What If the Tea Party Were Black?

[Vraith]

Regardless on the technical points of his position, he's just alienated every minority who has heard his remark. (You can't tell them that it should not be illegal for businesses to discriminate, no matter how hard you try.) He is now open to the claim that he is only cultivating the white vote. Presto.

Yep. One of my big peeves in politics [hell, in lots of things]...when the "impression" outweighs the actual meaning. Maybe he's a racist, maybe not, but the spin will run just as you said, even if his point is something else.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend,

What are you trying to say about Rand Paul's position?

Exactly what I said about Paul's position: it's a blunder for highly visible Tea Party candidate to make a comment that fosters an impression of being racist. Regardless on the technical points of his position, he's just alienated every minority who has heard his remark. (You can't tell them that it should not be illegal for businesses to discriminate, no matter how hard you try.) He is now open to the claim that he is only cultivating the white vote. Presto.

[Emphasis added] It may have been a blunder; perhaps he could have explained himself better (not make excuses ... make explicit).

However, I don't think you're giving minorities enough credit. First of all, surely it's an exaggeration to say every minority shares any opinion, even one about an issue like race--as if they understand statements en masse (stereotype). Secondly, I think that many if not most of them are intelligent enough to understand Paul's point (if people like Obama and the liberal media didn't try to distort his points through racial pandering). Surely it's a bit insensitive to say "you can't tell [minorities] ... no matter how hard you try" about any topic. I mean, what exactly are you implying there? What is the barrier that stops you from telling them something no matter how hard you try?

[wayfriend]

So can any racist comments be now covered as 'distorted by racial pandering' ? I don't think Rands' comment was racist, but this way you cover his ass would excuse him if he had said "blacks suck". "oh, it's not racist, his comment is being distorted by Obama's racial pandering!"

I see no distortion anywhere. Nor any spin.

That comment does alienate minority citizens. Okay -- maybe not all, I won't generalize. But it does nevertheless. Heck, it alienates me. That's not spin.

[Zarathustra]

Actually, while I disagree with Paul's conclusion, I have to praise him for sticking to his principles, even when it comes to unpopular side effects. He knew how the answer could be spun and went to great lengths to make his opinions on the morality, financial sense, etc. of inclusiveness clear, but he still gave an honest, forthright answer. Kind of like how I feel defending murderers and rapists when it comes to the death penalty or sex offender legislation.

I didn't want this post to go unremarked. I think it's big of you to go out of your way to acknowledge the difficulty of his position and his struggle to stick to his principles despite the well-known dangers of how it can be spun. To recognize this when we disagree with the conclusions is a praiseworthy admission in itself.

WF, I was talking about the administration's tendency to exacerbate the racial tensions of the Arizona law by exaggerating its racial implications (without reading it). I don't think even Obama has the power to spin, "blacks suck" as anything other than racist.

That comment does alienate minority citizens. Okay -- maybe not all, I won't generalize. But it does nevertheless. Heck, it alienates me. That's not spin.

I didn't believe you really meant every minority. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt while pointing out the questionable nature of your word choices. I honestly think your comments would be easier to spin as "racist" than Paul's ... even though you didn't mean them that way. That's part of my point about the difficulty of speaking clearly on this issue without alienating people. I was hoping to build some empathy for Paul by pointing out the possible negative interpretations of your own words.

[[Syl]]

Thanks, Z.

[Avatar]

Saying that something shouldn't be illegal is not the same as saying it's okay.

Agreed. But right now it is illegal, right?

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I like the implications. Maybe we need to differentiate between public and private discrimination or something.

--A

[[Syl]]

groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread/afe71eff713bf8fe?pli=1

[Lord Mhoram]

What does everybody think of the New Yorker's expose of the "billionaire brothers' war against Obama"? Does the link between corporate, moneyed interests and a so-called grassroots movement dedicated to individual liberty bother those who support the movement?

[SerScot]

LM,

What does everybody think of the New Yorker's expose of the "billionaire brothers' war against Obama"? Does the link between corporate, moneyed interests and a so-called grassroots movement dedicated to individual liberty bother those who support the movement?

No more that George Soro's support of a variety of pro-leftist causes should upset those who support those causes.

