Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : You refuse to even look at the argument.  That is a lack of critical thought.  We have had a states right, decentralized power political issue since the founding of the nation.  It reached its crisis point with the Civil War.  And the issue certainly did not disappear afterwards... especially in the ranks of consevatives.  That's the history.  You feel uncomfortable about it?  Too bad. Self awareness is not your forte. 
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    You think you're being cute.  What's really happening is your argument is weak, so you need to smear your opposition.

    Face facts.  people like you are killing this country, you want debt, you want government control of everything.
     
    you want to steal from the rich and poor alike to pay government pensions.

    you support government unions, to protect the worker from the excesses of the government, but you expect me to deal with this same government alone, and claim the government will not harm me.  reconcile that little inconsistency.

    And, to top it all off, you won the debt ceiling debate.  Are you a poor winner or what?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]"...somehow, without any logical reason, "neo-confederate" is a damnable phrase"   What a damnably stupid creepy statement. Being called "neo-Confederate" is a slander, period, who the hell you kidding? Actually, I did reply and answered the Far left propaganda article... 1) overall, regional stereotypes are now dubious , given the new South, full of transplanted Northerners.  The fact the South is more conservative is based in part on the fact many Northerners sick of high taxation and failed liberalism in Northern big cities got the hell out. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy of a hundred fifty years ago. 2)  "The impeachment of their fellow Southerner Bill Clinton was an attempted coup d'état by the Southern white minority in the United States" . Damnable fact-free lie and smear. 3) the "Tea Party'  is not a "Party" like the GOP and Democrats, and not a Southern movement. The author strictly defined the Tea Party as elected officials, and more from the South have defined themselves as "Tea Party" ... The movement is not strictly definable as such, and is more than elected officials ....the election of moderate GOP Mass. Senator Scott Brown was one of the first results of Tea Party involvement.  As was the election of Chris Christie, whose Southern drawl needs work...
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    1) you respond to a perceived regional stereotype with...another regional stereotype.  Nice job.
    2) an exaggeration, perhaps but still largely true.
    3) Regardless of its standing as a 'party', the movement does have reps in congress; political actions of elected officials provide the only real metric of the movement's goals and success; as you say yourself, if Brown and Christie are products of the movement, then they are also party to its machinations.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : I don't support the view you present.  That is being irresponsible in one's political beliefs and avoiding true critical thinking.  But you have no problem in engaging in such behavior.  That's how ideology has warped you.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    "critical thinking"  Where did you hear that?  From some liberal? 

    Liberals and their genetically superior bretheren, progressives,  always cart out this "critical thinking" phrase.  I think what it means is " I can't really argue against your point, so I'll call you stupid".


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : This isn't the first time you've posted this kind of reaction. And YET you still haven't learned from it. That's very telling.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink[/QUOTE]

    Is it...??

    Perhaps I just prefer the hunt to the kill...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : What you fail to understand is that nobody has offered a reasonable rebuttal to the argument at hand, so therefore, they can't debate rationally...at least not on this topic. I said myself - very clearly - in the first line that I don't even completely agree and that its merely a thoughtful exercise.  Or did you miss that part? Why don't they agree?  Why is it a "ploy"?  What's the author's "angle"?  What evidence proves the author's premise is wrong?  Why are reactions to it so visceral and unreasonable?  Why was I wrong to post it in the first place? Mere disagreement is not a viable position in any debate, nor is discomfort.  If a topic is not to your tastes, there is no obligation to respond. And if we can't talk about topics like these, then this isn't much of a forum, is it...??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    No one has offered a reasonable reply IN YOUR OPINION. I don't think this a thoughtful excercise at all..get it? If you feel that describing the tea party as "neo confederates" is apt, then by all means, go ahead. But don't cry foul when others challenge that notion. You weren't "wrong" to post the article, but you are wrong to assume that you are going to get reactions that suit you. Why is this so confusing to you?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : 1) you respond to a perceived regional stereotype with...another regional stereotype.  Nice job. 2) an exaggeration, perhaps but still largely true. 3) Regardless of its standing as a 'party', the movement does have reps in congress; political actions of elected officials provide the only real metric of the movement's goals and success; as you say yourself, if Brown and Christie are products of the movement, then they are also party to its machinations.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    Matty, you asked for a direct reponse, I gave it, and now you dance around with a big heaping bowl of nothing.
    "1) you respond to a perceived regional stereotype with...another regional stereotype.  Nice job."
    No I didnt, quite the opposite. The point is, the population of the South is full of transplants, and the influence of mass communications and interstate highways minimizes these regional stereotypes. 
    That the South was once the home of the Confederacy means little regarding the Tea Party ; like saying Massachusetts politics is liberal due to the influence of "Shay's Rebellion", or the War of 1812.

