On the morning after Tuesday’s election, I noted that, by my count, seventeen incumbents of the OC Republican Central Committee had been replaced. That number seemed awfully high to me.
So I contacted a friend who is familiar with party politics in Orange County. I asked: “I just got through posting about Padberg, Bryson, and Williams' fate re the Central Committee. I also noted that seventeen incumbents were sent packing. Is that unusual?”
She wrote back: “Oh, yes, VERY unusual! The electeds and incumbent CC members generally get a free ride to re-election. This time, not so much. I think it's the anti-incumbent, tea-party attitude that drove them out.”
That sounded right.
Later, I wrote: “How come the tea party crowd wasn't more of a factor in the Sheriff's race? [The tea-averse Sheriff Hutchens trounced the Tea Party candidate.] I find this all very confusing. Cause and effect is always difficult [to understand], but in politics, sometimes it seems impossible.“
She wrote back: “I think the tea partiers were very enthusiastic about Hunt. Both of them were quite excited.”
Very funny. Later, she wrote: “I really think the tea partiers are over-rated and their numbers are seriously inflated. Look, you probably know some Republicans. Do any of them take the tea partiers seriously? I think most find them to be an embarrassment.”
OK. But then I come across this piece in today’s Voice of OC by the estimable Norberto Santana, Jr.:
The Tea Party Gets Hardwired into Orange County GOP
…"The asterisks were falling off the map," said the 46-year old [Mike Munzing] and newest member of Orange County's Republican Central Committee, referring to the mark used to identify incumbents on the list of candidates for the committee.
By the end of the night there were noticeably fewer asterisks than there had been just hours before. The most apt symbol to replace the asterisks...a tea bag.
Munzing was among at least 10 tea party activists elected to the central committee, based on ballots counted so far. While they still seem a long way from a takeover, the tea partiers will definitely make things more interesting on the committee.
They were mixing things up even before Tuesday's primary by calling for forensic audits of the party's books, criticizing a new headquarters purchase and questioning establishment candidates like Congressman John Campbell for voting on things like cash for clunkers and the bailout. And in the process they've irritated some influential party regulars.. . .
"We've become Democrats light," Munzing said of the Republican Party. "(President G.W.) Bush was big government.". . .
"Who is a tea party person?" said Jon Fleischman, a vice chairman of the state Republican Party who also was elected to the OC Central Committee this week. "I consider myself to be a tea party person.". . .
"I welcome them with open arms," he said.
But he also noted a warning that many other party leaders echo. "The most important thing to remember is what's the purpose of a central committee?"
For Fleischman, that's "driving an agenda and being the conscience of the party.". . .
Other regulars predict that when these types of activists show up, they're always more interested in adopting meaningless resolutions rather than the hard, plodding work of political organizing. Many activists show up for a bit and then never return.
Yet other committee members say the tea party folks are exactly what they have been waiting for.
"I think it is maybe time for some change. Or at least a shakeup that modifies the approach," said Bruce Whitaker, who also was reelected this week to the central committee.
"It's a wake up call."
It could be that my friend is right, and, once again, reporters are making too much of what is really a minor and transient phenomenon.
Hope so. A year or so ago, I started writing about what I thought might be the beginnings of the "Stupid People Movement" (The Worrisome Specter of a Million Yahoo March). So far, Stupids seem to be going strong.
21 comments:
The Republicans will just get worse and worse, decrying big government, even when they collect Medicare and Social Security. They just won't want to pay for it.
There's a stunnig mixture of greed and cheapness in their current philosophy.
You think because people want to take back their government and return to traditional American values, they’re stupid? I think you’re stupid, von Tavern. Go drink a beer dude.
8:03, I'm all in favor of "taking back our government," if you mean by that countering the undemocratic influence of rich interest groups. But of course that would entail restricting campaign contributions from corporations and rich people--something, it seems, Tea Partiers and similar groups seem dead against. Who has favored such measures? Only the liberal or progressive crowd--Obama's crowd.
