Tea Party The New Civil Rights Movement?

[sukeban]

@Kendo

 

Coming from a person who enthusiastically voted for Obama in 2008 and semi-enthusiastically voted for him just this last year, I'll agree with you that Obama has turned out to be a shady snake in the grass. That said, to think that the malfeasance that you attribute to Obama is somehow unique to him--or to Democrats in general--would be exceedingly disingenuous. Most of underlying problems that these "scandals" crystallize (principally the monopolization of power by the executive branch) are equally applicable to the Bush years, the Clinton years, the Reagan years... all the way back to Nixon, and before him, FDR. Part of this phenomenon has to do with an active pursuit of power by the executive branch, but some of it may also be attributed to the increasing "uselessness" of Congress as an institution, as Congressmen increasingly use their office to grandstand and posture for future book deals as opposed to actually governing.

 

Furthermore, there is an illustrious "tradition" in this country of second terms going off the rails, as presidents are well-acquainted with the levers of power and are no longer concerned with having to be re-elected. They also seem to surround themselves with only their most trusted cronies--a closed-circuit network of "yes-men"--such that they are never forced to hear a dissenting voice. In any case, our entire system of democracy is on the ropes, indeed has been on the ropes, and Obama is only the most recent and obvious manifestation of this. But to believe that he is somehow unique in abusing the office of the executive would strike me rather missing the forest for the tree.

 

@Garon

 

Indeed, the two-party system and first-past-the-post elections (for anything other than the chief executive of an institution) are garbage in general, and I dearly wish that we could transition to a system of proportional representation. In a better democracy, the Tea Party would be properly represented alongside a proper Social Democratic party, which would in turn coexist in Congress with a Christian Democratic party, a Liberal party, a Conservative party, the Greens, etc. So many of the issues currently facing our nation could be solved by opting for just such a system, it would be near to a panacea. The prospects for this happening, however....

 

@Colourwheel

 

Indeed, demographics do not lie, and I am still perplexed as to why many Republicans continue to ignore this. Republicans today (and going forward) cannot win a general election on their current platform, yet they don't really seem to be bothered. Probably because they aren't really there to govern, but rather to "make a name for themselves" as personalities before cashing out and moving on to more lucrative opportunities in entertainment and lobbying. The Palin and Bachmann strategy shows us the wave of the future: using government as a reality-show-fame-vehicle as opposed to a place where actual governing takes place.

[Vagrant0]

Anti-civil rights movement would probably be more correct. You simply cannot have a civil rights movement while trying to deny certain groups those rights just because you disagree with them. In the 70's the Civil Rights Movement was not only about granting equal rights to African Americans and people of other nationalities, but also rights being given to women, the handicapped (both mentally and physically) and even the homosexual community (as it existed at that time). This is just a huge step backward, and to think that someone related to Martin Luther King is even part of it is a huge discredit to his legacy.

[TRoaches]

@sukeban: I appreciate your observations on the limitations of the two party establishment that currently controls our government. For the first time since I have reached voting age I didn't even bother to vote in the last presidential election out of disgust for the two candidates offered. At this point neither party comes close to representing my views. I think people should be able to own machine guns, obtain any medical procedure that their doctor is willing to perform, and marry whomever they wish regardless of gender. I also strongly oppose foreign militarism. Voting either of the two major candidates would have required compromising on half of those beliefs.

 

I recently saw a thread on another forum that was about groups like Pink Pistols that advocate for LGBT gun ownership and concealed carry. The discussion turned to questioning why so few gays are gun ownership advocates, and why they tend to vote for the party that is more opposed to gun rights, given the serious threat of violent gay bashing that exists in many areas. My conclusion was that an LGBT person is given a choice between voting for a party that recognizes their human right to love and marriage, or voting for the party that supports their right to self defense. For most people it would be an easy choice to give up the self defense right in favor or something as grand as love. By forcing a person to make that sort of decision I think it also causes them abandon their sense of entitlement to the right that was sacrificed, and to react oppositional towards those who were able to retain that right without having to make a similar sacrifice with regards to their choice of spouse.

