Friday
Apr172009
Tea Parties, Violence, and Politics (And, Yes, This is a Serious Post)
Friday, April 17, 2009 at 9:30
Warner Todd Huston, RedState.com, 16 April 2009: "It may seem ominous, but violence is sometimes acceptable depending on the cause."
Well, it's been a lot of fun with the Tea Parties this week. The too-blatant manipulation, by certain political groups and media outlets, of a "revolution" was well-suited to parody, even beyond the unfortunate double entendre of the protest's chosen beverage.
Today, however, the fun gives way.
I had refrained from commenting on the supposed political agenda of the protests, largely because there was no coherence and no attention to the financial/economic crisis beyond "Cut Our Taxes". There was no recognition, for example, that the Obama Administration's stimulus package rests in part on tax cuts, let alone that any solution to the current economic mess has to go beyond simply slashing the tax bill further.
(As always, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show team rode the wave. First, Stewart declared, "if there's one thing I know about American people, they love baseball, kicking ass, and paying taxes to the Government". Then, the Daily Show's next item was on the investment company Goldman Sachs and its $1.5 billion profit.)
At the same time, I did not want to comment on elements of the wider, visceral protest which went beyond hate-Government to hate-Obama and which were beyond-borderline racist and Red-baiting. It would be too easy to highlight the single poster who compared Obama's economic policy to Hitler's treatment of the Jews, ignoring the majority of demonstrators who --- however much I may disagree with their politics, however much I believe they were expressing anger or fear rather than a constructive politics --- were there from genuine concern for the future.
In short, I was hoping that this whipped-up Tea Party would pass and that, in the aftermath, we could return to the serious, ongoing engagement with the state of the American and international economic systems.
Then, yesterday afternoon, I read this blog by "freelance writer" Warner Todd Huston on RedState.com:
RedState.com is stridently pro-Republican and stridently opposed to Obama's policies, but it is not an "extremist" website. So I was shaken by this far-from-implicit call to discuss the possibility of violent protest: "It may seem ominous, but violence is sometimes acceptable depending on the cause." Huston had crossed a line that had been tight-roped for weeks by demagogues such as Fox News's Glenn Beck and politicians such as Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann as they tried to whip up "resistance".
Of course, the majority of yesterday's demonstrators are unlikely to be contemplating the violence that Huston discusses. At the same time, violence can occur and escalate not from the decision of a majority, but from a minority's stoking of the fear and anger that was too-clearly evident yesterday.
I am conscious as I write, though, that identifying that seed of violence is not enough. Otherwise, it risks the appearance of countering fear-mongering with fear, of point-scoring by tsk-tsking how the protests are destructive rather than productive.
Zephyr Teachout wrote in The Nation yesterday, "[The] tea parties represent a genuine, authentic civic anger." I'm not as sure that this is an "anger that the public has been largely shut out of the most important public decisions of our time" --- it seems more anger both from not understanding the complex economic mal-functions behind the current crisis and from following the easy "answers"/images of bad/evil/"left" Obama and the current Administration.
Yet the lesson remains: as fun as it was, the tea-bagging parody doesn't shoo away that anger and it certainly doesn't banish the polarising and manipulative groups behind the protests. Emotions will continue to be fraught, so politics must be fought through engagement rather than dismissal.
Well, it's been a lot of fun with the Tea Parties this week. The too-blatant manipulation, by certain political groups and media outlets, of a "revolution" was well-suited to parody, even beyond the unfortunate double entendre of the protest's chosen beverage.Today, however, the fun gives way.
I had refrained from commenting on the supposed political agenda of the protests, largely because there was no coherence and no attention to the financial/economic crisis beyond "Cut Our Taxes". There was no recognition, for example, that the Obama Administration's stimulus package rests in part on tax cuts, let alone that any solution to the current economic mess has to go beyond simply slashing the tax bill further.
(As always, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show team rode the wave. First, Stewart declared, "if there's one thing I know about American people, they love baseball, kicking ass, and paying taxes to the Government". Then, the Daily Show's next item was on the investment company Goldman Sachs and its $1.5 billion profit.)
At the same time, I did not want to comment on elements of the wider, visceral protest which went beyond hate-Government to hate-Obama and which were beyond-borderline racist and Red-baiting. It would be too easy to highlight the single poster who compared Obama's economic policy to Hitler's treatment of the Jews, ignoring the majority of demonstrators who --- however much I may disagree with their politics, however much I believe they were expressing anger or fear rather than a constructive politics --- were there from genuine concern for the future.
In short, I was hoping that this whipped-up Tea Party would pass and that, in the aftermath, we could return to the serious, ongoing engagement with the state of the American and international economic systems.