[Lord Mhoram]

Scot,

Jane Mayer already thought of that response (or her editors prompted her to think of it):

Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama’s. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros’s giving is transparent, and that “none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests.” The Kochs have given millions of dollars to nonprofit groups that criticize environmental regulation and support lower taxes for industry. Gus diZerega, the former friend, suggested that the Kochs’ youthful idealism about libertarianism had largely devolved into a rationale for corporate self-interest. He said of Charles, “Perhaps he has confused making money with freedom.”

Some critics have suggested that the Kochs’ approach has subverted the purpose of tax-exempt giving. By law, charitable foundations must conduct exclusively nonpartisan activities that promote the public welfare. A 2004 report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a watchdog group, described the Kochs’ foundations as being self-serving, concluding, “These foundations give money to nonprofit organizations that do research and advocacy on issues that impact the profit margin of Koch Industries.”

I would add that nothing about the causes to which Soros gives indicates any contradiction in receiving corporate patronage. The Tea Party seems a little more philosophically problematic.

Have you read the article?

[SerScot]

I read what you posted not the entire article. I've always been in favor of open books regarding political donations. You may recall I dislike campaign finance laws. My solution has always been completely open books.

[Zarathustra]

I stopped reading in the first paragraph, where Jane thought it was important enough to talk about the color of the gowns of the women flanking this billionaire at a black tie event. I suppose you got to really want to read some dirt on the Tea Party to wade through that indulgent, sprawling "expose." Care to give us the Cliff Notes version?

[Lord Mhoram]

How charmingly snide. I don't mind if anybody reads it or not (though clearly a lot of people have done so, since it's generating a lot of discussion and commentary), but I'm not going to discuss an article with anyone who refuses to read it.

[Cail]

More about it here....

Jane Mayer, 2010:

Of course, Democrats give money, too. Their most prominent donor, the financier George Soros, runs a foundation, the Open Society Institute, that has spent as much as a hundred million dollars a year in America. Soros has also made generous private contributions to various Democratic campaigns, including Obama's. But Michael Vachon, his spokesman, argued that Soros's giving is transparent, and that "none of his contributions are in the service of his own economic interests." The Kochs have given millions of dollars to nonprofit groups that criticize environmental regulation and support lower taxes for industry. Gus diZerega, the former friend, suggested that the Kochs' youthful idealism about libertarianism had largely devolved into a rationale for corporate self-interest. He said of Charles, "Perhaps he has confused making money with freedom."

Jane Mayer, 2004:

Soros said that he tries to maintain a strict separation between his financial and his philanthropic work. Yet he acknowledged, "There are occasionally symbiotic moments between political and business interests." He cited one example: an attempt to set up a public-policy think tank in England which had at first looked like a fruitless venture; it had landed him in what promised to be one of the most boring conferences of his life. But, chatting with British notables, he caught a serendipitous glimpse of a way to break into the closed world of the British bond market, which he soon did. It became "one of the most rewarding weekends of my life," he said. "I made many millions."

I went looking for such dissonances in Mayer's big Soros profile (which I had nice things to say about at the time), but I ended up getting distracted by something else entirely: The piece opens with an extended 2004 anecdote about a strategy meeting between five billionaire Bush-haters about how to depose 43 after his first term. Three of them–Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling–happen to be among the biggest bankrollers of organizations dedicated to legalizing (at the least) marijuana. So I guess my question to these Kerry/Obama backers is, how's that working out for ya?

And it's not just drugs. Here are some of Soros's Mayer-reported concerns about politics in the aughts:

The Bush Administration, he said, has exploited the terrorist threat to consolidate its own power, in ways that threaten the country's core democratic values. [...]

According to Soros, the war in Iraq attempted to spread democracy in precisely the wrong way—at gunpoint. "Democracy can only be built if local forces are eager to see it established," he said. More broadly, he feared that the detention of terrorist suspects in Guantánamo Bay, and the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, would undermine America's ability to champion human rights. (Soros suggested that the Bush Administration's meek reaction to Vladimir Putin's recent retreat from democracy in Russia was a consequence of our compromised credibility.) [...]

Soros, who describes himself as an agnostic, contended that Bush's religious beliefs are in conflict with America's democratic traditions. "The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President," he said.

