posted
Don't know if anyone would be interested, but in case anyone here cares how Tea Partiers view themselves and what they really stand for, this was an interesting blog article.
This is, of course, a tea party apologetic, so don't expect an unbiased or objective look, but rather something that a lot of tea partiers (Being in suburban Texas, I know several, many of them my close relatives.) would identify with and point to to say "yeah! that's us". Particularly well-defined is the idea that conservatives reject the idea of what Malcolm Reynolds called "making people better".
Some of the comments are pretty funny... especially where they talk about actually being the original hippies the blogger was discussing.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
His "The REAL political spectrum" is so contrived and sociopolitically juvenile that it takes his already convoluted 'see, tea partiers are like hippies!' and turns it into something that makes me want to facepalm my brains onto the wall behind me.
What an amazingly not-convoluted axis that puts trustafarian anarchists closer to the distributive center than Obama liberals and puts Objectivists closer to the government control median than Libertarians, with no divide between, say, Anarcho-Capitalists and Consequantialist Libertarians.
I don't care that this has anything to do with the tea party. I'm ignoring that entirely. I just can't help but be appalled with the amateur social studies hour. aaah
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In short, the Tea Party and the hippie movement share four fundamental core values:
* A craving for independence; * A celebration of individualism; * Joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency; * And an acceptance of the natural order of things."
I'd laugh out loud, but I'm sitting in class right now.
Seriously though, what's up with all the TEA party people in Texas, it's getting so I can't open my mouth at all at family gatherings anymore!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Seriously though, what's up with all the TEA party people in Texas, it's getting so I can't open my mouth at all at family gatherings anymore!
Its because Texans are a proud people. Even the sanest state citizens enjoy a guilty little giggle at the mention of secession.* The Tea Party movement is anarchist so its no wonder that Texas, of all states, would be attract to it.
*Speaking as someone who spent 3/5ths of their life in Texas.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for sharing this, Jim-Me. I've been a fan of Zombie's since he was taking pictures at Berkeley protests during the Bush years. He always has an interesting perspective on things. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea how accurate any of that is, the 60s having been covered precisely once in the 10th grade for a day or two. But it's certainly an interesting read.
I was always more interested in hippies like on Good Neighbors who were working their pants off trying to be self sufficient rather than the crazy "Let's take LSD and have sex" kinds that are always depicted.
I think my favorite part is his insistance that human nature doesn't change. But it's definitely said with a sense that other people are selfish, greedy, and power hungry. But rejecting the ability of the government to get them those things personally, the Tea Party would be denying their human nature. So it's not that they think no one can change - just that other people can't.
The Tea Party might be useful as a check on crazy liberal ideas, but I suspect the truth is somewhere closer to the middle of their spectrum. When presented with the opportunity to change, a certain percentage will do so. I think we should design our opportunities to give everyone the chance to do better while minimizing our risk of getting ripped off.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This guy gets that "hippies" were a tiny minority even at their zenith, right? They were a vague subculture that has somehow found its way into our collective memory.
I count only 2 distinct arguments in that blog post for his position that hippies would be tea partiers today.
(Post Edited by Janitor Blade. Calling members of the tea party "teabaggers" is a bit derogatory as they do not like the label, and it is meant to be derisive.)
1. Hippies opposed LBJ and the Democrats. Well, of course they did; LBJ was at the head of the Vietnam war, the most hated war in American history. The Republicans weren't.
There is a poster which he claims depicts LBJ's "big-government 'Great Society' programs as hell on Earth.
Did this chucklehead even read his own link? That poster is a criticism of the way whites maintained economic dominance. It is connected to civil rights, it has nothing to do with the size of government.
In short, this first argument is claiming that because the hippies were anti-Democrat, they must have been anti-left. The two are not the same thing at all; this is a hilariously bad false equivalency.
2. Jack Keruac was a conservative. Awesome, he was also almost as racist as the KKK.
quote:And an acceptance of the natural order of things.
Ah yes, the "natural order of things." This is always code for "male white Christians" on top, usually but not necessarily in that order.