Then, yesterday afternoon, I read this blog by "freelance writer" Warner Todd Huston on RedState.com:
A dispassionate review of where we are today would tend to say that tax day violence is not justified in any way. But are future tax protests as off limits to violence if government does not heed the warnings delivered now? Even more to the point does a flat refusal to ever employ violence encourage recalcitrant government to ignore protests safely assuming that no real consequences for their actions will ever be imposed on them?
RedState.com is stridently pro-Republican and stridently opposed to Obama's policies, but it is not an "extremist" website. So I was shaken by this far-from-implicit call to discuss the possibility of violent protest: "It may seem ominous, but violence is sometimes acceptable depending on the cause." Huston had crossed a line that had been tight-roped for weeks by demagogues such as Fox News's Glenn Beck and politicians such as Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann as they tried to whip up "resistance".
Of course, the majority of yesterday's demonstrators are unlikely to be contemplating the violence that Huston discusses. At the same time, violence can occur and escalate not from the decision of a majority, but from a minority's stoking of the fear and anger that was too-clearly evident yesterday.
I am conscious as I write, though, that identifying that seed of violence is not enough. Otherwise, it risks the appearance of countering fear-mongering with fear, of point-scoring by tsk-tsking how the protests are destructive rather than productive.
Zephyr Teachout wrote in The Nation yesterday, "[The] tea parties represent a genuine, authentic civic anger." I'm not as sure that this is an "anger that the public has been largely shut out of the most important public decisions of our time" --- it seems more anger both from not understanding the complex economic mal-functions behind the current crisis and from following the easy "answers"/images of bad/evil/"left" Obama and the current Administration.
Yet the lesson remains: as fun as it was, the tea-bagging parody doesn't shoo away that anger and it certainly doesn't banish the polarising and manipulative groups behind the protests. Emotions will continue to be fraught, so politics must be fought through engagement rather than dismissal.
Reader Comments (16)
I can't help but think that one of the reasons all this is happening is that the Obama administration is utterly failing to properly explain what they are trying and spending far too much time on existing banks and shoring up theoretical goals. This is the Krugman criticism of course..but he's bloody right!
The currency policy is falling between two stools and unable to make the choice between allowing the market to fix itself, or stimulating domestic demand.
Instead we have a sort of crappy fudge that is designed to stimulate...the existing system!!
So, the Republican right fills the gap because there is a gap to fill.
This is the problem with people believing they are in post-ideological age and swapping culture wars for political ones (or, not properly understadning the links). So, now, when something goes wrong it's the fault of a crazy group (bankers...neo-cons) rather than broader ideas (monetarism, neo-liberalsim, libertarianism).
It seems the only idea you ever hear discussed in the U.S. today seems to be 'socialism' the most capacious form of evil that it no longer means anything.
Thank you for this excellent post and analysis of recent events. I was somewhat dismayed by the threats of violence, but not at all surprised. For the most part, we Americans are woefully unskilled at resolving our differences through nonviolent means. When things don't work out the way we want, we often lack the patience - and the knowledge - to work within the parameters of the situation to try to change it peacefully or accept it gracefully. What Mr. Huston's approach amounts to is bullying, and I have compassion for him because it's not his fault that he doesn't know of the different approaches that are available.
And it's not just the right-wing that has this challenge. I've been to plenty of "peace" rallies in the past where participants are anything but peaceful. These people aren't "nut jobs" or radicals. They are angry, afraid, frustrated... and they don't know what to do about it.
I'm putting my political attention and energy into a campaign to create a U.S. Department of Peace. Legislation in the House (H.R. 808) is designed to help instill nonviolent conflict resolution skills into all levels of our society, from individual to international. This legislation holds great promise for people like Mr. Huston, and the rest of us.
PeaceGeek,
Thank you. Please keep us posted with news on the proposed Department of Peace.
S.
It's hard enough to "speak truth to power",
but what you propose here, seems to me: "Speak sense to crazy".
Not that one shouldn't, or that I don't support it 100%, but I confess, having tried it person-to-person, and via online discussions, I have all but despaired of the effort producing any change of heart or improved understanding.
How can one reasonably 'debate' with someone who says things like: "I respect Glenn Beck" or Ann Coulter, or "Fox News is the 'more balanced' than other sources". ( I have heard these things from people who seem otherwise sensible). Oh, and not to mention: I have a US Congressman who has officially stated that "global warming doesn't exist", and that seems to reflect the consensus of his constituents.
It seems a bit like arguing with someone who asserts that the Earth is flat, and the sun is a fiery ball that crosses the sky; if a person hasn't discerned these fallacies on their own from the abundance of evidence, how can I help them?
