March 3, 2010
The establishment is desperate to discredit the Tea Party movement. In order to accomplish this objective, it will twist the truth and invent hatred and racism where none exists.
Example du jour: Bob Cessa over at the Huffington Post.
|Dale Robertson was booted out of a Tea Party event for his offensive sign.|
In a blog post Mr. Cessa claims the Tea Party movement is all about racism. He writes that “when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that’s left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race.”
In order to make his point, Cessa points to Dale Robertson, a man he fallaciously claims is some kind of mucky-muck in the Tea Party movement.
Robertson was photographed back in February, 2009, at a Tea Party rally toting a placed that read: “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.”
Josh Parker of the Houston Tea Party Society told The Washington Independent that Robertson was booted out of the event for the offensive sign. Cessa, however, does not mention this.
As it turns out, Mr. Robertson is not affiliated with any of the Tea Party organizations in Texas or anywhere else.
Felicia Cravens, writing for the Houston Tea Party Society, explains that Robertson has no affiliation with her group. “A search on Google yields plenty of information about Mr. Robertson, and a search of the various leadership teams among legitimate national tea party organizations show him nowhere to be found,” she explains.
In other words, Robertson is either a poseur or an operative tasked with making the Tea Party look like a class reunion of Ku Klux Klan members.
Next, Cessa reveals his ignorance of the Tea Party movement. He tags it as a spin-off of the neocon Republican party and its fellow travelers in talk radio:
The tea party is an extension of talk radio. It’s an extension of Fox News Channel. It’s an extension of the southern faction of the Republican Party — the faction that gave us the Southern Strategy, the Willie Horton ad, the White Hands ad and the racially divisive politics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It’s an extension of the race-baiting and, often, the outright racism evident in all of those conservative spheres.
In fact, the Tea Party concept was invented by Libertarians, not the Republican party, although Republican neocons have since hijacked the concept and declared it their own.
“The Libertarian Party of Illinois got the idea to hold an April 15, 2009 anti-tax ‘Boston Tea Party’ in Chicago way back in December of 2008. On February 10, 2009 they started a Facebook page and began promoting the website throughout the Illinois media,” writes Donny Ferguson of the Libertarian National Committee.
The establishment hijacking of the Tea Party is common knowledge. Even the liberal website Raw Story wrote about it in December, 2009. MSNBC stalwart Rachel Maddow talked about it several times on her show. “People are trying to do the right thing, but GOP organizations and campaigns are effectively taking over the Tea Party movement in some places in the country,” Stephen Gordon told Maddow.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
“As Raw Story reported last month, the firm’s [Russo, Marsh, and Associates, a Republican Party-affiliated political public relations firm] apparent goal is to channel populist Tea Party discontent into Republican electoral victories in 2010 and 2012. Members of the more genuinely grassroots Tea Party Patriots have been expressing their anger over this for months,” David Edwards and Muriel Kane wrote on December 30, 2009.
Tis a pity Mr. Cessa is unable to tell the difference between Libertarians and establishment Republicans who are mostly state-loving neocons addicted to mass murder and staggering deficits. A bit of schooling is in order.
From the Libertarianism website:
The core idea [of Libertarianism] is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life — as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
“Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis,” writes David Boaz. “Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people — to women, to people of different religions and different races — is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.” (Emphasis added.)
I will stop short of accusing Mr. Cessa of acting as a cynical disinformation agent with his talk of racism. Unfortunately, far too many liberals believe the propaganda handed down by the left side of the establishment. (And as any sincere Libertarian will tell you, there is little difference between the left and right permutations of the establishment.)
Cessa claims the Tea Party movement only “freaked out” after Obama was elected and prior to this ignored the “massive increase in the size of government, unitary executive power grabs and unconstitutional measures fueled by fear-mongering over the very remote threat of terrorism” present during the Bush era. Cessa claims supporters of the Tea Party movement were only moved to anger after a black man was elected to be president. (In fact, he was appointed, but that is an argument for another day.)
This Libertarian vociferously opposed Bush and Clinton before him. In fact, I opposed Reagan too. He was sold to us like putrid snake oil as a small government Libertarian. He wasted little time cranking the national debt up to a historically stratospheric level and attacking small and defenseless countries, either directly (as in the case of Grenada) or indirectly through proxies (his support of mass murder in Nicaragua and Latin America is legendary and endlessly fawned over by neocons).
It is true many wishy-washy folks who fancy themselves Libertarians were fooled by George W. Bush’s small government and “compassionate conservatism” rhetoric during the 2000 election. Many subsequently supported Ron Paul, the only viable real Libertarian candidate in 2008 (it should be noted that Paul’s campaign was sabotaged by forces on both the so-called right and left, thus demonstrating the six alarm threat he posed to the establishment).
Anthony Gregory, writing for the Libertarian website LewRockwell.com, concisely states the essence of principled opposition to Bush or for that matter any other establishment statist: “For those who love liberty, it is crucial to be anti-Bush. He is, after all, the head of the state, the parasite on our production, the enemy of our freedom.”
No doubt, for the foreseeable future, we will endure more of this shameless race baiting from not only apparently clueless (and politically under-educated or maybe it should be mal-educated) bloggers at the Huffington Post but the larger corporate media as well. Many so-called liberals are finally coming around to the horrid (although entirely predictable) reality of Obama — he sold them a bill of rotten goods and has continued uninterrupted the wars, torture, bankster bailouts, and other predations of the state.
Short of Mr. Cessa jumping off Arianna Huffington’s state-loving bandwagon, there will likely be no hope for him. He will continue to push this fallacious nonsense about his fellow Americans. He is blinded by the false right-left paradigm and the Bizarro world (up is down, war is peace) of establishment politics.
In order to better understand reality, Mr. Cessa should read Carol Quigley, a historian of the American establishment and mentor to Bill Clinton. In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Quigley wrote:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.… Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
Short of understanding this, I am afraid Cessa is but another liberal lost in the political wilderness.