One of the downsides of being part of a team of crack experts over at Instaputz is that, like Glenn Reynolds, I feel like I have already talked to death this ridiculous Teabagging "movement" which culminates in today's astroturfed Tax Day mass bitch-ins. Everything that needs to be said about how meaningless this talk radio-driven spectacle is has already been said. We know these rallies are just a meeting place for militiamen, septuple-chinned suburban commandos (who, hard working as they are, somehow have the day off), the dregs of the local trailer parks, College Republicans who've never had a job but feel quite strongly about Unions and taxes, and a grab-bag of societal detritus with the interpersonal skills of a rabid wolverine. Leaving this aside, I'll make two comments about the nomenclature these Indoor Kids have chosen to use for their circle jerks.
First, "Tea Parties." The level of historical ignorance necessary to adopt this term is difficult to conceive. In the Boston Tea Party, wealthy colonists protested a tax on tea by dumping their tea in Boston Harbor – cutting off their noses to spite the King's face. They took something that was worth a lot of money and said "We'd rather piss away a thousand dollars worth of tea than allow you to tax it." Where is the connection to what is happening in 2009? Is this gaggle of sheep going to dump their paychecks, their SUVs, their HDTVs, and their iPhones in a body of water? Toss them in a bonfire? Commit any kind of self-sacrificing act of protest? No. They're going to bitch. That's what conservatives do. They bitch and whine like a bunch of poncy hairdressers.
I apologize for the grievous insult to poncy hairdressers implied in that analogy.
If it's not about bitching, then what is it about? Protesting deficits? Whoops. Republicans cause deficits and Democrats fix them. Tax increases? Unless all of these jackasses are making $250,000+, nope. I'd be willing to bet that 99.99% of the bozos putting on a show for the cameras got a nice tax cut from B. Hussein Obama. It's not about anything. It's about angry, angry people who just want to make a very public show of how angry they are. About stuff.
Second, they've brought back the Nixonian "Silent majority" to refer to their Legion. There are several problems with this, the most obvious being that it is neither silent, given the sheer quantity of wailing/gnashing of teeth/rending of garments being done by these gasbags, nor is it a majority. See, we left wing pinkos had our own "Tea Party" back in November, the end result of which made it pretty clear who is not a majority. Semantics aside, here's the real problem with the "grassroots/silent majority/Real Americans" argument, the same problem we encounter when this argument is thrown at the cameras during elections – it smacks either of barely-concealed racism or a misguided belief that it is 1952.
The right, as Thomas Frank has written about for 20 years, is so very, very desperate for working-class authenticity. This is why they continually trot out pathetic characters like Samuel the Unlicensed Plumber or vague stereotypes like "small business owners" and "America's farmers." As the benefits of Republican governance accrue almost entirely to the wealthy, they must go to great lengths and make endless promises they have no intention of keeping (Abortion! Guns! Culture wars!) to get Down With the People. Hence this very curious "grassroots, real Americans" aspect to the masturbatory coverage of these events in the right-wing media.
Did Sean Hannity get out from behind a desk and attend the immigration amnesty rally in Los Angeles to which 500,000 people showed up last year? Did Fox News dedicate around-the-clock coverage and nearly unbearable homerism to the Iraq War protests which over a million Americans attended (150,000 in San Francisco alone) five years ago? Did Glenn Reynolds claim that government needs to Listen Up and Get the Message and Pay Attention and all this shit when 800,000 people (NYPD estimate; protesters claimed over a million, but such estimates are inevitably high) marched in New York City in 2004 to protest the RNC? Do any of these hacks wax patriotic about the millions upon millions of people who did something real and substantive in electing the new President – not standing around bitching, not listening to talk radio millionaires give speeches in a park amidst misspelled, homemade signs – last November? Of course not. Why? Because "those people" aren't Real Americans. See, Real Americans means white people. Angry, middle-aged, rural or suburban white people.
The mongrel brown hordes who show up to anti-War rallies or who elected our new "non-American" (BLACK! Did you hear the dog whistle? BLAAAAAAAAAAACK!) President don't really matter but when real America speaks, guv'mint damn well better listen. And it just so happens that Real America is always a dumb white guy in jeans and a flannel. A lard-assed white woman with seven kids, a perm, and a 4th-grade reading level. A hillbilly with a Confederate flag, a misspelled placard, or both. A yuppie who's fed up and just isn't going to take the horrible treatment to which society has thus far subjected him.