    'if Brown and Christie are products of the movement, then they are also party to its machinations"

    Um, that doesnt rebut my point that it is a national movement.

    You lose.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : No one has offered a reasonable reply IN YOUR OPINION. I don't think this a thoughtful excercise at all..get it? If you feel that describing the tea party as "neo confederates" is apt, then by all means, go ahead. But don't cry foul when others challenge that notion. You weren't "wrong" to post the article, but you are wrong to assume that you are going to get reactions that suit you. Why is this so confusing to you?
    Posted by lrecliner[/QUOTE]

    But why is it not 'thoughtful', in your opinion?  Why is "neo-confederate" a slur when there are still people in the south who celebrate the confederacy, fly its flag and generally defend secession as a legitimate action despite the horrific results?

    I didn't even say the label was 'apt'; I just repeated the author's thesis - a thesis which is based on historical precedent and fact.

    If you dispute the facts, then give your evidence and do so; otherwise, I don't know why you would expend so much time disagreeing without backing it up.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Matty, you asked for a direct reponse, I gave it, and now you dance around with a big heaping bowl of nothing. "1) you respond to a perceived regional stereotype with...another regional stereotype.  Nice job." No I didnt, quite the opposite. The point is, the population of the South is full of transplants, and the influence of mass communications and interstate highways minimizes these regional stereotypes.  That the South was once the home of the Confederacy means little regarding the Tea Party ; like saying Massachusetts politics is liberal due to the influence of "Shay's Rebellion", or the War of 1812. 'if Brown and Christie are products of the movement, then they are also party to its machinations" Um, that doesnt rebut my point that it is a national movement. You lose.
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    The West is full of transplants, too, but they are underrepresented in the tea party vs. the South.  The movement is spread out (as the author says), but that's not the same as being national.  He's saying its roots are historically southern and gives his evidence for this.  The 'regional' argument/precedent is historical, i.e., farther back than just our era of mass communications and highways. (Plus, Brown and Christie were elected despite the lack of tea party representation in their states, not because of it.)

    Ah...here's the thing:

    If a conservative historian tried to make the case that Massachusetts IS more liberal because of Shay's or the War of 1812 (or maybe Harvard?), and I disagreed, then shouldn't I be required, as a matter of debate protocol, to provide evidence for WHY the author's conclusion is wrong, other than just saying I'm offended or The author is biased or I don't like it...??

    bobin, you can't pretend that you're immune to making obtuse, even silly allegations against either liberals, or elites, or northeasterners or any other part of the political system you don't like.  I'm not immune either, but then I never claimed to be.

    According to you, only right-wing favoring articles are valid and beyond reproach, while left-wing favoring articles should be dismissed automatically and not discussed at all regardless of their premise.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : But why is it not 'thoughtful', in your opinion ?  Why is "neo-confederate" a slur when there are still people in the south who celebrate the confederacy, fly its flag and generally defend secession as a legitimate action despite the horrific results? I didn't even say the label was 'apt'; I just repeated the author's thesis - a thesis which is based on historical precedent and fact. If you dispute the facts, then give your evidence and do so; otherwise, I don't know why you would expend so much time disagreeing without backing it up.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Review my other posts where I explain my position. I am not going to repeat myself over and over again. For the record, I never said the term "neo confederate" qualified as a slur. I do beleive it is a smear tactic not unlike all the others like racist, terrorist, hostage taker, etc. And what "facts" and "precedent" are you talking about? That there used to be confederate states that wanted to secede?  No one is disputing that, so not sure what that strawman was all about.  And what does the debt ceiling debate have to do with secession? We are disputing the legitmacy of the authors claim, calling it into question, and/or disagreeing with it. Those are very healthy things to do in a free society. You may not like it, but that shouldn't be as big a deal as you are making it out to be.  
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    How about this "intriguing premise' :
    Today's left wing statists and socialists are intellectual descendants of slavery's most adamant defenders.
    There is definite solid evidence of this, see below.

