Tea Partying

By donar | Related entries in Cartoons, Democrats, Political Graffiti, Politics, Republicans, tea party
teabag_protest

With another decisive and bitter election coming up, it looks like further gridlock as Americans split further apart politically, socially and economically.  Names and labels are replacing concepts and ideas that once brought people to the table.  Not to be too romantic or idealistic but what ever happen to the concept of What you can do for your country?  Have we become a self centered, hedonistic, spoiled brat of a nation?  Or am I just a foolish cartoonist who thinks this country can still come together with action instead of words?  This is a rhetorical question by the way ;)


This entry was posted on Monday, October 18th, 2010 and is filed under Cartoons, Democrats, Political Graffiti, Politics, Republicans, tea party. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

22 Responses to “Tea Partying”

  1. Rich Horton Says:

    I don’t know. I think part of the problem is we have people, from every ideological perspective, who act as if they never SHOULD lose an election; who act as if the only way THEIR ideas could be rejected would be if those who rejected them were operating from ill motives or ignorance; who, in fact, make agreeing with them a moral precondition.

    For myself, I don’t think being politically combative needs to be moralized away. Being a centrist probably requires one to be as combative as any one residing elsewhere on the ideological continuim. Let’s face it, there is no reason for anyone to give a hoot about your ideals, or my ideals, or anyone elses ideals. By definition “ideals” are irreconcilible precisely because they are “ideal” and not of the real world. This doesn’t mean they are necessarily bad things, but any attempt to “reconcile” people to a given ideal is doomed to failure. We like to speak about “shared ideals of the American experience” (or whatever), but in reality, even though most of us will shake our heads in agreement when we hear the phrase, we have different conceptions of what those ideals mean. Is the Tea Party goer who, probably inadvertantly, echoes Thomas Paine’s cry that all government is “a necessary evil” in tune with an “ideal” of the country? Or is she a dangerous opportunist? I believe it is sheer folly to believe anyone has “the answer” to that question.

  2. Chris Says:

    Yes, Yes, No.

    The problem isn’t with people’s differing ideals, its that certain political groups use those ideals as bait to get people to vote for them, but have no intention of legislating based on those ideals.

  3. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    I don’t have any money left over to give and help others after the government has taxed and regulated all of my money away.

  4. Wickedways Says:

    “”””Republican Jeff Perry is making a serious bid to take over a seat held by Democrats for nearly 40 years — and it’s just one of nearly 100 seats across the country that now appear under at least some threat of slipping away from the majority party and giving control of the U.S. House to the GOP””””…Cut and pasted from a news source.

    Here we see what I have been saying for two years now. There is a huge difference between liberals and progressives. Even liberals are beginning to get it.

    Progressives are not only the arch enemy of conservatives but they are a danger to the classical liberals who fill the Democratic party and have been the bedrock and backbone of the party for decades. Even liberals are willing to vote GOP or not vote at all in efforts to shun the progressives and to oust them from power that liberals believe have been usurped by progressive infiltration.

    Russ Feingold. A powerful Progressive Senator in a state known for the birth of Progressivism is in trouble and most likely going to lose his seat to a Republican. Liberals are speaking. Liberals. Not the GOP. Not Progressives. Liberals.

    The efforts of this election is a referendum on Obama and the Democrats but more to the point….Its a referendum on the progressive movement and even liberal/Democrats are now starting to get it…..

    Beginning with the polling from every source, not just the dreaded Rasmussen hated by the left, but every source, we see that even liberals who are democrats seem willing to throw out the babies with the bath water in an effort as I see it to purge their party of progressives.

    Disclaimer….I read this site enough to know that most of the comments are from those who are most likely progressives….It is not my intent to insult you. Only to point out what I believe is what is happening in this country. No less so then what happened when the RR took over the GOP for a couple decades, so to we see the progressive movement trying desperately to take over the Democratic party.

