Tea Partiers Goals Seem Confused

Sunday, April 18, 2010

I'm going to start this week's column with a promise made to my new friend and fellow Pilot columnist Geoff Cutler, who requested (politely) that I no longer use the word "teabagger" to refer to members of the so-called "tea party" movement.

As some of you may know, the term "teabagging" has a number of meanings, at least one of them obscene. Even though some of the things I've been called by these people are worse, Geoff did, as I say, ask nicely. So I will refrain from now on.

Which still leaves us with the question: Who the heck are these people, anyway? Recent surveys of the movement provide some enlightenment, but only some.

While the "tea" in "tea party" supposedly stands for "Taxed Enough Already," 52 percent of the self-identified tea partiers questioned in a recent CBS/New York Times poll said they thought their taxes are fair. At the same time, 64 percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration.

In fact, Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Obama took office, according to an April 15 story by The Associated Press. Sixty-six percent of these folks have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, yet only 40 percent feel she'd be an effective president - less than the percentage of Republicans who feel that way.

A recent Bloomberg poll found that 90 percent of tea party supporters felt the government was too big and had too much control, while 70 percent of people in the same poll thought the federal government should do more to create jobs, and almost half thought it should control executive bonuses. And of those answering the CBS/NYT poll, 62 percent say big government programs like Social Security and Medicare are "worth the costs to taxpayers."

Thus, we have the famous "keep the government's hands off my Medicare!" attitude. Or, as one interviewee put it, "I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security."

Two statistics that should shock no one - 89 percent of tea partiers are white and 75 percent are over age 45, with 29 percent over 65.

While they may not have a particularly coherent set of beliefs, and the beliefs they do seem to hold aren't particularly grounded in reality, one thing's for sure: These folks certainly are mad. Fifty-three percent of tea party supporters describe themselves as "angry" about the way things are going in Washington, compared with 19 percent of Americans overall who say they are angry.

As I've mentioned before, I remember back a few years ago when "angry" was regarded as a very bad thing to be in politics. I even found a particularly ironic quote from the period, by conservative pundit Thomas Sowell.

"For many on the left," Sowell tut-tutted, "indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life. How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans?" (Well, Thomas, quite a bit these days.) Sowell went on: "The source of the anger of liberals, 'progressives' or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are nonconfrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."

It would be hard to find someone less confrontational and more genial than Barack Obama. And yet tea partiers are carrying signs with him portrayed as the Joker from Batman and even Hitler. What goes around, it seems, has come around. The tea partiers have become that which they once despised.

Here's the kicker: While 84 percent of tea partiers feel that their beliefs are shared by most Americans, only 25 percent of Americans polled say the tea party movement reflects their beliefs.

So who, then, are the tea partiers? They're old, white, ideologically incoherent, angry, out of touch with the mainstream, and deluded about their actual influence. In many ways (except perhaps for their median age), they remind me of the left. The actual left, I mean, not the centrists who actually run the Democratic party in the real world. The actual leftists were screaming "kill the bill!" right along with the tea partiers, because they saw it as a sell-out to the insurance industry.

But "angry as a way of life" hasn't worked out too well for either the right or the left, has it?

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

More like this story

GoldenDreams 3 years, 1 month ago

Dusty, you are right on as usual. I really enjoy reading your posts. When I see the tea partiers on TV, they appear "angry" (there's that word again!) to me, yet they say they are just defending the country and their position. When you dig deeper, you'll see their beliefs are fear-based: fear that immigrants will take US jobs (even though most citizens don't want the jobs in question), fear about taxes getting out of control (yet most got a tax cut), fear they will lose the English language in America (yet most immigrant children learn English easily enough). Realistically, do we have problems to work on? Of course! All nations do. Then let's debate the issues with civility and stop trying to hold angry tea party movements that show pictures of our President in a demeaning way. No one wins that way, especially the next generation, who we all cherish.

dustyrhoades 3 years, 1 month ago

Thanks, GD. But I can already predict the response: "well, people said ugly things about Bush, so it's okay to say ugly things about Obama. Even though it's still terrible and they're awful people for saying those ugly things about Bush."

Wingnut logic.

The really ironic thing is that none of these people now will admit that they supported Bush or the Republican Party, even as they spout a series of talking points that are right off the latest fax from the RNC/Club for Growth.

speaking of the CFG, Dana Milbank nails the real message of the Tea Party/CFG axis here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041601998_pf.html

"They march under slogans such as "can you hear us now?" and "we the people," but their demands on Tax Day were more those of the angry affluent than oppressed commoners...The wealth advantage of the Tea Partiers helps to explain the rather un-populist message emanating from Freedom Plaza: Tax the wealthy less and the poor more."