    Ergo, today's liberal Democrats are "neo-Confederates", who consider citizens as helpless, and want the State to act as a master did to his slaves... 
    ...about as accurate as claiming a connection between the Confederacy and the Tea Party.



    The South's most ardent intellectual defenders of slavery were socialists.
    "Southerners did not stop with an open defense of slavery. They went on to attack northern society for its 'wage slavery' and 'exploitation of workers,' using arguments repeated by socialist critics of capitalism. The southern writer who developed these arguments most extensively was George Fitzhugh, a Virginia planter and lawyer. His two books were provocatively entitled "Sociology for the South: Or the Failure of the Free Society and Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters." In them, Fitzhugh defended slavery as a practical form of socialism that provided contented slaves with paternalistic masters, thereby eliminating harsh conflicts between employers and allegedly free workers. 'A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave ... is far happier, because ... he is always sure of support.' ... 'The best governed countries, and which have prospered the most, have always been distinguished for the number and stringency of their laws,' he wrote; 'liberty is an evil which government is intended to correct.'"
    -- Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    I'm late to the debate but; the article is off-base and is just demonizing the Tea Party members by trying to tie them to the old south and former slave states.  The real issue here is just that the southern states are more conservative; first by religion (southern Baptists and evangelicals), and they are demographically older and they are attracting retirees.

    The simple fact is that people in broad generalities become more conservative as they age.  One of the other factors is the baby boomers.  This generation was part of the post WWII population wave the has always gotten its way; new schools  when they were needed, new social programs based on a surge of revenues (taxes), in general the life has been good for the boomer and they want it to remain that way.  Boomers in general are spoiled and just used to getting what they want; like social change that they protested for in the 60's.

    As much as the boomers have been about change; its always more so been about them. This population surge is used to getting its way, they are retiring and they don't want anyone to take away their hard earned rights.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Review my other posts where I explain my position. I am not going to repeat myself over and over again. For the record, I never said the term "neo confederate" qualified as a slur. I do beleive it is a smear tactic not unlike all the others like racist, terrorist, hostage taker, etc. And what "facts" and "precedent" are you talking about? That there used to be confederate states that wanted to secede?  No one is disputing that, so not sure what that strawman was all about.  And what does the debt ceiling debate have to do with secession? We are disputing the legitmacy of the authors claim, calling it into question, and/or disagreeing with it. Those are very healthy things to do in a free society. You may not like it, but that shouldn't be as big a deal as you are making it out to be.  
    Posted by lrecliner[/QUOTE]

    In the article, the author quotes at length an organization called The League Of The South which shares most of the ideology and political goals of the tea party; the quotes show recent historical precedent.  And the Civil War is a rather big, bloody example not just of secession but of aggression against the federal government.  Before that there was the nullification crisis, and so on.

    It shouldn't be a surprise that more anti-govt sentiment comes from the south; indeed for some conservatives, it could be a source of pride. And it's not just the south.  NH displays frequent bouts of intense independence, but although NH may have quite a few tea party sympathizers, I think they're less likely to be movementarians.

    Perhaps we can agree that political movements don't usually spring up out of the soil overnight.  They have to come from somewhere within our society, and given history's way of repeating itself, I don't think these questions are out of bounds.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]How about this "intriguing premise' : Today's left wing statists and socialists are intellectual descendants of slavery's most adamant defenders. There is definite solid evidence of this, see below. Ergo, today's liberal Democrats are "neo-Confederates", who consider citizens as helpless, and want the State to act as a master did to his slaves...  ...about as accurate as claiming a connection between the Confederacy and the Tea Party. The South's most ardent intellectual defenders of slavery were socialists. "Southerners did not stop with an open defense of slavery. They went on to attack northern society for its 'wage slavery' and 'exploitation of workers,' using arguments repeated by socialist critics of capitalism. The southern writer who developed these arguments most extensively was George Fitzhugh, a Virginia planter and lawyer. His two books were provocatively entitled "Sociology for the South: Or the Failure of the Free Society and Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters." In them, Fitzhugh defended slavery as a practical form of socialism that provided contented slaves with paternalistic masters, thereby eliminating harsh conflicts between employers and allegedly free workers. 'A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave ... is far happier, because ... he is always sure of support .' ... 'The best governed countries, and which have prospered the most, have always been distinguished for the number and stringency of their laws,' he wrote; 'liberty is an evil which government is intended to correct.'" -- Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    First, the author never critiqued the tea partiers themselves; he critiqued the movement; a big difference that seems lost on your typically weak ad hominem attacks.

