Don't Ridicule the Tea Partyers -- Recruit Them

[CrisisPapers]

Ernest Partridge
The Crisis Papers



Along with the rest of you, I am amused and entertained when Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, et al, lampoon the tea bag brigades. It is so easy to target those poor souls, with their stupid signs, their incoherent slogans, and their appalling ignorance of fundamental political and historical facts.

Ridicule the tea partyers? A cheap thrill, to be sure.

But also lousy political strategy!

News flash! Most people react negatively to insults, and turn against those who make fun of them. Moreover, those who are insulted are likely to respond with renewed and enhanced convictions. That’s how I respond. You too, I dare say. It’s simple human nature.

To be sure, Schultz’s “Psycho Talk” and Olbermann’s “Worst Persons” and other such attacks on right-wing crazies are worthy exercises. So too the clever antics of “Billionaires for Wealthfare” and “The Yes Men.” But no one expects such attacks to persuade Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, Backman, deMint, et al to forsake their wicked ways. Instead, such well deserved ridicule is designed to discredit these sources of tea-bag delusions. Accordingly, they are appropriate targets of derision.

But not the tea-bag movement, en masse, and most assuredly, not all those who identify with it.

So how should the strategically savvy progressive deal with the tea-partyers, both collectively and face-to-face?

Above all, one should acknowledge that many, and perhaps most, tea-partyers are not the right-wing enemy, they are the victims of the right-wing along with the vast majority of the rest of us.

Face it: Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, FAUX News, and the billionaires that are funding the tea-bag movement have accomplished a truly astonishing feat:. They have persuaded millions of the victims of the banksters, big pharma, insurance, energy conglomerates, etc. to protest in behalf of their oppressors, and against their potential liberators and their own self-interest. One could almost admire the well-funded geniuses who pulled this off, but for the fact that they are greedy, unprincipled and ruthless bastards.

Progressives and tea-partyers share two fundamental complaints against the corporate oligarchy: economic injustice and disenfranchisement. The “powers-that-be” have effectively deprived the vast majority of American citizens of their fair share of the national wealth, and they have excluded “We the People” from the political process. Progressives are well aware of these injustices, and their political programs are directed to the alleviation of these abuses.. On the other hand, Dick Armey’s “Freedom Works” and the other puppet-masters behind the tea-bag movement hide these just grievances behind a smoke screen of epithets, irrelevancies and empty slogans: “socialists!,” “communists!,” “fascism,” “liberal elites,” “ACORN,” “big government.”

When dealing with a tea-partyer, the most effective tactical maneuver is to “parry” these accusations gently and, if possible, with an affirmative response and then to move on to economic issues.

Case-in-point: if you are asked “are you for abortion?,” answer directly, “no I am not.” The question is ambiguous, and in one interpretation it is doubtful that anyone ever needs to answer otherwise. In a strict sense, absolutely no one believes that abortion, per se, is a good thing. No woman ever attempted to get pregnant for no other reason than to enjoy the ordeal of having an abortion. At the very least, abortion is an inconvenience, and at worse, murder. Therein lies the controversy. Advice: move on before you get bogged down in that controversy. It is not relevant to the essential political issues now before us.

Likewise for the issues of “God, guns and gays.”

In conversation with a tea-partyer, remember that “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” Don't try to engage in an academic discussion. Evidence and rules of inference mean little to a typical tea-partyer, who regards science and intellect as an elitist conspiracy of “eggheads.” In such an encounter, what you are dealing with is not a coherent world-view, but with incoherent yet justifiable rage, skillfully re-directed toward the innocent. In Nazi Germany, it was the Jews. In the post-confederate South, it was the blacks. At the time of Senator Joe McCarthy, it was “pinkos” and “com-symps” (“communist sympathizers”), and now it is “liberal elites.” It is a familiar and effective tactic known as “scapegoating.”

