Newsweek: ‘Are Tea Partiers Racist?’

The University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality just completed a new survey regarding the ‘tea party.’

Newsweek.com:

Ever since the Tea Party phenomenon gathered steam last spring, it has been plagued by charges of racism. Placards at rallies have depicted President Barack Obama as a witch doctor, denounced his supposed plans for “white slavery,” and likened Congress to a slave owner and the taxpayer to a “n—-r.” Opponents have seized on these examples as proof that Tea Partiers are angry white folks who can’t abide having a black president. Supporters, on the other hand, claim that the hateful signs are the work of a small fringe and that they unfairly malign a movement that simply seeks to rein in big government. In the absence of empirical evidence to support either characterization, the debate has essentially deadlocked. Until now, that is.

A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. “The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability”—25 percent, to be exact—”of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters,” says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. “The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race.”

If Tea Party supporters are doing relatively fine, what are they so riled up about? These studies suggest that, at least in part, it’s race.

The country that the Tea Partiers grew up in is irrevocably changing. Last month, new demographic data showed that minority births are on the verge of outpacing white births. By 2050, Hispanics are expected to account for more than a quarter of the American population. The Tea Partiers “feel a loss … like their status has been diminished,” says David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which examines issues of race. “If you listen to [their] language, it’s always about ‘taking our country back.’ But it’s really not taking the country back as is. It’s taking the country back”—as in time.

Bositis finds the movement’s arguments about reckless federal spending unpersuasive. Why, he asks, weren’t they up in arms when President George W. Bush launched two costly wars and created a new unfunded mandate with his Medicare prescription-drug plan? Why didn’t they take to the streets when he converted a surplus into a massive deficit? “I don’t like to be in a position where I’m characterizing people as being racially biased,” says Bositis. “But when the shoe fits, what do you do?” Given modern societal norms, “they know they can’t use any overtly racist language,” he contends. “So they use coded language”—questioning the patriotism of the president or complaining about “socialist” schemes to redistribute wealth.”

It really makes me mad,” says Tom Fitzhugh, a Tea party activist in Tampa. “They have tried to portray us as a bunch of radical extremists.” He considers Obama an abomination—possibly “the most radical-voting senator that ever was” and someone likely to “take us down the path of destruction.” He believes the administration is intent on taking away his guns, trampling on states’ rights, and opening the borders with Canada and Mexico. He has serious doubts that Obama was born in the U.S. and suspects that the president is a closet Muslim. (There’s no evidence to support any of these accusations.) But his anger has nothing to do with race, he says. The real issue is that Obama is “taking down the Constitution and the way it’s governed us for [hundreds of] years.” All he wants, in other words, is to take his country back.

This case presented of Tom Fitzhugh is what I would draw your attention to here.

This is exactly the mentality not just the ‘tea party’ but the entire conservative movement has come to treat as anything but fringe extremism. This John Birch Society and “Birther” brands of racism being disguised as anything but the right-wing thuggery it is is why this taint of racism follows them wherever they go.

It should make them angry, and they should also be called out in the first place for doing this Southern Strategy-style racism in 2010.

Advertisements

A Leggy Sara Palin Newsweek Cover

Politically-speaking I could not disagree with Sara Palin any more.

However, I would like to say that this woman has taken an amazing amount of hard-blows from the left. It would be more impressive in her own personal character if she refused to play the victim over the matter, but there is no doubt these things occur.

I am for focusing on the facts, as I see them at this time.

The fact is it makes no sense what Sara Palin said to Oprah about her reasons for leaving the governor’s office in Alaska.

This notion that her political advocacy would be hampered by resigning from office due to fact that ethical violations would have been filed is absurd.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from her statement is that her political advocacy would promoting something widely recognized as unethical due to fact that if your cause is just and more motives only non-violent advocacy of ideals you have nothing to fear in defending your case should you be called to question for your actions.

The Governor of Alaska has many, many times the ability to effect social change and promote political advocacy of a private citizen relying on namesake leftover from the 2008 Campaign.

The facts of the matter are that the former-Governor of Alaska still refuses to give a cogent or logical reply to a simple question.

Sara Palin also retains that the simple question, “What do you read?” is somehow an insult on her.

This was a great opportunity for Sara Palin to promote her local newspaper and other press outlets that may go under-looked. She instead continues to only be vague about rather simple questions.

Now putting all that aside, I don’t think that taking an image from Runner’s World on the cover of Newsweek was a very wise move.

This just feeds into the false notion that Sara Palin doesn’t get a “fair shake” in the “liberal media.”

If anything the “liberal media,” which is a misnomer, doesn’t get enough objective critics who focus on facts where many are clear to raise.
In a previous post I said that people should pick up a copy of that Newsweek with the Anna Quindlen and disgraced Governor Mark Sanford to read, so you could get a grip on what the heck is going on right not in politics.

As for this issue of Newsweek, I suggest instead buying a National Inquirer instead.

MediaMatters.org has covered this issue quite well:

Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”

Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin’s exercise habits.

I don’t believe Sara Palin is a viable candidate for any major political office.

Her disinterest in facts and honesty being the reason for this.

Call me strange, but I don’t think Sara Palin’s legs are “news worthy.”

I’m just saying that things like this Newsweek cover are fodder for all these false-news hounds out there painting on their wild canvas.

