Summations Only

I agree that there has been an undercurrent of racism in the Tea Party, and indeed for many teabaggers that might be the real reason for their movement, with the other arguments simply being clever rationalizations for why they don;t like Obama.But I'm reluctant to paint the entire movement with the same brush. I don't think all teabaggers are racist. I don;t think the above would be true of all of them. I think some of them legitimately believe that taxes are bad in all cases, that social programs are always bad, and so on. I know such a young man. We debate frequently. He identifies as libertarian, and I wouldn't say that his political opposition to Obama stems from racism.It may be true that, perhaps the tea party was started by racists and gained popularity due to the "smokescreen" arguments of debt and taxation and so on; or perhaps it started with the more "legitimate" arguments, and gained popularity and swelled in numbers partially because of racists - or something else could be true.Don't forget, for conservatives, Bush was still "Our Guy." Even if they didn;t like the debt hole he was digging, they were on board for other issues, and weren;t about to start a movement of opposition.Before Bush was Clinton, and a budget surplus. There were plenty of movements against Clinton, too - we just didn't have to give them separate names. Hard to make budgetary arguments against the guy who passed a surplus and presided over the most economically prosperous period in recent memory. But there were plenty of moral arguments about Clinton and his womanizing and indeed any other little thing Gingrich-and-pals could latch on to as an excuse.I'm not sure it's appropriate to say that racism is the only or even the primary motivator in causing the Tea Party to rise now as opposed to another time. I don't think it's wise or appropriate to just dismiss the Tea Party movement as a bunch of racists being racist. I think it's more effective and even more accurate to attack their actual stated positions on their own merits, and that's easy enough anyway.

That's not quite true. What you showed is that Tea Party members are often ignorant, misinformed, plain stupid, or have an ulterior motive like racism or anti-gay bigotry and so on.You've blasted their individual positions as often but not universally the result of hypocrisy and untruth. That's fine, but it doesn't prove or even significantly support racism as the sole or primary motivator.I agree that some or many or even most of the teabaggers are racist, and that racism is the underlying motivator for some or many or most of them.But I do not agree that the Tea Party movement can be oversimplified as the result of racism.I think other factors, including misinformation (whether originally supplied by racists, the Koch brothers, or someone else), ignorance (which correlates and even causes racism, but is not actually synonymous with racism), simple tribalistic hooliganism (the Other Team is in charge, and so all of the problems real or imagined are the Other Team's fault), and so on.I'm unwilling to dismiss these other potential factors because I don't believe that any group of individuals can be so homogeneously described with a singular ulterior unstated motive. People are too different, people are too ignorant, people are too gullible, people are too easy to rile up against The Other Team for imagined issues. That's not at all what I'm doing, yenmor. While yes, I do find it easier to maintain a dialog with people when I don;t accuse them of racism whether they are racist or not, I'm actually just stating facts as I;ve seen them, including alternative hypotheses as I can imagine them, and making tentative conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.So I'll repeat: I agree that some or many or most of the Tea Party is racist.I disagree that the Tea Party can be wholly simplified into a "racist organization." I disagree that all of their members are just racist, that all of their arguments stem from racism, and that racism is the sole and possibly not even the primary motivating factor.Nothing you've said has specifically pointed to racism as the reason for all of the hypocritical, ignorant, false positions in the Tea Party. You've provided evidence that the arguments are bullshit...but people believe bullshit all the time, for more reasons that just racism. And a group can have more than one motivating factor among its members, and they need not agree on everything.

It's important to note that many people can find charismatically insane people like Beck and Limbaugh convincing even as they lie, without actually being racist. You don't need to be racist to believe a lie, even if the liar is himself a racist.

How about "He's going to raise your taxes, and drive the country deeper in debt, and he'll be the ruin of us all?"I can picture those same lies being used against Clinton back in the 90s. I don't need to invoke racism or any other sort of bigotry to imagine people believing those lies. I think the only reason the racism hypothesis is being privileged is because some (or many, or most, I have no way to know which ) teabaggers are racist, and because the President happens to be black. It makes for a very convenient and easy way to dismiss the entire movement, but I don't think it's as accurate as we can be, and I think it's less effective in challenging them than we should be.I'd rather just use yenmor's nice, convenient list of challenges to the Tea Party positions and expose them as the ignorance, falsehoods, and examples of hypocrisy that they are.