Faced with such an attitude, I have found that questions are much more effective than assertions. Given the simplistic, exaggerated, and ill-defined notions behind the slogans and labels, it can be rather easy to come to some vague sort of agreement and then move on to the essential issues: economic justice and responsive government “of, by, and for the people.”

Let’s try this out with an imaginary conversation with a tea-partyer:

Progressive: “Please explain to me, just what is your complaint against the liberals and the Obama administration.”

Tea-Partyer “They are a bunch of socialists and fascists who are taxing us to death, want to take away our guns, give our jobs to illegal aliens, and tear up our Constitution.”

P: Let’s take these one at a time. First, guns. Clearly, the Second Amendment says that we have the right to own guns. I agree. So if you can show my any instances of a law or government activity involved in seizing the guns of a law-abiding citizen I will join you in opposing it. Are you aware of any such law or activity supported by the federal government?

I am also opposed to illegal immigration. But do you believe that immigrants would cross our borders illegally if there were no jobs available to them? If not, then isn't this problem of illegal employers as much as illegal immigrants? So will you join me in demanding strict enforcement of employment laws?

T: Surely you must agree that we are paying too much in taxes, and that much of our tax money is thrown away on waste, fraud and abuse.

P: Yes, I agree. And if we had a fair tax system, you and I would pay less in federal taxes – unless you are much richer than I believe you are. Did you know that most millionaires and billionaires pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than average Joes like us? And most corporations evade their taxes through loopholes, or by incorporating offshore in foreign countries? Yet these corporations and rich folks use the public roads, benefit from public police and fire protection, are protected by the military, and hire workers educated at public expense. Shouldn't they pay a fair share for these benefits? As for waste, fraud and abuse of government funds, who approves except, of course, the scoundrels who benefit? And clearly that’s neither of us. So if you want to crack down on those scoundrels, I am completely with you.

T: Now look , everybody knows that Obama is a socialist, or maybe even a fascist!

P: Help me out here. What do you mean by “socialist”?

T: Socialism is when the government runs everything. No private enterprise.

P: Well, unless I am mistaken, you’re not describing the Obama program. Can you cite any Obama proposal to abolish private businesses? I can't think of any. Seems to me that the federal government is, if anything, too much under the control of private business – big business, I mean. Big drug companies, big insurance, big energy, Wall Street, the six corporations that control 90% of the mass media. Meanwhile, small business is being squeezed. Family businesses on Main Street, perhaps yours, can’t compete with Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc. If your complaint is that the government in Washington, under the Bushes, Clinton and now Obama, are not looking after the little guy, I’m with you. But is this because of creeping socialism, or is it instead, because of unregulated national and international corporations?

T: About fascism?

P: Well, the word “fascism” originated with Mussolini in Italy, and means the merging of corporate and government interests. And yes, as we just noted, so defined, it is a genuine threat. But are the Republicans, and the sponsors of the Tea Bag movement such as Freedom Works, a solution to corporate control of government, or in fact a large part of the problem? Which party in the Congress is responsive more to the corporate contributors than to the voters?

T: Both are.

P: Well, yes. But which party is more responsive? Show me a politician of either party that ignores the interests of the voters and is “bought” by corporate contributors, and we will both do our best to separate that politician from his office. Agreed?

T: When I say “fascism,” I mean that Obama and the liberals are taking away our freedoms.

P: So who set aside trial by jury, habeas corpus, the Fourth Amendment guarantees against search and seizure, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? Not Obama. True, he hasn’t restored all of these and other violations of the Constitution that were put in place by the Bush administration, and I am damned angry that he hasn’t. But can you cite for me one instance of an attempt by the Obama administration to take away our Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms? If you can, then I will join you in protesting such an outrage.

T: Now look, you are just playing with my mind. I am a conservative, and I want to take our country back from you liberal elites.