    Second, your unlinked example contradicts your point.  In this passage, Fitzhugh said northerners were the capitalists and southerners were socialists.  None of it is "evidence", either, only opinion.

    I think it's funny though how you don't appear to realize that words and language evolve and change their practical definitions over time.  Most of today's southern repubs were yesterday's southern dems.

    Even funnier is your attempt to try and turn lind's argument on its head because of your inability to effectively rebut his points.  Classic bobin FAIL.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]I'm late to the debate but; the article is off-base and is just demonizing the Tea Party members by trying to tie them to the old south and former slave states.  The real issue here is just that the southern states are more conservative; first by religion (southern Baptists and evangelicals), and they are demographically older and they are attracting retirees. The simple fact is that people in broad generalities become more conservative as they age.  One of the other factors is the baby boomers.  This generation was part of the post WWII population wave the has always gotten its way; new schools  when they were needed, new social programs based on a surge of revenues (taxes), in general the life has been good for the boomer and they want it to remain that way.  Boomers in general are spoiled and just used to getting what they want; like social change that they protested for in the 60's. As much as the boomers have been about change; its always more so been about them. This population surge is used to getting its way, they are retiring and they don't want anyone to take away their hard earned rights.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    Again, the critique is aimed at the movement, not its participants; big difference.  If they take it personally, that's their misunderstanding.

    As I understand it, the southern states (florida excepted, of course) actually skew younger than the northeast, which is getting older.

    So, are you saying that the relative age/wealth/demo of the tea party reflects more the aging boomer population and their "mine" attitude than the historically anti-govt south...??
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    "an organization called The League Of The South which shares most of the ideology and political goals of the tea party"

    Some unimportant useless fringe fruitcake group with a website,  used to smear the Tea Party...

    Can you say, "McCarthyism" ?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Again, the critique is aimed at the movement, not its participants; big difference.  If they take it personally, that's their misunderstanding. As I understand it, the southern states (florida excepted, of course) actually skew younger than the northeast, which is getting older. So, are you saying that the relative age/wealth/demo of the tea party reflects more the aging boomer population and their "mine" attitude than the historically anti-govt south...??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Yeah I think it is more driven by demographics, sure you can find some semblance of old south in the more rural areas but the south has become the place to go and retire.  If I ever retire I want to go to the mid atlantic area VA/Carolina's.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : First, the author never critiqued the tea partiers themselves; he critiqued the movement; a big difference that seems lost on your typically weak ad hominem attacks. Second, your unlinked example contradicts your point.  In this passage, Fitzhugh said northerners were the capitalists and southerners were socialists.  None of it is "evidence", either, only opinion. I think it's funny though how you don't appear to realize that words and language evolve and change their practical definitions over time.  Most of today's southern repubs were yesterday's southern dems. Even funnier is your attempt to try and turn lind's argument on its head because of your inability to effectively rebut his points.  Classic bobin FAIL.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Classic Matty condescending crap, using big words with little meaning.
    Your logic is, if you dont agree with it, it is not evidence. Ergo you are always right, congrats. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]"an organization called The League Of The South which shares most of the ideology and political goals of the tea party" Some unimportant useless fringe fruitcake group with a website,  used to smear the Tea Party... Can you say, "McCarthyism" ?
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Right, because in bobin's mind facts = smear.

    Tell me again why "neo-confederate" is a slur when so many southerners take such pride in the attempt to rend the union in two...??
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Just for fun here is Jeff Jacoby's column "Smearing the Tea Party" from today.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Classic Matty condescending crap, using big words with little meaning. Your logic is, if you dont agree with it, it is not evidence. Ergo you are always right, congrats. 
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Sorry...yes..."critiqued" is such a big word to small minds like yours.

