# The Trouble With Tea-Baggers And Progressives. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984 "2010-04-22T14:51:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/21 "2010-04-22T18:32:12Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > Obama and Bush are merely the latest in a long line of corporate hucksters. Cheered by their corporate media led supporters, vilified by their corporate media led detractors, they do their public dance to the corporate tune. They blame partisanship, misinformation, mistakes and, as a last resort, outright incompetence for the obviously criminal outcomes of corporate malfeasance, our wars, our corporate Wall Street crime families and the nearing collapse of our infrastructures, financial and material. > > The trouble with Tea-baggers and Progressives is that they don’t realize that they’re all in the same boat. [Some do, actually:](http://live.thenation.com/doc/20100426/collins) > [@](#): > > Here are a few conversation points I’ve found useful in talking with the open-minded participants at tea party activities: > > \*\*We Agree \*\* > > The middle class is overtaxed. After fifty years of major “tax reform” by both political parties, the middle class pays the same percent of income in taxes today as it did in 1960. The very rich (with incomes over $2 million) pay half as much as they did in 1960 and the richest 400 households pay two-thirds less. Big corporations like ExxonMobil and General Electric have gamed the system so that they pay zero or little taxes. > > We are borrowing recklessly from the future, from our children’s standard of living. We borrowed to give rich and global corporations tax breaks and fight two wars. In the last eight years, we borrowed $700 billion to give tax breaks to people with incomes over $250,000. > > The middle class standard of living is under attack. For thirty years real wages have been flat and our economic security has declined. This was masked by people working more hours and taking on unprecedented amounts of personal debt. The economic crisis unmasked how our security was built on a bubble of debt. A job is no longer a source of health insurance or retirement security. We’ve been told: you are on your own. > > Wall Street is squeezing us at every turn. In addition to the government, corporations are also “taxing” us, with their fees, charges and monopoly control over markets. We pay more and more to Visa, Verizon, AT&T, Blue CrossBlue Shield, ExxonMobil, US Airways, etc. These are forms of taxes paid to corporations. They won’t stop unless we organize to stop them. > > \*\*Where We May Disagree: \*\* > > President Obama is not the enemy. Both major parties have been hijacked by corporate overlords whose first priority is to protect Wall Street financiers and greedy corporations. President Obama is pushing back more than President Bush did, and he had an enormous mess to clean up (he inherited two wars, the Wall Street meltdown and a $10 trillion national debt). If we demand a government that protects Main Street and ordinary people against organized greed, he will respond. > > Scapegoating vulnerable people is a dead end. Our economic problems were not caused by immigrants or low-income people. Wall Street greed in high places is what drove the economy over a cliff. Powerful elites want to distract us by having us fight among ourselves, with racial divides and class wars. Let’s not be distracted. > > Weak government is not the answer. If we shrink government, who will defend us against Wall Street and the corporate looters? The parts of government that should protect us against Wall Street greed, speculation and the assaults on the middle class have been weakened under both political parties. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/22 "2010-04-22T18:58:42Z")
> [@](#): > > The parts of government that should protect us against Wall Street greed, speculation and the assaults on the middle class have been weakened under both political parties. They haven’t been weakened, they’ve been gutted. As for Obama, I give you Evo Morales in the New Yorker’s Lithium Dreams > [@](#): > > As for President Barack Obama, Morales said, “He’s trapped by the capitalist system and the structure of imperialism.” The only difference between Obama and his predecessor, he said, is that “one is gringo, the other is black.” ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/23 "2010-04-22T19:05:17Z")
In an effort to salvage this thread, perhaps I can post my interpretation of the issue at the root of **adhay** ’s OP. Both the Tea Party and [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) are asking (in the most general terms) why the US government is unresponsive to what looks like colossal fiscal irresponsibility. Their specific complaints/remedies are cast as polar opposites–mainly because they have been co-opted by one or the other of the major political parties–but at heart they are asking similar questions. The conflict between the two is encouraged by a political class who would prefer they fight each other rather than direct their attention at the corporate oligarchy and a (corporate owned) media interested in the dramatic appeal of provocation (since it allows them to sell more product). I disagree with the “90% corruption” claims, and think that **adhay** will eventually admit this was a regrettable emotional hyperbole. But I wouldn’t remain fixated on just this point. Also, I think the debate needs to move beyond this (rather obvious) statement of the political reality in the US and onto what can be done about it. If **adhay** , for example, is advocating that the Tea Party and [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) should join forces, well, I’d love to see a politically-viable roadmap that shows how. And at some point you have to move beyond vague generalizations like “They’re all crooks” or “Cut government waste” and start looking at the details–these are great rhetoric for stirring up a movement, but they aren’t good guides to policy, and after a time people are going to want a clear policy to rally around or they will grow apathetic or get peeled off by one of the major parties (whose skillful marketing can mold your amorphous beliefs into what they want them to be). ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/24 "2010-04-22T19:06:56Z")