P: “Liberal?” “Conservative?” I’m not sure I understand what these words mean any more. So let me tell you what I do believe, and I will leave it to you to decide what label to pin on me. Must fundamentally, I endorse the founding documents of our republic: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Thus I believe that it is the function of government to secure the rights of each citizen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, in the words of the Preamble to the Constitution, it is the function of government to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." With the late Barbara Jordan, I affirm that “my faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.”

Now isn’t that what you would call a “conservative” point of view? And if some wealthy and powerful individuals and trans-national corporations attempt to “buy out” our Congress, our courts, and yes, our Chief Executive, then, with Barbara Jordan, “I am not going to ... be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”

You want your country back? So do I. But “back” from whom? Sure, we have our differences, but these are distractions from the central political issues of our time about which, I submit, we agree. We both support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We both agree that the wealth produced cooperatively by workers, investors, educators and government in the national economy should be fairly distributed. We both agree that the government of the United States, in particular the Congress, belongs to the people, not to corporations and most assuredly not to trans-national corporations. And we both believe in free markets and open competition, both of which are subverted by the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of the very wealthy.

We have come a long way from the ideals of the founding of our republic, and it will be a long and arduous struggle to get our country back.

Will you join me and other so-called “liberals” in this effort? And if not, please explain to me why not?

-- EP

[Pryderi]

1. Interesting...

[dominic savio]

2. enemies or allies?

Hats off to your insightful take on the "tea-party" phenomena. True "populism" is not specifically aligned with any one party or doctrine. Rather, it is the expression of a populous who is fed up with both parties and seek to find a new way of addressing the serious issues of the day. As progressives we may disagree with some of the ideals of this movement but we must embrace the spirit of the radical change that their actions promote.

[truedelphi]

10. I see it that way myself, and pls let me

Welcome you to DU.

I can have far more coherent discussions with my Tea Bagger neighbor (Who voted for Obama) than with some of Obama's more fanatical cheerleaders. This neighbor no longer feels that the inner circle of either party does more than cater to the Big Monied Interests, which is my view on it too.

[niyad]

3. some people obviously have far stronger nerves and more patience than I do.

[DonCoquixote]

4. if not, why not

"Will you join me and other so-called “liberals” in this effort? And if not, please explain to me why not?"

The answer, because when you deal with a Tea bagger, you are forgetting one little thing. A Teabagger would have no problem with any amount of wealth or power gotten, save that it is not their own. If they were Billionaires, they would gladly do everything Billionaires do. Think of the Civil War, as many poor Confederates never had a chance in Hell to be wealthy enough to afford a mule, much less a slave, but they thought that they had a chance to own one someday, thus they literally died for the right of rich plantation owners to do JUST THAT, despite the fact that slave labor was a major hindrance to the middle class forming. Your idea falls apart with this quote.

"We both agree that the wealth produced cooperatively by workers, investors, educators and government in the national economy should be fairly distributed"
The problem, is that they do NOT! No, it is not simple Greed, as Maddow might put it, these people were trained by the CHURCHES that those who are wealthy are actually better than most people, that GOD has given them their power because he is pleased with them. never mind that quote about a rich man trying to slide through the needle's eye! They actually think that if you give the rich more money, it will be better for the nation!

[Anakin Skywalker]

17. You Said It, My Brotha!

Saved me from having to type. :)

[bergie321]

5. Won't work.

Your average teabagger would have whipped out his gun the instant you started asking questions that made his head feel funny.

[Greyskye]

6. Excellent points.

I agree that humiliating the opposition is not the best way to win them over.

Sure feels good at the time, though. :blush:

:kick: & R

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. If you can wake them up, their passion and anger can be channeled more constructively

The right wingers are wrong on every issue, but they are geniuses at PR and manipulation. They know there's anger out there, and they want to be sure to channel it AWAY from the real culprits.

They do so by making the teabaggers identify with the rich instead of with their fellow working-class people. They hold out the false dream of "prosperity if you work hard" and tell the masses that the reason they can't get ahead is not because they're paid too little but because all their tax money goes to "welfare" so "gangbangers" can "sit on their asses."