    Keep digging, blind mole....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]Just for fun here is Jeff Jacoby's column "Smearing the Tea Party" from today. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/08/03/smearing_the_tea_party/?p1=Features_link3
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    And somehow "neo-confederate" is more of a generalization than "terrorist"...??


    When did english become america's second language?  (Don't answer that.)

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    The "Neo-Confederate " article referred to now has a debunking blog in the same location, written by a progressive, Ed Kilgore.
    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html

     No surprise, it makes the same points about the foolishness of assuming the Tea Party as Southern, based solely on its self-described members in Congress, and the foolishness of thinking conservatism is wholly Southern etc.
    Even someone who dislikes the Tea party can be honest enough to see the lack of any factual basis  in connecting the Tea party with the Confederacy.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : In the article, the author quotes at length an organization called The League Of The South which shares most of the ideology and political goals of the tea party; the quotes show recent historical precedent.  And the Civil War is a rather big, bloody example not just of secession but of aggression against the federal government.  Before that there was the nullification crisis, and so on. It shouldn't be a surprise that more anti-govt sentiment comes from the south; indeed for some conservatives, it could be a source of pride. And it's not just the south.  NH displays frequent bouts of intense independence, but although NH may have quite a few tea party sympathizers, I think they're less likely to be movementarians. Perhaps we can agree that political movements don't usually spring up out of the soil overnight.  They have to come from somewhere within our society, and given history's way of repeating itself, I don't think these questions are out of bounds.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    When I look at the tea party and its origins, I think about the more pertinent events that explain its existence. The Democrats wininng both Houses in 2006, the stimulus package/bailout, HCR, and of course the debt ceiling debate and the subsequent large increase in our deficit. Now I don't necessarily agree with the tea party (particularly on some of the cultural issues fairly and sometimes unfairly levied on it)  but I do think that those factors offer a far more accurate explanation as to why the tea party came into existence as opposed to the same anti-gov't sentiment lodged in the DNA of white southerners that earlier spawned the confederacy. The author did not really do the necessry homework to prove his point, mainly because that is really not (in my opinion) the goal of his article. He makes casual references that might pass the smell test with left wingers and/or those who already vehemently oppose and have contempt for the tea party, but anyone at/near the political center or on the right is going to pick up on what is really being said here.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : When I look at the tea party and its origins, I think about the more pertinent events that explain its existence. The Democrats wininng both Houses in 2006, the stimulus package/bailout, HCR, and of course the debt ceiling debate and the subsequent large increase in our deficit. Now I don't necessarily agree with the tea party (particularly on some of the cultural issues fairly and sometimes unfairly levied on it)  but I do think that those factors offer a far more accurate explanation as to why the tea party came into existence as opposed to the same anti-gov't sentiment lodged in the DNA of white southerners that earlier spawned the confederacy. Posted by lrecliner[/QUOTE]

    OK...now we're getting somewhere: 

    In terms of the tea party's origins, one argument poses it as a historical, regional trend over the past 200 or so years, while another - yours - regards it as a more recent phenomenon mainly within the past 5 years (2006 election).

    Right away, these are wildly disparate notions of how political movements are formed in our country and how they exact their relative influence on policy.  Note this is not the same as saying they are right or wrong; we can (and will) certainly disagree as to the efficacy of their stated policy goals.

    Given the disparity, it's far more likely that the real origins are somewhere in between.  The simple facts are that not all southerners are tea party folk (and vice versa) or even confederate sympathizers, and not all of our debt/spending woes are only 5 years old.  Even as a matter of ideological perspective, neither is on terribly solid ground.

    Is there a strain of anti-govt sentiment in american society?  Absolutely and emphatically yes...and indeed since before our official establishment.  This has manifested in numerous movements and events throughout our history - some justified and some not; some coherent and some incongrous; some dangerous and some benign.  However, it's a height of partisan arrogance to argue that the tea party is beyond reproach, immune to analysis or even as in this case above such comparisons with political trends.  Everything in politics is tainted in some way, and the tea party are no exception.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share