SPSoxFan 3 years, 1 month ago

Which Tea Party rallies did you attend to develop your disdain for the movement, Mr. Rhoades? I believe the reason you're confused by the inconsisent goals of those attending the Tea Party demonstrations is that this is not a true political party with talking points skillfully crafted and disseminated by strategists, but a representation of genuine Americans with a variety of concerns. Certainly some of the demonstrators are the typical malcontents of pendulum politics who become activists only while their party is in the minorty, but turn a blind eye to the poor legislation of their own. The majority of Americans attending the Tea Party demonstrations have very legitimate concerns for the direction of our nation, which was accelerated, not started by the current administration. It's sad that President Obama, who you say "it would be hard to find someone less confrontational and more genial than", has shown such disrespect to the Tea Party movement. You're right, it would be hard to find someone less confrontational and more genial than President Obama for the likes of Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Americans who disagree with his politics he, I'll borrow one of his phrases, acts stupidly. This isn't surprising from a career politician who, while running for President in 2008 took a page from Saul Alinsky by encouraging his supporters to "argue with them and get in their face." The worst thing to happen to this group of concerned Americans was the birth of the Tea Party label. What started as and for the most part remains a genuine grassroots movement has become a franchise of opportunity. The opportunity is not lost by many GOP hopefuls looking to ride the tide into office or by the left who, from the President on down on have taken the tried and true method of attack politics by classifying the group as a bunch of rich, old, whiny, white racists and punctuating the description with the oh so respectful moniker Tea Baggers. No wonder there's so much confusion in this genial period of American politics.

dustyrhoades 3 years, 1 month ago

Darn it, I left out the part about how incredibly thin-skinned the TP's are. Thanks for reminding me.

The people who think nothing of carrying signs with Obama depicted as Hitler or the Joker from "Batman" or even an African witch doctor are apparently such delicate flowers that the simple observation by the President that they should actually be thanking him for the tax cut that Americans got in the stimulus package sends them into paroxysms of hand-wringing about "disrespect."

And oh, I do love this:

"A career politician who, while running for President in 2008 took a page from Saul Alinsky by encouraging his supporters to "argue with them and get in their face."

I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if Obama supporters and the President himself just responded to lies and slander by meekly bowing their heads and accepting it. Sorry, friend, no can do. One of the things I like about this President is that, unlike Kerry, he didn't think the way to deal with thugs and liars is to ignore them, but instead, to push back. But oh, listen to 'em squeal when he calmly calls them on their BS. It's music to my shell-like ears.

GeorgiaMan 3 years, 1 month ago

And again The Pilot strikes. This is the 2nd time a response I have written as been removed. My comments met all their criteria, but I guess I either get too close to the truth, or they really don't like me. Oh well - By the way Dusty really needs to get a new photograph for the paper.

tneal14 3 years, 1 month ago

Sorry you're so confused...geez.

tneal14 3 years, 1 month ago

Leaders bring vision, promote unity and personal responsibility, not encourage class or race warfare. - Mauiman

Bravo! That's one of the best statements I've read to date. It's no mystery why many people question his leadership. The list goes on and on...

dustyrhoades 3 years, 1 month ago

This "47% pay no income tax" meme seems to be the talking point du jour among the TP's. So what they seem to be saying here is that some people aren't taxed ENOUGH. Which seems at odds with the whole "taxed enough already" slogan. Which just goes to prove my point about ideological confusion.

What it actually is is another thing conservatives once claimed to dislike: "class warfare", with the war this time being against the working poor (who make up the bulk of the 47% via the Earned Income Tax Credit).

"Certainly, he has not confronted the Iranian's or Islamic terrorism"

No, he's just captured or killed more terrorists in Afghanistan already in his term than Bush did in eight years.

Why are you so determined to say we're still losing? Do you want America to lose? And it doesn't feel so good when someone else is asking YOU that question, does it?

dustyrhoades 3 years, 1 month ago

Mauiman, I suggest your bookmark the non-partisan website The Long War Journal for the facts on how many terrorists are being killed and captured on Obama's watch.

Just one example: http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes-hvts.php

As for the oft-repeated lie that the President refuses to acknowledge the threat:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/03/dick-cheney/cheney-says-obama-wont-admit-us-war-against-terror/

Your last paragraph fails to address the issue, but instead wanders off into another talking point about some answer the President gave which was apparently too long for your liking. Which is, I think everyone will agree, irrelevant to the question at issue here, namely: are you complaining about the percentage of people not paying taxes because you say they should be paying more? If not, then what does THAT have to do with the question the lady asked: "aren't we taxed enough as it is?" I mean, if you take those two statements together, it seems to be a lot less about "taxes are too high" and more about "MY taxes are too high and THOSE PEOPLE aren't paying anything."

dustyrhoades 3 years, 1 month ago

If you do not have a coherent strategy and take the war to them, whenever and wherever they live, then you play on their terms. He has no capacity for this kind of effort."

So this makes no difference to you?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=10411775

"U.S. and Iraqi forces killed the two top al-Qaida figures in the country in a nighttime rocket attack on a safe house near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, a joint operation the U.S. called a significant blow to the insurgency and a sign Iraqi security forces are strengthening."

Looks to me like killing their leadership is taking the war to them. Not that I expect you to give any credit even where it's due.

They used to talk about "Defeatocrats" to describe people who were truthful about the war going badly, I guess we need to start calling you and your ilk "Defeaticans" for insisting the war's going badly when it's going well. Finally.

