The hypocrisy of teabaggers

The BBQ Pit
1

This thread was closed and suggested it be re-opened in the Pit, so here’s my attempt.

I’m a person whose top political issue is the reduction of government size, power, and spending. I should be absolutely thrilled that there seems to be a grass-roots movement out there to protest the recent government excesses. Except - recent should mean past decade, not the past few months.

The Republican controlled executive and congress increased the government in size and spending beyond anything we’ve seen from 2000-2006. They borrowed more money than the country has in its entire history. And yet there were no tea parties then. There were some protests - primarily over the increases in government policing power and the war - but none on the issue of spending and government size.

And when the government stepped in to protect the money of the rich, when they bought assets out of an asset bubble that was created by greed and deception, there were no teabag parties. When they stepped in to nationalize a huge corporation and save them from their own poor decisions, no teabag parties.

Oh, but we dare tackle the inefficient and costly medical system, this cannot stand! Now is the time for protest! A war that cost more? A giveaway to irresponsible big businesses? No protests. Something that might actually help ordinary people? Protests galore.

I don’t normally play the populist role or try to engage in class warfare, but this prospect is bizarre to me. It makes me think monied interests are running the show and controlling the ignorant and hateful through sources like Fox News.

If the tea parties actually were against expanding government power and spending, I would love them. I love the idea that this country still has some fight in them against their government gone out of control. But it isn’t. This is simply partisan bullshit. This is “the other party is in charge, NOW we’re opposed to any new spending or new powers for the government.” - if the Republicans retook control of congress and the executive in 2012, and increased the deficit even further, there would be no tea parties in sight.

Another irony is that they look at how much the deficit has increased recently, and blame this on Obama. But most of the new spending we see are from Republican lead or Republican supported initiatives which they deferred paying for until now.

I wish the American people did possess the sort of principles that they claim here. Instead they are just another log fueling the fire of partisan bickering.

2

Basically, with very few exceptions, the underlying political philosophy of most Americans, whether Democrat or Republican, left or right, liberal or conservative is:

Government has some positive role to play in the economy, and in the running of society. There are some areas where government can usefully take greater control, some areas where is can provide regulation and oversight, and some areas where it should leave things alone, as much as possible.

There are very few actual anarchists in America, and there aren’t even many libertarians. Just about everyone agrees that government has a positive role to play; where people differ is exactly where the line should be drawn in any particular case. And the problem is that, instead of being honest and saying that they differ on these particular cases, for reasons A, B, and C, some people find it more expedient to launch into generalized rants about overbearing government control, socialism, freedom, puppy-killing, baby-raping, etc., etc., etc.

If someone says, “I recognize that we need government to play a significant role in some areas of the economy, but i think that greater government involvement in healthcare is bad because…”, then while i might not agree with that person’s reasoning, i can at least respect their honesty. But these teabaggers and their ilk are nothing more than small-minded populist opportunists. They don’t actually care about the principle of smaller government, or they would, as you rightly observe, have cared about it before January 2009.

3

The tea party protesters don’t know what they’re doing. You couldn’t have a 3 minute conversation with them about why they’re protesting. Once you get past “I want my country back” and the creative comparisons to Hitler, they’d have nothing.

If Fox News were telling them to protest about the brand of tie Obama wears, they’d do that. All they hear is “protest” and “Obama” and they’re out the door.

And, like you said, if there were the odd few of them who actually had legitimate complaints about the size of government or taxation, they should know that Bush increased the size of government more than anybody.

4

That’s a broad and uniformed brush you’re swinging.

Uninformed because the Tea Parties started back in February, months before the healthcare debate. And they stated because of the corporate bailouts and the stimulus. Implying that they are only exercised about the healthcare proposals is either ignorant or dishonest.

Broad because you’re lumping millions of people in your criticisms. Obviously some of these people are sheer partisans. It’s equally obvious that some of them are sincere small-government types who keep quiet under Bush, either under the thinking that democrats would be worse, or because in many cases, they were just not politically engaged.

Sure, there are some of them who are hypocrites; maybe even most. The same goes for those who protested Bush policies but raise not a peep when Obama continues them. It doesn’t follow that no Guantanamo protesters were sincere, nor all the small-government types.

5

What’s also quite weird is the lack of protest over Medicare D, the $1.2 trillion dollar domestic health care program passed by the Republicans. It was basically a gigantic corporate welfare plan because it prohibited medicare from negotiating better prices so big pharma could charge whatever they wanted. Where the fuck were the teabaggers back then?

6

Completely agree with the OP.

Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats. Sometimes I think they’re just as bad. Which is why I am neither.

7

You’ve nailed it. I would actually be willing to wager money on this.

8

They were opposed to it.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001193.php
http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPressReleases.nsf/d2f954313a1bfbaf86256c76002745dd/2df0fc88053a9617862571340071ed4a?OpenDocument
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASP

9

I can’t find it now, but Jon Stewart had a great clip on the Daily Show–he went to one of the “grassroots” tea party websites and looked at the people who were on the boards of the sponsors. All high-ranking wealthy Republicans.

Dance, puppets, dance.

10

At the risk of a hijack, I’ve repeatedly come across the sentiment that protesters at the health-insurance town halls are so loud and angry because – as they put it – there were no town halls back when Congress was gearing up for bailout this and stimulus that; it just happened, is all.

This latest bit, though, is unfolding in super-slow-motion.

11

I hear you, Beef, but I don’t really think hypocrisy is the critter here, or even racism. Its too emotional, too chaotic to have principles to be hypocritical about. They are confused, things are sliding out of their control. Or, at least, thats how they see it, under the delusion that they ever had any control to begin with.

“I want my country back!” is probably closest to a single unifying concept, and even that is horseshit. But they feel it, and it unifies them, even if they don’t really agree on anything else.

12

On the other hand, they’re upset a statist is in the White House. Who can blame them.

13

Yeah, it’s not really hypocrisy so much as it’s simply hysteria. We need an industrial-sized cup of cold water.

14

Hear, hear, mate. Fucking Bush fucking used the charge card on everything.

15

Well, the anarchists didn’t field a candidate, this time out.

16

I concede that the vanishingly small and ever marginalized intellectual conservatives protested it.

But we didn’t see people take to the streets over it. Posters of Bush painted as the Joker with the words SOCIALISM did not materialize.

I have a very hard time seeing any real difference between these two bills from the standpoint of fiscal conservatism. Certainly nothing to justify such a stark difference in the level of hatred expressed.

17

I’m surprised they didn’t start on January 21st. Although I suppose Republicans needed a few weeks to work their way through “denial” and move on to the “anger” stage of grieving. Hopefully they’ll get to the “acceptance” stage soon.

18

Doesn’t exactly stir the blood does it, fiscal conservatism. Not really one of the rock stars of political principles, now is it?

19

ABC News Was Misquoted on Crowd Size

20

A statist is always in the White House. You think we’ve ever had a POTUS who wasn’t a statist? No, not one, not Bush, not Reagan, not even Thomas Jefferson.