And this is why I came to the 1952-or-racism conclusion earlier: that hasn't been America for decades. What the left has is real America, and boy-howdy does that drive the authenticity-seeking right crazy. An Obama rally, or an immigration amnesty rally, or an anti-war rally consists of people across age groups, religious denominations, racial and ethnic backgrounds, income ranges, and lifestyles. THAT IS AMERICA. To claim otherwise is inarguably ignorant; only whether that ignorance is willful is open for debate. Read Instarube as he wanks away about the virtue and authenticity of his fake movement (nauseatingly pimped by Fox, funded by elite right-wing think tank money):
These aren't the usual semiprofessional protesters who attend antiwar and pro-union marches. These are people with real jobs; most have never attended a protest march before.** They represent a kind of energy that our politics hasn't seen lately, and an influx of new activists.
Energy that hasn't been seen in our politics lately? Given that he spent most of the 2008 Election locked in a 69 with Hugh Hewitt, it's understandable that he missed the Obama campaign. It's understandable that, as a painfully square, so-white-I-make-Dick-Cheney-look-like-Eldridge-Cleaver hillbilly teaching at a 4th-rate law school in Tennessee, Glenn might have a skewed impression of what this country really looks like. But come on, you lazy prick. In the information age there is no excuse for failing to inform oneself about reality even while swaddled in a cocoon of nodding heads and simple declarative sentences.
I know not if the racial aspect of this ridiculous talk about Real America and Authenticity is rooted in ignorance or bigotry. I don't know if these people really think that it's 1952, that America is homogeneously white, rural, and thumping the (Protestant) Bible while living Leave it to Beaver lives, or if they simply think that white people are more important. But the inescapable fact, a fact that these little wankfests will only serve to reinforce, is that the left has America – multicultural, diverse, non-Evangelical Christian America – and the right has a bunch of tactless, clueless, out-of-touch, and perpetually angry white people pissing and moaning about their taxes.
How refreshing.
**(Note how the fact that these people are too selfish and lazy to have participated in any sort of mass political activity before is presented as a virtue, as is the fact that they now mobilize for the noble cause of their own love of money.)
j says:
HOLY CRAP THE SHEER INTENSITY OF THIS POST JUST BLEW MY MIND!!!!!!!!!
You never cease to inform entertainingly, Edward!
Ike says:
Hey, I live in a trailer park!!!
Ed says:
I specified that it was only the dregs.
Daniel says:
The biggest hypocrisy of this teabagger outrage is the fact that most of these people weren't marching in the streets during Bush's unchecked spending sprees. Bush had carte blanche after 9/11 to do pretty much whatever he wanted and those in congress obliged. And now everyone is suddenly fucking concerned about how Obama has to prop up gigantic corporations with toothpicks and bubble gum. What the hell else is he supposed to do? Watch it crumble and die a slow death so a bunch of libertarians will be happy? Well, where in the hell were these morons. The economy wasn't in great shape for a while, but everyone started raising eyebrows last August when it officially went to hell. Now a bunch of "populists" are bitching about higher taxes for the wealthy. Really???? This is what you are doing?? Absurd, considering the sources. To wax poetic about fiscal responsibility now is laughable.
daphne says:
I'm here via your other gig, having been linked by you to you. Struck by a writing style as smooth as the proverbial silk (not to mention sentiments highly compatible with my own), I've just bookmarked this blog for a more regular read. Congratulations.
Fulcanelli says:
Ed, yet another spectacular rant that should be read far and wide. Great stuff!
Patti says:
So, we won't see you at 5pm at the Showers Building, then?
http://www.bloomingtonteaparty.com/
Kandinsky says:
Wonderful and poetic mail. I live in Sweden and have passed this on to a bunch of guys over here. really one of the best posts about USA written by a true american at heart. What can I say : "I hear you brother and it saddens me that amerrica still is full of hillebillys!"