A Liberal’s Survival Guide

Obama-Other-Newsweek-3

I recommend picking up a copy of Newsweek for yourself. The cover story for the issue of the week of November 2nd 2009 is an excellent piece on President Barack Obama. Anna Quindlen has put to words what I felt to be true since early in the 2008 Presidential Campaign:

Barack Obama campaigned as a populist firebrand but governs like a cerebral consensus builder. The Founding Fathers wouldn’t have it any other way.

Campaigns are bad crucibles in which to forge the future. They speak to great aspirations; government amounts to the dripping of water on stone.

The president is a person of nuance. But on both ends of the political number line, nuance is seen as wishy-washy. There’s no nuance in partisan attacks, soundbites, slogans, which is why Barack Obama didn’t run with the lines “Some change you might like if you’re willing to settle for” or “Yes, we can, but it will take awhile.”

If the American people want the president to be more like the Barack Obama they elected, perhaps they should start acting more like the voters who elected him.

In my personal estimation the liberal-left mainstream view of Barack Obama was overly optimistic as to his clearly stated positions. This situation has altered since the campaign but still seems to maintain elements of previous misconceptions.

This president is entirely unique.

I was adamant about this in the first few months of The Obama Presidency when the media-punditry were attempting to compare Obama to another American President of the recent past. The only comparisons to draw are poor ones.

Many attempt to call The Obama Presidency a “centrist” presidency. I believe this is only in part true and better descriptions would be “staunchly bipartisan” or “consensus builder” as to what we see of The White House of 2009.

Ultimately, I myself am far too left-wing to support every Obama Policy. I am certainly left-wing enough to vote for him, but in the instance of national health care reform I would seek to isolate the insurance giants in the face of the bipartisan concept of bringing them to the table.

I would seek to remind readers that The Founders had many ideological differences between them and while they surely would approve of the goal of consensus building, I believe some would argue that party loyalty or campaign kick-backs mean nothing in the face of protecting the general welfare of the people of The United States.

Allow me to put forth my view on The Founding Fathers as it applies to the proposed health care reform in the U.S.:

A single-payer bill, like H.R. 676, might be scientifically approved but does not incorporate the spirit of incrementalism that is key to sound reform. If one was to augment the “single-payer” model of this bill into a national health care insurance option for citizens ages zero to sixty-five, included the Dennis Kucinich Amendment in which states can opt-in to a single-payer system, and included the Harry Reid Proposal in which the states can opt-out of the national option within a single piece of legislation; this unwritten bill would be within the true desires of the framers of The U.S. Constitution.

I can only see two clear flaws in Barack Obama as president, thus far.

Handing health care to the Congress was a bad move.

Isolating the giant of media-misinformation when there are other offenders within the spheres of foe-news.

Both of these are purely strategic flaws and amount to simple criticism and nothing more on my behalf.

On the matter of his appointments I believe what I was speaking on before comes around once again. It’s not a fair assessment to call it a “liberal” cabinet but rather a “bipartisan” cabinet, or “centrist” if you must.

We didn’t elect the liberal-firebrand that came to destroy the GOP and tear down the corporate empire.

We elected Barack Obama.

Rick Warren and Barack Obama: What You Didn’t Know Already

In the 2008 presidential campaign for The White House there was something referred to as a “polling anomaly” surrounding Obama.

The evangelical and born-again Christians, that took polls, showed significant support of the candidacy of Barack Obama and held numbers higher than Bush’s numbers from 2000 and 2004 to a very significant degree. (PEW Research & other polling sources)

Those who were watching closely know exactly why Obama picked up a recordable amount of support in these religious fundamental communities, in fact it is fairly obvious. Obama, unlike McCain, never once shied away from the topics of faith in the media circus. Beyond that his words and visible convictions regarding religion, Jesus and God have been forward and direct instead of evasive and vague.

In the mind of many evangelicals the resistance to speaking openly about Christ translates to a resistance to Christ’s message in your life. Essentially, if the name “Jesus” or the word “God” cause you any discomfort then you must be against spreading The Word. Obama has never once spoken directly to the evangelical and born-again movements of America in his national rhetoric, yet he has somehow gained some amount of notable political support from them.

Any politician worth his salt takes every advantage afforded to him when it comes to being able to represent the people that elected him into office. Obama saw all the same numbers I did and I imagine found it confounding for a time that a group which normally doesn’t support Democratic agendas was showing support for his Presidency. This is a question I would ask of him among others should I ever have some of his time.

Rick Warren, along with hosting the second Presidential Debate, is a strong advocate for evangelical ideology and fundamental views of religion.

His rhetoric doesn’t provide equality for the gay community or for the views of the so-called radical religious movements of America (“New Age” ideologies). I completely disagree with his political positions and his opposition of Proposition 8 in California which I personally voted against.

This is what my point is in regards to the disgust expressed to his inclusion in coming public national events:

Since when does agreeing with someone have anything to do with loving them?

– Rick Warren, 12/21/2008

Rick said it for me. Since when does loving one another in a lawful and peaceful nation have anything to do with agreeing with your neighbor’s politics? I believe that given time we will have legal same-sex marriage but it could take awhile. In the meantime we need to not rip each others throats out every time something like this happens in America.

If Rick Warren were to be presented with a “National Spiritual Adviser to America” position or anything smacking of that … well then I’d be out in the streets throwing a whole big fuss about it.

Much love, as they say these days. Nobody gets left out when I say that.

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com

December 23rd 2008