Where is your CVC code?
During Saturday’s questionably large “Tea Party” protest in DC, a counter protester marched through the sea of angry conservatives with a sign that read “Public Option Now.” He was greeted with boos, cries of communism, spit and physical violence—most of which can be seen and heard on this video clip.
Now what about the purported tens of thousands gathered to oppose Obama’s health plan? You might be wondering why this site largely ignores such protests waged by “tea-baggers” and “town hallers”. Well, here’s the explanation…
For one, we do not consider their protests to be nonviolent, even the ones that don’t involve the presence of assault rifles or incidences of finger maiming. While there can be very legitimate reasons to protest government spending (e.g. the defense budget) or even Obama’s health plan (on grounds of bowing to the insurance companies), these protests are rooted in selfishness and greed, not empathy, which is a key component of nonviolent resistance.
Secondly, it’s not hard to find coverage of these protests. According the Pew Research Center, an astounding 62 percent of all cable news coverage was on the health care debate.
The folks at Media Matters painted an even clearer picture of this lopsided scale on their blog yesterday:
Behold the media’s glaring double standard. Today, the [Washington] Post puts the “tens of thousands” of Obama-hating tea bagger protesters on A1; makes it the lead story as a matter of fact.
Back in 2002, when more than 100,000 anti-war protesters gathered in the nation’s capitol to protest the Bush administration, the same WashPost… put the story not on the front page, but in the Metro section with, as the paper’s ombudsman later lamented, “a couple of ho-hum photographs that captured the protest’s fringe elements.”
In that light, our mission here at Waging Nonviolence couldn’t be clearer.
This is all about the underlying, hideous factor of the racism that is so deeply ingrained in the American character. The attempt to portray this president (Of all people!) as a socialistic, left wing extremist doesn’t even pass the giggle test for people who have bothered to pay attention to their times and their history. Let’s face it – Franklin D. Roosevelt, he ain’t! They can’t obstruct his agenda with a manufactured scandal regarding his personal life, as they did with Bill Clinton. eleven years ago. Their only hope is for enough of the American people to become really frightened by the Big, Bad, Black Bolshevik. An ironic description when one takes into consideration how boringly moderate Obama really is.
Think about this: In the last presidential campaign only one of the nominees of the two major political parties was born in the United States – Barack Obama – John McCain was born in Panama. Do you find it as revealing as I do that it was the black guy had his citizenship called into question? How much more proof do we need of the overt racism that is inherent in that party – or in our own country for that matter? Honestly, this isn’t rocket science, folks!
Joe Wilson and the nincompoops on the far right have opened a Pandora’s Box that may very well prove difficult to close. What they are now doing – consciously or unconsciously – is prompting their brain-dead masses toward violence and intimidation. And let’s not forget the untidy little truism that a lot of these folks are armed and dangerous. Who can forget the fool who showed up outside one of the president’s Town Hall meetings in New Hampshire last month with a gun strapped to his leg? My biggest worry is that that little incident is merely a small illustration of worst things to come.
Listen, I really hate to be the bearer of bad tidings here, I really do. But if you can’t foresee some kind of Timothy McVeigh-style domestic incident somewhere down the pike, you’re a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am. Also, if you are not seriously alarmed by what is now happening to our beloved country, you’re not paying attention.
And now Glenn Beck is all set to become the Martin Loony King of the Far Right with his stupid March on Washington today.
Isn’t life interesting?
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Bryan —
I disagree that these protests should be rejected outright. Sure, the participants are primarily motivated by self-interest, but so are all other protesters who demand better conditions for themselves.
There may be some unsavory characters involved (as is also true with most Leftist actions), but there are also many working-class people protesting out of fear that excessive government spending (whether the bailouts, stimulus, or publicly-funded health care) will eventually make it more difficult for them to house and feed their families. Whether you agree with them or not, if this is an unacceptably selfish motivation, then so are labor union demonstrators who demand better jobs or better pay.
Also, let’s not forget that any publicly-funded health care option would be paid for by compulsory taxation. As you know, participation in taxation is not voluntary, but is enforced by the threat of government violence (and if Obama has his way, not having health insurance would become a criminal offense). So if we’re going to reject protests for their violent subtext, then perhaps it should be the public health-care advocates, who, despite their good intentions, are working to expand the government’s redistribution of income by violent force.
Nevertheless, there are many distasteful things about the Tea Parties, and I don’t blame you for feeling that they’re already well-covered in the media. But by dismissing them outright as insufficiently nonviolent, I fear we miss an opportunity to acknowledge and discuss their role in challenging government power. The state is the most powerful form of organized violence on the planet, and right now, in this country at least, the Tea Parties are perhaps the most organized political group currently challenging the government’s expansion of power. As depressing as that sounds, maybe it’s actually a positive development?
–Jason
You make some good points, Jason. But I think you’re conflating the right-wing media inspired and industry organized Tea Parties/Town Hall protests with real grassroots anti-bailout protests, some of which we’ve covered on this blog. I don’t think the former are concerned with government violence or truly challenging government. The only thing they’re challenging is the crazy notion of a post-racial America. How much can we really learn from people who think Hitler was a socialist and therefore comparable to Obama?
I don’t mean to imply that Public Option supporters are that much better either. The fact that they support a plan fraught with compromises and don’t push for single-payer is a sign that they are just playing for the home team, not for health care as a human right.
There is certainly a lot more to say on this issue. And my intention was not to close the door in it. I just wanted to address the fringe right-wing Tea Party movement–which again, I don’t think is made up of the same type of working class people you’re talking about.