Total transparency is bad because people are idiots Over here in CA, a new proposition is on the ballot called the “Let Taxpayers Vote Act” or some other such nonsense. Currently, the government here can get into private industries like electricity and change the rates at which power is charged. In Los Angeles, the Department of Power and Water has that authority. This proposition wants taxpayers to be able to vote whether or not DPW can increase our charges. Starting to see the problem? Who the hell is going to vote for MORE charges? Everyone thinks they’re overcharged! Everyone thinks prices should be lower! Everyone thinks they’re being screwed! If this proposition passes, we’ll never have an increase again, no matter how dire the economic situation is! Imagine if customers at a restaurant can dictate prices. “Why is an Egg McMuffin only $1 and a Filet O’ Fish almost $3? Let’s make them both $1! We don’t care about the economics behind getting those items to our plates, we want cheap food!” Who’s going to vote for higher electricity bills? Even those who can afford it want less expenses. Transparency like backroom deals are annoying, but necessary. With a guy like Bart Stupak, he may be on the fence about voting for something as important as the Health Care reform bill. Objectively, that is a good bill which will reduce the deficit and help Americans. But Obama had to grease his palm with an executive order to get him to sign it. Why? He knows what’s in the bill, he knows that the Hyde Amendment already takes precedent, so the whole thing was merely political cover (and now he’s decided to quit Congress after drawing his pound of flesh from Obama). So why did he do it? Because people are idiots. There are scores of Pubs who attack Stupak as a “baby killer” even though he has a rather conservative voting record on abortion. They just don’t get it. Because they’re stupid fucking morons. How much do you know about economics? What about the medical industry? How about environmental regulations, carbon emissions, the foreign policy of Uzbekistan, and the concerns of the constituents of rural Iowa? Do you think that someone on the other side of the country is going to give two shits about fixing potholes in southeastern Tallahassee? I sure don’t! So if the Congressmen who represent that district wants money, I’m going to want my Congressmen to vote NO every single time. And I want that money to fix potholes here. But then those people are now pissed at me. What ends up is that both sides will be pissed at each other and nobody will help anybody out. We don’t need that much transparency. Backroom deals are not all trading hookers and blow, sometimes they are about getting things done for your constituents and sometimes it’s about helping out others so they owe you a favor later on. I’m not saying make the government opaque. I want transparency more than what we have. But I don’t want total transparency. I don’t want an elimination of all backroom deals because it would make it that much harder to gain support for something if one cannot offer the other side something. Everybody loves pork when it’s earmarked for their own district, but hate it for everyone else. It’s true, that’s how humans are, we’re selfish and stupid. Obama has been very transparent. Hell, he’s the only president who was ever forced to show his god damn birth certificate to the whole world! And still people bitch! Obama opened up health care debates with the entire GOP that was televised and destroyed them. Guess who will less transparent next time? Obama put entire bills online for people to see their entire contents, but what side was still claiming the health care bill was secret? Obama had a website created for people to see where their stimulus dollars are going, and only because of technical and design issues is that website not completely efficient. If the tea baggers actually came up with, you know, honest and relevent issues to discuss, Obama will discuss it. Nobody except lunatics gives two shits about where he was born or what religion he “really” is. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/25 "2010-04-22T19:24:16Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > In an effort to salvage this thread, perhaps I can post my interpretation of the issue at the root of **adhay** ’s OP. > … > I disagree with the “90% corruption” claims, and think that **adhay** will eventually admit this was a regrettable emotional hyperbole. Obviously. 😛 > [@](#): > > But I wouldn’t remain fixated on just this point. Also, I think the debate needs to move beyond this (rather obvious) statement of the political reality in the US and onto what can be done about it. If **adhay** , for example, is advocating that the Tea Party and [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) should join forces, well, I’d love to see a politically-viable roadmap that shows how. _I’d_ like to see the plan for _that_ one, myself. Given that many so-called sane and educated people in this country think that corporations are entitled to Bill of Rights protection, there’s not much hope. > [@](#): > > And at some point you have to move beyond vague generalizations like “They’re all crooks” or “Cut government waste” and start looking at the details–these are great rhetoric for stirring up a movement, but they aren’t good guides to policy, and after a time people are going to want a clear policy to rally around or they will grow apathetic or get peeled off by one of the major parties (whose skillful marketing can mold your amorphous beliefs into what they want them to be). A start would be (from **BG** ’s cite) > [@](#): > > Rein in big corporations. We need a constitutional amendment to limit the power of corporations to dominate our political process including elections, campaigns and lobbying. This is key to preserving our democracy and liberties. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/26 "2010-04-22T19:59:27Z")
