Just a quick observation. There are those — and I am not saying all or even a majority — within the Tea Party movement that like to call the initiatives of the Obama ‘socialism’ or a move towards tyranny. This sort of hyperbole is pointless. However, as I watch the Arabic world erupt with people longing to overthrow the despots who have ruled over them. (Often in very socialist-like setting) I can’t help be feel that these people who like to hurl Nazi themed insults and comparisons are acting like spoiled teenagers. They live in a system free enough for them to whine that they are not free.
(edited for clarity)
“Obama v Hitler are you saying that there have been no signs no posters display at Tea Party Rallies that made that comparison? (Yes the signs and such were a small portion of the rallies. I do not doubt the media overplayed them for dramatic storylines, but they were there.) Or are you going to say that those few people are insignificant to the movement as a whole and should be ignored? (I remind you I never said this is a view of the whole movement or even the majority.) ”
Odd. I directly addressed this issue in the post you are supposedly responding to.
As far as I know, virtually ALL of the signs at ANY Tea Party events which compared Obama to Hitler were carried by members of the Larouche organization. The Larouchites are not by any stretch of imagination part of the Tea Party movement.
http://www.breitbart.tv/la-rouche-supporters-infiltrate-tea-party-event-with-obamahitler-signs/
These Larouche clowns had also tried to horn in at protests at Town Hall meetings with Congressmen.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/12/nbc-cnn-msnbc-all-assign-communist-larouches-obama-hitler-poster-conse
“…clearly stating that the Social Democrats are not Socialists.”
Gee that’s funny, considering that European Social Democrats certainly consider themselves socialists and part of the socialist movement.
Socialism, as a term by itself is incredibly broad and not very meaningful unless seen in the context in which it is used. Does socialist mean a Marxist Socialist? Does socialist mean a Social Democrat? Does socialist mean National Socialism?
In the context of American political popular speech, no one refers to a Marxist Socialist as a socialist, instead they call them Communists. Likewise for Nazis. So when an American group such as the Tea Party discusses socialism, they mean it just as Newsweek did in it’s article, as a European style big government mixed-mode economy.
“Next I have never seen a sign Tea Party rally that warned we were becoming Social Democrats.”
Of course not, as it wasn’t necessary. Are you seriously suggesting Tea Party critics mean Nazism or Communism when they accuse Obama and the Democratic Party of promoting socialism?
First off There are those — and I am not saying all or even a majority — within the Tea Party I never not once said The Tea Party, there isn;t even a single entity that is the Tea Party — said this or took this position, Clearly you did no read what was plainly written. As for the Newsweek op-ed, the us of Socialist struck me as ironic in tone, clearly it did strike you that way.
Next I have never seen a sign Tea Party rally that warned we were becoming Social Democrats. The signs and cries of terror have been about Socialism and Tyranny. As for this well they really mean the Social Democrat movement in Europe. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1] That from the wikipedia article you linked to, clearly stating that the Social Democrats are not Socialists.
Obama v Hitler are you saying that there have been no signs no posters display at Tea Party Rallies that made that comparison? (Yes the signs and such were a small portion of the rallies. I do not doubt the media overplayed them for dramatic storylines, but they were there.) Or are you going to say that those few people are insignificant to the movement as a whole and should be ignored? (I remind you I never said this is a view of the whole movement or even the majority.) I seem to remember you condemning the anti-Iraq war movement because you had seen a couple (maybe one) posters at a march that said’ we support the troops that shoot their officers.’ A factlet you have repeated to me several times.
Ironically? Seriously?
I did go back and read the whole Newsweek article and also find an enlargement of the cover art. There is nothing ironic there and the Newsbusters synopsis is a fair and accurate portrayal of the Newsweek article.
Look at the smaller subtitle of the Newsweek cover which says, “the perils and promise of the new era of big government.” The subtitle of the article says, “In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.” The body of the article supports and enlarges these basic points. There is nothing ironic about it.
It is entirely fair to ‘accuse’ Obama and the Democratic party of advancing socialist policies. Not Marxist socialism of course. But socialism more commonly known as Social Democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
When Tea Party people accuse Obama and the Democrats of socialism, this is what is meant. And naturally enough plenty of Americans don’t want to follow the path of the European Social Democrats.
What is ironic is just as the Democratic party was flying highest in November 2008, the European parties which set the example were falling out of favor in Europe.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1221
As for your question, “But let’s be clear are you defending the comparison of Obama to Hitler?”
Who was comparing Obama to Hitler? The Tea Party? Or are you referring to the Larouchites who carried Obama photos doctored with Hitler mustaches? It’s hardly fair to tar the Tea Party by linking them to accusations made by the lunatic fringe, though many have tried.
And no I do not defend comparisons of Obama to Hitler. Obama is Trudeau, not Hitler.
“You doubt Obamacare is a power grab yet you accept that Obamacare is unconstitutional? ”
Yes, because there is ample precedent from both parties to support my contention:
The initial draft during the Civil War – unconsittutional, overstepping the bounds of Federal authority.
55 mile per hour National speed limit – unconsittutional, overstepping the bounds of Federal authority.
Certain parts of NAFTA- unconstitutional, overstepping the bounds of Federal authority.
“No Child Left Behind” – Education is CLEARLY the provence of the states. unconstitutional, overstepping the bounds of Federal authority.
The Patriot Act – unconsittutional, overstepping the bounds of Federal authority.
Federal Health Care as currently written – unconsittutional, overstepping the bounds of Federal authority.
It seems to be a long-standing practice of the Federal government to see just how far they can push their authority. That does not automatically make them power-hungry. To be frank, I see value in everything I’ve listed EXCEPT the 55 mph spped limit. (Plumb foolishness in some of the larger, less populated states such as Montana, by example. Silly in some remaining states, when you consider that you are driving on road INTENDED for 80-90 mph. But I digress.)
I see these works as attempts to do something for BIG problems. I am not against the theory of “No Child Left Behind”. What I am against is that education, by it nature and best practices, works with individuals and must (MUST) consider individual needs. NCLB pushes all children into the same place at the same time and punishes the teacher if the kids simply aren’t there. This is not the intent of it. It is intended that all students have a high quality education that prepares them (and, by extension, this country) for the highly technical future.This is a valuable goal. I just think this is the wrong way to go about it.
So to with health care in this country. We have the most expensive health care in the world but we have far, far, FAR from the best health care in the world. Among developed countries, we have the worst infant and maternal mortality rate. We have extremely poor mental health sevices, with most of our mentally ill citizens either being warehoused in prisons or homeless on the street. Why does this not enrage you? The vast majority of the developed world has significantly higher taxes, still has businesses oprating within their boundaries, and serves the citizens better with no loss of freedom.
Why do you talk about taxes when we are not fulfilling our obligations to our citizens? We agree that there are jobs the government must do. We agree that taxes are required to pay for this work. The only debate should be about what is the job of government and how do we tax to pay for it. This is what is happening with health care and it is NOT socialism to expect that the citizens of the greatest nation in the world should not have to die in poverty because all their money went to an insurance company that wouldn’t approve their care.
Go read the Newsweek op-ed and not the Newsbusted op-ed. Newsweek used the term ironically the people I am talking about are not being Ironic. But let’s be clear are you defending the comparison of Obama to Hitler?
I don’t care where the op-ed appeared I looked at what was written and it did not present the full story. I understand you believe that there are different forces for creating the Tea Party. That’s fine but it is a belief unless proved (same for my opinions of course) and the why’s of the Tea party movement I think will remain unprovable.
“There are those — and I am not saying all or even a majority — within the Tea Party movement that like to call the initiatives of the Obama ‘socialism’…”
Tea Partiers like Newsweek Magazine? With it’s February 2009 cover story, “We are all socialists now”?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/02/11/big-lie-newsweek-claims-cover-we-are-all-socialists-now
“… a bold attempt to solve a vast, VAST problem is not an over-reaching power grab.”
A good end does not justify all possible means to achieve it. And from the mess emerging from the 2,000 plus pages of Obamacare it’s not even looking like a good end!