  5. mw Says:

    @Wicked
    I’ve not seen anyone make this big a distinction between liberals and progressives. I’ve generally looked at the labels as synonymous, with “progressive” being used simply because it is carrying less emotional baggage than “liberal” in popular dialog , as liberal practically became a pejorative in recent decades. I’m interested in how you define these labels.

  6. Wickedways Says:

    One only has to look at the writings of progressives to realize that they make the distinction themselves.

    Some writings of progressives making their own distinctions:

    Another difference is the Liberal and Progressive attitude towards elections:

    - For Liberals the ultimate goal in politics is to get Democrats elected.

    - For Progressives the ultimate goal is the enactment of progressive policy.

    Progressives also learned from the last 8 years that progressive policy has NO chance if the Republicans are in charge.

    Therefore:

    Democratic Party (or non-Republican) control of government is a necessary but not sufficient condition to bring about progressive policy.

    Although these labels are often used interchangeably and tend to favor many of the same policies, political journalist and columnist David Sirota says, “…traditional ‘liberals’ in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society,” while the term “progressive” rightfully applies to “those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.”

    Historically, it is also true that in the Progressive Era, self-identified progressives supported some vile endeavors: they could be quite elitist, disdaining “ignorant” voters and preferring government-by-experts. …Daily Kos.

    End of quotes.

    The internet is full of progressive writings that clearly delineate themselves from liberals.

    John Podesta when asked what is the difference between a progressive and a liberal responded by saying……..”A liberal is more concerned with personal liberty and a progressive is more concerned with the community.”

    If there was no difference between a liberal and a progressive then the people themselves would not be trying to draw their own distinctions as they iron out what is what and who is who.

    But suffice it to say there are many, many people in the Democratic party that do not adhere to the progressive agenda, just as their are many Progressives who are fit to be tied today over the democratic parties failed attempts at putting ALL of the progressive agenda into legislation and on the presidents desk.

  7. Chris Says:

    John Podesta when asked what is the difference between a progressive and a liberal responded by saying……..”A liberal is more concerned with personal liberty and a progressive is more concerned with the community.”

    Well sounds like progressives are certainly vile and evil people.

  8. WHQ Says:

    I see. Does that make liberals libertarians? Or is it that liberals are “more concerned” with personal liberty, rather than “only concerned” with it, meaning they aren’t libertarians?

    I guess I could ask the same questions substituting “progressives” for “liberals”, “communists” for “libertarians” and “community” for “personal liberty.”

    One can certainly have concerns for community that overlap with concerns for personal liberty. I mean, not allowing people to murder one another, while restricting the personal liberties of potential murderers, makes for a better community while, at the same time, increasing the personal liberties of those who would otherwise be dead after being murdered. So what we have, I guess, is a distinction that lies in the relative emphasis on two concerns that are closely related to one another.

    Big chasm there, huh?

    It’s like dividing the human race in half based on the median height and claiming that the taller ones and the shorter ones are two separate species in a concerted effort at manufacturing a distinction.

    Oooh, look! A star-bellied sneetch!

  9. Chris Says:

    wickedways, what’s your point?

  10. Wickedways Says:

    My second post was a response to questions by MW.

    My first post was a response to the OP’s article about”"”Names and labels are replacing concepts and ideas that once brought people to the table.”"” To quote the OP.

    Names and labels.

    and to show that All liberals are not progressives. No more so then to say that all Republicans are members of the Religious Right or that all libertarians believe we should legalize POT.

    Names and labels are defining our politics right now and the Democratic party is going thru a crisis of how to define themselves and who is going to be in charge. Progressives are trying to muscle the party away from the classical liberals.

    That was my point and my second post was to substantiate my claim that this is indeed happening and that I am not making this delineation but rather the Democrats and progressives themselves are trying to delineate themselves from each other.

    My only point is that Progressives might be liberals but not all liberals embrace the progressive agenda. It is simple. progressives all over the internet are making the same assertions while being angry not only at Obama for not being Progressive enough but also being angry at the Democratic party in power for not putting into play their agenda with a super majority.