Return to American values? You'll have to be more specific about the values you dislike or that you think government embraces and the values that you wish to return to.
One "value" I'm sure you and I share is the importance of providing health care for our loved ones. My sister was dumped by her health provider (after they ruined her health during surgery) and now no one will insure her. She can get only bad health insurance, and it is terribly expensive.
If you actually paid attention to the debate of the last year and a half, you would see that so-called "conservatives" (of all stripes) have done nothing more than block or thwart any serious reform of health care. Some Democrats were not shilling for the health care industry, and had sensible plans, but they were overwhelmed by their colleagues who were beholden to it (this afflicts both Dems and Reps).
So, again, we need to deal with campaign contributions from rich interest groups. And who prevents that? Do you even know?
I am not against some of the goals of Tea Partiers. I am astounded by the ignorance and naivety that all of them display. They are no help. They are a hindrance. And an ugly one, for they seem invariably drawn to racism and intolerance.
When Tea Partiers (and the like) cease their astounding cluelessness and cease their intolerance, I might begin to have respect for them.
It’s pretty obvious the association of the tea party with “racism and intolerance” is the creation of the administration and the media flow they control in a cheap attempt to marginalize the movement so they can maintain power. Unfortunately for them, it’s not working too well as seen on June 8th I think anyone who actually buys into the mischaracterization of the tea party is stupid because they’re just believing what their being told to believe. Yes, there are stupid followers in every movement/party, no surprise there, but contrary to what we’re being told; I believe the tea party is a true, honest to goodness grassroots effort. I think most Americans feel that way too regardless of the lies going around.
10:33, you have ignored every substantive point I made and you have pounced upon a minor point concerning Tea Partiers' odd attraction to racism.
Skip the racism. How can you "take back our government" if you don't even understand the sense in which, and the mechanism by which, it has been taken from us? You seem to illustrate my point: that the Tea Party crowd is ignorant and insubstantial, a hindrance, not a help, to any positive change.
And, once again, what are these values that we need to return to? Do you have anything to offer aside from slogans and vague semi-revolutionary rhetoric?
It's pretty obvious that they were just fine with things until a black "communist" was elected. Apparently the horrors of the Bush administration, including running up a massive deficit, further deregulation of the financial sector that led to collapse, and two unnecessary wars were all just fine with them. But a negro in charge? Fuck that.
“…countering the undemocratic influence of rich interest groups.” I can agree with you there, and then some.
American values = our founder’s original constructivist, constitutional Judeo-Christian values.
Although a noble idea, I do not believe government should be in the health care business. I’m really sorry about your sister, Roy. I think the focus should have been more on the outrageous costs of health care services, premiums, insurance fraud, medicare fraud, etc… not a one-size-fits-all broad approach, government intrusiveness, etc… From what I understand, the conservatives had some viable alternatives, none that were even considered.
Conservatives obstructed because they are in the minority and that’s all they could do, being excluded from all negotiations with a “no compromise” administration.
“I am astounded by the ignorance and naivety that all of them (tea partiers) display.” Aren’t you generalizing here?
“When Tea Partiers (and the like) cease their astounding cluelessness and cease their intolerance…” I see you have bought into this mischaracterization business, just believing what you’re told I guess…
“…countering the undemocratic influence of rich interest groups.” I can agree with you there, and then some.
American values = our founder’s original constructivist, constitutional Judeo-Christian values.
Although a noble idea, I do not believe government should be in the health care business. I’m really sorry about your sister, Roy. I think the focus should have been more on the outrageous costs of health care services, premiums, insurance fraud, medicare fraud, etc… not a one-size-fits-all broad approach, government intrusiveness, etc… From what I understand, the conservatives had some viable alternatives, none that were even considered.
Conservatives obstructed because they are in the minority and that’s all they could do, being excluded from all negotiations with a “no compromise” administration.
“I am astounded by the ignorance and naivety that all of them (tea partiers) display.” Aren’t you generalizing here?
