This blog entry was inspired by Ernesto. He left a comment on the previous blog, and I responded, but decided at the last minute to turn the response into a blog entry, expanding it somewhat.I won't quote him here, but sum up briefly the topic of discussion. He observed a malaise among voters, a political backlash of a sort that could translate into many voters staying away from the polls in 2010, as was the case in 1994 that ultimately swept Republicans into power in both houses of Congress.
I think that this is the gist of it. Correct me, if I've misspoken, Ernesto.
My response sought to examine why, at the moment, the country is looking backward for answers, rather than forward.
This is not a good trend, I wrote. If Democrats fail, I see a resurgence (let's say a hike) of those things that got us into this fix in the first place: laissezfaire economics, tax cuts for the rich, the continuation of a shadow financial system, and an expansion of our military presence around the world.
If they truly wish to restore our national economic clout among the world communities, these are the things that the Teabaggers, and Republicans, should be obsessed with destroying--those corporate forces that have hurt, and continue to hurt, our national preeminence--but that's not the case. Teabaggers, in particular, are obsessing over Obama and his suppose socialist agenda, and the federal government's big-spending appetite.
And that seems to be their primary concern. Yet, there may be other concerns hidden just below the surface. And that's what this blog entry will explore. The Teabagger movement may be a shill, smoke and mirrors, for something other than just interjecting fiscal responsibility into government.
Here's my thinking. If the Republicans can't find a way to co-opt the movement, the Teabaggers are poised to weaken the Republican party.
The Teabaggers are more a regressive movement than a conservative movement.
Their movement, as bogus as it is, stands to siphon off millions of voters, as it caters to this nation's biggest fear, in my estimation--whites becoming increasingly irrelevant as power brokers, and demographic bullies.
This could explain why some politicos are opposed to this year's census head count, and others are kissing up to the Teabaggers.
The Atlantic has published an excellent article examining this phenomenon. Under the title, "The End of White America?," the article probes the white resistance that might ensue from a shifting demographics that will see minorities in the majority, and the majority in the minority, encapsulated in this foreword:
"The Election of Barack Obama is just the most startling manifestation of a larger trend: the gradual erosion of “whiteness” as the touchstone of what it means to be American. If the end of white America is a cultural and demographic inevitability, what will the new mainstream look like—and how will white Americans fit into it? What will it mean to be white when whiteness is no longer the norm? And will a post-white America be less racially divided—or more so?"
Not all, obviously, feel threatened. Obama represents, not only the impending threat, but a coming to terms with this new American reality.
However, as the nation becomes more progressive in its outlook, less fearful of surrendering power to the minorities in its midst, and losing its European character, this reactionary trend will, in all likelihood, surface more and more, and voices will become more strident in declaring their disapproval.
Vanity Fair might be feeling the need to push back using it's March issue:
"Magazines have a tough time getting race right, but usually they manage to do a better job than Vanity Fair did in its March issue. The magazine, which is owned by glossy publishing house Conde Nast, recently delivered its annual Hollywood issue -- to howls of protest from around the blogosphere and the analog world.
"The problem: Of the nine supposedly up-and-coming starlets featured on the fold-out cover, not one is African-American, Asian or Hispanic. The average skin tone on display is as white as the new-fallen snow."
Is this more about some Americans resisting a losing of the America that gave them comfort, and power, including white privilege, and the economic advantage that goes along with that, than a government run by Democrats?
The movement may be muddled about its intent, but what does stand out is its anti-Washington fervor, and a return to the Constitution as a guide for moving forward. Lost in the discussion is the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the intent and purpose of our most revered document.Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Yet, when two of their main speakers are Sarah Palin, and Tom Tancredo, you can't help but become increasingly suspicious of the Tea Party Movement's true motives. Inviting these two, they may have let the cat out the bag on their eventual direction.
"Tancredo, as well as the organizers at their news conference [Tea Party Convention], trashed former presidential nominee John McCain -- as did many Tea Partiers here. Tancredo, a hardliner on immigration, vowed to do whatever he could -- if he could do anything -- for J.D. Hayworth, McCain’s conservative primary opponent this year. Skoda said a McCain win would have been “a disaster” for the country."
Here's what I posted, somewhat indelicately, on another blog:
What they [Teabaggers] should be decrying is this nation's corpocracy, corporations that have this nation by the balls, and are squeezing hard, and will squeeze harder now that the Supremes have given them a much needed vise with which to make us all cry uncle, and not just Uncle Sam.
Uncle Sam won't be able to help us. At least not right away, if at all, and perhaps only in a limited way. A nice rant, but it misses the mark, just as the Teabaggers are missing the mark, and, from all indications, missing on purpose.
It's the Democratic agenda which Teabaggers fear (or claim they fear) and not corporate hegemony. What I believe have them in a partial dither is this: The Democrats are focused, for a change, on improving the living conditions of the middleclass and the underclass, regardless of race. And I believe that that rankles their rank and file. What they should have learned over the years is this:
Racial tolerance doesn't weaken us, it makes us stronger, regardless of who's in the majority. Multiculturalism won't dilute democracy, or automatically pit one group against the other, if we remember that we're all one--of the same race, the same human family, but with some differences. Those differences--which certainly may be used to divide us--should not be suppressed, but embraced, and celebrated. And they shouldn't be used to ascribe to some an inferior standing and to others a superior one.
As technology brings us closer, we learn that neighbors and neighborhoods take on a whole new meaning, that teacher and student can be miles apart, and that we can talk at length with people clear on the other side of the world with the same ease with which we may have an across-the-fence conversation with our next-door neighbor.
Some will, undoubtedly, seek to use this advancing technology to sow seeds of distrust, and division, but it will all be in vain. It's hard to hate those whose humanity reaches out to you with the same familiarity we encounter when we interact with neighbors, friends, and family.
