama, whom I believe will easily be re-elected) in 2012. (Let’s just hope that this time, unlike 2008, they accurately judge public opinion.)
jdledell, I said that Medicare must be reformed. I did not say that the Ryan plan specifically should be enacted. It would be great from my perspective if Democrats would stop just demonizing the Ryan plan (and applying that demonization automatically to ANY suggestion of Medicare reform) and propose a specific alternative. Because just keeping things going the way they are is even more irresponsible than the Tea Party’s approach. It is “even more irresponsible” because while Tea Party plans might lead to drastic cuts in Medicare, keeping it going as-is and prohibiting all debate on rational reform means that the program will eventually collapse completely instead of just getting cut.
Actually, the “TP-leaning folks” are those who aren’t ignorant, but well-informed. What are the others going to when the money’s gone?
DLS — I’m in no state of dispair here. I promise. I appreciate your concern, but it might be better given to those who talk of hatred and evil each time their arguments fall flat.
Logan — You seem to presume to be speaking for all Tea Partiers, but the modifications you’re talking about aren’t the ones being proposed by most of them, including those on the national stage. It’s also dishonest to say that Democrats have no solid ideas. Those solid ideas, which have been discussed not just by me but by many, ad nauseum, have been roundly rejected for a number of reasons by our conservative and TP brethren, for reasons that, in my opinion, mostly boil down to fear mongering. But the claim you make, and make often, that Democrats somehow have no ideas on how things might be fixed is patently false. That you disagree with them for ideology or practicality does not mean they don’t exist. They certainly are better than what is being proposed by conservatives now, even if the TPers have changed the conversation so much that even the President is cowtowing to their desires.
roro, I don’t claim to speak for Tea Party members. I only ask that they be allowed to speak for themselves rather than have their arguments summarized, distorted, misrepresented, and/or invented by people such as yourself who appear to violently hate them.
And I stand behind my criticisms of Democrats. I have not yet seen a plan from any congressional Democrats on how to reform entitlement programs in a way that will secure their long-term viability and balance the budget. I haven’t even seen very many that will tolerate the discussion.
Logan, I have yet to see a proposal from the current Republican Party where reforming social programs doesn’t mean eliminating them for all practical purposes because by the time the effects would kick in fully most people who need the benefits they provide would either no longer be eligible or could no longer afford the increase in their expenses it would impose. One example of a problem that is not acknowledged is that increasing the effective age for Social Security or Medicare does nothing about the rampant age discrimination in the job market. Social Security could easily be fixed by raising the cap on income paying payroll taxes and means testing. The first is flat out rejected by Republicans and Democrats fear the second would be used by Republicans to change the debate to one of Social Security being a pure welfare program and therefore deserving of elimination. Given the massive support the Ryan Plan draws from Republicans (I speak of Republican attitudes, not the plan per se.) their fears would seem to be justified given what it planned on for Medicare.
Jim, maybe that is because your set of what constitutes “eliminating them for all practical purposes” is too large.
There is a strong tendency among Democrats to exaggerate the negative impact of reforms to entitlement programs.
P.S. I already know more about age discrimination in hiring than you can possibly understand. But none of that changes the FACT that the Social Security system as currently structured is unsustainable.
Fixing Medicare and Medicaid would involve forcing massive changes on the medical/pharmaceutical system. Given the marketphilia that is the basis of modern conservatives I sincerely doubt that is a viable option if any Republican votes are necessary.
Changes to drug funding need to be tempered by an understanding of how research and development will be funded and how existing countries like Canada have been received a de facto subsidy from United States consumers.
If the changes are grounded on a simplistic “profits bad” assumption, they could backfire severely. I don’t think it would be wise to destroy Medicare as a functional system just so we can make some abstract statement about how capitalism is bad.
I grew up listening to the Tea Party before it existed formally, a band of interconnected evangelical churches.