    Progressives are all about the agenda. Liberals are having a hard time embracing the progressive agenda. Its showing because polling is showing that in districts that are 65 percent democratic, the Democrat is losing to A Republican.

    That is not Independents. That is not libertarians. That is not Republicans. That is Liberals willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. Liberals are starting to understand that their party is being used by progressives to get an agenda put in place that does not necessarily reflect the values of the Democratic party.

    Obama and Pelosi threw the Party to the wolves to get their agenda passed and they did not care, and do no care how many of their liberal brethren bite the dust in November.

    As the progressive I quoted wrote….for progressives its about the agenda and for the liberals its about getting Democrats elected.

    And right now Progressives are pissed that their full agenda is not in place but make no mistake….Liberals are pissed that they were played for fools the last 2 years. That is whats going on this election.

    Take it to the bank. Its not about the Tea Party or the GOP or libertarians. This election is a battle between liberals and progressives and who gets to control the Party going forward and the liberal democrats who are not on board the progressive band wagon are willing to throw out their own brethern just as they were thrown out by Pelosi and Reid and Obama the last 2 years.

  11. Chris Says:

    Lol, except that obama is no where even near a progressive. That’s a nice theory, but you’re completely wrong.

  12. kranky kritter Says:

    The term “classical liberal” is actually synonymous with libertarian. Libertarians grabbed that moniker aways back, before progressive began to supplant liberal, when the term liberal became a pejorative.

    I think maybe that WW is trying to make a distinction between old school liberals and progressives, and I think that distinction exists, and that it’s mostly generational. Obviously there is overlap. Liberals have always been the party of reform and attempts at comprehensive problem-solving via government programs, But once upon a time, liberals were on board with paternalistic intervention overseas along the lines of a pretty simple mainstream conception of spreading the american dream and democratic ideals and so on. And they would have vehemently opposed the kinds of speech-based censorship and criticism and PC nonsense that progressives routinely traffic in nowadays.

    That’s no longer the case, and that’s where I draw a line in my head.
    I don’t use the terms as synonyms. I view progressives as further left. When I use the term “progressive” I am referring to a subset of non-conservatives who are fueled by modern conceptions of left-wing political thought such as are currently digested and spread from American and European college campuses.

  13. WHQ Says:

    Your explanation sounds a bit better to me, kk, and while I do see what you mean about the generational thing, there seems to be a bunch more to WW’s version that sounds like convenient categorization to facilitate simpler criticisms. It strikes me as ex post facto labeling of The People Who Do These Things I That I Don’t Like.

    If you read my comment over at your blog on the list you posted, I mentioned people I know who have a need to be strongly opinionated about things they don’t understand very well. One of my friends who is one of those people considers himself to be very conservative, and any position he doesn’t like he immediately attributes to liberalism, often incorrectly. He doesn’t really know in many cases which positions are mostly taken by liberals versus conservatives. He just knows he’s a conservative, so any position he opposes he figures must be a liberal position. He’s basically making up his own category of Things I Don’t Like and labeling it “liberal.” (That and what Chris said about Obama.)

    I’m not saying WW had the same need for strong opinions regardless of his knowledge of the given subject in question. I just see a parallel between his use of “progressive” and my friend’s use of “liberal.”

    As a side note, the old school liberal interventionist position is what I think of as separating the neocons from the paleocons. It used to be that conservatives had a pretty strong isolationist streak. Then some former liberals went conservative, but kept their interventionism – the godfather of them being Irving Kristol. I’m not sure what made me think of that, exactly. But it’s interesting how the ideas and the labels they come under morph over time.

  14. kranky kritter Says:

    Well, “convenient categorization for the sake of facilitating simple criticism” doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. That’s regardless of whether WW is doing that or just getting a little lost in a series of mental constructs about politics that overlap in so many ways that using categories for sorting isn’t useful or enlightening.