Perhaps 1.61803's comment would be better said like so:

Not a single thing in that paragraph actually provides evidence of racism. Invoking Nazis is not evidence of racism, it's evidence of escalating your hyperbole past the point of Godwin's Law. "Terror babies" is just yet more over-the-top rhetoric.You're showing that they're scare-mongers, "terrorists" after a fashion. You aren't saying a single thing that shows them to be racist.I'm sure we'll both agree that they're crazy. But Craziness and racism are not the same thing. The various conservative movements in the US have been praising ignorance and denigrating education and knowledge since long before Obama ran for President. It has, in fact, been largely why the Evolution vs Creation issue has continued to be a current event, and why this site exists. That valuation of ignorance over education did not suddenly become racism when Pbama was elected. ...yes. And Progressives said similar things when Bush was President. Some people mean "take it back from that black guy." But that's not the exclusive meaning, and it's foolish to act like it is. And as I replied to yenmor, this is evidence of ignorance, of being misled, of stupidity. You can't jump from "false argument about state of Federal budget and taxation" to "OMG RACIST!" That's just a simple non sequitur, no matter how many times you say it.

Indeed. Which is why it doesn't become "Racism" just because the President happens to be black this time around, or when Glenn Beck says it, even if Beck is a racist.

And yet, Diomedes, you're making a claim, and providing arguments intended to justify that claim....yet your arguments do not actually support the claim.By the logic you're using here, I am a Russian spy...because everything else I do is a subterfuge to mask my true motives, and few Russian spies would just come out and say so.If you have a reason to think that the singular or at least primary motivational factor in the Tea Party is actually racism, you need to explain what that reason is. What you've actually posted are simple post-hoc rationalizations - you're pattern-matching behaviors that fit with the racism hypothesis, but you're neglecting the fact that not a single one of those justifications supports the allegation of racism more than they support the numerous alternative hypotheses I've posted.Racism is not the only possible explanation for the various positions of the Tea Party. It's one, in a large number of alternatives, and none of them are mutually exclusive - Jimmy could be racist, but Johnny could have just heard Jimmy's (as you put it) "smokescreen" argument that Obama is going to raise taxes, and Johnny joins up because he believes a false argument, and isn't particularly racist himself at all. Jimmy and Johnny are both Tea Party members, but it would be inaccurate to say that they're both racist. It takes frighteningly little to rile people up to the point of frenzy. Certainly racism is one way, but racism is not required.All it takes, in fact, are a pair of soccer teams. That's it. How many times have soccer hooligans erupted in not just a rhetorical frenzy, but actual violence simply because the Other Team won/scored/whatever?You don't need anything to whip people into a political frenzy beyond establishing that there are two parties.And our system feeds it with plenty of other reasons to get riled up - abortion, gay rights, religious issues, actual fiscal policy beliefs...any of these and plenty of others are more than sufficient to cause either side of any particular issue to start foaming at the mouth and crying "Nazi." I've heard plenty of my own liberal friends call Bush and Cheney "Nazis," and they didn't need to be racist to do it. And this is the very first example you've given of a Tea Party position that actually stems from racism. Thank you - I was wondering if I'd have to point it out myself.Yet the Tea Party is not solely comprised of birthers. You could perhaps say that the birther movement is racist, but since birthers are just one subset of the Tea Party, you wouldn't be justified in identifying that entire Tea Party as racist, simply because it encapsulates a racist contingent. Americans contain a subset of racists, yet it would be inaccurate to say that "Americans are racist." Some Americans are racist...just as some Tea Party members are racist.ABE: It's not a matter of agreement, Diomedes. Logical fallacies aren;t based on opinion. You made a logical leap - you said "A, therefore B," when there is no actual direct link between A and B. That's a non sequitur. You did that. If you have a problem with having committed a logical fallacy, the appropriate response is to alter your argument so that it does not make an unjustified leap. Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Once again, I'm compelled to repeat that there has not once been disagreement on the presence of racism within the Tea Party. I have agreed, repeatedly, that some or many or most members of the Tea Party are racist.I contend only with identifying the Tea Party as "a racist organization."The KKK is a racist organization. Racism is, in essence, a prerequisite to membership. The stated and official goals of the organization are inherently racist.The Tea Party, in contrast, certainly contains racists, but is not inherently a racist organization, and neither do I believe that every member of the Tea Party is a racist as would with the KKK.I could hypothetically hold a debate with Johnny Teabagger, who is not actually himself a racist, over the supposed wickedness of Obamacare, over made-up history like Obama raising taxes, and so on. It's even possibly however unlikely that Johnny Teabagger could be a Birther who is not actually a racist, who is legitimately convinced that Obama was born in Kenya, is unaware of the laws of citizenship beyond the location of one's birth, and would legitimately contend the eligibility of anyone born in a foreign nation to be President. In such a case, no accusations of racism would be accurate - Johnny is not actually a racist, he's just ignorant and misinformed and has had false beliefs continually introduced and reinforced by others. The fact that many or most of those others are motivated by racism has nothing to do with whether Johnny himself is a racist.I could not hypothetically have a discussion on the stated goals and purposes of the KKK with a non-racist member of the KKK. Racism would be inherent in the KKKs arguments, irrevocably so.I think there is an important distinction between an organization that is racist, as opposed to an organization that contains or indeed even attracts racists.Let me put this another way: certainly nearly all of the Tea Party racists mentioned thus far have been Republicans. Is the Republican Party a racist organization? I'm pretty sure we have a few Republicans on this board, and I don't believe I know any to be racists.