And how can reason and logic balance against 3 hours a day of Rush Limbaugh, and 24-hours a day of Fox's big-money propaganda masquerading as news, and on and on, with their overt populist appeal?
I wonder, rather, what might be the cause of the collective hysteria and paranoia that seems to have infected so many citizens of this country. And whether this is a new phenomenon at all, or merely the modern permutation of the eternal craziness of the human mind. (as, for example, many 18th- and 19-century rationalists who helped lead the way out of theocratic autocracy, nevertheless seemed to consider it axiomatic that non-European "races" were inherently inferior)
Who knows.
My current hypothesis:
the once conservative-but-staid GOP began its trip into crazy-land perhaps with the demise of FCC regulations on balance, which led directly to national syndication of Rush Limbaugh pushing hours of anti-Democratic, anti progressive, pro-big-money elite hysteria, day after day, week after week, year after year, with NO voice to respond/retort/rebut his fallacies, distortions, flip-flops, and lies.
How long does it take for this kind of insanity to engender a movement that takes-on a life of its own? How long did it take "DER STURMER" to move from the lunatic fringe to the mainstream?
So. I agree, there is genuine cause for concern. I have been concerned for a long time. Dismayed, even. But how to stem a rising tide? I have no idea.
George Santaya is frequently quoted as saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Seems to me that "those who DO remember the past, are condemned to repeat it, too, except they are the ones saying 'Uh-oh, THIS is gonna hurt!!'."
With all due respect, and I hope you'll allow me to speak candidly once again.
If you want to understand why there is a rift, and lack of engagement, you need look no further than your own arrogance, and that of individuals like your commenter Mr. Smith. You mock, ridicule and insult - then balk at the notion that these people aren't being engaged. So you present yourself with faux outrage after ridiculing the attendees, organizers and all associated individuals for weeks. How convenient, but even those troglodyte tea-baggers can sense that the cadence of your magnanimous call is one of education, not engagement. "Hey buddy, I think you are a fucking sheepish moron, and I've been making fun of you all week with puerile pee pee jokes, but hey, we really do take your concerns seriously, so why don't you come talk to us".
Yeah. OK. Let me know how that works. It may be time to recognize your part in fomenting the frustrations that, according to you, are coming to head.
The winds of perspective blow both ways. You rightly decry Fox News for their part in "cultivating" the grassroots movements, but the other side points to the utter lack of coverage by MSNBC, and on air ridicule by their coverage. None of which you mentioned, even in a whim. Or Krugman the "objective economist", and his lack of partisan bias. Certainly, Sean Hannity and the like are bumbling idiots, but so is Olbermann and Matthews - and last time I checked, both had originally been slated to chair coverage of the elections. Fox News certainly doesn't have the exclusive license to consumer driven cable news - all of the cable news stations direct their news and content towards their target demographic. If anything, the fact that Fox News exists, and is that successful, says that there is a group of individuals that patently aren't getting engaged, and are turning towards the network as an alternative. So why is there a whole group of individuals, quite sizeable, that don't feel like they are getting engaged? That's the question we should be pondering.
You can take the pompous Craig Smith route, and hopefully make a breakthrough with sheer arrogance and narcissism, but that probably won't work. I mean, seriously, just go on a tangential diatribe and I'm sure these individuals will come flocking over. Perhaps, we should denounce the EU too, since their new president questions many facets of "global warming".
The fact of the matter is - people like Mr. Smith, with all due respect, are just as poisonous and counter-productive as anybody you could name on the right because he marginalizes the other side. I mean, holy fuck, I really don't see how your post warranted a vitriolic polemic against the right general, but then again, I may just be dense. Yes, the morons that showed Obama with a Hitler mustache are fucking morons, but I remember hundreds of signs that did the same treatment to Bush, and referred to the Republicans as Nazis. Each side has their patent crazies. The most ironic thing is that I could readily use Mr. Smith's comment as proof that he isn't worth engaging, just as he did towards the individuals on the right that "respect Glenn Beck". (I guess that's the litmus test for crazy these days).
In summary: If you want to engage, don't be a douche
Disclaimer - I am but a single person, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. As much as it may seem otherwise, I meant no disrespect to anyone in particular. I intended to make a point, and nothing more. Kudos, because you do make a very good point. However, I think it's hard to build credibility behind your supposed desire to engage, when you have spent the last week or so openly ridiculing. Now I have to wonder to myself - which persona is EA going to take today. There is a reason why I read EA, and not DailyKos...please don't take that reason away from me.
Dude!