"locked in a 69 with Hugh Hewitt…"
Now that's a real sight for sore eyes :-)
comrade x says:
These " protests" remind me of that old Gary Larson cartoon that has a mob of people marching down the street, carrying a banner that is upside down.
The banner reads, " Imbeciles of the world unite!"
Glenn Kenny says:
Damn, that was refreshing.
OliverWendelHolmslice says:
Bravo! You only need to add "I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY LONGER"
Mr. Ed goes to Washington
John says:
Ed, along these lines of moral outrage now that it's not *their* boy doing it: You should see how livid some of the hardcore wingnuts are about that Department of Homeland Security (yeah, that agency they trusted to tell them how afraid they should be of terrorists on any given day) report that says that a bunch of cankerous right wing extremists are potential terrorists.
Let us forget for a moment that the likes of Mann Coulter have routinely and openly called for the death of people opposed to their viewpoints (libruls), which completely justifies the report.
This is the same DHS these wingnuts trusted to be correctly identifying terrorists all this time. This is the same DHS and intelligence agencies they cheered on for torturing people ('terrorists') without trial. This is the same government that they felt fully confident in when it came to labelling someone a terrorist and breaking US laws to harass.
These people cheered the Patriot Act when it came into being under their boy Bush. Now that it might possibly be used against them — as all us here in reality said it would be — suddenly they're riled up! They're not terrorists! How could the government do this to them?!
It really is epic.
Steve T. says:
Yowza, keep these things coming.
As a footnote, I'd add that Gore Vidal once noted that the one he called "that under-appreciated wit, Richard Nixon" took the term "silent majority" from Homer, who used it to refer to the dead.
Jim W. says:
Excellent analysis. Never underestimate the ignorance of the Republican sheep. It is utterly breathtaking in its scope.
Dan says:
Wow. Nice.
John says:
This essay gave me like 26 boners.
Rich2506 says:
Yeah, I attended a rally in 2002 about the upcoming Iraq War (See "website") and yeah, I certainly thought and still think we represented "Real America," still do, as a matter of fact.
These people who are so concerned about our civil liberties now, just where were these folks in December 2005, when the data-mining of America was discovered?
Ecks says:
A great post, buu-uut your rendition of tea party history, while far more accurate than the reichtard's version – still wasn't very accurate. The tea that was dumped overboard did not belong to the protesters, so they weren't cutting off their own noses at all. It belonged to the East India Tea Company, and it wasn't going to end up in their tea cups if they didn't throw it overboard either, because the company was trying to take the ship containing it out of the harbor..
For an excellent (and far more accurate) take down of how the right wing idiots have completely bollixed the tea part symbolism, see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/tea-and-sympathy_b_186445.html
As Weigant points out here, the original tea party was actually far more analogous to downtown retailers protesting box stores.
Kevin says:
All I can say is the hatred that I feel from this article and the associated comments leads me to believe that a nation divided is really doomed to fail. I do not see any attempt to educate or persuade and the use of vulgar language shows a lack of maturity that is disappointing. Throwing rocks and grabbing your privates makes me want to join the "silent majority"…
FMguru says:
I'm setting the over/under on the number of swirlies Kevin received in middle school at 2.5/week.
Kevin, you're not part of a silent majority – you're part of a loud, and increasingly irrelevant minority.As Ed pointed out, we had an election last year – maybe you remember it? It was in all the papers – and Americans gave a 7 million vote MAJORITY for the black guy with the funny name over the war hero with the pretty sidekick.
Keep on wringing your hands about the incivility of it all – that worked so well in '06, '08, and now '09.
Ecks says:
Kevin, as someone who did the most actual swearing in his post, let me respond to that.
First, if you think that partisan griping is unique to modern America, and therefore a sign of a coming fall, there are some Canadian, British, German, Australian, Indonesian blogs out there that will really surprise you. Plus a whole lot of some historical literature that would just knock your socks off.