"The Tea Party" thinks many things, as it is a collection of many individuals. I mean seriously, you just asked what "the Tea Party" thinks of some of its members. That's like asking what you and I think of you.

So...TP opposes Obama because he's black. This means they're racist.TP supports Cain despite the fact he's black. This means they're racist.If both the positive and negative observation support the same hypothesis, the logical conclusion is that the observation is incidental, and not causal.When's the last time, do you think, that the KKK, an actual racist organization, supported a black candidate for any public office?As an alternative hypothesis, did it ever occur to you that the Tea Party could attract racists and Randian libertarians for separate reasons, despite overlap between the two groups? That hypothesis would seem to fit better with the seemingly contradictory evidence of opposition of one person for his race, and support for another candidate despite being of that same race.Some members of the Tea Party are racist. Some are not. It seems inaccurate to identify the Tea Party as a racist organization when racism is not a prerequisite of membership, racist policies are not among the stated goals of the organization, and the organization has supported black candidates in the past.

I actually have no data on the distribution of racism in either the general population or the Tea Party. Do you actually have that data? Without it, it's impossible to draw the conclusion you've just drawn.Perception is not the same as reality, and our perception of both the prevalence of racism in the general populace and racism in the Tea Party are unlikely to be accurate, simply because of the bias inherent in what is "news" and thus likely to garner media attention. Jim Bob down the street is unlikely to appear on national news outlets even if he's the Grand Wizard of the KKK; Johnny Racist in the Tea Party is more likely to get on TV because he'll show up at the White House for a large rally with a racist sign and a Confederate flag. He doesn't necessarily represent the Tea Party as a whole, but he'll get TV time because he's likely to get an emotional reaction from the viewers and thus push up ratings...and this, without even requiring any sort of intentional deception from anyone, can color our collective perception and introduce bias in the conclusions we draw from them.I'm not saying anything one way or the other here. I'm just saying that our "gut" feelings are irrelevant because they're easily misled, and we cannot draw the sort of conclusion you've drawn without actual data.

That's absolutely true. No question.The issue is that there is more than one source of irrational opposition. One is racism, sure. But another (and there are more) is self-identifying with a faction in opposition to another faction.If I identify with teh Red team, and you identify with the Blue team, each of us will be likely to defend any arguments from our own side (whether we would, in other circumstances, agree with those positions or not), and argue against and positions from the opposition. Very often these arguments can be exceedingly irrational.You can see some of this behavior in violent soccer hooligans.There have been studies on the matter as well. In one such study, two groups of boys were sent camping in a park, each unaware of the other group. The idea was that the researchers would perform various attempts to make the boys develop some sort of aggression or opposition toward each other.Becoming aware of each other proved to be more than sufficient.Each group of boys spontaneously developed their own group names, and began to form group mannerisms (accents, one group determined they were "proper," and the other would swear and considered themselves "tough," and so on) that they did not exhibit before becoming aware of the other group.Politics is no different. The pressure to conform is far more insidious than school-day lessons on "peer pressure" represented. None of us, including those of us who consider ourselves independent and try to address issues on an individual basis on their own merits, are still subject to these tribalistic influences.I think the real source of the Tea Party's irrational opposition to Obama (not to be confused with some very legitimate complaints one could make about his administration, some of which are in fact made by the Tea Party as well) stems from more than one place. There is racism, there is ignorance, there are honest false beliefs, there is religious anti-Muslim bigotry stemming from a subset of those false beliefs, and there is simple "the other guy is Bad" tribalism all at work simultaneously.