I've seen this sort of relationship drawn before, between conservatism and "human nature" vs. liberalism and the "blank slate." It just doesn't hold up. I agree that conservatives and liberals at least have a different notion of what human nature is. But if you look at the scientists who have done the most to back up the claim that there is a robust sort of biological and psychological human nature, they're people like E.O. Wilson and Steve Pinker -- who tend to draw quite liberal conclusions from their work.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservatives, on the other hand, especially in the Catholic stripe, tend to draw their conception of human nature less from science and more from classical texts, like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. (This comes out very clearly in the work of Robert George and Leon Kass, for example.)
For my own part, I trust 20th-century psychology and biology more than its 13th-century counterpart.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article seems to me to give one more sad indication of the degree to which "freedom" has become a buzzword rather than a concept to which particular expectations should be attatched.
Too many of the "Tea Party" darlings espouse freedom only for the "right" people or only within the moral standards that they are perfectly willing to have imposed from on high. There doesn't seem to be a strong enough center for the typical self-identified "Partier" to be independently angry about any new issue aside from anything related to taxes, or enough clarity to recognize when the tax policies they oppose don't actually fall on anyone within their income bracket.
It's like "the hippies" in about as much as it feels good to identify yourself with a group that seems to have the world's attention and has the courage (albeit the courage of the mob) to "stick it to the man". But (and here noting a genuine division between "hippies" and the actual peace movement) like the hippies, one wonders if it will actually accomplish anything, or just be viewed with bemusement by later generations for its self-indulgence.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Don't know if anyone would be interested, but in case anyone here cares how one Tea Partier views himself and what they really stand for,
Fixed that for you.
I honestly think it is hilarious how people on this board continually take the comments of one person and insist it reflects an entire movement.
I wonder where all the threads are making fun or condemning all of the progressive groups that have popped up over the years for comments one of their members have made?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder where all the threads are making fun or condemning all of the progressive groups that have popped up over the years for comments one of their members have made?
Probably on sites with stupider people. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Don't know if anyone would be interested, but in case anyone here cares how one Tea Partier views himself and what they really stand for,
Fixed that for you.
I honestly think it is hilarious how people on this board continually take the comments of one person and insist it reflects an entire movement.
I wonder where all the threads are making fun or condemning all of the progressive groups that have popped up over the years for comments one of their members have made?
Find dumb stuff progressives say and make threads about them. Talking about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi though is kinda tiring because everybody already dislikes them immensely.
Also the next time Sarah Palin starts talking about elitism, intellectualism, and "real America" tell her to shut her gob so that smart people feel comfortable in the Republican party.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: The Tea Party movement is anarchist so its no wonder that Texas, of all states, would be attract to it.
There's a huge difference between anarchism and minarchism. Wanting limited government isn't the same as wanting no government.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I count only 2 distinct arguments in that blog post for his position that hippies would be teabaggers today.
I'm going to ask that you and others stop using the term "teabaggers". It's an intentionally offensive term, the equivalent of an ethnic slur.
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:And an acceptance of the natural order of things.
Ah yes, the "natural order of things." This is always code for "male white Christians" on top, usually but not necessarily in that order.
So much for honesty. No, it means acceptance of the fact that people do act in their own self-interest. It means acceptance of the natural fact that some people succeed and others fail. It's rejection of the Harrison Bergeron society.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Don't know if anyone would be interested, but in case anyone here cares how Tea Partiers view themselves and what they really stand for, this was an interesting blog article.
Thanks, Jim-Me. It was fascinating. I thought the video was better than the article, though. More cogent and to the point. Having been born in 1963, comparisons to hippies mean next to nothing to me, and that's probably true for most people my age or younger.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: "In short, the Tea Party and the hippie movement share four fundamental core values:
* A craving for independence; * A celebration of individualism; * Joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency; * And an acceptance of the natural order of things."
I'd laugh out loud, but I'm sitting in class right now.
Seriously though, what's up with all the TEA party people in Texas, it's getting so I can't open my mouth at all at family gatherings anymore!
I know I'm probably going to regret asking this, but... rather than just say "this is laughable", do you think you might do us the honor of telling us what part of it you disagree with?