“When Tea Partiers (and the like) cease their astounding cluelessness and cease their intolerance…” I see you have bought into this mischaracterization business, just believing what you’re told I guess…
"Conservatives obstructed because they are in the minority and that’s all they could do, being excluded from all negotiations with a “no compromise” administration."
I almost spewed my lunch when I read this. You sound like a nice enough person, but this is oh, what do you call it, um um, it's coming to me--yes! It's a lie! A big fat whopper of a lie! A lie of such gargantuan proportions that it's in the annals of greatness of prevarication! Congratulations!
1:36, surely you understand that a "lie" is not a false statement; rather, it is a statement someone makes knowing that it is false. I assure you that that is not what I am doing.
I do wish some of you would stick to the point. If I have said something that is false, then identify the statement and then reveal where we can go or what we can do to establish that falsity. Attributing dishonesty without evidence is mere ad hominem reasoning.
Evidently, one of you supposes that all generalizations are false, since you judge my remark to be suspect owing to its being a "generalization." But, obviously, some generalizations are true. The leadership of the Tea Party movement continually make absurdly ill-informed statements (concerning the meaning of "no taxation without representation" and much else), and so it is reasonable to suppose that their followers (who certainly seem to be unanimous in their praise of such remarks) generally agree.
Now if you respond by noting that "somebody's spouse," who does not agree with TP ideas, might be in the audience, we will recognize that you are the notorious Incorrigible One, who seems incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.
That's confusing, BvT. Surely you were not the one who told the whopper about the Republicans being excluded from negotiations with a "no compromise administration." That's so blatantly false it is certainly elevated to the status of a lie.
So, then you ARE saying, “ALL Tea Partiers are stupid racists.” And you’re saying that generalizing is permissible, while it’s my understanding it’s always been a bad thing and something to steer clear of.
"no taxation without representation" OK, what’s so “absurdly ill-informed” about this statement? I think it’s pretty easy to understand. Members of the movement honestly believe their elected representatives have failed them miserably, yet they still have to pay all their taxes on time. Plus, their taxes will no doubt be increasing because of said representative’s reckless decision-making & voting, thereby failing to represent their constituents. These are two great examples of “no taxation without representation.”
The Tea Party’s solution is to use democratic means to vote the bums out, which is not stupid or racist, nor does it advocate violence, as alleged by the administration, NY Times and NBC. We have been witnessing the effect for months now. Because of all this government foul-play, people have reached a boiling point; they’ve awoken a sleeping giant.
Apparently the giant did not awaken until the African alarm clock sounded.
However, you're absolutely right that in certain respects, representatives have been failures. The electorate has to take some blame for this, however. 40% of the Senate is controlled by 10% of the population, and almost all those elected are pro business zealots who care only about enriching the already enriched. I will assume many of the tea partiers will be from these states and voted for these reps.
Unless you have a concrete plan for eliminating the power of money that buys votes (care to explain why there is a liability cap for big oil, but not for you or your neighbor?) no change will take place. The new one will be as corrupted as the old one. At least when you have a Democrat you'll get some attention to environmental protection, the social safety net, consumer protection, and decent regulations.
“Apparently the giant did not awaken until the African alarm clock sounded.”
See that’s the problem with your ideology, you always have to attach race to everything. I don’t see race having anything to do with it, after all the majority did elect the black president. Not only that, he carried all 99 counties in the Iowa caucus, a state with probably the least black population compared to all others.
If you want to play it that way then I guess we can fairly ask, assuming you didn’t, “Why didn’t you vote for Sarah Palin?” Then we could deduce you didn’t because she’s a woman, therefore you are one of those misogynistic womanizing, woman-hating types, which is much worse than the former because more than half our population is female, as opposed to only 15% of our population being black, so you’ve offended many more people by not supporting a woman. Gender discrimination!
2:37, right you are. My comment was based on utter confusion. Sorry. In too big a hurry, I guess.