Now I am confused. Is this a big government=bad thread or a corporations=bad thread? For what its worth, I think there are HUGE differences between the Obama deficits and the Bush deficits. Obama’s stimulus plan and bailouts, while not perfect, were designed to stimulate spending and prevent collapse of the global economy. Tough decisions made in the face of harsh criticism because someone had to be the grown-up in thye room. The Bush deficits were driven early on by tax cuts for the rich and a very expensive war in Iraq. Half the money from the Bush stimulus plan didn’t even pretend to be stimulitive (half the Bush stimulus plan went to accelerated depreciation (this has almost no stimulative effect). I guess the way i see it, Bushw as trying to buy us off with tax cuts and increased spending while Obama is trying to keep us afloat. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/27 "2010-04-22T20:05:26Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > Both the Tea Party and [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) are asking (in the most general terms) why the US government is unresponsive to what looks like colossal fiscal irresponsibility. Their specific complaints/remedies are cast as polar opposites–mainly because they have been co-opted by one or the other of the major political parties–but at heart they are asking similar questions. Well, no, they aren’t at all. Not to overgeneralize, but Tea Baggers seem to be very concerned about the deficit because it will hurt the country by driving us into the hands of China, forcing taxes higher, making interest rates go up, etc. They also believe that spending on programs like health care are not only political anathema, but they make the deficit worse with all those associated problems, etc. I think MoveOn/progressives are very concerned about the fairness of Bush’s tax cuts, which in their/my estimation very much favored tax breaks for the rich at a time of fiscal peril. I believe the concern about the deficit is more like it is a bad thing that came of an unfair/bad policy of cutting taxes. Now, if you don’t bother to examine either of those statements very closely, they may sound very similar: deficits are bad. But I believe that the fundamental disagreement of the group is that Teabaggers believe deficits are terrible, therefore support spending cuts; but MoveOn feels that supply side tax cut policies are terrible, and therefore hate the deficits that they created. Furthermore, the solution to the issue is diametrically opposed to each other. Teabaggers want more tax cuts, MoveOn wants tax increases on the rich. MoveOn wants more spending on health care and education, Teabaggers want to demolish the Department of Education and other government intrusions into local or family affairs. None of this has jack-all to do with corporations gaslighting either group. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/28 "2010-04-22T20:09:55Z")
Another thought: if there is a similarity between the groups, it is that they both want to use populism to get their message across, and find corporations a convenient boogeyman. That’s a very superficial bit of common ground. ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/29 "2010-04-22T20:13:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Now I am confused. Is this a big government=bad thread or a corporations=bad thread? Can’t BOTH be bad? I think large groups of people (i.e. - government and corporations) are not good for the overall well being of people in society. I think keeping everything smaller and more local would be best for everyone. Not that it is going to happen. I have been thinking a lot about this recently, htough. I always described myself as libertarian, because i do not like big government. I also do not like big corporations. I also do not like big religion. Obviously, as humans we have a tendency to band together, but I think the more we can limit the size of those groups, the better off we would be…just my 2 cents. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/30 "2010-04-22T20:15:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, no, they aren’t at all. … > > None of this has jack-all to do with corporations gaslighting either group. I agree with pretty much with everything you’ve said except this last bit. If “gaslighting” means corporate fucking of the electorate with their SCOTUS given dicks, it has jack-all to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/31 "2010-04-22T20:42:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Now I am confused. Is this a big government=bad thread or a corporations=bad thread? Let me clarify. This is a govt must regulate Capital thread. Capitalists, historically, have installed and regulated govt. These days, animated corporations are their legal face. It’s past time for a change. > [@](#): > > For what its worth, I think there are HUGE differences between the Obama deficits and the Bush deficits. Not to the taxpayers and their grandchildren. > [@](#): > > Obama’s stimulus plan and bailouts, while not perfect, were designed to stimulate spending and prevent collapse of the global economy. … Anyone who advocates increasing consumption of finite resources in the face of our inevitable global melt-down is a corporate hack. > [@](#): > > The Bush deficits were driven early on by tax cuts for the rich and a very expensive war in Iraq. Half the money from the Bush stimulus plan didn’t even pretend to be stimulitive (half the Bush stimulus plan went to accelerated depreciation (this has almost no stimulative effect). > > I guess the way i see it, Bushw as trying to buy us off with tax cuts and increased spending while Obama is trying to keep us afloat. Yep, Punch and Judy with a vengeance. I love the drama, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/32 "2010-04-22T20:50:32Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > Anyone who advocates increasing consumption of finite resources in the face of our inevitable global melt-down is a corporate hack. What “inevitable global melt-down”? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/33 "2010-04-22T20:51:45Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I am a Conservative Anarchist You’re an oxymoron? That’s nice. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/34 "2010-04-22T21:04:41Z")