* A craving for independence;
Do you think tea partiers don't crave independence? Conversely, do you think that the left in this country does not work day and night to create a sense of dependency, whereby everyone has to be protected from themselves, whether they like it or not?
* A celebration of individualism;
Do you think that tea partiers aren't motivated strongly by the idea of individualism? Conversely, do you think that the left in this country does not believe that the good of the individual is and should be subordinate to the good of the many?
* Joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency;
Do you think that we don't take joy in freedom? Or that we don't think that self-sufficiency leads to freedom? Conversely, do you think that the left in this country does not think freedom comes from being artificially made "equal"?
* And an acceptance of the natural order of things."
Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be? Conversely, do you think the left in this country is not aiming for that?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be? Conversely, do you think the left in this country is not aiming for that?
Regarding your second question: of course that's not their aim.
The left in the United States, at its most ambitious and "radical," is trying to create a comfortable welfare state society like the ones that already exist in Western Europe and Scandanavia.
quote:And an acceptance of the natural order of things.
Ah yes, the "natural order of things." This is always code for "male white Christians" on top, usually but not necessarily in that order.
So much for honesty. No, it means acceptance of the fact that people do act in their own self-interest. It means acceptance of the natural fact that some people succeed and others fail. It's rejection of the Harrison Bergeron society.
Actually, according to the Tea Party members I've spoken to, it means "heterosexuals only".
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truth. "Natural order of things" is nearly always a placating code for conservative religious and social precepts, indulging naturalistic fallacy for the sake of The Way Things Ought To Be. Necessarily included is the ideal that homosexuality is unnatural and shouldn't be allowed to have equal social status, because that brainwashes kids. Also usually included is the whole male as the head of the household thing.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I've seen this sort of relationship drawn before, between conservatism and "human nature" vs. liberalism and the "blank slate." It just doesn't hold up.
Thank you. It's even not the least of the problems with this attempt at social and political matrices. It's just an amateur pseudosociological estimation of placement.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be?
Yes. I disagree rather passionately with Randians about human nature; in a nutshell, I think they're fundamentally wrong about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's an intentionally offensive term, the equivalent of an ethnic slur.
If I were to use the term, it would be intentionally offensive. I don't grant that everyone using it is being intentionally offensive, because I don't think everyone is familiar with the insult.
But even if they were, it's not the equivalent of an ethnic slur, which is socially regarded as worse, usually, than just insulting someone. Calling someone a racial name is usually worse than just calling them a name, Lisa, and I'm pretty sure you know that's how society looks at it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And an acceptance of the natural order of things.
Ah yes, the "natural order of things." This is always code for "male white Christians" on top, usually but not necessarily in that order.
So much for honesty. No, it means acceptance of the fact that people do act in their own self-interest. It means acceptance of the natural fact that some people succeed and others fail. It's rejection of the Harrison Bergeron society.
Actually, according to the Tea Party members I've spoken to, it means "heterosexuals only".
Not all tea partiers are in lockstep. There are gay, black, hispanic, asian, transsexual, female and every other kind of people in the Tea Party.
There are also Republicans who will tell you that they want their party to be "heterosexuals only". Log Cabin Republicans (the ones who just got DADT overturned) disagree.
I heard one woman say that tea partiers probably agree on a core 70% of issues. But I know there are tea partiers who wouldn't like me on many different counts. The degree to which I care about their opinions... well, you can probably guess.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's an intentionally offensive term, the equivalent of an ethnic slur.
If I were to use the term, it would be intentionally offensive. I don't grant that everyone using it is being intentionally offensive, because I don't think everyone is familiar with the insult.
But even if they were, it's not the equivalent of an ethnic slur, which is socially regarded as worse, usually, than just insulting someone. Calling someone a racial name is usually worse than just calling them a name, Lisa, and I'm pretty sure you know that's how society looks at it.
posted
Yes, Lisa, really. It's a term I've heard used often, particularly by younger people, and equally often I hear older people I work with ask, "What does that mean?" And do you really think that a racial slur and just a slur are considered equivalent in our culture?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Not all tea partiers are in lockstep. There are gay, black, hispanic, asian, transsexual, female and every other kind of people in the Tea Party.