"I never said they should be taxed more or that I or others should be taxed less."

As usual, it's impossible to determine exactly what you're getting at.

The fact is, Obama's stimulus plan gave 95% of working families a tax cut.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/

But only 12 percent seem to know it, with 79 percent of responders saying President Obama raised taxes:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/16/92330/commentary-why-are-people-rebelling.html

Which gets me back to the point: the TP'ers are either ignorant of what's actually going on or they're just making stuff up because they're mad their guy lost the election.

dustyrhoades 3 years, 1 month ago

More on what the WSJ once described as the 'lucky duckies" who "pay no taxes":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/20/your-taxing-questions-answered/

"....we do want to answer reader questions about what happens to Obama's numbers if you don't count people who don't owe taxes. Would 95 percent of the workers who do pay taxes still see a reduction in taxes owed, or would that number decline?

We found the percentage drops, but only very slightly: It drops about 3 percentage points, from 95 percent to 92 percent.

We were surprised the change was that small. But it's easy to prove with a simple thought experiment. Here's how it works:

Let's say we're considering 100 workers. We know from the Tax Policy Center that five of them will not get a tax break under Obama's plan, and conversely 95 of them will. We also know that 38 of those workers do not owe any taxes thanks to credits and deductions.

So let's take the 38 workers who owe nothing and send them away. For the sake of our thought experiment, we're going to assume that all 38 got a tax cut under Obama's plan in the form of even lower tax liability. We should state clearly that this may not be the case — a few people with low incomes, depending on their specific circumstances, might not receive additional tax cuts under Obama's plan. But just to give the extra benefit of the doubt, we'll stipulate here that all 38 receive a tax cut.

So that leaves us with 62 workers who do pay taxes. If five of them don't get a tax cut under Obama's plan, that means 57 of 62 workers will get a tax cut. That's 92 percent.

So the "95 percent illusion" that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece describes is three points.

OldPilot 3 years, 1 month ago

T=tinfoil hats E=extraterrestrials A=alien abduction Got to love folks like that!

nothingspecial 3 years ago

I thought it was nicely written too, but one of many stories that seek either directly or indirectly to discredit the TEA Party folks as a small minority of incoherent, not so bright folks opposed to enlightened ones.

Maybe it's just me but I think the whole Republican Party is rooting for these folks and they say a few independents and Democrats too (but that came from a poll and most folks don't trust poll numbers cited by the opposing group).

Again its just me again but my views on what the TEA people are mad about and directed at are the obvious - most of us can hear that train of tax increases coming down the track very loud and clear.

tneal14 3 years ago

Nothingspecial-they too will hear the train eventually. They will be mad about having no one else to blame...

OldSpook 3 years ago

Dusty, there are lies, darn lies and then there are statistics. I notice you choose to use a considerable amount of statistics to support your argument. Yes I voted for Bush, might have been a mistake but see me in a hundred years or so and we’ll talk then. No I did not vote for Obama, nope did not make a mistake there, I would rather have someone with experience in office. I don’t fit in with the TEA Party folks and I am too poor to be part of the wealthy class for which you have such disdain. However, just being a tired old spook, I am certainly looking upon the TEA party with favor based pretty much on ramblings by apparent liberals shouting once again about conspiracies. Obama and crew have rammed their agenda down the American’s throat. Their closed-door dealings on health care DEFORM are well known and we continue to receive shady deals as constructed by career politicians’. Bash the TEA Party all you like but your making some pretty good arguments for their case, which is scary. However, I would rather see your audience support the idea of electing Statesmen/Stateswomen to office with Term Limits rather than more of the same we get from Washington.

tneal14 3 years ago

I have never before seen our country so polarized. Think about it. Just what our enemy needs and wants.

LucilleGreybone 3 years ago

Ol Dusty regurgitating links (talking points from talking heads), and calling everyone who disagrees with the big O's policies white, old, and/or racist.

Typical lefty.

pwned by Mauiman. Good job.

dusty 0 mauiman 1

dustyrhoades 3 years ago

"Pwned"? What are you, thirteen years old?

I suppose that, rather than quote actual facts, with links to back them up, I could do like every other anonymous Internet loudmouth and just post conclusory statements I made up out of my head, while blithely dismissing every source I don't agree with as "just statistics." It would certainly be easier, and it would get me props from the sort of people who think using words like "pwned" and "Health care DEFORM" makes them look smart.

But I actually do some research and back up what I have to say. I figure the good Lord gave me a brain for a reason. When you stand before the Throne and He asks you "What, my child, did you do with the intelligence I gave you? How did you use the brain I made for you which allows you to have dominion over all the Earth?" You can say "Well, I went on the Internet, hid behind an alias, and told some guy he did too much research, used too many statistics, and that he got pwned."

Jesus wept indeed.

OldSpook 3 years ago

Dang Dusty, taking things a little personal there aren't you? Remember, this is supposed to be an open discussion with an exchange of ideas. Just because people do not agree with your research and/or opinion really does not call for an attack on their character, their race or their socioeconomic status. Rule one; Please be courteous.