It would take very little to turn their resentment around. I was surprised at how many right-wingers on the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's website were adamantly opposed to the bank bailout, for example.

[peace frog]

8. Teabaggers will never allow themselves to be recruited

by a bunch of gay supporting, terrorist sympathizing, fascist-socialist-pinko-commies (like us) who may attempt to challenge their simplistic worldview. Ernest partridge gives them far more credit for intellectual evaluation of the facts than reality supports.

[eridani]

16. We'd probably get no more than 20-30% of them

But I think that's worth trying.

[peace frog]

21. It may be worthwhile to try

but I think the double-digit prediction is overly optimistic. Teabaggers are notoriously suspicious and rejecting of anyone who does not fall in line with their worldview.

[onpatrol98]

29. Never allow themselves to be recruited...

I disagree. The right issues and attitudes could make for strange bedfellows. I was definitely perplexed when watching the media react to the tea party people last summer. Yeah...publicly belittle and say horrible things about them from a news room. That's sure to win them over. It was like watching Smokey the bear start a forest fire. To me, listening to Rahm and Gibbs talk about liberals is similar. They have this condescending air that just makes you want to throw something at your television. It's that, "give me a brick", feeling that guarantees, you'll vote next time. Just not for the one who assumed you were not a force to be reckoned with. If the tea party groups had simply been ignored, or shown with a minimal amount of emotion, a lot of their frustration (not all) I think would have eventually dissipated. But, people were on the airwaves, daily fanning that fire. I think every talking head that decided to demean this group publicly, daily, could have bought a pick up truck, and driven them to the polls themselves. Be honest, if Rahm or Gibbs were up for election, who on DU would vote for them, now?

[struggle4progress]

9. Some general remarks in the same vein:

It's always worth talking to people to see where they're coming from

Walk pleasantly away from the ideologues, haters, and liars once you've identified them: you can't get anywhere with them, and there's no point letting them practice their games with your help

The persuadable ones are moral and capable of rationality, but possibly ill-informed or confused by emotional talking points. They don't need to hear your opinions, since they probably already have opinions of their own: what they need are facts. A nice one or two sentence fact, that you can provide calmly without a monologue, is more effective as a response than a philosophical argument about opinions. Even if you know a hundred facts, use one; if it doesn't work, use a second. Your object is not to browbeat them or to humiliate them or to prove your own superiority: it is to get them to change their minds themselves. Listen to what they say -- and be willing to learn from them. And stick to the issue under discussion

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Jim Hightower was really good at that on his radio show back in the 1990s

He'd get a raving right winger, find a point of agreement ("Nobody cares about the little person"), and work from there. He'd have the caller eating out of his hand in a few minutes.

The official story about why his show was canceled was that he dissed Disney, but I bet his ability to talk right-wingers down was a huge part of it.

[humbled_opinion]

11. I tried this at work

Didn't quite work out, I got two people to agree that corporations were the problem... and then a third die hard Conservative got all loud and said, "why don't the idiot liberals understand that everytime the Government regulates industry or taxes them that those businesses just pass on the cost to the consumer?" "He said the problem is the over reach of Government run by Liberals. He went further and said "Take this new program Obama is talking about making these banks that took taxpyer bailout money pay some kind of fines, well where the hell do you think the banks are going to get the money to pay the fines? From us. They are going to pass the cost on to us and then he said, Obama railed against Bush for setting up the TARP and passing on a defecit to him and now Obama tells us that the banks are paying back the money but that he is going to force them to pay more and what will happen with that money? It isn't going to come back to me and you as a tax cut no, no, no, its not going to pay down the defecit nope, Obama is still going to blame Bush for defecits and spend all that money on some Liberal program and you will get saddled with the increased taxes to pay the debt and the increased costs to pay the banks.... Liberals getting us screwed twice for the same nickle....

I walked away after that because he started in on the "Real message of the MA elections and some other crap....