    I’m glad you like that list, which others can find here. Not sure how new any of these ideas are to you. But they relate to something that Richard Paul calls “weak-sense critical thinking.” It involves using critical thinking towards the end of say winning an argument or proving a point.

    With folks such as your friend that you mention, we’re talking about people who have developed treasured ideals and ideas and principles, Maybe they were working hypotheses once, but they really aren’t anymore. The idea of being open-minded and adjusting these notions to incorporate new facts has sort of left the building. They’ve made up their minds about some things, and they act on faith. Primary research involves looking mostly for info with can refute inconvenient notions. And so on. I am sure you get the picture.

    The troubling thing with categories for me is that so many folks seem to think they’ve performed a feat of tremendous insight and intellectual prowess every time they manage to sort a jumble into 2 or 3 piles. As soon as most of the stuff fits in the main piles in way that suits their world view, they’re done. They’ve made sense of the jumble. Alternative approaches to sorting are to be avoided, since they cause cognitive dissonance. That all relates to other items on the list, like:

    • You have little interest in digging to bigger topics behind commonly argued topics.

    • You are uncomfortable taking a position of high uncertainty about who is right

    • You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid.

    • You go easy on sloppy arguments by folks on “your side.”

    • You have little interest in practical concrete implications of commonly argued topics

    • Your opinion doesn’t much change after talking with smart folks who know more.

    And boy can it ever be seen how such behaviors are unrelated to what Hanson calls “estimating truth” and how much they have to do with signaling personal ability and loyalty.

  15. kranky kritter Says:

    WHQ, Here is a brief summary of weak and strong-sense critical thinking.

    It’s philosophy, folks. Just look away. Nothing to see here. LOL.

  16. Wickedways Says:

    The only real distinction I make about progressive vs liberal is that while most progressives are liberal not all liberals embrace the progressive agenda. This is no different then saying Most Republicans are conservatives but not all conservatives are Republicans….ie….blue dog democrats…etc…etc.

    I am simply attempting to define the movement of 2010 as I research the Tea Party and the Progressives they oppose and have found that progressives are just as opposed by some Democrats as they are Tea Party people.

    The difference is that the true liberals are having a hard time with dealing with progressives because ideologically the two are similar and as you point out above You go easy on sloppy arguments by folks on “YOUR SIDE”.

    In 2010 The Liberals of the Democratic party are facing two tough choices. One is that Progressives are closer ideologically to them then are Conservatives and hence they tend to go much easier on these progressives.

    The second problem facing liberals over their Progressive brethren is that classical liberals as you define them are more traditional and do not have the angst over corporations and big business that the progressives do. It is this one very important distinction that is driving the liberal revolt against the progressives.

    When you poll most progressives they never claim to be liberal. They always claim to be moderates. The progressive camp is furious with Obama because he has not put the progressive agenda in place immediately.

    With that in mind the election of 2010 will be much closer then anyones predicting. Remember This from above which I did not make up….it was taken directly from a rather important progressives writing:

    Progressives also learned from the last 8 years that progressive policy has NO chance if the Republicans are in charge.

    Therefore:

    Democratic Party (or non-Republican) control of government is a necessary but not sufficient condition to bring about progressive policy.

    This very fact is why progressives who are angry at Obama and the Democratic congress for not fully implementing their agenda will vote for Democrats in 2010 despite telling pollsters they will not vote or vote for Republicans in anger.

    Folks seem to forget the battle between Hillary and Obama within the Democratic party. While Hillary claimed to be a progressive her supporters were liberals. Obama on the other hand got a tremendous amount of support from the young and grass roots (Defining themselves as progressives) and swept the nomination by out foxing the liberals with their caucus wins all across the land.

    The battle continues for the soul of the Democratic party. Do not take lightly the battle that ensued during 2007-2008 with the Democratic party. It still rages today. What keeps it subdued but just below boiling is as you perfectly put it:

    • You go easy on sloppy arguments by folks on “your side.”

