Home › Blogs › Clarendon's blog ›

Why I'm Not At a Tea Party

Submitted by Clarendon on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 12:21

I was all set to go to the Washington Tea Party today. I even had my shirt picked out; a picture of Obama wearing a set of mouse ears. I was excited. I was ready. And then I saw a press release of the guest speakers.

First of all, who needs speakers? It's a protest, not a rally. I heard Rush Limbaugh say last week that he was too famous to go to a Tea Party protest, and he was right. Once famous people get involved, they inevitably become the focus of the event. Sadly, in the absence of real famous people, the organizers of the Tea Party protest decided to go with people who could be described as "famous to conservatives." That leads me to the second reason I will not be attending: Alan Keyes is speaking, and Alan Keyes doesn't speak for me.

I shouldn't single Keyes out, even though he's not who I want representing me in the eyes of the media. The truth of the matter is, I don't want Laura Ingraham representing me either, or Grover Norquist, no matter how much I may have in common with their political views. I thought the Tea Party was supposed be about us, which is what made it different. Rush Limbaugh understands this, which is why he wisely stayed away. It's an amazingly selfless act, and one that hasn't been much repeated by others in the conservative community. Why do we need anybody representing us? Isn't the point of all of this for the government to hear from We the People? If anybody is representing us on stage, it should be the local business owner who's going to have to cut jobs because of tax increases, or the police officer who sees good colleagues leaving because of budget shortfalls, shortfalls that aren't relieved by stimulus money. For God's sakes, if people have to speak, let them be people, not pundits.

The Tea Party movement didn't need this, the sad parade of B-list conservative celebrities all too eager to attach their name to the cause. The movement did start organically, even if it was soon co-opted by a political machine that politicizes and makes partisan even the most important of issues. Once that issue becomes just another "conservative" thing, all hope of real victory is lost. It is just something else that conservatives will be mocked for, because that is what we do to our political opponents these days. I imagine there'll be a lot of mocking of our opponents at the Washington Tea Party today, because both sides are equally guilty of the practice.

And yet, the organizers of the D.C. Tea Party invited these pundits to assume leadership, or at least prominence, in the movement. By doing so, I can't help but feel like they've killed something very important. I don't know why they felt it was so important to have partisans play such a large role in today's events. Maybe they simply thought it was a good idea. If so, they were wrong. If this were a liberal rally, it wouldn't be Alan Keyes speaking, it would be Dennis Kucinich. It wouldn't be Laura Ingraham, it would be Rachel Maddow. And conservatives would mock the bejeezus out of it for being a political Woodstock for the lunatic fringe.

I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, because I wanted for this to work so badly. The post that finally got me blogging under a pseudonym was probably a little too rah-rah in retrospect. Perhaps I'm guilty of idealistically thinking that something "of the people" could remain "of the people" in this day and age. If so, I'm likely incurable, because I'm still looking for ways to turn this around.

There is one thing I've come up with. The organizers of the Tea Party have scheduled the next event for July 4th. Let all Americans, of every political stripe, feel welcome with others who share their concern and disgust over the prospect of continued government bailouts. Leave the polarizing figures behind. You don't need them for this. There's a lot at stake here, and we can't afford to screw it up.

At the end of my first blog post, I quoted from Joseph Warren's speech commemorating the Boston Massacre in 1775, just a few weeks before the first shots were fired on Lexington Green. His words are worth repeating.

On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.

 cross posted at thenewpamphleteers.blogspot.com/

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

take a look:

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 12:33.

http://reliques.online.fr/detroit/detroit01.html

and tell me if you still think that the Big 3 don't need a bailout. Do you want to lose an entire city to decay? To riots? To the militia?

If your answer is still yes, then kindly explain to me why "No More Bailouts" is worth the destruction of our national security.

Nothing but government propaganda

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 13:02.

The marketplace was, is, quite capable of dealing with this "government" caused depression. It had nothing to do with stopping our cities from decay, preventing riots, our calling out the militia. All a smoke screen to allow public funds to flow to bailout certain banks top government officials had previously worked for and did not want to fail.

Our national security was never threatened by this government debacle, but it was used to justify the complete sellout of our economic system. 

I didn't buy it then. I ain't buying now.

ex animo

davidfarrar

david, i'm not over THERE, I"M here.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 13:07.

In pittsburgh, not Charlotte or NEW YORK FUCKING CITY.

And I'm talking about the bailout of GM Ford and Chrysler/Cerberus. NOT about the financials.

The government did not cause this depression -- a wild and crazy market did. Don't you bother to read any Mises? Austrian Economists in General? These are staples of intelligent conservative thought! I ain't even suggesting anything liberal here, folks, just something other than Amity Shaes revisionist and utterly LYING history.

When you're willing to talk about the national security risks we'd be taking by reducing our "american owned and operated" supply of light infantry vehicles, we can actually have the discussion that should be happening here. And it will be productive.

Again, I'm over here -- waiting for you.

Cities rise and fall, just as

Submitted by Clarendon on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 13:05.

Cities rise and fall, just as regularly as the tides.  Nothing in this world is ever "too big to fail".  Responsible adults, however, can learn from their mistakes so that they are less likely to repeat them in the future. 

 

Are you in favor of the Ensuing Global Economic Depression then?

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 13:09.

Do you want the derivatives market to collapse, sending the entire globalized economy further into the ditch?

Are you in favor of government curfews, designed to prevent riots?

Responsible adults do not favor policies that will produce martial law nor anarchy.

Stimulus was necessary

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 13:21.

As many other people on the left,  I wonder what is the focus of these tea parties?  If it's taxes, it's ridiculous to call the tax cuts in the stimulus that benefit most of the people protesting and doesn't raise taxes on the rich as oppressive.                                                  

If the stimulus package can't save all the necessary jobs, thats because conservatives in the senate wittled the package down.  They  cut the funding directly slotted for the shortfalls in the states' budget, and called that "centrism".

