Me? I Prefer Coffee.

So, in a recent discussion with some relatives, I unthinkingly used the word ‘teabaggers.’ Unthinkingly, because (1) even though these relatives are fairly conservative and (2) I generally heavily self-edit my comments around them, (3) I was pretty out of it and that particular filter wasn’t working. But really, I find it good practice to NOT use interesting sexual terms OR politically-charged language around some of my relatives. See. e.g., here, here and here. This, of course, offended two birds with one stone. But this biggest shocker (oops) wasn’t my verbal slip, but the realization that – brace yourselves – my relatives might actually be of the teabag carrying ilk.

So, the story …  For context, they were taking me to the hospital and decided that this was the perfect time to inform me that they were getting a bumper sticker proclaiming their desire to ‘vote ’em all out.’ Perhaps just to ensure that if by some bizarre chance I failed to make it through a routine procedure, at least I would have died knowing that they really REALLY hate Obama and Congress.

So with a fair amount of nervous laughter, I groggily replied, ‘Oh dear, you aren’t TEA party people now, are you?’  And from there the conversation immediately devolved into an utterly fruitless absence of listening with righteous indignation on one side and confusion and dismay on the other.  You can guess which side was mine. At any rate, I was pretty stunned when the ensuing “conversation” made it clear that said relatives were, if not actual TEApartiers, at least ardent supporters of general teabaggery. I am fully aware that these relatives have drifted further and further right, but I had NO idea that they had gone that kind of right.

Still thinking that perhaps this was just a hunger-induced aural hallucination, I tried to minimize my horror with what I hoped would be a very neutral favorable comment about libertarians, and teabaggers taking over the libertarian party.  Yes, I said ‘teabaggers,’ so it wasn’t exactly a neutral comment.  But I hadn’t slept in days, so tact wasn’t exactly foremost in my mind. And I didn’t start this shit. And at that point I didn’t realize that they might actually be on board with the TEAparty agenda and wrongly assumed that they would think it as ridiculous and potentially dangerous as I.

Anyhow, I immediately said ‘I apologize, I shouldn’t call them ‘teabaggers.’ But alas, it was too late.  Relative A had already started in with the liberals and their awfulness, and Janeane Garofalo made up the ‘teabag’ moniker, and then Relative B joined in with the how dare you insult them, they are “good, hard-working Americans.” I pointed out that they picked the name, but by that point no one was listening. Except, unfortunately, for me.

While A appeared to be enthusiastic about the TEA party agenda, B seemed reluctant to commit. Or perhaps B just wanted to argue. It’s a common family trait; I get it. B said that he just wants better candidates and has decided that he doesn’t like incumbents. I can relate. However, I observed that you can find whatever candidate you want, but you need to find someone who can win. Which means that person has to have the support of a group with money and power. Something about which I know just a little.

And I stated that I could never support a candidate put up by the TEAparty, as the TEApeople specifically wanted candidates that reflected “Christian” values – which seemed both inarguable and inoffensive. But apparently I was wrong. B angrily insisted I was ‘making things up’ about the TEA party and demanded I provide proof of my spurious and outrageous comments.  Righteous indignation, meet confusion.

(An aside: am I the only one who thinks that Fox News has riled people up to the point that “liberals” don’t even have to SAY ANYTHING in order to offend conservatives? They just assume that everything I am saying is rude, false, accusatory, elitist, and part of some major liberal agenda to deride and destroy everything that is “good” and “American ™.” Even when I haven’t said anything at all. Sadly, I didn’t realize until this particular incident that, to these relatives, I had become “them.” And there is a reciprocity there that I am powerless to disarm when no one listens to what I am saying.)

At any rate, as much as I *heart* supporting citation and precedent, I didn’t exactly have the means to provide sufficient documentation for my assertion. And I don’t have any awesome technopathic powers whereby I can verbally hyperlink as I talk. So I couldn’t provide B with the proof right there in the sedan on the way to the hospital. But assured him I had spent enough time blogging, trolling the webs, attending political functions, talking to TEA party folk and READING to feel fairly confident in my simple statement that “TEA party people want extremely conservative candidates who espouse Christian ethics in politics.” B basically told me I was full of shit.

But, if I DID have some totally bitchin technopathic power, I would have pointed to this guy, who heads up the local TEA events, and he has posted here about how they want uber conservative moral majority-type Republicans. And he isn’t the only one – all kinds of heavy-hitting Conservative groups are backing this *ahem* “grassroots” movement. It seems clear to me that what the TEA party folk really want is uber-conservative moral majority-type Republicans like themselves.

But, of course, I didn’t. I just let it go, and tried to close my eyes and think of America. These are relatives and I need to be able to respect them. And if they decided that the TEA movement is for them, well … that is their choice. But it bothers me on a fundamental level. Because even though most TEAfolk will try to tell you that this is not a partisan thing, I am pretty sure it is quite partisan and quite conservative. And then there is the ugliness. I think it is UTTERLY irrefutable that the TEAgroups are now the happy home of many far-right christian conservatives, multiphobes, bigots, and paranoids. They will also try to tell you it isn’t about Obama (but for some it is), or race (but for some it is), or abortion (but for some it is).