So I failed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Anybody who says "They just pass the cost of taxes to the consumer"

clearly knows nothing about how companies are taxed.

Unlike individuals, companies are taxed on what's left over after they've met all their expenses. Raising their prices gives them more profit to be taxed.

[humbled_opinion]

22. They tidbit still doesn't give me

Adequate amunition. The point contended is that anything govt does to companies is passed on to consumers as cost increase and anything govt does for the people is passed on as Tax.

I can't win the debate unless the govt madates a price fix and then taxes the company but of course if I endorse that I will be called a communist.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Just tell them to look it up in an accounting textbook

Large corporations can reduce their taxes through accounting tricks that make them LOOK as if they're not making much money.

[humbled_opinion]

26. OK I get that But...

Companies cheating on taxes is not the issue, the issue as stated is that the companies just like the government are not going to forgive the consumer from paying the punishment.... Middle Class is taxed and price gouged out of existenance.

It is an extremely hard arguement to win without substance.... and according to that Conservative is the reason for the tea baggers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. They're not really cheating

What they're doing is perfectly legal.

Maybe you can explain it like this--

If you're an individual, the IRS takes a fixed percentage of everything you earn minus a few small deductions and exemptions. It doesn't matter how much you actually spend on food, clothing, and shelter.

If you're a business, you can deduct EVERYTHING you need to run your business.

Put this way, if individuals were taxed like businesses, they could deduct all their ACTUAL living expenses, including rent/mortgage (not just the interest), utility bills, grocery bills, clothing, commuting expenses, home repairs, and medical bills.

[humbled_opinion]

36. Yes but that isnt the agrument...

The argument is that the Corporations are Greedy and that Government is too both will impact the middle class the government madates something on the corporation that costs the corporation more in taxes, the corporation in order to maintain a specific profit margin increases costs to its consumers to make up for the govt taxation. Then the government taxes the people because in the case of the banks it used tax money to bail them out. It is a terrible double penalty on the middle class...

I fully understand his argument, I am needing some substance for rebuttal i.e., when the government can tax the corporation but somehow force it not to pass the costs on to the consumers.

Therein lies the anger of the baggers.

[sasosp1]

12. Don't Ridicule the Tea Partyers -- Recruit Them

No Tea Bagger I know ever participates in such a lengthy rational discussion. They do not accept
as facts anything that deviates from the Limbaugh/Fox version of reality. They just call me
a liar or worse. "Socialist" is just for openers.

In addition they do not think there is anything wrong with virtually all income, wealth and
power being in the hands of a few- the few in their view have earned it.

I have tried for years to find common ground with rightists to absolutely no avail.

[mntleo2]

15. Working With Teabaggers Right Now Myself ...

...It is around family rights and the taking of children by the State. It is a bad situation and very scary. Turns out they are "harvesting" kids from mostly poor families who cannot afford to defend themselves as well as from extended family members such as grandparents because they have no rights at all to defend themselves unless they are millionaires. The State DSHS program gets around $6000 per time they move or take the child and another $10-20,000 if they adopt them out ~ non-family adopters make more money for the State than family members do. furthermore the State keeps all money that comes in for the child such as SSI, Child Support, and all other funding for "saving the little children" when in reality they are flying under the radar as legal kidnappers and child sellers.

Adopters are not aware of it they are just people who want kids and believe they are saving the child when in reality they are contributing to the horrifying tearing apart of entire families, in some places entire communities, leaving heartbroken families and kids who should be home. See it turns out that anything a CPS worker says is set in stone and there are few ways to dispute it. They can say and accuse whatever they want and are never held accountable ~ because there are also CASA workers, counselors, judges and lawyers all on the take in the "industry" who are into protecting each other instead of the kid. The Perfect Witch Hunt.

As someone who is a life long Socialist believe me I am in the place I never thought I would be. But if I am learning anything, these people are mad, and they are mad about the same things I am.

