The legitimacy and incoherence of the mass teabagging parties

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The anti-tax tea parties have received quite a bit of press attention this week. There has been some criticism that teabaggers (snicker) are closely linked to various right wing groups. I've refrained from commenting on the teabagging parties in general. I don't think you have to be a Republican or a libertarian -- two groups that were at loggerheads for most of the reign of the big government George W. Bush -- to question how the government is spending tax money.

I can deal with taxes, when they are used in some way to benefit the public good. I wouldn't object to my taxes going for a more sensible and cost efficient health care system like single payer.

However, I DO object to my taxes going to subsidize a fourth mansion for a Wall St. CEO. I DO object to my taxes being used as corporate welfare for the stockholders of Boeing, Blackwater and other "defense" contractors.

Anti-tax sentiment is associated with the right wing. But probably the most famous tax protester in American history was the pacifist Henry David Thoreau.

I admit to being wary of any movement that has been co-opted by people like former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey. And I am wary of getting too close to any movement that seems so attractive to anti-immigrant bigots, theocrats and to the small-minded who believe the lie (and, worse, are offended by this "fact") that Pres. Obama is a Muslim.

Some of these people were all gung ho about government spending when its focus was subsidizing "defense" contractor greed (who are more financially sympathetic to the GOP). Now they object to it when it focuses more on subsidizing Wall St. greed (who are increasingly more sympathetic to Democrats). I can't take seriously Dick Armey's ramblings on smaller government, given his record as majority leader. Some tarred any criticism of President Bush as unpatriotic treachery that was tantamount to handing a nuclear bomb to bin Laden but now lustily call Obama a fascist/communist/socialist or whatever the epithet of the day is with as much venom as they can muster.

But the truth is that there are many libertarians out there that were just as vocal about spending and taxation during Bush as during Obama. It's just no one was listening at the time. Back then, they were dismissed as loons both by establishment Republicans and mostly ignored by Democrats and the media. Now that the Republicans have been completely swept from power and they are now completely devoid of any ideas, they are suddenly glomming on to the only idea they've had in the last 30 years that hasn't been completely discredited.

The GOP elite used treated Ron Paul and his followers like escaped mental patients. Now, the establishment has stolen their ideas and claimed them as their own.

So while some of the teabaggers aren't exactly the kind of people I'd want to get in bed with politically, it doesn't mean there aren't issues to discuss. It doesn't mean we shouldn't debate how our money is spent.

That said, some of this nonsense isn't something easily glossed over.

Take an excerpt from this piece in The Post-Standard about Syracuse (NY) teabagger Joanne Wilder.

She said she retired on disability from M&T Bank three years ago after undergoing knee replacement and back surgeries. She lives on her Social Security and disability benefits. Last year, she petitioned the bankruptcy court for protection from creditors.

She said she did not have to pay federal income taxes last year because her income was too low.

"I don't want to see this country turn into a welfare, nanny state, where we stand in line for groceries, and we're in welfare lines, and in socialized medicine lines," Wilder said.

So maybe the best spokesperson for personal responsibility is not someone who reneged on her debts.

Maybe the best spokesperson for lower federal income taxes is not someone who doesn't even pay any.

Maybe the best spokesperson against the welfare state is not someone who is entirely dependent on that oldest of welfare state programs Social Security.

And in a nutshell, this embodies the hypocrisy shown by a great many people who claim to be in favor of small government or against the welfare state. I live in one of the most conservative, anti-big government regions of New York State. But the region is also poorly and heavily dependent on PUBLIC sector jobs as teachers and prisons guards.

Teabaggers are pretty vocal around here. So when New York's governor proposed closing two big prisons in the North Country now underutilized because of (gasp!) falling crime (at least the petty kind), you'd think he'd be widely praised in this small government-loving area. In actuality, many of the people who participated in the tea parties were also lobbying to keep the prisons open. The sad part is that many of them don't even realize their incoherence.

There's a serious argument to be made about how our tax money is being spent, but many of the teabaggers have far to little credibility to be the ones making it.

Update: Surprisingly, it turns out the teabagger Ms. Wilder is only the second . Don't let the door hit you on the way out. #1 goes to the folks chanting in favor of Texan secession while waving American flags.

A nation of infants

Here's something I doubt the folks who bemoan 'political correctness' will say much about. Because according to popular fairy tale, 'political correctness' is only used against conservative ideas.

A Queensbury (NY) resident named Chris Schmidt was recently arrested for a second time for holding up a protest sign in neighboring Glens Falls that read 'Down with the fascist' on one side and 'Fuck Bush' on the other.

The man was cited for disorderly conduct.

I'm certainly no advocate of swearing being part of the political discourse. It's tasteless, demeans a serious debate and says more about the person uttering it than about the object of the invective.

But I've been an anti-war protests when 'fuck you' was one of the more mild insults hurled our way and those people weren't arrested.

Nor should they have been.

Sure such language may have offended some people. But unfortunately political speech will offend people sometimes. That's one of the hazards of democracy.

I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'Nuke em all and let Allah sort em out.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'If there hadn't been Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been Hiroshima.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that imply opposing Bush's policies is a slap in the face to the troops. I'm offended nearly every time Bush opens his mouth.

But I'd never say this kind of speech should be banned. And I'd never say these people should be arrested.

If you can say 'fuck' (or worse) against anti-war protesters, why you can't you say 'fuck' on a sign? Why are the two forms of political expression treated differently? Why is such language permitted on bumper stickers but not on a political sign?

But the thing most upset me was the remark by an observer.

"Language is a very powerful tool," Glens Falls resident David Smith told The Post-Star.

This is absolutely right, which is why I disagree with the use of such language in political discourse.

However, Smith added, "If you're going to use that kind of language, you're asking for people to get violent."

This is absolutely dumbfounding.

The irony is that such comments illustrate the protester's point. Infantilizing the population, saying they need to be protected from uncomfortable ideas, these are key traits of fascism. In fact, at the very root of fascism is the fearmongering proposition that dissent inherently leads to disorder such it must not be tolerated.

It reminds me of how some fundamentalist Islamic societies treat women. They claim that men are so out of control so women must keep their faces or heads covered at all times. They claim that the mere fact of a woman showing her face will provoke uncontrollable men to rape them. It treats men as infants (although it's the women who are made to suffer because of it).

David Smith thinks that Americans are so childish that the mere fact of one person insulting the president is going to incite them to violence. They are unable to control themselves in the face of political words.

I'd like to give Bush supporters more credit. I'd like to think that they are not so immature and out of control to 'get violent' just because someone doesn't like their man.

But if they really are that fanatical or inherently violent, then it's they who need to be restrained, not Chris Schmidt.