  17. Chris Says:

    Obama during the election, sounded far more progressive than he actually has been. And yes that would make some progressives mad. Just like when Bush pretended to be conservative, and compassionate, and when it turned out he was neither of those it made conservatives mad.

  18. Wickedways Says:

    That is true Chris and the same thing is essentially going on within the GOP although its not so much about agenda as it is ideology in the GOP.

    Obama was very progressive sounding and it was why the progressives were expecting the world from him. When he did not deliver it was not because of the GOP nor was it actually because of Obama.

    It was the liberal establishment who put the brakes on the progressive agenda flowing thru the house and senate.

    Remember they had a 60/40 in the Senate till Scott Brown and they had a working majority in the house. If everyone on their side of the isle was on board they could have gotten it all done in the first 18 months.

    They could not and it had little to do with the GOP. The Progressives in the house, Senate and on main street didn’t care if the GOP was on board or not. The liberals did because they wanted their jobs back in 2010 and that put Obama in the unenviable position of trying to pass progressive legislation and keep the liberals on board the band wagon just long enough to get it done.

    And now….2010 is here and if the Democrats go down it will be because the Liberals are willing to toss out progressives from their districts and hand the district to a Republican until 2012 simply because as much as progressives are angry with the Democrats and Obama for failing them, no less so are the liberals angry with the progressives for leading them on the path to perdition.

  19. Chris Says:

    Eh I don’t buy the argument that the democrats could achieve anything they want. They don’t vote lockstep like republicans do, so having the barest of majorities means very little for democrats.

    I highly doubt the liberals are tossing out progessives for “leading them astray”. I don’t think that the anti-incumbency movement has anything really to do with progressives, as there aren’t that many anyway. That’s like attributing things to the libertarians of the republican party.

    there’s like one.

  20. mw Says:

    “Obama during the election, sounded far more progressive than he actually has been.” – Chris

    True. Also true…

    Obama during the election, sounded far more fiscally responsible than he actually has been.

    Obama during the election, sounded far more civil libertarian than he actually has been.

    Obama during the election, sounded far more moderate than he actually has been.

    Obama during the election, sounded far less partisan than he actually has been.

    Obama during the election, sounded far more pro-business than he actually has been.

    When you run a campaign that tries to be all things to all people, you are bound to disappoint a significant portion of the coalition that elected you and lose them in subsequent elections.

    Obama did not disappoint everyone. For those of us who thought that Obama during the election sounded like a typical Chicago pol willing to say anything to anyone to get and hold power, there was no disappointment whatsoever. He has proven to be exactly what we expected.

  21. mw Says:

    @ww

    “With that in mind the election of 2010 will be much closer then anyone’s predicting. Remember This from above which I did not make up….it was taken directly from a rather important progressives writing… This very fact is why progressives who are angry at Obama and the Democratic congress for not fully implementing their agenda will vote for Democrats in 2010 despite telling pollsters they will not vote or vote for Republicans in anger.” -dubdub

    Yeah – I’m not buying it. Sure – the polls will tighten as we close in on election day. They always do. No surprise there. I also think exactly no one will be surprised that Progs/Libs/Dems all come home to vote Dem on Nov 2. I never expected otherwise. The prog/lib split (or whatever it is you want to call it) is overblown and not that big a problem for Dems in this cycle. Their problem is that Independents/Centrists/Moderates are breaking Republican now when they broke for Obama in 2008.

    When a wave election surprises, it is because the polls do not catch how the undecideds break on election day. In a true wave election, the undecideds ride the wave in bigger than expected numbers. The way that I am now looking at the close Senate races is to allocate the remaining undecided 60-40 for the GOP on the assumption that this really is a wave. We’ll see.

    I also remain unconvinced on your nomenclature, as I think you are using the word “liberal” in a way that no one else is doing. If I go back and re-read your comments substituting “Democratic Party establishment” for “liberal” it makes a lot more sense to me, and I agree with most everything you wrote.

  22. Chris Says:

    Lol mw, every politician does that every election. Obama was just better at making people believe it. At least for a short period of time.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: