Tag Archives: tea parties

It doesn’t count – not many signs

150,000 Americans marching on the Mall for Earth Day this year is chopped liver, because tens of thousands of tea partiers were there recently. Apparently.

Nasty noises out there

Looking at last week’s incivility during the health care voting, Frank Rich (in his Sunday column up now at the New York Times) remembers another era of incivility from the 60’s.

Medicare was robustly opposed, but it  passed the Senate with 70 votes in 1965. No one died.

It was the 1964 Civil Rights Act that ” made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance. The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater, running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.”

This feels like another one of those times. This feels like 1964. All the lashing out at non specific targets. All this ‘take my country back’ stuff.

The changing demographics of the United States – and most of Western Europe – are increasingly visible in the popular culture.  People – young people – moving into the visible professional and political positions are not all white anymore. That frightens some people because it’s change. Too much perhaps. Too fast perhaps. But change and some of us fear change.

I hate that it feels the same now. Yeah, speech is free and to be protected; but some of what I’m hearing lately sounds like incitement. There is a line and I don’t know when we cross it.

UPDATE: I think it’s worth posting another line from Rich’s column, because it clarifies exactly why this ‘tea party’ movement is coalescing around the Republican Party (whether the Republicans want them or not). He reminds us that “Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.”

But they probably need the money guys . . .

Before I head off to what promises to be a busy day full of meetings, I’d like to share the final paragraph from Frank Rich’s column in the Sunday NYTimes. He’s having some fun examining the antics of Michael Steele and Sarah Palin – both target rich even without the questionable sublimation of political principle to the wonderful world of personal-for-profits.

Rich wraps it with:

The Democrats’ efforts to counter the deprivation and bitterness spawned by the Great Recession are indeed timid and imperfect. The right has a point when it says that the Senate health care votes of Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were bought with pork. But at least their constituents can share the pigout. Hustlers like Steele and Palin take the money and run. All their followers get in exchange is a lousy tea party T-shirt. Or a ghost-written self-promotional book. Or a tepid racial sideshow far beneath the incendiary standards of the party whose history from Strom to “macaca” has driven away nearly every black American except Steele for the past 40 years.

That’s about right.

Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Wooo woo woo; woo woo woo. Oh, well.

Today, two NY Times columnists look at where we are, the challenges we face and a little bit of why.

David Brooks talks about tea parties and national dissatisfaction and why we are where we are:

“The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. . . . The movement is especially popular among independents.

Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.

And Bob Herbert takes on what we’ve experienced, how quickly we forget and what that’s brought:

As The Washington Post reported over the weekend, the entire past decade “was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times.” There was no net job creation — none — between December 1999 and now. None!

The Post article read like a lament, a longing for the U.S. as we’d once known it: “No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent.”  Middle-class families in 2008 actually earned less, adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999.  . . . We need to create more than 10 million new jobs just to get us back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007. . . We should be moving now to invest aggressively in a new, greener economy, leading the world in the development of alternative fuels, advanced transportation networks and the effort to restrain the poisoning of the planet. We should be developing an industrial policy that emphasizes the need for America to regain its manufacturing mojo, as tough as that might seem, and we need to rebuild our infrastructure.

Reading both columns in their entirety, it’s clear neither columnist holds out any hope for a surge of political will to deal with what we face.