Muslim

And yes, I know that the signs don’t speak for everyone, but why would you choose to join people like that? How can you stand next to someone who is shouting about birth certificates and nazis and muslims? If you don’t feel the same way as the bigots and the paranoids, you can either ignore them or fight them; but by standing with them, don’t you think that you are validating the bigotry and insanity? Or, at the very least, you are saying that the bigotry and paranoia doesn’t matter. Hello, de minimus argument. All I will say is that to the objects of the bigotry and paranoia, it is pretty de maximus.

And while I fully respect the individual’s right to find a candidate that speaks for them, at the end of the day that candidate speaks for everyone in their district and answers to the people that elected him or her. And we don’t get the luxury to ignore the things we don’t agree like. If you support a candidate that has been given the imprimatur of the TEApeople, then you are supporting someone who reflects THEIR views and goals.

If fiscal issues are more important to you than human rights and social issues, that is fine but know that the days where the two were utterly unconnected are long gone. The single-issue people (abortion), the “Christian Values” people (marriage is man + woman, prayer back in schools, abortion, ID), and the multiphobes (immigration and border enforcement, anti-civil rights, anti-welfare, anti-Obama, anti-environmental) want the Republican party for themselves – even if they have to leave the party to do it.

And if you thought you could get around them by joining the Libertarians or the TEA people, you might want to take a quick look around you. They have beat you there.

Separation of Church and State

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. November 1, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    I’m of the opinion that the single-issue folks, led by such intellectual stalwarts as Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, will soon be leaving the GOP to form a new (and even more whacked out and unpopular) political party. Would be surprised if they didn’t at least try to.

  2. southern female lawyer said,

    November 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    See, I think the whole Palin- and Beck-led “defections” are really a bluff. I think the far right is trying to win back control of the Republican Party and that the whole threat to leave is NOT real. At the end of the day, the far right (unlike, say Nader supporters) would rather support a RINO (the new fave term of the wingnuts to refer to the less wingnutty) than allow a split amongst conservatives to give Liberals complete control.

  3. Vic said,

    November 1, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    I’m a new subscriber to your blog and I LOVE IT!!!
    Keep it up!

  4. November 2, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    I know you’ve heard me preach this before in posts on facebook, etc, but the thing that doesn’t sit well with me (obviously) about the Tea Partiers is that the central message of the tea parties is a message that does not at all espouse a Christian value. If anything, it espouses an anti-Christian message.

    For instance, here’s a little Bible study.

    Mark 12: 13-17 The run up to the passage is that Jesus has come to Jerusalem, has driven the money changers out of the Temple, and the chief priests (self-righteous twits who ran the Temple….sound familiar?) of course take exception with that.

    13Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” 16And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” 17Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

    The message there is pretty clear. The Pharisees are trying to make Jesus unpopular with Joe the Plumber by getting him to show his hand and then they can categorize him as a tax collector (a fair translation might be a liberal Democrat by contemporary American standards–they wanted to portray him as someone who was for paying taxes). Jesus does show his hand, but in a radical way, and he basically tells the people to give the stuff that belong to the government back to the government. The “give to God the things which are God’s” part is an obvious reference to giving over your own life to the service of God–the denarius is made in Caesar’s image, whereas, based on the own belief system of the people he was talking to, individual human beings are made in the image of God. So render unto Caesar Caesar’s money when he asks for it, and you give your life to service for God, because that’s what God asks of you–that’s basically what Christ is saying there.

    All this having been said–how in the world can “Tea Party” people be at all considered to be espousing a supposedly “Christian ethic” or “Christian value”. Their whole message on tax policy is in radical contradiction with Christ’s teaching as found in the Bible–which, last time I checked, is supposedly a pretty important book for conservative Christians. Thus, these “Tea Party” people are not at all offering an authentic version of the Christian Gospel.

    All this having been said, the notion that we are “still a Judeo-Christian nation” is a fascinating one. The pastor of the First Baptist Church in Greeneville–the largest church in this town–said similar words before he offered the invocation for the Greeneville Tea Party back around the 4th of July last summer, which Phil Roe, David Davis, David Hawk and others attended. The rally itself then went on to spout off stereotypical Tea Party stuff about taxes. My question is this: If the pastor of the biggest church in town is blessing a message that is in direct competition with the message of Christ, how “Christian” is that town? The majority of the people that live there might go to church or wear a cross around their neck or say that they believe when asked on a questionnaire, but to have one’s elected US Representative go out and be a voice of the people against taxation is not at all a sign of a “Christian nation”.

  5. Anne said,

    November 3, 2009 at 7:58 am

    Had to talk a dear one out of parading down the street with an unborn baby casket once. We have to keep talking to family. We’re the only ones they’ll listen to, even if only a little. And I think it’s hilarious you said teabagger in front of your drivers, even though I believe I know them and care for them both.

  6. mike said,

    March 11, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Yes, I said ‘teabaggers,’ so it wasn’t exactly a neutral comment.

    Sounds like you attacked them right from the start. Hardly the way to start a civil conversation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: