What makes the Tea Party tick

[Ruptga]

or: How the Politics of Nostalgia Sank Eric Cantor

No value judgements here, just statistics and a good article.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"The reason human beings could not reject ideas because they were bad: “Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter. Friends agreed with friends, in order to express friendliness. Enemies disagreed with enemies, in order to express enmity.

“The ideas Earthlings held didn’t matter for hundreds of thousands of years, since they couldn’t do much about them anyway. Ideas might as well be badges as anything.

“They even had a saying about the futility of ideas: ‘If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.’

“And then Earthlings discovered tools. Suddenly agreeing with friends could be a form of suicide or worse. But agreements went on, not for the sake of common sense or decency or self-preservation, but for friendliness.

“Earthlings went on being friendly, when they should have been thinking instead. And even when they built computers to do some thinking for them, they designed them not so much for wisdom as for friendliness. So they were doomed. Homicidal beggars could ride.”"

Old ideas are 'right' ideas because they say you are part of the 'right' group.

 

[Craig234]

In my view the tea party is a disaster for the country. There has always been a 'crazy fringe', but now the big money of forces like the Kochs who have been trying to build a radical libertarian movement in the US for decade, the changes in the law allowing unlimited money in politics, and uninformed citizens looking for an alternative to 'corrupt government' have combined to give us a movement that is badly corrupt, misguided, and harmful, draining people from legitimate reform movements into a radical cult.

Ironically, this radical right agenda is quite at odds with our constitution and American values - which is why it's sold so hard with slogans about constitutionalism and liberty.

One of the most effective ways to argue for things that gut the constitution is to say that you're the only one who is FOR the constitution and your opponents are violating it.

And when that message is amplified by unlimited money - people fall for it.

This is the picture of radicalism - where people are pulled into a movement where are that really matters is their 'winning' - it's Orwellian the way they can reverse the actual policies they support and the effects from the thing they say. They won't say they're for thousands of Americans losing their lives lacking healthcare - but when they support exactly that by blocking the Medicaid expansion, it's all about 'liberty' somehow. They'll often even try to claim they're saving lives somehow as they cost them.

It's the Foxification of politics. Rather than trying to compete with existing news channels, Fox hit on the effective marketing of saying 'they're all lying to you, you can only trust Fox', which will either fall badly on its face as people see through it, or work great as people fall for it and only trust Fox, which is what actually happened with so many that Fox became the leader.

The Republican party has already been purging its 'moderates' since the Nixon administration, strengthened under Reagan, strengthened again in the 'Gingrich revolution', to the point where there are none left basically. Even the leaders like McConnell have been defeated and had to surrender by hiring Rand Paul's campaign manager, adopting his positions, and running a tea party policy campaign - typical of nearly all Republicans trying to avoid being primaries from the right.

And now it's just at a crazy point, where already radical right people are being defeated by the nuts. It's the corruption of democracy by distorted money and media.

 

[Craig234]

There's a lot of truth to this. The desire of people to not have thing s change is strong.

It's a lot of how branding works - people want 'the brand they know and trust', not something new, even though it costs more.

But on policy, is has a lot of weight compared to the merits of an issue.

Take inter-racial marriage as an example. Today, we look at that and almost everyone says, 'that's the right of the people, and there's no reason to oppose it except for just hating another race, so it should not be a question that it's allowed'. It's the norm and has little opposition.

But in the late 1950's, it had 4% support. As the civil rights movement happened, support inched up; remember the movie 'look who's coming to dinner' about the issue. Support had increased to 20% by 1967, the year the Supreme Court struck down all state laws against it. After that, as it became the norm, public support kept inching up to 96% today.

But if you raise the issue in 1960, would people have listened and responded by saying, 'you know, now that you mention it, there's no good reason to oppose it', or would they have opposed it for the reason you give, the common reaction not liking a change like that? Nearly everyone does the latter, showing how strong that is, and why it takes decades of often violent opposition for those changes. The people who bombed churches objecting to civil rights thought they were fighting for American, no doubt.

And gay marriage is a very similar and more recent example. Most Democrats were against it the same way not long ago - even as now a large majority have come to support it. Nothing about the issue change. The thing is - that powerful feeling is one that's easy to exploit politically. There are people who fight for good change - and people who take advantage of the opposition.

That was Nixon's southern strategy - to recognize the broad white resentment to the end of segregation mostly in the south, and to appeal to those voters, to channel their anger and opposition to the changes into support for him - a message that had to be sent delicately, enough to get the votes but not to alienate the less racist whites elsewhere, referred to as 'dog whistle' politics, and practiced today - a more recent example being Bush's working bible phrases into speeches only the religious would recognize.