Seriously, how's all that working out? Did Obama de-consolidate power? Not so's you could notice. Democracy at gunpoint? Well, there are certainly a lot more of the things (gunpoints) in Afghanistan. Guantánamo Bay is as open as it was in 2004, and America's ability to champion human rights is currently being undermined by, among other things, the Obama Administration's assertion that the federal government can kill a U.S. citizen without trial. Conversely, if George Soros was looking for a get-tough-on-Russia president, then he certainly backed the wrong horse, and if anyone was thinking they were electing a secret secularist in November 2008, they were either not paying attention or deluding themselves that a core campaign tactic and rhetorical crutch would be thrown aside the day after Rick Warren's Inauguration prayer.

The Soros piece is certainly worth a re-read for the media/political studies completists among you (especially in comparing it to Mayer's Koch-slam). One nostalgia-making undercurrent throughout is that lefty billionaires had miles to go before they could erase the gap between moneybags Republicanoids, let alone reverse the tide of creeping one-party-GOPism. Like most political fear-fads, this belief vanished into the memory hole with the re-ascendance (both electorally and financially) of the former opposition, and now we've cycled back to the Scaifegoating era of looking for mustache-twirlers to explain why Americans aren't as thrilled with their Oval Officer as Joe Klein is.

I defended Soros from Republican attacks back in 2003.

[wayfriend]

The Koches casts into doubt the whole legitimacy of the Tea Party and/or a real libertarian movement ... that it is nothing more than a corporate ploy disguised as a grass-roots movement.

Nothing like that can be said about Soros.

The trouble with being a party by and for wealthy corporate interests is that, when it comes to votes, you fall short. By definition, the elite are not populous.

So you have unholy alliances such as with the religious right. An alliance with them brings in voters. The party core courts them at election time, wins the election, and then forgets about them.

Libertarians and the Tea Party show every evidence of being in the same boat. Sure, there are thousands, maybe millions of people who believe in the libertarian ideals of freedom. But are they making real headway -- or are they being used by corporate interests? Are they votes that are courted and then forgotten? Are they being weilded for political reasons by people who hide behind them, and then reap the benefits of unrestrained corporate anarchy and the good old days of The Jungle?

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

Why can that not be said about Soros? He's been backing leftist causes and websites for years now. I don't understand, why the two different standards for different wealthy donors?

[Lord Mhoram]

Like most political fear-fads, this belief vanished into the memory hole with the re-ascendance (both electorally and financially) of the former opposition, and now we've cycled back to the Scaifegoating era of looking for mustache-twirlers to explain why Americans aren't as thrilled with their Oval Officer as Joe Klein is.

I don't understand this reaction. It's a totally non-substantive response to the piece. (The comparison with the Soros piece is interesting, though.) This doesn't at all address the obvious gap between the messaging and public relations image of the Tea Party movement and its corporate patronage, nor does it address the (in my mind) disturbing connection between corporate "think-tank" findings and the people who fund them, and the role these institutions play in the collective opinion of American society. It's also chillingly cyclical: just read my signature.

[Cail]

The trouble with being a party by and for wealthy corporate interests is that, when it comes to votes, you fall short. By definition, the elite are not populous.

Which is exactly why both the GOP and the Democratic Party are corrupt and don't represent the people, and why I utterly reject the faux-populism of the Tea Party.

If the Tea Party was legit, they would have been bitching about the last few years of the Bush presidency.

[SerScot]

LM,

My problem with FDR is that he wanted to supplant regular "capitalism" with something that was somewhere between normal European Socialism and Soviet style Communism. Such a structure leads to high perminant unemployment (the new normal). As such I think its a bad idea. I'm not saying we shouldn't guard against corporate infilltration of our Government. That said we shouldn't replace Corporate control with direct Government control either.

[eta]

Then again if you want people dependent upon the government (to increase your power base in a "democracy") high perminant unemployment increases your power base because those people need government handouts to survive.

Cail,

Very good point.

[Cail]

LM,

My problem with FDR is that he wanted to supplant regular "capitalism" that was somewhere between normal European Socialism and Soviet style Communism. Such organization leads to high perminant unemployment. As such I think its a bad idea. I'm not saying we shouldn't guard against corporate infilltration of our Government. That said we shouldn't replace Corporate control with direct Government control either

Beat me to it. Besides LM, you know I have nearly boundless disdain for FDR's economic policies which kept the Depression going much longer than it should have.

Your quote is also totally substantive as the hit piece on the Kochs is an attempt to mitigate the president's (a president that the NYT endorsed) plummeting poll numbers.