For starters, look at the photo at the top of the article. Okay, chief, which one of these dipshits are we supposed to seriously engage with -- the one on the right in the powdered wig; the one on the left with the tri-corner hat, bursting the buttons on his waistcoat; or the fucking cat lady in the middle?
More importantly, the concern on the part of tea partiers that the government is not responsive to the interests and values of the majority is a valid one.
Ahahahaha. The government is not responsive to the interests and values of the majority, you say? Well, no fucking shit, Sherlock. This is not exactly a new phenomenon, no matter what the suddenly-aware closet-case pseudo-patriots would like us all to believe.
Etzioni goes on like this, reciting the laundry list of noble concerns and intellectually honest differences of opinion our costumed park-rats continue to air. What it really boils down to is that jobs are scarce, and these folks didn't get a piece of the action when the gubmint was bailing out its rentiers. If jobs suddenly get created, these losers will melt right back into the scenery, because they'll have something to do. All else is hair-pulling over the awful, corrupted mechanics of the legislative process, something pretty much everyone had figured out about, oh, 150 years ago.
The desire to gut the government ignores the fact that there are many important missions that the government is best-suited to accomplish. However, before those of us who do not belong to this movement can carry this message to the tea partiers, we first need to validate their feelings, rather than dismiss them.
This is what really grinds my gears. "Validate their feelings"?! Ex-fucking-squeeze-me?! This nation needs triage, not a goddamned counseling session for the slow kids in class. Fuck their feewings, m'kay? Validating the incoherent and the irrational just encourages them to continue their bullshit.
No constructive purpose is served by costume parties in the park, by a group of morons who have no platform, no goals, no leaders, and whose very name is inapt and intellectually dishonest in comparison to the historical event they attempt to glom onto.
I persist in calling these goofballs "teabaggers" not because of the raunchy flavor of the nickname, but because I will never refer to them by their preferred moniker. It is a lie, the name they choose to go by, a disingenuous interpretation of a long-standing historical principle. There is no taxation without representation here, therefore there cannot be a tea party, only a disgruntled group of ignorant codgers and perpetually aggrieved rabble-rousers, who cannot muster a coherent argument of their own, so they poach one that doesn't apply.
Well, as my first-grade teacher, kindly old Mrs. Lockhart used to say, fuck that noise. I ain't playing their game, I ain't (puke, retch) validating their fucking feewings, and I'm not going to pretend they're contributing something useful to the discussion when they've made a concerted effort to be mindlessly disruptive. I'm all for fighting the power and not taking shit from The Man, but ferchrissake, these people are idiots.
As I've said before, there are valid arguments to be made against Obama's governance thus far. It's a complete "refudiation" of what he had promised, and what was expected of him. But these assholes have not made that argument, nor have they proposed anything resembling a solution. They argue in bad faith, without facts, and they have done quite enough damage to an already battered political process. They need to go already, and the media need to stop validating every stupid thing that tumbles out of their pieholes.
5 comments:
Another well- written column.
(thx 4 validating my feelings... ;-)
(...although I must add that if the 'government is not responsive to the people', then in a sense we're not exactly being 'represented', are we?
The problem as I see it, though, is the representation, not the taxation....)
You called it: these people don't need their feelings validated; they (and many more who aren't idiots) need jobs and something vaguely resembling a livable future. Which in the current state of the national discourse seems less and less likely all the time, of course.
Totally agreed, except that I don't think if jobs are created, they will fade back into the woodwork. Most of them don't need jobs- they're retired and receiving their socialist Medicare and Social Security, the things they don't want anyone else to have. They will fade back into the woodwork when Obama is removed from office, or when Fox ceases broadcasting. Or they all come up losers in front of a "death panel".
What I wish, and the point has been made before, is that we could create an opt-out form they can sign. "Sign here, and you don't have to pay any more taxes, and the government will stay completely out of your business. Just don't ask for roads, garbage pickup or a cop to come to your aid should you need one, because that counts as government being in your business."
(...although I must add that if the 'government is not responsive to the people', then in a sense we're not exactly being 'represented', are we?
The problem as I see it, though, is the representation, not the taxation....)
Sure, but the point is that the means for rectifying that situation exists, where it obviously did not for the original (actual) Tea Party. There is no need for a bunch of apparently unemployed goofballs to dress up like Paul Revere, head down to the public park, and bark at the moon -- all they have to do is vote.
I know it seems like a niggling semantic point, a distinction without a difference, but it epitomizes the sheer incoherence of their approach. It's additionally frustrating because they are essentially correct -- government represents the donor class far more than the little guy. Duh. But their premises and rationales are flawed, their timing is suspicious, and they offer no practical solutions.
I mean, if Rand Paul and Sharron Angle are really their idea of "representation", they're fucking crazier than we all thought.
Post a Comment