DSHS agencies are strapped for money and millions are coming in with the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which is corrupting parental rights and it funds this money in order to legally kidnap kids and sell them to the highest bidders. Poor white kids are being taken almost twice as often than kids of color, coincidently. I am just saying here that the white child is much more likely to be sold at higher prices than a child of color and grandparents trying to adopt their grandchildren are suddenly considered unfit because they have no right to representation ...

I wish with all my heart I could say this is a "conspiracy theory" but it is all too horrifyingly real and it is national ~ England is experiencing it too. And my teabagger friends and legislators are working hand in hand on the issues all over the country.

People I never would have dreamed to vote for but now am glad someone voted for them because they get it when my own good progressive elected officials sure don't have a clue and worse, refuse to have a clue. As a progressive friend who is an attorney in child dependency said, "I may not agree with them on most things, but about the corruption, the selling of kids, the nepotism and money making for nice jobs, all the paid personnel, the CASA, consultants, contractors and court personnel get paid for taking kids, they are right on ..."

Cat In Seattle :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Yes, that's a real issue, which I was unaware of until I started working

with street kids.

As for the handling of that issue in England, there's a 1990s film Ladybird, Ladybird, which tells the true story of a woman who was declared an "unfit mother" due to a single careless incident and not only had her existing children taken away but the subsequent children she bore in a stable relationship.

[mntleo2]

39. Thanks for the support ...

...it is few and far between in Progressive Land. I do not blame progressives here as I had to face I was no different. And after years of being denigraded when I was right about things, made me ...well kind of madder and more defensive. We should not accuse Tea Baggers for being "ignorant" when in fact there are a few things that Progressives could learn that might make them a little more aware of why these people are so mad.

And as Ernest is saying here, it has sure opened my eyes that some things are not left or right, they are just plainly WRONG.

Cat In Seattle

Hugs for you Lydia! :loveya: :pals:

[igfoth]

18. Teabaggers are a total waste of time just like bipartisanship

The Teabaggers I have met are insane hardcore racists
They hate Obama and hate all liberals

You would be better off trying to convert members of Al Queda and the Taliban to Christianity and you would be more successful.

But is is your time to waste, good luck.

[mntleo2]

19. I felt much the same until ...

...I realized what this hatred for someone like me as a liberal were for many of the same reasons I disliked them. They are hard working people who are barely making it too. Cynical politicians and industrialists are playing the classic game of this: "I have this pie, and I am keeping it all except this tiny sliver right here and that is for the rest of you...."

While everyone is scrambling for a crumb from that sliver, is when the problem begins. Who do you blame when all you know about is the sliver? When someone took "yours" and left you nothing? We liberals blame the person who has the rest of the pie and believe he or she should divvy the pie up into bigger pieces. Tea baggers think the person who took their crumb and left them with nothing are the ones at fault and are not aware who is keeping the rest of the pie from them. But both of us are without any crumbs ...THAT is the main thing.

I am not saying this blaming others who are scrambling as much as you are is reasonable, I still blame the hog who is keeping the whole pie. But I am saying when you find a common thing to stand with, you both have the same problem no matter what the reasons are, suddenly we all have "faces" we are not some cardboard stereotype. No I cannot imagine being a tea bagger myself and the politicians I work with are outright kooks on some things to me. But I have to say there are some darn good reasons they are mad. And as someone who has spent much of my 57 years being ignored and denigraded for being a liberal, they are now in the same demeaining place, which isn't enhancing them to my side if I denigrate them too.

(sigh) I guess my life's lessons came from having grandparents who were married, one a Democrat and the other a Republican. The dinner table was rife with debate. As a small child I realized they were both debating the reasons they chose their sides as the SAME reasons. One was from the South, the other the North, but both convinced their party was "for the little guy ..." And as I learned they were both right as the parties had different perspectives based on where they came from.