I was fortunate enough to escape their abuse, yes abuse — my best chilldhood friends went on to become heroin addicts, criminals, dishonorably discharged military rejects, outcasts from their families.
If it weren’t for the early days of the tea party, I wouldn’t have had a shining example of wrong. It gave me quite a moral compas to be able to so easily identify greed, insecurity, and hatred.
I’m now happily getting a PhD in biotechnology and I am a well informed citizen. Thank you tea party!
Before you claim that my experience is a snow flake — check again. I am not alone. But you wont find me either, these are the stories untold, because most people saw the TP as a spontaneous event caused by budget drama.
Make no mistake, the TP has been around a long time, under various names, betting your brow with the blunt end of a bible that they themselves dont understand.
You didn’t live my experience, so you wouldn’t know. So I wont get mad at you in retaliation, I’ll smile instead, as I have learned to, and realize that tea party is deliberately synonymous with willful ignorance.
You assume the Tea Party is coterminous with social conservatives, but that is wrong. There is a lot of overlap, yes, but there are also a lot of people who like the message of fiscal conservatism while rejecting the intolerance of social conservatism.
I also think that those people who complain about the hateful stereotypes that social conservatives have should be more careful to avoid using hateful stereotypes about conservatives. They should do this not only to avoid hypocrisy, but because it is an expression of their own values of tolerance and respect to allow conservatives of different types to speak and be treated as individuals.
And the Tea Party is so quick to call all things egalitarian “socialist” and say what “socialists want to do to this country. I can’t tell you how many generalizations and stereotypical rants I’ve heard from Tea Partiers calling me and people like me evil or a traitor, or something worse. Yet I doubt any of them have ever asked a socialist what the word “socialist” really means or what we actually want. Often their own rhetoric is filled with anger and hate. So why don’t you swing that judgmental pendulum back the other way.
Yes, I realize that right wing rhetoric is often hateful also. But I do not agree that I am required to give left wing hatred a pass as a result of that realization, especially when it is the LEFT wing hatred that I personally face every day HERE and when the right-wing hatred is something that is only REFERENCED here and is almost never REPRESENTED here.
There is no shortage on this site of criticism towards Republicans, Tea Partiers, or conservatives.
“roro, I don’t claim to speak for Tea Party members. I only ask that they be allowed to speak for themselves rather than have their arguments summarized, distorted, misrepresented, and/or invented by people such as yourself who appear to violently hate them.”
I have heard them speak for themselves – it’s a little insulting to say that we haven’t – and while I do not violently hate anything, I do quite rightly think that most of the Tea Parties with whose views I am familiar are deeply, deeply misguided, or possibly stupid, or also possibly cruel. I don’t need to distort or misrepresent. The leaders who presumably speak for the Tea Party have made themselves clear. Again, it’s insulting to think that strong disagreement (not, as you so ridiculously repeat, over and over again, “violent hatred”) is due to a lack of understanding, but simply strong disagreement based on what is actually being proposed.
“especially when it is the LEFT wing hatred that I personally face every day HERE and when the right-wing hatred is something that is only REFERENCED here and is almost never REPRESENTED here.
”
Hahaha! Ok, Logan, whatever you say.
Profits are not evil. A drive for large profits at any cost and with any methods being acceptable is a bad thing. Manipulation of the patent system is bad. Back door agreements between brand name pharma and generic manufacturers to stop the release of generics is bad. Buying out any generics manufacturer who threatens large profits is bad. Frankly, I think TV advertising for prescription drugs is bad, not to mention what spending more on advertising than R&D does to the system. Also, R&D is slashed while “cheaper” ways to acquire new products in today’s Big Pharma. R&D tax credits with auditing to make certain it’s real R&D is perfectly acceptable to me and takes care of that objection to watching out for Big Pharma’s business practices.
Logan, I share your frustration with writers on the left who take a hyperbolic, irrational, or rude approach to discussing important issues.
