It had to happen. The left has reacted to the Tea Party movement with its own version, the Coffee Party USA. Their statement of principles, if that’s what they are, is remarkably vague. The movement’s main point is that they are for “cooperation,” whereas the Tea Party movement is about “obstructionism.”
This is not a political platform. Its thinly disguised purpose is to hector and shame Republicans into letting the Democrats in Washington, D.C. do what they want. The Dems are not getting things done fast enough for the left, so it’s time to pressure the Republicans to get out of the way. I guarantee that if the Republicans won back the presidency, Senate and House , and if they began to dismantle big government — I know, this is a fantasy — these same people would be shrieking for the Democrats to stop the right. You would hear everywhere, “They stopped the Democrats, now the Democrats must stop them!” The dream of “cooperation” would be conveniently forgotten.
This movement is typical of the New Left, in that it cannot be honest about what it wants. If these people were honest, and capable of thinking in principles, they would say they want socialism. Of course, they can’t say that because it would make the Democrats a party of, I would guess, 15-20% of the population. Honesty on the left means electoral suicide.
When I listen to the Coffee Partiers in their videos, I’m struck by their economic ignorance when they make the rare specific point. One woman argues that socialized medicine — no, of course she doesn’t call it that, but calls it something like, “health care like they have in France” — is cheaper than the slightly freer system we currently have. These people seriously need to read Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Fredric Bastiat, and then if they got that far, they could go on to Mises. But if they were of the disposition to read these authors, and possessed of the motivation and discipline to study them at length, they wouldn’t be in the Coffee Party movement in the first place.
The woman in the first video (the one standing in the snow with a coffee cup) says at one point that Tea Partiers are motivated by fear of changing demographics. In other words, they are racists. The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with race — it’s about less government and more freedom. But I must admit that it is too bad the anti-immigration Congressman Tom Tancredo had a prominent speech at a recent Tea Party convention, as that makes it seem as if fear of brown people is important to the movement.
The woman in the snow also brings up the old distortion of anarchism — although again, she doesn’t use the word. (Do they consciously conspire to be vague and undefined, or does it just come naturally to these people?) She makes it seem as if Tea Partiers want no government, when most of them want Constitutional government. To leftists, if you think Obama should not be running General Motors, then you’re a wild-eyed, bomb-throwing anarchist.
This movement is based on such uninspiring ideas that it will be interesting to see how long it lasts and how big it grows.
“The Tea Party movement has nothing to do with race…”
You are right but there are enough racists at Tea Party rallies where your typical Leftist could get the idea that race is important to the movement. And the reason there are racists at Tea Party rallies is because there are racists / racialists in the Right wing in general. In fact, as I have learned, the racialists on the Right are not a small number of people. There is a sizable internet community of these people – in America and in Europe. Hell, just read the Gates of Vienna blog to see that.
The Left is of course entirely racist – anti – white racism – but they don’t recognize it as that because their intentions are “noble”. We have to combat the collectivism of the Left while at the same time distancing ourselves from the Jared Taylors and the Larry Austers (and even worse) of the Paleo-Right. No easy thing.
“there are racists / racialists in the Right wing in general. ”
The right is racist in general? That is absurd.
That’s not what he said Ashley. He said that, generally, there are racists in every part of the Right Wing.
Ashley,
I didn’t say the Right was racist but only that it has a racist element. To deny that is not to understand the Right. The Right is a big tent – much more so than the Left which for the most part is ideologically uniform. The Right has libertarians, minarchist and anarchist, social conservatives, economic conservatives, PaleoCons, NeoCons, and the racist groups – the BioCons and the Racialists. All they have in common is that they don’t like the Left but for very different reasons.
Sadly, the racists are represented at the Tea Parties as many of them believe that the reason the Left is wrong is not collectivism per se but *multiculturalist” collectivism. There are a slew of Conservatives screaming at the top of their lungs that it is multi-racialism which is destroying America. Liberty to them would be a white ethnic state.
“I guarantee that if the Republicans won back the presidency, Senate and House”…
Interesting guarantee you make.
Did you forget that there was a Republican majority in Congress for 12 years and a Republican President for 8 years prior to the current mess? They had their chance and blew it. That’s why they lost the Senate in 2007 and the Presidency in 2009.
While the left may be disappointed that Obama isn’t liberal enough, the right is disappointed (no – make that HAPPY) that he isn’t fixing the problems they created.
Now the public is disillusioned with both parties – and for good reason.
Colleen: “While the left may be disappointed that Obama isn’t liberal enough, the right is disappointed (no – make that HAPPY) that he isn’t fixing the problems they created.”
Oh, really? What problems are those?