Mr. Cook -
I hope you will re-read your own post and think about taking some of your own advice. I'm sure Mr. Smith can defend himself but, IMHO your post sounded like an attack, not an attempt to engage.
Another recommendation:
"Nonviolent Communication", by Marshall Rosenberg
Peace,
Ted
I readily recognize that many of my words will read that way. I didn't write my post in an attempt to engage...it just wasn't my purpose. So I could very well have failed in that regard.
My purpose was to critique the coverage that had happened thus far, and push back against the vitriol already proffered by Mr. Smith. Truth be told - the sequence of events proves my point, to a certain extent. Because of Mr. Smith tone and manner, I had no interest in actually engaging him on his points. When you offer ridicule, be not surprised when it is reciprocated.
Again, I came here to prove a point, not offend, and if I did, it wasn't with malice.
ET,
This one is easy for me.
1. Once I decided to write about the Tea Parties, it was to mock Fox and the political-economic sponsors of this faux populist protest. I don't have any desire to engage with the Fox News "coverage"/analysis because, apart from Chris Wallace's work, there is nothing of substance to engage. I don't want to engage with O'Reilly, Hannity, and especially Beck --- I think that satire and parody are the best approach.
2. No one's sacred. If MSNBC --- from a desire to boost ratings or to stake out a shallow but loud political position --- had cuddled up with multi-millionaire sponsors and former Democratic Congressmen to create a false populist surge, then I would have taken great pleasure in going after them. They didn't.
I thought the original Maddow piece on 11 April was funny, and I like Anamarie Cox, who is becoming a Twitter legend for wit in 140 characters. I also thought it was sharp political observation: the Emperors behind this "revolution" had teabags but no economic clothes. The second item made an interesting point in distinguishing between factions like Ron Paul libertarians and the rather amorphous "anti-Government, anti-Obama" line of Fox and many protestors. By the 15th, I think Maddow's approach was about to jump the shark, but I think she had made an important mark.
Yes, MSNBC can be shrill --- Olbermann's interview with Garofalo was an embarrassment --- but shooting them is a deflection from the original causes of this political farce.
3. My line, to me, is clear. I am still happy to mock Fox and political-corporate manipulators (and, again, would do so with a "left-wing" movement). I am not happy to mock the folks who turned out on 15 April. I am concerned about the anger and fear that does not lead to practical suggestions beyond Cut My Taxes, especially in this economic situation.
4. I hope now that we can get political space to evaluate Obama's economic approach and whether it salvages the economy. I have concerns about that approach, especially with the size of the Federal budget deficit and the halfway-house measures to absorb toxic debt of the banks and financial institutions.
Events such as the Tea Parties do nothing constructive in this regard, however. Nor does the accompanying belittling of the few economic commentators in leading US newspapers (yes, Paul Krugman is one, as is Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post).
5. If Fox and the string-pullers of the Tea Parties pull a follow-up stunt, I'll mock them again. Not to be puerile, but because this torch-bearing anger is not constructive --- politically, economically, and culturally. At the same time, I will search for some way to get a constructive alternative out there which, hopefully, will engage with at least a few of the protestors.
S.
Fair. I'll let you have the last word on the matter.
Let me point out, however, that I consider your comment to be your best, and most complete analysis of the tea-parties thus far. Again, just my opinion, but I thought I'd share.
Keep up the good work, Scott.
[edited by moderator for language]
ET: wtf?
Slow-down, there, tiger.
Pompous? Refusing to engaged? dude.
I engage a lot. That's what I said.
I only said that it does little good. But since you're in such an egaging mood:
RE-read my post.
Allow me to repeat it for you: I am concerned about "the collective hysteria and paranoia that seems to have infected so many citizens of this country"
I was NOT talking about all 'conservatives.'
Hell, I used to BE a conservative, till they went nuts.
I'm still puzzling over what happened to them.
And I am hardly alone in that. MANY old-school Republicans are trying to sort-out what happened to their party. Former Nixon-aid, John Dean, for example.
Maybe YOU have a better theory than mine about what happened and who and when, but just because you're too young to remember when they behaved like civilized people dealing with objective reality, don't give me a bunch of shit.
Maybe you don't share the conclusion that Fox's Glenn Beck saying "maybe it would just be faster if [Obama] just shot me in the head!" and that the fasces on a 1916 dime minted during the Wilson administration "proves" that Democrats are fascists (a movement that didn't begin until 1919), only "proves" himself either insane, colossally stupid, or a lying piece of shit; but if not, then fine.
But if that's the case, then I doubt there's anything I can say to you that would be of any benefit, and I know, because I've tried it before. And...if "respecting" someone like that isn't a litmus-test for crazy (or, just stupid, or whatever you want to call it), then...I give-up.