The debt level we're currently at isn't even close too what we had after WWII, when debt was over 110% of GDP.  After racheting back spending, we cut the debt to negligible until who got into office?  Regan, that's who.  Clinton oversaw a budget surplus after cleaning up the mess of so-called fiscal conservatives, and then W proceeded to explode the debt again to give tax cuts to the wealthiest few.  Ninety percent of the debt is the work of conservative rule, but I don't remember conversatives protesting conservative administrations. W's spending wasn't unpopular with conservatives who rubber-stamped everything he did until his polls plummeted.  Either conversative are woefully misinformed of their leaders' economic results, or they don't care.

If you taxes aren't being raised, the debt is mostly the work of conservative fiscal policy, then the protest must be that you lost the election, and your unpopular policies no longer reign supreme.

 

 

 

 

Markets, like cities and

Submitted by Clarendon on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 13:33.

Markets, like cities and tides, rise and fall.  My approval or disapproval of that fact doesn't change it.  The market doesn't care if I want it to grow in a steadly line, onward and ever upward.  That's not what markets do. 

We can compound our mistakes by letting ourselves be consumed by panic, by thinking that this will inevitably be the worst "Ensuing Global Economic Depression" the world has ever seen, and that all hope is lost unless and until we continue bailing out industries that have failed.  In fact, we probably will do all of these things. 

I'm still idealistic enough, however, to harbor some hope that enough of us remember our history and know that sustained excellence requires that delicate blend of innovation as well as custom and tradition. 

custom and tradition hold us back...

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 13:45.

to the middle ages.

sorry, I like my scientific method, and I dont' think it's at all traditional.

Tradition is apologetics, Rush Limbaugh, "I say therefore it is true", and finding priests to support your kings through divine right.

I despise it, actually.

I'm not panicking, truly I'm not. However, you're a fool if you don't realize that 10/10/08 changed everything -- and it ain't coming back!

As ususal the almighty market

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 14:24.

As ususal the almighty market god is evoked.  I have to ask, do conservatives pay attention to history?  Do they know what happened during the Depression?  How many times does President Obama have to spell it out for you?  Without question, if the government does nothing, the recession WILL turn into a depression.  The life-blood our economy is based on consumption and investment.  EVERYBODY is cutting back, resulting in massive lay-offs and cuts in production.

Our spending is what puts people to work, in every industry we have.  People can't spend and invest in this time,  either because they lost their job or fear losing it, so they save.  The government is the spender of last resort, stepping in so a downward spiral doesn't become inevitable.  Hoover refused to spend, in fact he cut spending.  The results speak for themselves http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm.  FDR got elected, started spending, putting people to work, and unemployment dropped and GDP grew.  Then he buckled to pressure to cut spending in '37, and caused a two year recession until he started spending again.  If Obama spends enough, we will get out of this deep recession, and every foolish complaint that cut spending ignores history and Econ 101.

you're missing econ 101, too.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 14:29.

Tariffs were part of the problem with the Depression in general.

And we're already in a worldwide economic depression (look at my previous diaries, I know I linked it somewhere!)

I support a stimulus too, but it's no magic bullet.

Do we really have a close to 50% tarrif on some biofuels? that seems mad.

If you got to the link, it

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 14:35.

If you got to the link, it will explain that tariffs were a slight problem to us, a HUGE problem in Europe.

wow, that's really well researched.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 14:45.

remember, middle class starts at $250,000, and goes up from there.

Blame California.

RT, in the span of three

Submitted by Clarendon on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 16:46.

RT, in the span of three posts you went from proclaiming that no stone must be left unturned in order to prop up a failing industry (and city) to promoting yourself as a champion of innovation and the enemy of tradition.  Which is it? 

10/10/08 most certainly did not change everything, no matter how boldly you may assert that claim (in your best "I say, therefore it's true" tone, no less).  It didn't change the law of supply and demand, it didn't change human nature, and it didn't change the fact that actions have consequences... just to give you a few rather important examples of some immutable components of the market system, be it local, national, or global. 

Finally, I note that you seem to be suggesting that there is no balancing act to be performed between the security of long-held traditions and cultural mores (which, long established, often have a practical basis to them) and innovation, which by its very nature is far more risky.  Instead, culture and tradition, you assert (again in your best "I say, therefore it's true" tone)  "hold us back to the Middle Ages."  Care to explain that one more fully?  More importantly, are you really willing to disregard the intellect and genuine knowledge that came from that era (or any other) in history? 

I'd suggest more emphasis on introspection and less emphasis on trying to be the first to rebut every blog post that comes along.  In fact, I'd like to offer you a friendly challenge:  come up with a cogent, or at least non-contradictory belief statement.  I'd truly like to see where you're coming from, but based on your comments I'm not sure you know yourself. 

It's both.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 04/16/2009 - 09:16.

Believe it or not, I like my national security as well, which is my justification for keeping Detroit humming. I also have a severe problem with states that steal from me, by refusing to have their own taxpayers pay their share of the bills, and instead suckling from the federal government teat. I don't say this lightly, nor do I say this about states like West Virginia (who is so bumfuck poor that they both have to tax highly, and suckle off the government teat -- they pull their fair share). But I do say this about South Carolina and Georgia.

Since when is human nature an artifact of the market system? Otherwise, I conceed your point.

The Wisdom of Alchemy? Of Astrology? Of hidebound Duncists? Of Numerology? Yea, I will stand here and say that there is not a jot of the Middle Ages that I'd want back. Not the Feudalism, nor nothing else about it.  Naturally, there is always something to learn from a truly awful time -- what not to do!