But when their grandchildren (my generation) began to socialize with people of other races and cultures and then (horrors, lol) have children by them, much changed ~ though not their party affiliations. A lap and a story or song was offered for all. Because those (insert the racial slur here) now had a face. And the next generation of little ones were family with their own blood and these elders saw first hand that the stereotypes they had were not true. They grew to love the grandson-in-law who came over to fix their kitchen sink and the granddaughter who they could teach the family traditions. Because maybe they didn't have the blue eyes most everyone else in their family had, but they still had "Uncle Fred's mechanical talent, that funny lopsided smile like their great-great grandfather, or that same quick wit of Aunt Tillie ..." that brought mist to their eyes seeing in their family's future the ones they loved from the good old days.

I realize it took time to see these changes in my family, but if there is one thing I have learned from it is that when you have common goals and when you treat others with respect even when at first you are not treated that way, you will find an ally, not an enemy. I am working with tea baggers on my political issues and sometimes yes I have to go and take a breather. But I am telling you they are mad at many of the same things we are. It just helps to give one another a face and remember what it felt like when I was the "kook" and then be gentle. And to keep my eye on the reason for the frustration we share, not concentrate on our differences as to why it is there.

The associations are giving me the opportunity to find a moment when I have felt heard, that I have given them pause to reconsider, and it has started ever since I have begun to really listen ...

Cat In Seattle

[KoKo]

32. +1

[scytherius]

34. Typically true, but the old adage applies here

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Faith No More]

20. Frankly, I don't want the assholes around me.

Fuck 'em.............

[onpatrol98]

30. Shared opinion

Hmm...they probably share that opinion. I think our interests are better served if our politicians don't give that impression from Washington. If nothing else, it certainly seems to bring them out to vote...in herds.

[Zambero]

23. They won't be immediately persuaded. However...

Providing an alternative point of view might give them some food for thought. If they ever change their nihilistic outlook and come to a realization of what the real truth of the matter is, they will do it on their own. At the same time, in order to change there needs to be a perception that their earlier set of conclusions was flawed if not outright false. It's an evolutionary process, and most will not come around. I say this because in my younger days I was a "Reagan conservative" for many years and voted a straight Republican ticket until one day I realized that the party I had routinely supported seemed to be at odds with many of my beliefs on certain issues. And more importantly I was able to face up to the fact that many of the precepts of conservative dogma were steeped in talking points and not based on actual performance. The runaway Reagan deficits against the "inspired" speeches of fiscal restraint represented the first realization that something was amiss. And the eventual intrusion of hardline religious conservatives into the Republican party was the last straw. My political transformation took place over the course of a few months, and it was not based on anyone persuading me per se, although being able to assess information from a larger pool of diverse viewpoints was certainly a factor. So, using the non-argumentative approach advocated in this post might just plant a seed of reality with some of these folks. I realize that many if not most of them are intractable in their perceptions, but given time and balanced information to consider, it is indeed possible to win certain individauls over, but it will have to happen on their own "schedule".

[existentialist]

25. Hunter S. Thompson wrote about

some of the protesters at the '72 Miami conventions having enlisted with the US armed forces within a eek after the conventions were over.

This, on the face of it did not make sense.

The recruiters figured that they had staged quite a coup.

Then it was determined that those switching from protesting the war to signing up to fight the war so quickly had an average educational level of 8th grade.

I'm not sure how valuable the tea baggers would be as allies, but you're right that antagonizing them is a fool's game.

They participate. They influence politics. Some of them vote, and there is the not insignificant danger that, if goaded, they may turn violent. Baiting them just feeds their self-esteem and makes them feel like they are doing something to get some attention so it can't be all bad.

I'd rather having them voting with us than against us. Not only Hunter Thompson, but Eric Hoffer and others have pretty well documented the fact that under the correct conditions the poorly educated but fervent supporters of one political party or ideology or another can turn their convictions and actions on a dime.