That's happened to me every year for quite a while now. I think it's a little early to be judging the effectiveness of the ACA - not one person actually has a health plan from teh exchanges yet, for one thing.But please remember that the ACA has more objectives than merely lowering your premiums and copays.More important than lowering the costs for people who already have insurance is eliminating the ability of insurers to deny coverage or charge increased prices for those with pre-existing conditions, as well as getting millions of uninsured Americans insured so that we can benefit from normal medical care instead of having the uninsured wait until they need the emergency room.Even when it comes to health care increases, I dont think anyone has actually said that we expect premiums and copays to go down for those who already have insurance. Rather, the objective is to make group plans available apart from employment so that individuals can receive the cost benefits of group plans even when their employers don;t offer them. An individual contractor, for example, or an employee at a very small business, might have had to pay hundreds more per month for an individual plan than what they can get now with an ACA-generated exchange plan.Your single anecdote doesn;t seem to me a broken promise or indeed unexpected. I'd hope that over time the yearly cost increases will slow down, and possibly we might see cost decreases in the long term, but I think it's exceedingly unreasonable to expect to get a personal benefit today, particularly as, since you're receiving healthcare from your employer, you aren't who the ACA is targeted at in the first place.

This sort of thing has been happening for a long time - since long before "Obamacare" was even the original Republican healthcare reform plan.Even within a company that offers health insurance, very often they manipulate the hours of certain classes of employees to ensure that they never quite cross the threshold to be eligible for those benefits. It happened to me and all of my coworkers when I worked retail - you had to be management to cross the magic 32-hour-week barrier and receive any sort of benefits.Some businesses are now being forced to offer healthcare where they weren't before, and now they're playing the same game that their bigger cousins have been playing for decades.Others are just doing what they've always done, but they'll blame Obamacare this time around because it's an easy scapegoat. Why, CS, that's just free market capitalism and the freedom of speech at work! Do you hate freedom?!But seriously, the better working conditions and benefits negotiated by unions do add cost to whatever project. Obviously. Paying for a dental plan costs more than not paying for a dental plan. And unions don't "bully," they merely exercise their right to free speech - there's absolutely nothing wrong with a bunch of guys showing up at a non-union shop and letting the public know that Business X doesn't support unions. It's not like the unions are going to beat customers or employees with baseball bats if they cross the picket line - that would land the union guys in jail. They'll just walk around making some noise and waving signs that tell customers and employees "this guy didn't use a union to build his building, and we union members don't like that because it threatens to weaken our position in bargaining for better working conditions."You buddy isn't entitled to get to build a building or start a business. If he doesn't have the cash, he doesn't have the cash, same as me or anyone else. In this case he could go non-union, and he has the freedom to make that choice, just as the union guys have the freedom to choose to picket him.But look - this is what I see going on from my perspective. You're bringing up individual anecdotes representing what you see as flaws in the ACA.We know the ACA is flawed. We know it's not perfect. Most of us who think it's a "good thing" really just think it's significantly better than what we had before, not as good as we could (and should) have done.I'd much rather see single-payer, something like Medicare for all. It'd be super simple - just lower the Medicare eligibility age to 0, and organize the new funding and staffing requirements with a few years buildup time to supplement the existing infrastructure. Make sure that Medicare is allowed to bargain for pricing with care providers and pharmaceutical companies. Allow private insurance in excess of what Medicare covers. Done deal - you could probably write a law for something like that in less than 20 pages, even in legalese - as I recall, Canada's version only took 14 pages. No tax penalties, no health exchanges.But pointing out anecdotal examples of negative outcomes, even where accurate (because some of what you've posted is not actually due to the ACA), is not actually a strong argument against the ACA.The ACA will result in millions of Americans getting healthcare when they did not have it before.The ACA does mean that plans with inadequate coverage will be replaced by better plans, improving the care available to the people who had the old plans.The ACA does mean that the most vulnerable people, the poor, the unemployed, and those with pre-existing conditions, will have better access to healthcare services than they have ever had before. For someone with a pre-existing condition, the ACA will literally save their life in many cases.I'd take having my hours reduced at work over letting someone die because they couldn't afford the health insurance and the pills that would have prevented their illness from progressing to a terminal stage. Please remember, I used to be very close to someone with HIV, I've been in my local AIDS clinic many, many times - believe me, the ACA is a literal life-saver just for that one provision alone.The ACA, like any other policy change, needs to be looked at in its totality. You cannot focus exclusively on the good or the bad - you have to consider the total net outcomes, and see whether the total balance comes out ahead of or behind where we were before.I think the ACA is an improvement, a step in the right direction, taken as a whole on a preliminary basis. I'd still much, MUCH rather see Medicare for all. But your anecdotes haven't really been particularly persuasive.