I feel compelled to respond to The Tea Party Ethos Crystallized, a recent post by one of our regular contributors.
If you are going to go as far as to say, “Until the Tea Party purges itself of hate speech there is no need for a right-left discussion,” I shall go equally as far and say, “until liberals are able to recognize satire when they see it, or to drop their blindness to hypocrisy, there is no need for a right-left discussion.”
To an impartial observer, both statements would and should be considered preposterous.
I guess it sucks (for you) that the “Tea Party” has no leader. There is no one to specifically blame for sentiment, and no one to demand apologies and retractions from…in an era of political correctness where we’re all supposed to feel ashamed for having the opinions that we have–if they happen to disagree with a leftist point of view. Too bad.
I guess it also sucks (for me) that it would be racist to point out that the remarks coming out of the Black Panthers and the NAACP are racist. How dare we make light of comments as outrageous as “killing crackers” and their “cracker babies?” I guess I really don’t care anymore. The Black Panthers are entitled (by our First Amendment) to say whatever the hell they want, no matter how offensive to the rest of us. Mark Talk is not. I guess that our rights to free speech are selective. Selectively chosen and applied to the most “deserving” of that right, that is. Return of the “Fairness Doctrine,” anyone?
I find it hilarious, and insidious, that the real context of that letter wasn’t discussed. Here’s a statement from it: “Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards.” Isn’t this much more inflammatory to leftists than any satirical notion of race that flavors the “letter”? Additionally, isn’t that the POINT of his letter? Of course it is. It attacks the fundamentals of the leftist argument that government can do better what we should be responsible for doing ourselves. Throwing the term “racist” on the discussion is a cop out, and THAT is why those concepts are not discussed. That discussion would be much more difficult and honest, and you would have to respect your intellectual adversary (and fellow citizen) to even engage in it. Instead of discussing THE POINT of the article, letter, speech, etc…we’re left to “discuss” whether or not the author is a racist. THIS is a quick reminder of what does and does not make a strong argument. I less-than-humbly suggest that this is the weakest of arguments. I digress.
If it helps, I’ve never even heard of that guy before this discussion. I don’t know him, and I probably wouldn’t care to. I’ll come to his defense, though, as I would with anyone in this circumstance. Let’s be honest. Terms slapped on “Tea Partiers” like xenophobic, bigoted, hypocritical, and racist are intellectual shorthand for “morons.” You disagree with a point of view different from yours, but you don’t want to debate the crux of their message. Make an ad hominem attack, and hope that your adversary tucks his collective tail and runs away. Although it’s not what you want to hear, it is not going to happen. Sticking an untrue label on someone is just not going to slow them down any longer. Too many folks (including myself) are waking up, educating themselves, and speaking out. I will not apologize if my opinion disagrees with yours, or if someone that appears to share the same sentiment as me makes a statement that someone else thought was in bad taste. I’ll wear it as a badge of honor, because I have the courage to do so. Heck, Mrs. Obama’s “oil spill dress” was in bad taste. If her intent, though, is to make a positive impact on the work being done to clean up the spill…who really cares?
So…let’s cut the crap. Let’s stop cutting corners by focusing on the “racist” tone of the letter, or the purported “racist” status of the author or of the movement. Let’s stop calling names and discuss the issues themselves, if you’re up for it. Individual responsibility, risk/reward, welfare, taxation, spending, entitlements, size and intrusiveness of government…ALL of those things were mentioned in the letter, but none were mentioned in your post. Let’s talk about those ideas.