Second, yes, you are seeing some anger expressed here. In our defense, anger is an entirely appropriate response to the way the American right wing has behaved over the last 8 to 30 years. Taking recent history, Bush started an unnecessary war against a pretty much irrelevant tin pot dictator which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, he authorized unconstitutional spied on the American people, he sent people to be tortured, many of them innocent, he systematically distributed America's wealth to the richest strata of American society (and his corporate friends, from Blackwater and Haliburton on down) to such an extent that economically speaking we're practically back in the gilded age, resulting in massive economic stagnation, turned a budget surplus into a record deficit, they lied to the American people with aplomb and contempt ("OMG, WMD's"), and on and on. And throughout all of this, anyone who spoke out was challenged as a traitor to the US, was told to love their country or leave it.
And now we finally have someone in power who is behaving in a largely responsible fashion (not perfect, but who is), trying to clean up some of the mess, we are treated to nothing from the right but blatant hypocrisy and faux anger. "Obama is going to raise taxes!" they scream, as he lowers them. "Obama is going to take away our liberties," they scream, as he closes Guantanamo, and starts taking steps (if, some would argue, not enough) to undo some of the damage to civil liberties that Bush inflicted. "He's a socialist! A fascist" they scream, apparently with zero awareness of what either of those words mean, or even realizing that socialists and fascists had a long history of hating on each other.
And now they are out with an astro turf campaign to have tea parties that might actually have meant something had they been held 6 years ago against the last president. So yes, we're frustrated, and occasionally angry, and use some bad words now and again.
I suspect you were just trolling here for a reaction… so congratulations you got one.
Hey wait, I have a better idea. If you are so upset that we used bad words here that you might go and join the "silent majority," (i.e., the 25% of the American population who still apparently believe dubya did a good job – an unconventional definition of "majority," but what can you do), then how about this. Why don't you go and look at some of the anger and profanity that shows up on the right wing blogs (this place is tame in comparison), and then go join someone completely else out of protest? Maybe Nader, he always seemed like a nice man.
John says:
Speaking on the line of "silent majority", let's take a gander at Atlanta, where Sean Hannity himself has deigned to put on an assuredly pompous show for the masses. According to estimates of the 2007 census, the Atlanta Metropolitan Area has approximately 5,626,400 people in it, with the city itself having 519,145.
One of Hannity's guests today (The local conservative propaganda station unfortunately has the best traffic reports in the region, essential for those of us that commute using Atlanta's miserably poor highway system), I want to say Keith Richards, loudly proclaimed that he expected "millions and millions and millions" of people to show up to the tax day tea parties (collectively speaking).
In order to have a "majority" show up in Atlanta, they're going to need to draw over two and a half million people. In order to have 1% of the population show up (laughably less than a "majority"), they're going to need to pull in 56,264.
Let's see how they do.
Peggy says:
Ed: fantastic. I enjoy reading brilliant writing. Thanks!
Ecks: [applause]
@Kevin: Concern troll is concerned… :(
chuckster says:
I have to say I'm a little chapped at the description of the University of Tennesse College of Law as a "4th-rate law school". As a graduate of the school, I can affirm that it is in the middle of the pack of 3rd-rate law schools. the sad thing is that Glenn Reynolds used to be a very principled libertarian – before he met the Missus Ole' Professer. Sad really.
karen marie says:
i find the experience of reading stuff on this topic is enhanced by listening to some supafloss.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWhnBXTEuok&feature=channel_page
karen marie says:
p.s. this is a righteous post.
Kevin says:
@Ecks – thanks for the thoughtful reply. Honestly, I think we are way too far apart on the way we view things to debate them in blog comments. I understand there are differences and without them, there would be no room for improvement so it is welcomed. I just think a constructive approach will bear more fruit.
@FMguru – thanks for proving my point.
@karen marie – I would tend to agree.
Kevin says:
Oh, one more thing. Most of the people you all are throwing insults towards would never even have made it to the comments part of Ed's post. I, at least, am willing to listen to what the other viewpoints are…
Grendel72 says:
Oh my dear sweet lord, someone used profanity on the interwebs!? Get me to the fainting couch.
Meanwhile ignoring that actual torture is being carried out in our country's name, because there's certainly nothing even remotely offensive about that.
b.g. says:
A lard-assed white woman
Nice fat-shaming there. Not really surprised that the example of the evil fatty fat fat you used is a woman, either… fat-shaming is usually misogynist in nature.
Some people on the left aren't anywhere near as tolerant as they think they are.