You doubt Obamacare is a power grab yet you accept that Obamacare is unconstitutional?
The Court is finding Obamacare unconstitutional because the Federal Government violated the limits the constitution places on Federal power. Obamacare is unconstitutional BECAUSE it is a power grab!
Add to that the dirty pool used to ram Obamacare through Congress and you have a perfect trifecta of bad policy: ugly passage, an illegal law, and which doesn’t produce the benefits promised.
“something like the Tea Party was bound to develop after such a Republican Thumpin’.”
Nope. The problem is the Democrats never switched off campaign mode once the campaign was over, and kept thumpin. Call it sore winner syndrome, call it hubris, I call it monumentally stupid.
Not only did such actions enrage Republicans and conservatives, it began to switch off pro-Obama moderates. I imagine that by November 2010 there were plenty of swing voters who either switched away or felt too disillusioned to vote again for the Democrats. Hence the election shellacking.
Take what comfort you can from cherry picking the content of the story I linked, but keep something in mind. The article appeared in politico.com, which in general has a Democratic party point of view. The writers are hardly the type to put pro-Republican spin on the story, consider who they are…
“Patrick H. Caddell is a political commentator and former pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Douglas E. Schoen is a Democratic pollster and strategist. He is the author of “The Political Fix: Changing the Game of American Democracy, From the Grass Roots to the White House.”
These Democratic pollsters are trying to tell the party what a problem Obamacare is for the party. But so far it appears the advice is falling on deaf ears.
All the better for the Republicans when 2012 rolls around.
In the current hyper-partisan atmosphere — and I’m charting current back to as early as 2004 at least — something like the Tea Party was bound to develop after such a Republican Thumpin’. Howvere that op-end you linked to is a bit deceptive. Consider the Kaiser Poll it refers to. the Op-ed report that 50% view it unfavorably. This is true but not the same as wanting repeal. That are those who view it unfavorably because it didn’t go far enough. Hardly Tea Part types. In fact the VERY NEXT question in that survey is what to do about the Reform.
19% said keep the law as it is written, 28% said EXPAND it, 23% said repeal and replace with a Republican sponsored program and 20% said repeal and replace with nothing. (1% refused to answer and 9% said they did not know) so that 43% for some flavor of repeal and 47% for either keep or expand. There is not a ground swell for repeal in the general population, nor is there a ground swell for keeping. Rather the divid is mostly upon partisan divides. (the Polls can be found
here
.)
However all that said. I was talking about Obama is just like Hitler and we’ve become subject vs citizen brigades.
Perfectly correct Bear. There are no options available between servile obedience and Nazi Tourettes Syndrome.
Brad, I read your link. In what way does this demonstrate and over-reaching power grab? Both parties know, and have stated, that “something must be done” about health care in this country. There is disagreement about what to do but something must be done and a bold attempt to solve a vast, VAST problem is not an over-reaching power grab. The point is moot anyway, since it looks like it will be declared unconstitutional (which it is, unfortunately.) Why is trying to solve a problem a “power-grab”?
Bear, I think Bob is objecting, and rightly so, to the extreme nature of the discourse in proportion to the actual events. Our core freedoms have not been violated by anything President Obama has done, yet these yahoos whine as if they are living under a Gulag. Give me a break!! No one has been imprisoned. No one in the TEA party has been shot for their opinion – certainly not by the government – so where exactly is this oppression they are whining about? They pay too much in taxes? Well, Sir, so do I!! (and I’m about to pay more, if my state government has its way since they plan to tax state employees to make up for a shortfall in the Florida Retirment System.) Stop whining & be grateful? No. At least be glad that we can say what we want without getting shot for it? Definitely. Freedom is not at risk in this country. (Though the health care system dependent upon for-profit insurance could have you bankrupt and eating cat food.)
Jeez Bob, so everyone should just stop their whining and be grateful?
Process matters
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48305.html
The Tea Party wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for the over-reaching power grabs of the Democrats since January 2009. Not only did the Democrats reach too far, they displayed contempt for the opposition and contempt for political process.