 

I like the Pink Pistols group because they perfectly illustrate the lack of logic that exists in forcing everyone into a one dimensional left v right spectrum. There are multiple dimensions and axes that political thought slides across. It is more like a big room than a single line, and there is far too much diversity of thought in the world to fairly group everyone into two little corners of a big room. We should have more freedom to wander around, climb the walls, stand right in the middle, levitate, swing from the chandelier, and so on.

Edited June 25, 2013 by TRoaches

[Lord Garon]

<snip>

 

...There are multiple dimensions and axes that political thought slides across...

 

<snip>

 

You know, I'd have to say "political possibility" rather than "thought". Unfortunately, we are locked into a binary, two option choice system which can never represent even a 51%/49% majority/minority fairly. Add to that the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy of big Federal Government and we have become our own worst enemy. It seems that we cannot help but impose upon the minority when implementing majority will. It is a systemic problem, IMHO.

 

Of course, I can't really point to an actual system that works fairly for everyone, except, maybe the Anarchists. But I don't think Anarchy is really the answer because human beings are social animals and it seems like there must exist a society in which human beings as a whole can flourish. I'm getting a little philosophical here, but that's going to be needed in politics and government before colourwheel feels as accepted as Pat Robertson in the same society.

 

Group identification. The ability we have to form cliques, chapters, parties, clubs, family, political parties, religions, and countries. We don't have, and I would say, no longer have, a primary group identification with "American". Self and family identification come first, of course, but I think the big group identification lines are all overlapping and have lost the structure necessary for a cohesive whole. Caused, primarily, by the factioning which inevitably results from implaccable government power. The freer people are to act, the fewer factions will develop to promote member's interests. Our government, in it's headlong effort to legislate everything under the sun, has actually generated the problems it is trying to deal with. As with most "big problems" in life and society, a look in the mirror will usually result in finding the culprit.

 

It is a downward spiral. More and more factions, less and less national effort. We need to "reload the save game" and go back and try again, this time learning from our mistakes. I truly believe the Tea Parties want to do that. At least, I do.

[Lord Garon]

<snip>

 

In the long run however, I have concluded unless the conservative tea party movement becomes more popular to more than just a majority of white males over the age of 45, the democratic party will eventually control all branches of government from state legislation to the white house....

 

<snip>

 

There's a word which is defined as the stereotypical application of traits and characteristics to a particular race. And there are other words for stereotyping by gender and age. I respectfully submit that your characterizations may be offensive on that level to some who read these forums.

[colourwheel]

 

<snip>

 

In the long run however, I have concluded unless the conservative tea party movement becomes more popular to more than just a majority of white males over the age of 45, the democratic party will eventually control all branches of government from state legislation to the white house....

 

<snip>

 

There's a word which is defined as the stereotypical application of traits and characteristics to a particular race. And there are other words for stereotyping by gender and age. I respectfully submit that your characterizations may be offensive on that level to some who read these forums.

 

I didn't mean to post again but out of respect to you Lord Gardon, my statement wasn't aimed for stereotyping by gender and age. It was based on actual demographic data... please forgive me if you were offended.

 

"Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as “born-again,” compared with 33 percent of all respondents."

 

Maybe if the Tea party really wants to become a civil rights movement, The tea parties can start rally to fix the Voting rights act of section 4, that was struck down this week a few days ago in the supreme court sending the problem back to congress.... I personally think that section 4 should apply to all states making no jurisdictions discriminating from one state to the next.

Edited June 26, 2013 by colourwheel

[Lord Garon]

 

<snip>

 

"Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as “born-again,” compared with 33 percent of all respondents."

 

<snip>

 

Okay, demographics are what they are. Right now, this very moment, I'm trying to make the Tea Party more popular by "recruiting" a 36 year old, mixed race female. A seemingly impossible task. How can I accomplish that? What Tea Party values which have been expressed in this forum disenfranchise you? Not current political system failings (Republicans riding on the coattails of our platform), but values?