The problem with fringe political parties is that their followers think that if the Republicans get 10,000,000 votes, the Democrats get 10,000,000 votes and the Libertarians get 10,000 votes, the result should be that all three parties get an equal share of the government. Adhay, the reason Nixon won in 1972 was because 47,168,710 people voted for him. George McGovern got 29,173,222 votes. John Schmitz got 1,100,868 votes. Linda Jenness got 83,380 votes. Benjamin Spock got 78,759 votes. And John Hospers got 3674 votes. Now I look at those numbers and think there’s a good reason why Nixon became the President. I can’t see any reason to change the system so that John Hospers can become President instead with less than four thousand votes. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/35 "2010-04-22T21:16:20Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > I agree with most tea-baggers that we need a small and efficient govt that can **organize and administer** the national infrastructure and resources as envisioned by the folks who have to live in it. I am curious how you think a government that governs over 300 million people across 3.5 million square miles would be “small”. > [@adhay](#): > > Above all, this govt must be **transparent**. All foreign and domestic policy debates on CNN along with SCOTUS deliberations. No “Mr. Transparency” Obama doing backroom deals with Big Pharma or Wall Street foxes regulating the hen house by encouraging fraud. I believe this is a naive view that does not take into account that 90% of getting anything done is usually a result of comprimise, dealmaking, coercion and incentives. > [@adhay](#): > > WAG, 90% of the cost of govt is corruption and 90% of that is enabled and encouraged by the corporate control of our three branches of govt at the expense of the people and the environment. Perhaps if you define “corruption” as “anything I disagree with”. ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/36 "2010-04-22T21:18:12Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > Can’t BOTH be bad? > I think large groups of people (i.e. - government and corporations) are not good for the overall well being of people in society. I\*\* think keeping everything smaller and more local would be best for everyone. \*\*Not that it is going to happen. Bolding mine. [SIZE=2]Except that this keeps getting proved wrong everytime a small group of motivated one-issue voters conspire to take over local elections. We see this often when conservative groups hijack local and school board elections to pass nutjob agendas or fringe groups like the FLDS groups take over towns and vote as a bloc to get ‘thier’ people into positions of power. Local control will always be subject to tyranny of the minority who are motivated to take over the system.[/SIZE] ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/37 "2010-04-22T21:20:31Z")
> [@horhay\_achoa](#): > > Can’t BOTH be bad? …just my 2 cents. And you are due a dollar in change. Here’s new one, hot off the Fed’s presses. Yes, a responsible govt would be waking the electorate to the fact that we are moving into Peak Oil and there’s going to be whole lot of personal adjustments that must be made, better sooner than later. A responsible govt would be encouraging communities to invest in local greenhouses so that when the price of gasoline spikes for good and cheap food prices at your local Safeway are a thing of the past, folks will be feeding themselves and be getting to know each other. Damn Socialists. A responsible govt would also encourage communities towards getting off the grid and becoming reliant on alternative energy and would facilitate their installing of advanced technology while it’s cheap, locally powered wifi, for example. A plus, a reduction of our carbon footprint. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/38 "2010-04-22T21:25:51Z")
Sounds to me like “a responsible government should ignore what everyone else says and just listen to what I say.” It appears your version of smaller government only has room for one person. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/39 "2010-04-22T21:40:39Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Perhaps if you define “corruption” as “anything I disagree with”. No, that’s “corporatism.” Everything wrong with anything is the fault of corporations. It rained today? Corporations polluted the sky. I ran out of Cherrios? Corporations are making the boxes too small. I can’t tell the difference between the political views of right wingers vs. left wingers? Corporations did it. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984/40 "2010-04-22T21:42:39Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Sounds to me like “a responsible government should ignore what everyone else says and just listen to what I say.” > > It appears your version of smaller government only has room for one person. Along with some friends who recognize the value of cooperation flavored with competition rather than those who laud of an endless diet of competition however rationalized. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trouble-with-tea-baggers-and-progressives/536984.md?page=3)