[DonCoquixote]

31. True enough, but..

Yes, Eric Hoffer did write about how some people can turn their affections on a dime, but in this case, I would argue there is something deeper, something that, if you are going to try and work with a teabagger, you have to account for.

The number one mistake people make is that they think Tea Baggers lean right because they are simply Greedy or Ignorant, to think that would discount the other major cultural influences that make them what they are. Many of them, especially in the South and Midwest, are from religions influenced by John Calvin. What does that mean, it means that the RELIGION in this country teaches that God picks people to prosper, and that if you do not prosper, it has to do with your morality, or just the fact God has not chosen you. It is why there is little empathy for the poor in this country. As anyone who reads Joe Bageant can tell you, the "working class" tends to come from people who are so used to suffering they have gotten used to going it alone, with their only true comfort in religion. Part of the reason they do not want to hear anything about what Europe does is because, sadly when we were a British Colony, "sophistication" and "charity" were used by the nobles and their civil servant lackeys as a way to hide their true, decadent selves, so they stick to the culture they trust, which, again, is their religion. It is the same reason that, despite the fact the Mid-East produces truckloads of intellectuals, there is little concept of a "secular" government; neither Joe Sixpack nor Yusuf Kebab really trust anything that stinks of secular thought (namely because to them, a secular government official is some stuffy person whose talk sounds too much like the Queen's English.

So, am I saying that it is impossible to talk to those folks, not entirely, but keep in mind, you will at some point need to address their religious ideas, because even people who think they are "not that religious" have had their brains dyed with theology. Am I saying you have to get all religious, no, but you need to be conversant with their ideas, not just quoting the Bible, but actually read up on people like John Calvin (who, like it or not, created a lot of American culture through his influence.) Part of the reason that conversions do not happen is that we on the left either shit on religion totally, or we try to act like we are religious too, which comes off as insincere. Instead, show that even if you do not agree with the person, that you have made the effort to understand them, and that you are showing the respect you would like them to show you.

And here, is a caveat. Yes, talk, but if the Obama presidency was taught us nothing else, is that we can turn the other cheek only so much. The Tea baggers are from a culture that has been taught to see empathy as weakness, so you need to be able to draw the line in the sand and say "this is it!" You do not have to pick fights or brawls, but like any martial artist, you need to be prepared to defend yourself when they throw a punch. Sometimes, they only thing they will respect is a show of strength, and they need to learn that your kindness is not weakness. In practical terms, if a friend insists on throwing their Rush Limbaugh in your face, tell them to knock it off, and if they insist, they need to know they are on thin ice, and that while you are not looking for a fight, you will give them one if they keep asking for it. Bullies lose their brawn once their nose starts to bleed.

[Dr.Phool]

37. WTF?

I was one of those protesters, and I didn't see many likely recruiting prospects. Unless it was from the Cuban community that Nixon sicced on us.

[scytherius]

33. Agreed.

Yeah we hate them and they hate us. But until those two sides work together the nation is doomed. The corporations, politicians, etc. remain in power BECAUSE we fight each other. It keeps us occupied. Until this happens, and that means putting aside some LONG held hatred and differences of opinion, we will remain slaves in a rapidly worsening, soon to become third world, nation.

[happy_liberal]

35. K&R

[creeksneakers2]

38. Do you ever read what these people have to say on the net?

Some of them believe in something called "depop." "Depop" is a conspiracy theory that states Obama and the left are tying to kill off all of humanity to give the planet back to the animals and the earth goddess Gaia.

If its not "depop" its a thousand other crazy things. Your strategy relies on facts and logic which are useless tools when dealing with these people. They are motivated at their root by a need to pretend they are better than everybody else. Since they aren't very good people, they make themselves better by believing everybody else is worse. Much worse. Hatred fits right in. Anything terrible said about the groups they hate is accepted without question.

If you aren't giving them anything that helps them hate the people they already hate they aren't interested. They won't even listen to you and probably won't even let you listen to them.