They may not all be in lockstep. But I have not seen any tea partier who wasn't white. I haven't looked terribly hard, of course, so maybe they make up the majority of the tea party and only the caucasians make it out to the rallies.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Make them actually define "acceptance of the natural order of things", and I bet you will find fewer people agreeing with them. Not that many do as it is...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Not all tea partiers are in lockstep. There are gay, black, hispanic, asian, transsexual, female and every other kind of people in the Tea Party.
They may not all be in lockstep. But I have not seen any tea partier who wasn't white. I haven't looked terribly hard, of course, so maybe they make up the majority of the tea party and only the caucasians make it out to the rallies.
You need to get out more. Hell, I went to a thing for Joel Pollak (composer of The Ballad of the Tea Party, and the guy who God willing is going to kick Jan Schakowsky's a** next month), and the crowd was quite a mix. Not to mention the fact that Joel is virtually a leftist compared to his wife Julia, who is black herself.
Edit to add the first handful of links on the subject that I found with a simple search on Google and YouTube:
quote:Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be?
Yes. I disagree rather passionately with Randians about human nature; in a nutshell, I think they're fundamentally wrong about it.
What's a Randian, and what do Randians have to do with any of this?
I assume Tom is talking about those who agree with Ayn Rand. Many of the tea partiers I have seen talking mention Atlas Shrugged as at least part of their intellectual base.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be?
Yes. I disagree rather passionately with Randians about human nature; in a nutshell, I think they're fundamentally wrong about it.
What's a Randian, and what do Randians have to do with any of this?
I assume Tom is talking about those who agree with Ayn Rand. Many of the tea partiers I have seen talking mention Atlas Shrugged as at least part of their intellectual base.
Oh. Oh, I get it. He was calling people Randians because he wants to make it seem like we're sheeplike followers of Ayn Rand. Got it.
You know, though, talking about the principles of liberty in an intellectual way without mentioning Objectivism is sort of like talking about biology without mentioning Mendel or Darwin. You can do it, but it's a helluva lot easier to refer to someone else who has done the heavy lifting.
It doesn't make tea partiers Objectivists, though, any more than supporting Obamacare makes someone a Marxist. Much less so, in fact.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me point out, for the record, that I was answering this question: "Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be?"
And yes, absolutely, I think that you are.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No it doesn't, but I completely agree that Ayn Rand is indispensable when discussing how many Tea Partiers approach government.
I've heard Glenn Beck specifically endorse Atlas Shrugged. And when he started doing that, copies flew off the shelves in book stores.
Maybe because they liked what they heard. I suspect he didn't just say, "Great book", but rather told people a little about the values described in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Let me point out, for the record, that I was answering this question: "Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be?"
And yes, absolutely, I think that you are.
I remember when I used to spend time on Usenet. Killfiles were such a useful thing. On a forum, I guess I'm going to have to rely on my willpower to put you in a sort of virtual killfile. Here and on Ornery.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believing in objectivism to be the answer to how society should be is, pretty much, hoping for a utopia that ignores human nature. Jut as much, in fact, as any supposed narrative about how the american left wants to set up an impossible utopia.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's quite a lot to disagree with that, but I'm interested specifically in the idea that "human nature" is innate and unchangeable.
That sounds to me like they're enshrining the Fundamental Attribution Error into a fundamental aspect of their worldview, which isn't a surprise considering the population involved, but seems like an obvious mistake.
I'd note also that a lot of people's support of cooperative or "collectivist" structures stems from their belief (and there's often math and science and stuff backing this up) that the individual often fares better in these structures then in the "every man for themselves" ones. Of course, there is also the fundamental human drive for community in play.
Basically, when someone talks about how human nature is unchangeable and fully selfish, it's a lot like a late middle age white conservative Christian talking about how all these gay guys want to have sex with him or a autocratic manager talking about how the only/best way to motivate people is through rewards and punishments. The scientific understanding of "human nature" has left these ideas way behind and these people are really talking about their own issues, not about any reasoned assessment of the human condition.
---
Honestly, I think that the whole country could benefit from a open consideration of the Progressive Era. It was a time of immense social and economic change and reform that seems really to be glossed over or forgotten. And, as a Tea partier or a libertarian complaining about government intervention and "progressives", this is really the time where this came into place in our country. Were they able to enact the what they say they want, it would be reversing the changes made in this era and returning us to the ways things were before.
There's an important distinction between FDR and Teddy Roosevelt that I think is often lost when we currently talk about these issues.
Myself, Teddy Roosevelt is maybe my favorite President and I regard the Progressive Era as representing a massive improvement over what came before it. I feel like the argument over Big Government versus Big Business sort of misses the point. The problem I have is with the Big part, not whichever comes after it. I think we need a balancing act. In the world that we live in, businesses are going to get big and history has shown that not restricting or regulating them leads to them screwing things up majorly. We need government to counter the pernicious effects of companies that have grown past accountability.
However, when government gets big, it also loses accountability and tends to assume powers and scopes of influence that it should not have.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No it doesn't, but I completely agree that Ayn Rand is indispensable when discussing how many Tea Partiers approach government.
I've heard Glenn Beck specifically endorse Atlas Shrugged. And when he started doing that, copies flew off the shelves in book stores.
Maybe because they liked what they heard. I suspect he didn't just say, "Great book", but rather told people a little about the values described in it.
Well, yes. They liked what they read and got their friends to read it and so Ayn Rand becomes an indispensable part of the Tea Party.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Make them actually define "acceptance of the natural order of things", and I bet you will find fewer people agreeing with them. Not that many do as it is...
Make them actually aware of their place in "the natural order of things" and I bet the numbers would fall off, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dest, In what way are Wilson and Pinker scientists when it comes to human nature? I may have missed significant parts of their research, but my impression of their work in this area is very different.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No it doesn't, but I completely agree that Ayn Rand is indispensable when discussing how many Tea Partiers approach government.
I've heard Glenn Beck specifically endorse Atlas Shrugged. And when he started doing that, copies flew off the shelves in book stores.
Maybe because they liked what they heard. I suspect he didn't just say, "Great book", but rather told people a little about the values described in it.
Well, yes. They liked what they read and got their friends to read it and so Ayn Rand becomes an indispensable part of the Tea Party.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dest, In what way are Wilson and Pinker scientists when it comes to human nature? I may have missed significant parts of their research, but my impression of their work in this area is very different.
Pinker's work on evolutionary psych and inborn linguistic ability has a pretty direct relevance to human nature. Of course, "The Blank Slate" is a pop science book, but it is related to his actual research.
And Wilson is the father of sociobiology.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hell, I went to a thing for Joel Pollak (composer of The Ballad of the Tea Party, and the guy who God willing is going to kick Jan Schakowsky's a** next month), and the crowd was quite a mix. Not to mention the fact that Joel is virtually a leftist compared to his wife Julia, who is black herself.
I don't think that either God or the people of the district are willing. "Kick a**"? Rep. Schakowsky is polling at 67.6% with Mr. Pollak at less than 30%.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the next time Sarah Palin starts talking about elitism, intellectualism, and "real America" tell her to shut her gob so that smart people feel comfortable in the Republican party.
Here is one conservative's take on elitism. Done by the same guy who did the video in the OP's link (not the guy that wrote the article, but the video that was shown in the middle of the article.)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: "In short, the Tea Party and the hippie movement share four fundamental core values:
* A craving for independence; * A celebration of individualism; * Joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency; * And an acceptance of the natural order of things."
I'd laugh out loud, but I'm sitting in class right now.
Seriously though, what's up with all the TEA party people in Texas, it's getting so I can't open my mouth at all at family gatherings anymore!
I know I'm probably going to regret asking this, but... rather than just say "this is laughable", do you think you might do us the honor of telling us what part of it you disagree with?
* A craving for independence;
Do you think tea partiers don't crave independence? Conversely, do you think that the left in this country does not work day and night to create a sense of dependency, whereby everyone has to be protected from themselves, whether they like it or not?
* A celebration of individualism;
Do you think that tea partiers aren't motivated strongly by the idea of individualism? Conversely, do you think that the left in this country does not believe that the good of the individual is and should be subordinate to the good of the many?
* Joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency;
Do you think that we don't take joy in freedom? Or that we don't think that self-sufficiency leads to freedom? Conversely, do you think that the left in this country does not think freedom comes from being artificially made "equal"?
* And an acceptance of the natural order of things."
Do you think we're out to create some sort of utopic society where people are fundamentally different than people were, are, or ever will be? Conversely, do you think the left in this country is not aiming for that?
Ok, I'll grant you I wasn't actually alive during the Hippie Movement, but here is my take. From what I understand, Hippie's were actually all about working together (hence, the whole commune thing), I really don't see how that jives with the Tea Parties motives. Hippies may not have liked the current government, but I don't think it is because they believed society shouldn't work together as a whole for the common good.
I certainly do NOT think that Tea Partiers really like individualism. Almost every single one I've actually met in person is very interested in the government mandating a heck of alot of social policy (everything from prayer in school to a constitutional amendment for marriage being defined as XY+XX.) You can say that that isn't really "part" of the party's philosophy all you want, but if those are the kinds of things that most of their members are expecting to get in the end (most being defined as all of the ones I come in contact with day to day) then I can't see why I should distinguish between some official "party line" and what they really want. In my opinion, none of those policies promotes individualism in any way!
He MIGHT have a case for the "joy in self sufficiency", but I don't really believe that. For one thing, none of the Tea Partiers I've come in contact with really have any inkling of what true "self sufficiency" would mean for them. As I think I've mentioned before, I live in a rural area with many farmers and ranchers. They truly have no grasp what minimal federal government would do to their lives. We're also not a rich area. While most of the people I've talked to aren't on Welfare, tons of them work for government subsidized programs like utilities. Many of the others have never actually paid any income tax that wasn't refunded (and more) when they filed their taxes. That isn't to say that they couldn't be willing to take the hit that would come with small government because they believe it's the "right thing to do", but I seriously doubt that's the case.
Finally, the "natural order of things" is very VERY obviously not something Hippies and most Tea Partiers would agree on. They simply mean two totally different things by the term. As I said before, for nearly all of the Tea Partiers I know personally, their "natural order of things" includes no evolution, a strictly heterosexual society, and often includes white supremacy if you really did down deep.
I realize that it is very easy to argue against everything I've just said by saying that I don't actually know anything about the beliefs of the group "as a whole". And, you're right, I don't. I haven't actually done statistical surveys of the entire population. But I can be allowed to disbelieve arguments if they defy the evidence I'm seeing in front of my eyes unless someone can provide me with verifiable evidence that what I'm seeing is an anomaly.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real problem with those four categories is that they're kind of like astrological cold-reading. With the exception of "an acceptance of the natural order of things" which kind of falls flat as a tautological experiment in naturalistic fallacy anyway, they're feelgood concepts that even the people on the far far far end of the scale are unlikely to differentiate themselves from the teaparty. According to this process, Obama liberals are at least three quarters tea party despite being on the other end of this guy's convoluted sociological matrix.
Who the hell is going to disagree with "Joy in the freedom offered by self-sufficiency?" who is going to disagree with "A celebration of individualism?" Short of the stereotypical imagined strawman liberals who live in Harrison Bergeron inspired narratives, nearly nobody.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the next time Sarah Palin starts talking about elitism, intellectualism, and "real America" tell her to shut her gob so that smart people feel comfortable in the Republican party.
Here is one conservative's take on elitism. Done by the same guy who did the video in the OP's link (not the guy that wrote the article, but the video that was shown in the middle of the article.)
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also the next time Sarah Palin starts talking about elitism, intellectualism, and "real America" tell her to shut her gob so that smart people feel comfortable in the Republican party.
Here is one conservative's take on elitism. Done by the same guy who did the video in the OP's link (not the guy that wrote the article, but the video that was shown in the middle of the article.)
Thanks for the link.
You're welcome!
Obviously he doesn't necessarily speak for all conservatives, but I really like what he had to say on that issue. For those that don't care to watch the video, my shorthand summary would be:
"Elitism" in the sense of just thinking you're better than other people may make you conceited, but it's not really what most conservatives are railing against. Elitism in the sense that you think you're better able to make decisions for me than I can for myself is what's antithetical to typical conservative or libertarian values.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