Sure, there are a lot of reasonable conservatives in the world, but they aren't who I was talking about.
We were talking about the tea-bag rallies, and I (accidentally) happened across one, where I saw the signs for myself.
When people attend rallies with signs literally decrying the "death" of freedom, the "destruction" of the republic, the "end" of capitalism, because of the end of a temporary 3% tax-reduction for rich people... and THIS is the end of the free-world, as we know it, the onset of "socialism" by a "fascist" president who has "surrounded himself by Marxists his whole life" [Glenn Beck, 1/12/08], I call that...nuts.
What do YOU call it?
P.S.: I guess this means we're engaged.
"Hell, I used to BE a conservative, till they went nuts."
Spoken like a reasonable man, no doubt.
And no, we're not engaged. I respond to reason, not indignant jabber.
ET,
Much appreciated --- I got a lot out of the exchange.
S.
ET:
I still fail to see just what it was in my initial post that justifies being called "arrogant", "pompous", "poisonous", and "counter-productive". Or that I "mock, ridicule, and insult".
My intent was to express my frustration at trying to communicate with what you yourself call "patent crazies", and to speculate as to how our society got here over the last 25 years.
When I spoke of "the GOP's trip into crazy-land", I meant the progress of former "wing-nuts" who have wrested control of party leadership over the last 25 years (I have heard party-members speak openly of this); I did NOT mean all party-members, though I concede that I was not clear about that.
But I said nothing about "the right general". Much less, the "vitriolic polemic" against them, with which you apparently charge me.
And if I did not denounce "patent crazies" on the left, it's because that was not the topic at hand. Was this "Red Rally day"?
It's true I expressed implicit disrespect for Glenn Beck and those who idolize him, and that I might be justly charged with condescension for hoping to "improve understanding"; but I did not call them names.
But after blasting me for this view, you agreed with me, and with arguably more enthusiasm:
"Certainly, Sean Hannity and the like are bumbling idiots,..."
and,
"Yes, the morons that showed Obama with a Hitler mustache are f***ing morons, but I remember hundreds of signs that did the same treatment to Bush, and referred to the Republicans as Nazis. Each side has their patent crazies."
So. You speak of "bumbling idiots", "f***ing morons", and "patent crazies", but I'M supposedly the one who is "insulting", "poisonous", "pompous" and all that?
I only expressed frustration at trying to communicate constructively with those "patent crazies", whose existence you clearly concede, and whom you seem to view as the same people.
And when I take my own congressman to task for DENYing that global warming exists at all, you retort: "Perhaps, we should denounce the EU too, since their new president questions many facets of “global warming”."
The problem with this comparison, is that the former is universally rejected by scientific research (hence, "flat-Earth" demagoguery, IMO) and the latter is a matter of considerable debate in the scientific community. Is this your idea of reasoned argument? It looks more to me like "straw-man" fallacy.
In sum, you excoriate me harshly and repeatedly, for "arrogance" etc. toward the very same people whom you proceed to call "patent crazies, f-ing morons", and others whom you also treat more severely than I, and you do it in the very same post!
You contradict your own argument, and pile-on ad hominem, and straw-man for good measure.
I agree that you had a point to make with SL, but you had no need to involve me, and your flogging my name is unmerited, and unsupported.
You're incorrigible, Mr. Smith.
1) You referenced not the individuals themselves, but anyone that might give them credence. To you, all conservatives are nuts. That's not what I gleaned from your words. That's precisely what you said.
2) The existence of global warming itself is up for debate, especially regarding the regional specificity. The extent of its effects is also up for debate. That was precisely what the global warming conference was about. The notion of global warming may be ubiquitous, but it's hardly universal. The problem is your superlative manner. Inherently, in your style, you end up making it difficult to take you seriously - because you speak in absolutes. Is that really a good foundation for dialog, and discourse?
3) These tea-parties, although admittedly a product of the right, did have quite a few patrons that lean left. These tea-parties are far less partisan than you make them out to be - which made your anti-right diatribe tangential at best, and certainly unsolicited.
4) I don't contradict my own argument because I called certain people by names. I lambasted you for your method against whole ideologies, belief systems etc. Now you want to create your own reality.
I really don't care whether you think I contradict myself, or whether my position is unsupported. Those reading can make the decision from themselves.
But just know - they have a name for that which you are afflicted. It's called Dunning-Kruger, and explains your superlative manner perfectly.
Have a good day Mr. Smith. I do appreciate how you were still thinking of me a week later though. It makes me feel special.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14851926/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/11/
Thought this to be apropos.
ET,
Thank you --- raised a laugh on a busy Sunday....
S.