You’re going too far into hyperbole yourself. Tea party members are indeed allowed to speak for themselves; you linked to one who did. “Violently hate” seems unwarranted. If you’re going to make accusations, make specific ones you can defend. Vague, sweeping ones reveal your state of mind but don’t invite productive discussion.
I’m surprise (but not really) at how many people can see what’s wrong with hatred and sweeping generalizations, but not when they do it.
It’s alright to reject other people’s ideas, without having to believe that those who hold those ideas have some ulterior motive or hatred, or are stupid or ignorant. That’s a crutch that should be rejected for what it is: cheap cover for intellectual sloth.
Logan, I’m going to do you an undeserved (and probably unwanted) favor and hand out some advice: If you want to be taken seriously here by more than just a small choir you really need to put an end to those over-the-top accusations of hatred and stop encouraging your own sense of being a victim. That whole shtick has gone on too long, is beyond the ridiculous, and on it’s way to becoming just sad. You simply can’t post some of the things you do and not expect some of the very contrary, but honest reactions they provoke. You are no more sacrosanct than anyone else here and you can’t employ two sets of standards. What you so often refer to as “hate” is in fact nothing more than disagreement – sometimes it’s even humor. I’ve very rarely seen any genuine hate in evidence at TMV and have never felt any myself. It seems to me you don’t really know what hate is, since you diminish the meaning and dark power of the word by pretending you are experiencing it here on a regular basis in the course of routine politic banter.
There is an old saying, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Well, we all know the kitchen of political discussion does get heated, especially these days, but even better than having a thick skin is having a governor and a sense of proportion. Not everyone enjoys seeing you lose control and start calling other people haters and liars because they see things differently than you do. That is the reaction a child might have before learning control of his or her emotions, but as we mature we leave some aspects (not all) of child-like behavior behind. My hope is that you will do yourself and others here a favor and think about your motives for posting some of the things you do, and to count to ten before posting anymore bizarre and untrue reactions. I’m assuming here that you have the power to do that. At the very least, try harder to understand the difference between hate and disagreement. In most cases there is a vast chasm between the two. Consider this an entreaty and an offering, not a challenge nor a game of tit for tat.
Btw, some of your posting isn’t half bad.
Yeh, it isn’t half bad. (Some others are 3/4 bad.)
Jpencer:
At the risk of being called a “hate monger,” I agree with every word of advice you have for to all of us, posters and commenters.
Thank you,
Dorian
It is the Tea Party freshmen in the House – regardless of what various factions of the Tea Party do or think – who are the ones against increasing the debt ceiling.
They are the ones convinced they act with a mandate.
They are the ones who need to be “convinced.”
They are the ones demanding that cuts need to equal the amount the ceiling is raised.
So how is this criticism misplaced?
Dorian, I think you are the last person anyone would ever call a “hate monger”.
Thank you, Dr. J. Everyone can benefit from an injection of perspective from time to time.
Based on what they have said, I honestly do believe that there are several commenters here to actually do “hate” Tea Party members and pretty much everyone who disagrees with them. There are a few who have seized on me in particular as a target, probably because I am virtually the only author here who is not a progressive and who bothers to respond to comments at all. But I shouldn’t let their hatefulness taint everyone else.
JSpencer, I will try to remind myself of what I think is the real distinction between mere disagreement and personal hatred. Disagreement is when someone attack an argument. Hatred is when someone attacks the person. I would ask that you remind yourself of that distinction as well.
You certainly shouldn’t do that. And I try to steer clear of accusing people of thought-crimes like hate, since I can’t observe their state of mind, especially online.
I can observe their writing, though, and I will call them on that. I’m not above complaining about a writer’s general style or even about groups of writers, but I think it’s more effective to call specific writers on specific bits of writing.
Hate may be a state of mind, but I think hatefulness is a description of tone/behavior.
I hate it when we get bogged down with semantics.
It’s a basic building block. Without it we don’t have a common language.
Are you marking me as using common language? Help, dr.e.
We’re all commoners here.