When Massachussets was the first state to legalize gay marriage by court degree, much of the public opposed it and couldn't wait to reverse it - but the law required a 3 year wait. Many predicted that during that 3 years as they 'got used to it', the opposition would cool off - and it did, by the end of the 3 years support had increased.

There's a valuable lesson here, that helps explain things like 'how could early Americans be so racist and unjust as to support something like slavery'.

 

[justoh]

Take inter-racial marriage as an example. Today, we look at that and almost everyone says, 'that's the right of the people, and there's no reason to oppose it except for just hating another race, so it should not be a question that it's allowed'. It's the norm and has little opposition.

But in the late 1950's, it had 4% support.

That cannot be true.

 

[Ruptga]

That cannot be true.

Easily done. You're European so just substitute "gypsy" or "Romani" wherever you read something from the US about "blacks" or "African-Americans". Of course that's a huge oversimplification, but in this case it's not far off.

 

[justoh]

Easily done. You're European so just substitute "gypsy" or "Romani" wherever you read something from the US about "blacks" or "African-Americans". Of course that's a huge oversimplification, but in this case it's not far off.

Have to put that down to a sampling error. Was already legal in much of the US in the 50's and in 1948 in CA. Inconclusive, obviously, since the courts can make unpopular decisions, but polling data isn't exactly conclusive either. Or maybe i just want to put it down to sampling error. Can't believe it. Can't or wont? Either?

So you don't question the '95 results, showing 48% approval, for example? Having difficulty processing this. 1995 less than half of the country? The north?

 

[Moonbeam]

Any new born child has the potential to absorbed any form of human culture that has ever existed and the individuals of every culture that has ever existed in the great majority all have considered their own accidentally arrived at culture to be the best there is. This need to identify with what one is born into rather than the infinite potential one actually possesses happens because of put downs, the inculcation of self hate for for expressing difference. We learn to conform out of fear that we will be hated and denied familial,tribe, and other cultural protection. We acquire ego identification. This is why we have to die to this self identification to regain the kingdom of heaven, and why it is so difficult to do. We have to relive and remember all our pain of being put down and rejected. We have to deprogram. Good luck with it.

 

[Craig234]

That cannot be true.

All I can tell you is, I looked up the Gallup polling history, and that's my recollection.

Edit: Well, a quick Google found the following. (Edit: as did Ruptga, thanks)

There is a correction - it's *blacks* who now approve 96%, overall is 87%.

But the number you questioned - 4% in the late 50's - is clear.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

 

[Craig234]

Have to put that down to a sampling error. Was already legal in much of the US in the 50's and in 1948 in CA. Inconclusive, obviously, since the courts can make unpopular decisions, but polling data isn't exactly conclusive either. Or maybe i just want to put it down to sampling error. Can't believe it. Can't or wont? Either?

So you don't question the '95 results, showing 48% approval, for example? Having difficulty processing this. 1995 less than half of the country? The north?

It's not a sampling error. Part of that is understanding statistics and polling, and how the sample size in Gallup polls reduces the margin of error.

It's reinforced by the consistent pattern over the years of the consistent slow increase in approval - there's no outlier showing a 20% jump outside that line.

That's partly why there's such a value in reminding people of the history that's so easily forgotten.

It's easy now to look at Kennedy's advocacy for racial equality as tame stuff, since every politician supports it now - seeing that 4% figure at the time helps understand it was radical.

Or even earlier, how aggressive Truman's action was in desegregating the US military - a lot more controversial that the ending of military gay discrimination under Obama.

When you go back and see footage of masses of marchers down the streets of Washington D. C. all dressed in KKK robes, it's pretty shocking as a reminder.

Take a look at these chilling pictures of the 1925 Washington march:

 

[justoh]

Yeah. I guess it is what it is. Just hard to believe. I guess that's how religious people must feel. They have a hard time accepting the truth that there probably aren't any gods. I have a hard time accepting that people can be this fucked up, even though i'm already pretty cynical. Speaks to the topic as I still have a hard time believing the tea party exists as well.

 

[JEDIYoda]

corrected for accuracy -- Yeah. I guess it is what it is. Just hard to believe. I guess that's how Atheists must feel. They have a hard time accepting the truth that there is a God. I have a hard time accepting that people can be this fucked up, even though i'm already pretty cynical. Speaks to the topic as I still have a hard time believing the tea party exists as well.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Any new born child has the potential to absorbed any form of human culture that has ever existed and the individuals of every culture that has ever existed in the great majority all have considered their own accidentally arrived at culture to be the best there is. This need to identify with what one is born into rather than the infinite potential one actually possesses happens because of put downs, the inculcation of self hate for for expressing difference. We learn to conform out of fear that we will be hated and denied familial,tribe, and other cultural protection. We acquire ego identification. This is why we have to die to this self identification to regain the kingdom of heaven, and why it is so difficult to do. We have to relive and remember all our pain of being put down and rejected. We have to deprogram. Good luck with it.

corrected for accuracy -- Yeah. I guess it is what it is. Just hard to believe. I guess that's how Atheists must feel. They have a hard time accepting the truth that there is a God. I have a hard time accepting that people can be this fucked up, even though i'm already pretty cynical. Speaks to the topic as I still have a hard time believing the tea party exists as well.

Interesting juxtaposition.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting juxtaposition.

I do not know the exact aspect of this you find interesting, but as to the difference between Jedi and justoc, between belief and doubt, I see a relationship to what I said. The nature of religious faith can be seen as cultural, including all the different religious beliefs there have ever been. This leads to the logic that since they can't all be right, they must all be wrong, a very convincing line of reasoning in my opinion. It does not account for the fact that all cultures generally believe something which may suggest by a similarly convincing logic, in my opinion, that religious belief has an inner, humanly inate cause, that all the different religious belief are various attenpt to one single thing, in my opinion, the infinite potential that lies at the root of egoless being, the god or truth that is at the foundation of our being. In this view, God is, but only when the cultural self is not, that God is when belief and doubt are not present. This is knowing by being, but not ego being.

 

[justoh]

I do not know the exact aspect of this you find interesting, but as to the difference between Jedi and justoc, between belief and doubt, I see a relationship to what I said. The nature of religious faith can be seen as cultural, including all the different religious beliefs there have ever been. This leads to the logic that since they can't all be right, they must all be wrong, a very convincing line of reasoning in my opinion. It does not account for the fact that all cultures generally believe something which may suggest by a similarly convincing logic, in my opinion, that religious belief has an inner, humanly inate cause, that all the different religious belief are various attenpt to one single thing, in my opinion, the infinite potential that lies at the root of egoless being, the god or truth that is at the foundation of our being. In this view, God is, but only when the cultural self is not, that God is when belief and doubt are not present. This is knowing by being, but not ego being.

They can't all be right because at least some of them are incompatible with each other, but that they're all wrong doesn't follow from this.

 

[Moonbeam]

They can't all be right because at least some of them are incompatible with each other, but that they're all wrong doesn't follow from this.

Why not? I see millions of only religions so the odds that mine is correct is one in millions. I call that no chance at all especially if view from a state of humility.

 

[bryanl]

Take inter-racial marriage as an example.

But in the late 1950's, it had 4% support. As the civil rights movement happened, support inched up; remember the movie 'look who's coming to dinner' about the issue. Support had increased to 20% by 1967, the year the Supreme Court struck down all state laws against it. After that, as it became the norm, public support kept inching up to 96% today.

That cannot be true.

This map shows the entire South and virtually all the West enforcing anti-miscegenation laws until 1948-1967:

 

[TheSlamma]

Yeah. I guess it is what it is. Just hard to believe. I guess that's how religious people must feel. They have a hard time accepting the truth that there probably aren't any gods. I have a hard time accepting that people can be this fucked up, even though i'm already pretty cynical. Speaks to the topic as I still have a hard time believing the tea party exists as well.

You will get to a point in your life the more you travel the world where you simply find out that people are just people man. a FEW good, a FEW bad and a whole LOT who are ignorant to most things around them or just too selfish to care or both. Doesn't matter what country, state or city you are in. People are just people

 

[justoh]

You will get to a point in your life the more you travel the world where you simply find out that people are just people man. a FEW good, a FEW bad and a whole LOT who are ignorant to most things around them or just too selfish to care or both. Doesn't matter what country, state or city you are in. People are just people

People are people. Indeed.

 

[justoh]

This map shows the entire South and virtually all the West enforcing anti-miscegenation laws until 1948-1967:

I guess I would have been happy with a simple reference to the polling data where the 4% support was claimed. My initial skepticism was in consideration, among other things, that many anti-miscegenation laws were struck down long before loving v virginia, meaning it was done on their own volition, without federal compulsion.

I figured in California alone, in order for the courts to have struck down their laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1948, it must have had some support from california residents. In such a populous state, I figured just the CA residents who supported interracial marriage might be greater than 4% of the total us population, or at least combined with all the other states who had done so before '58 (was it?), and the bare claim made above was that 4% of the United States supported interracial marriage - so pedantically speaking, it would have been possible to have been wrong based just on who supported striking down those laws in california plus the others in the 50's).

I don't know who they asked, but if it's only 4000 random people from across the entire country, then anything is possible. But i know that, obviously, you can't cite a general stat for the country based on the most progressive states. I'm just saying that in absolute terms it can't be right, just intuitively, though that's certainly not very meaningful. I tend to get bored and then become a little silly.

