Without Tea, they’d only be Idio’s
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
I have no problem with the underlying premise of the Tax Day protests: There are certainly a variety of legitimate and reasonable arguments that can be made in favor of smaller government, lower taxes, and greater political accountability.
But this Salon article makes me very anxious about the discussion that actually happened. One protester carried a sign accusing Barney Frank of treason. Another protester told the reporter that it would have been a good idea if terrorists had killed all of the country’s elected representatives.
Yes, that’s right. Validly elected officials were accused of treason (Constitutional definition: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”); while co-protesters suggested that it would have been a good thing if terrorists had killed all elected officials. That’s just a mind-blowing juxtaposition.
The original Boston tea party protested taxation without representation. The new version apparently wants . . . err . . . no representation without assassination?
April 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Posted in: Politics
Print This Post
Responses (6)
Jake - April 21, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Oh good heavens, that is a rather overwrought reaction to citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. Gimme a break.
Adam Mossoff - April 21, 2009 at 10:41 pm
So, some reporters found a couple loonies out of something like 300,000 – 500,000 people across the country who attended the Tea Party protests, and you’re then inferring that this was the tenor “of the discussion that actually happened” at the protests? Huh? I’m sorry, but this is simply the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.
Furthermore, it’s somewhat surprising to me to hear all the kerfuffle over the alleged “extremism” of the Tea Party protests when, for the past eight years, we have been hearing hundreds, if not thousands, of people repeatedly calling Bush “Hitler,” openly calling for his assassination, calling him a monkey, and using openly racist depictions of Secretary Rice, among other epithets against Bush and his officials. In fact, there was an off-Broadway play in 2007, called “President and Man,” that explicitly depicted the assassination of the President (Gee, I wonder which President?). Even worse, in 2006, a fictional documentary actually did portray the assassination of President Bush (“Death of a President”).
I’ve long extremely disappointed in the Bush presidency, but I was still shocked at such venom spewing forth from the “Angry Left.” If I had a blog, I would have said this, but I know there were many other blogs, such as Instapundit, that did cover these outrages.
So, where were your blog posts – even in the past few years – expressing your outrage about these far more common but equally offensive expressions of pure hatred of our political officials?
Aaron Titus - April 21, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Of course, I do not want to minimize the idiocy of some of the outrageous tea party posters. But is that not to be expected? Even principled, reasoned arguments may be taken well beyond the bounds of principle, propriety and reason. Anti-war protests also brought out the worst in some people: “Bush is the disease, Death is the cure.” “Bush: Wanted for treason, terrorism. Under indictment. Convicted Felon.”
Let me be clear: I do not make the relativistic argument that the existence of one ideological extreme justifies the other. I defend neither position.
But this discussion does demonstrate the the difference between the idealist and the ideologue. While both may espouse the same core principles, the idealist refines his world view in the face of reality, truth, and contradicting evidence. Indeed, an honest idealist tests and challenges his own presumptions by exploring counter viewpoints. In contrast, the ideologue turns principle into an -ism. No mental refinement or shift of world-view is necessary for the ideologue; armed with the -ism of his choice, he wrests, bends, and distorts the universe, truth, and reality to fit his own narrow view of the world.
We need more idealists, and fewer ideologues.
The point is that if you want to find extremist morons, you don’t have to look very far on any wavelength of the political spectrum. Instead, I think it more constructive to dig deep into the -ism of the day to find and polish the (sometimes very small) intellectual gems, and allow those jewels to adorn your own world view.
Adam Mossoff - April 21, 2009 at 10:43 pm
So, some reporters found a couple loonies out of something like 300,000 – 500,000 people across the country who attended the Tea Party protests, and you’re then inferring that this was the tenor “of the discussion that actually happened” at the protests? Huh? I’m sorry, but this is a clearl example of the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization.
Furthermore, it’s somewhat surprising to me to hear all the kerfuffle over the alleged “extremism” of the Tea Party protests when, for the past eight years, we have been hearing hundreds, if not thousands, of protestors repeatedly calling Bush “Hitler,” openly calling for his assassination, calling him a monkey, and attacking his administration officials, such as using openly racist depictions of Secretary Rice, among other epithets. In fact, there was an off-Broadway play in 2007, called “President and Man,” that explicitly depicted the assassination of the President (Gee, I wonder which President?). Even worse, in 2006, a fictional documentary actually did portray the assassination of President Bush (“Death of a President”).
I’ve long been extremely disappointed in the Bush presidency, but I was still shocked at such venom spewing forth from the “Angry Left.” If I had a blog, I would have said this, but I know there were many other blogs, such as Instapundit, that did cover these outrages.
So, where were your blog posts – even in the past few years – expressing your outrage about these far more common but equally offensive expressions of pure hatred of our political officials?
JP - April 22, 2009 at 11:50 am
I think you give the protests too much credit by suggesting that they have an “underlying premise.” Street protests in the U.S. are nearly always pointless theater by idle, privileged, malcontents.
I don’t think the juxtaposition you note is quite as shocking (or amusing) as the socialists and anarchists marching hand in hand at the Conventions in Denver and Minneapolis last year. These weren’t just random individuals, but (sort of) organized groups professing fundamentally contradictory beliefs.
AYY - April 27, 2009 at 3:32 am
Prof W,
Friendly advice: This is exactly why you need to broaden your reading material. You can’t just read Salon and expect to get the whole story. If you’d just head over to the right leaning blogs, you’d have a whole different take on the tea parties.
Leave a Reply