 

We are trying to change the system to make it more equitable. We believe in personal freedom not overly constrained by government. We have no particular social agendas, other than those which might directly follow from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Citizens are citizens. Period. We, at least I, believe the "system" is at the root of your expressed concerns, and we want to change that.

 

Don't go away without telling me which values and precepts we promote are responsible for alienating the very people we aspire to help (which is everyone, from our perspective).

[colourwheel]

 

Okay, demographics are what they are. Right now, this very moment, I'm trying to make the Tea Party more popular by "recruiting" a 36 year old, mixed race female. A seemingly impossible task. How can I accomplish that? What Tea Party values which have been expressed in this forum disenfranchise you? Not current political system failings (Republicans riding on the coattails of our platform), but values?

 

We are trying to change the system to make it more equitable. We believe in personal freedom not overly constrained by government. We have no particular social agendas, other than those which might directly follow from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Citizens are citizens. Period. We, at least I, believe the "system" is at the root of your expressed concerns, and we want to change that.

 

Don't go away without telling me which values and precepts we promote are responsible for alienating the very people we aspire to help (which is everyone, from our perspective).

 

One problem is the already existing perception of the tea party and how it correlates in the republican party. Unless the tea party completely becomes it's own entity as its own political party, there is hardly a distinction when its considered a branch to the Republican party when its clearly the social conservatives that are influencing tea party delegates to satisfy the conservative base instead of the core beliefs you talk about.

 

It is clear that social issues no matter what party you are affiliated to will always be just as important to supporters as fiscal issues even when there is no clear message in the partys platform. To get to my point... If Obama was running and I knew he was running only on fiscal issues but found out he would try to abolish abortion rights, strike down equality for women in the work place, and rail against LGBTs, I would probably not vote for him just for those 3 reasons alone.

 

Voters like to know where a party as a whole stands on not just fiscal issues but social issues too. Because regardless if your party only advocates fiscal issues and is put into office they will have to deal with social issues too... And not being clear how a party stands socially pretty much makes the party only half complete when it comes to governing. And if the Tea party is relying on the social conservatives in the republican party to fill that void, then the tea party is just the republican party to me.

 

If the Tea party wants to start "recruiting" a 36 year old, mixed race female a good start might be to advocate LGBT rights, fight for equality in the work place, fight to preserve a womans right to have an abortion, welcome immigration and immigrants with open arms, and even demanding congress to fix and preserve section 4 of the Voting rights act wouldn't hurt either...

 

Fiscal issues are important but if your trying to recruit people when the tea party is just a branch of the modern republican party, most likely the 36 year old mixed raced female you are trying to recruit will feel like a 2nd class citizen, because where the republican party as a whole currently stands socially.

Edited June 26, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Social issues are a tool used by the two major parties to provide the illusion that they act in opposition to each other. They are a diversion, and an effective one because social progress cannot be attained through legislation and most proposed social legislation is truly outside of the domain of federal government. This creates an eternal stalemate, and allows them to loudly argue about social issues and project an image of opposition while remaining in near-complete agreement regarding issues that really matter and are clearly within the domain of federal government: fiscal, foreign, and military policies.

[colourwheel]

 

Social issues are a tool used by the two major parties to provide the illusion that they act in opposition to each other. They are a diversion, and an effective one because social progress cannot be attained through legislation and most proposed social legislation is truly outside of the domain of federal government. This creates an eternal stalemate, and allows them to loudly argue about social issues and project an image of opposition while remaining in near-complete agreement regarding issues that really matter and are clearly within the domain of federal government: fiscal, foreign, and military policies.

 

You have a very cynical way at looking at American politics if this is how you feel about them. I honestly don't see social issues as illusion when they personally effect the nation as a whole when legislation is passed. Federal government has always played a roll in social progress from upholding a persons freedom of religion to outlawing slavery in America.

 

If social issue do not matter to you, would you really be apart of a political party that makes you feel like a 2nd class citizen if the party fits your fiscal, foreign, and military policies needs?