Though i'd like to think it's also arguable that this particular opinion might be difficult to find meaningful polling data for, due to diversity and the high concentration of progressives living together in the most populous cities vs the relative lack of concentration for more conservative people (more spread out). But to the extent that any meaningful data could be compiled, without say, forcing absolutely everybody to vote on the issue, i won't argue that it's not the best that could reasonably have been done.

Maybe people could have been hesitant to claim that they supported interracial marriage, even if they did, or didn't give a shit, or even if they wouldn't have supported the laws preventing them from doing so (to the extent that this could be relevant). They have to make a positive affirmation on a controversial topic. But i'm sure all of this should be a normal consideration when interpreting the poll (understanding the limitations - but maybe it's especially difficult in this case).

I'm more comfortable with a claim that "4% of people polled supported interracial marriage," than 4% of the us population, with no reference to anything. Or at least, without the reference, it could invite asinine disagreement as found here from me.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I do not know the exact aspect of this you find interesting, but as to the difference between Jedi and justoc, between belief and doubt, I see a relationship to what I said. The nature of religious faith can be seen as cultural, including all the different religious beliefs there have ever been. This leads to the logic that since they can't all be right, they must all be wrong, a very convincing line of reasoning in my opinion. It does not account for the fact that all cultures generally believe something which may suggest by a similarly convincing logic, in my opinion, that religious belief has an inner, humanly inate cause, that all the different religious belief are various attenpt to one single thing, in my opinion, the infinite potential that lies at the root of egoless being, the god or truth that is at the foundation of our being. In this view, God is, but only when the cultural self is not, that God is when belief and doubt are not present. This is knowing by being, but not ego being.

Am I the only one for whom this makes perfect sense?

They can't all be right because at least some of them are incompatible with each other, but that they're all wrong doesn't follow from this.

A fundamental ethos of denying egotistical selfishness seems at the core of spirituality world-wide; the question is the path with many heavily tainted by the ego-being of cultural-self. But outside of that a tao-ist monism seems to be a fairly consistent theme across the world-relegions i've studied.

(except some-few cults.)

 

[justoh]

Am I the only one for whom this makes perfect sense?

hmm. nah. You and him

 

[MongGrel]

or: How the Politics of Nostalgia Sank Eric Cantor

No value judgements here, just statistics and a good article.

I'll have to pass on this one, as what I think what makes the tea party tick are poor value judgements, more or less.

I was out of work for awhile down here, and worked for one company a short time that was handing out raises to me on a regular basis and I knew they were tea party.

I made them a lot of money, the owners wife was actually handing things out in the break room and one time put out envelopes there with people names on it with checks just to go see and anti Obama movie.

I respectfully handed it back to her and said we really aren't going to see this, and I do not intend on cashing it.

I wasn't there for much longer, one day I just walked into work and the owner said we do not require your services anymore, I was like "Fine, cya"

Thankfully I found something again that paid better on real CNC equipment shortly after, and have been getting my MasterCam skills up in the process.

Frig, they were still running old Traub manual cam screw machines from the 50's, it paid the bills awhile I guess.

Was almost like slave labor at the time.

 

[MongGrel]

I do not know the exact aspect of this you find interesting, but as to the difference between Jedi and justoc, between belief and doubt, I see a relationship to what I said. The nature of religious faith can be seen as cultural, including all the different religious beliefs there have ever been. This leads to the logic that since they can't all be right, they must all be wrong, a very convincing line of reasoning in my opinion. It does not account for the fact that all cultures generally believe something which may suggest by a similarly convincing logic, in my opinion, that religious belief has an inner, humanly inate cause, that all the different religious belief are various attenpt to one single thing, in my opinion, the infinite potential that lies at the root of egoless being, the god or truth that is at the foundation of our being. In this view, God is, but only when the cultural self is not, that God is when belief and doubt are not present. This is knowing by being, but not ego being.

Is always entertaining to read your posts, but it mostly sounds like improvisation from the Architect from the Matrix and that you've swallowed a Thesaurus, crossed with a Yoda imitation.

Entertaining on your end I suppose and I can follow your points, but usually overdone.

:biggrin:

Deathbird Stories



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbird_Stories

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'll admit when I first heard of the Tea Party I thought they might be on to something. Basically we want more direct control of spending & taxation. Shortly after all I noticed was a bunch of old people, historical characters and lunatics shouting about how the rich job creators pay enough taxes. I'll admit I was passing judgment but none of the people in the crowd appeared to have anywhere near the income they were talking about. Then I decided they're all stupid and don't understand the Tea Party has been bought.