3:49, you'll have to forgive me, cuz I got called away for several hours with no access to the web.
The notion that "all generalizations must be rejected" is indefensible. There are plenty of true "universal" statements. Some are trivially true (by definition). Others are unsurprisingly true empirical statements--such that all mammals have hair, etc. Similarly, if one can define a group in relation to their embrace of a principle (Libertarians are a good example), then one can safely, reasonably assume that virtually all in that group hold the views directly implied by that principle, and so on.
This business about rejecting generalizations needs to be carefully "scoped," as they say. I suspect that some of its "authority" derives from political correctness, and that old line about "rejecting stereotypes," the typical grounds for which are specious or simplistic.
Now, with regard to "racism" among Tea Partiers, I again protest that that is a side issue. I can argue for the generalization, though I would prefer to skip it for the simple reason that it is not, in my view, essentialy to, or the focus of, the Tea Party perspective. Right now, this "racist" controversy is a distraction.
When 18th century "patriots" shouted "no taxation without representation," they meant exactly that. It amazes me that an adult citizen can be so clueless as to suppose that they suffer "taxation without representation" on the grounds that their representatives pursued taxation that they opposed. By that standard, political no "representation" can be found anywhere on earth, for, inevitably, a rep will pursue actions that are opposed by some constituents. Contemporary "patriots" are taxed with representation. In our system (as with so many others), one can vote against the rep, but if one cannot persuade one's colleagues to join one, then one, despite living in a democratic country, is simply out of luck. (No doubt you'll argue that, if you vote and don't get what you want, you've been robbed of your right to vote!)
But there is a more important point to make. Ever since the 80s, when Reagan rallied the rubes around the notion that "government is the problem," many Americans have been persuaded by many other cynical and demagogic politicians that taxation is bad--that it is not even a necessary evil, but just an evil, simpliciter.
That view is manifestly idiotic, and it does appear to fuel the rhetoric of many a Tea Partier. Unless one is an anarchist, one cannot argue that taxation is a plain evil, for government is costly and so it must be paid for. To reject anarchism (i.e., to embrace government), one must embrace taxation.
I have no objection to those who are angered by government's inefficiency and occasional counter-productivity. But Tea Party rhetoric seems to be of another kind--a less subtle kind.
Government exists to solve problems that cannot otherwise be solved. And so we must reject Reagan's rhetoric a foolish.
I think some Tea Partiers are doing this: they are aware that government (and government workers) can be deeply vicious and wasteful. And so, instead of doing the work of making a case, they simply, broadly paint all of government with the same brush. That's a simple non sequitur.
It is also the thinking of the mob and the bully.
That silly Sarah Palin analogy won't fly. The woman is manifestly unqualified to be in charge of any major aspect of government. Obama, on the other hand, is. So why weren't you making this fuss when Bush was in charge?
11:02 AM, why doesn’t it “fly” for you? Seems like a pretty valid analogy. Therefore you must be a misogynistic womanizing, woman-hater.
It’s quite obvious now two years into his term, Obama cannot can he lead, nor is he a leader. He is a blamer and nothing more. Everyone can now plainly see. History will be very kind to G.W. Bush.
Oh, dear, 4:04: that is wishful thinking at its best, delusion at worst. W is already recognized to have been a catastrophe of an incompetent president who has done incalculable damage on a global scale. (The deafening silence about him even now from all parties is one piece of evidence for that.)
Valid analogy? I can only refer you to the actual, sensible observations of 11:02.
Can you just consider, for a minute, that you may be simply mistaken, deluded, misled, or self-deceived?
MAH
Thanks for the excellent analysis and evaluation of the TP's, BvT. Really nice writing, too.
MAH
OK 4:04, one last time, and I'll use small words.
Bush lowered taxes for his wealthy cronies, gutted the SEC which led to Bernie Madoff, zealously supported free market principles that led directly to the recession, and had numerous federal prosecutors fired.
From you folks, narry a peep.
Why was that?
Post a Comment