I don’t even understand what you mean when you say that I (the subject of the picture, above) am “playing for the home team” when I support a public option rather than pushing health care as a human right. Personally, I would much prefer a single payer plan. I trust that President Obama and the leaders of the Democratic caucus in the Congress would prefer that, as well.
Since they have access to better information, a better read on how far they can push Members in iffy districts, and a good bit more political skill than I have, I defer to their judgment.
For now, at least, I will not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and support them.
So I marched, non-violently but provocatively, for a Public Option, Now.
The only thing they’re challenging is the crazy notion of a post-racial America.
Well, I think racism is certainly part of it for some (especially for Beck), but not the main motivation pushing these people into the streets. Marc Ambinder, writing for The Atlantic, agrees:
“The plurality of people held signs like, “I’m not Astroturf.” . . . Many of the people I talked to didn’t seem to be Ron Paul supporters, or Lyndon LaRouche fans, and a few hadn’t heard of Glen Beck. The biggest source of their complaint was not about Obama, or the presidency — it was about the Congress, and about bank bailouts, and CEO bonuses.”
There’s a long history in this country of conservative opposition to big government and big-government spending (but not military spending, of course!), which was around long before Americans elected a black president. Conservatives certainly don’t speak or think of nonviolence in the same way that Leftist followers of Gandhi/MLK do. In fact, they view the military as a legitimate form of defense, and they continually make allowances for government intrusion into daily life as long as it’s viewed as aiding ‘defense.’ But conservative reaction against governmental control on domestic issues is a reaction against a particular kind of violent coercion by the state, whether they speak of it in those terms or not. It’s something I’ve experienced a lot in the West, that comes from an urge to be left alone, and to not be told what to do, that runs deep in the American psyche. I find it encouraging, regardless of all the other crap that often comes along with it (and there’s plenty), because it could someday lead to freedom from violent authority.
Nevertheless, I don’t see anyone from the Left challenging the government on these issues, and I don’t see how conservative protests against government spending is any less inherently nonviolent, or selfish, than, say, labor protests. Your link to the actions in Detroit is an example of the “Bail Out People” protests, which are not about curbing government spending, but merely directing it towards other purposes (which is, again, another endorsement for state socialism — an argument for increased government oversight, and a violent redistribution of income). Also, I’ve been to many Leftist nonviolent protests, as have you, where Bush was compared to Hitler, and denounced as a fascist (which, if true, must also be true of Obama, since he’s basically continued and expanded upon the former’s foreign policy), and yet we still felt comfortable enough to protest alongside them, even though their propaganda wasn’t completely accurate (not to mention the heavy presence of communists at most lefty events, who have few qualms with organized violence).
Anyway, as much as I’d like for everyone to have free, unlimited health care, free food, and free housing, I don’t think the one group on the planet who has a monopoly on violence is the one to force-feed it to us. There are too many drawbacks to ceding this kind of violent control to government. These conservative protesters understand this much better than liberals, despite their many other failings.
That article by Ambinder is interesting and I don’t doubt that there were many people not driven by racism and right-wing punditry. But I do have a hard time buying that they represented the majority of the protesters. Max Blumenthal painted a slightly different picture. And yes, liberal protests are not immune to disgusting and hateful behavior either. For moral and pragmatic reasons I denounce people who engage in it. But I’ve never been at a protest where hateful behavior was shared by more than a few people. And in the case of the Tea Parties—which I read a lot about preparing for the Experiments posts—I think it’s much more close to the dominant philosophy.
In any case, the point for me isn’t so much whether these people are driven by racism or more simply by a hatred for big government. When it comes to health care, I think government can actually play a positive role. I know you and I disagree on this point. But what’s the alternative? Get rid of medicare? Let corporations completely control the system and exploit our health? Things are bad enough already that I can’t imagine how many would suffer without the one measly check our government has against the corporate system. Furthermore, I really do believe universal care can work. The countries that have it are doing far better than us on every health indicator. So, I admire the people fighting for universal care and challenging Obama and Congress from that direction.
Ultimately, I guess we just differ philosophically on this point. I think your perspective is really interesting. And it’s certainly a way of looking at the Tea Parties that never occurred to me. But I don’t think I can buy that they are “perhaps the most organized political group currently challenging the government’s expansion of power.” Like you said, I just don’t see them ever challenging the military and until you are willing to do that, you’re not doing very much. Consider what we spend on social services as compared to the military. It’s a drop in the bucket. And, more to the point of my original post, whatever challenge they are waging, it’s out of selfishness. Conversely, I don’t think it’s selfish to fight for health care as a universal human right.
Stop sucking me back in already!
And, more to the point of my original post, whatever challenge they are waging, it’s out of selfishness.
Ok, but why? I still don’t understand why you think opposition to corporate bailouts, government stimulus spending, and health care reform is any more inherently selfish or greedy than any of the labor protests that are covered on this blog. Is it just the health care part? Most of the people in these protests don’t look like wealthy Wall Street types who are worried that the cost of socialized medicine will prevent them from buying another vacation home — they look like average people who don’t trust the government with their money (you know, except what is absolutely necessary, like when the military blows shit up to “keep their families safe”).
I don’t think it’s selfish to fight for health care as a universal human right.
I don’t either. But I do think that advocacy for federalized health care is advocacy for a system of income-redistribution based on violence, and that such advocacy seems less compatible with a philosophy of nonviolence than protests against government spending. (However, don’t mistake this to mean that I prefer a corporate health care system over a socialized one — my view on this debate is that it’s a difficult lesser-of-two-evils kind of choice, that I’m not enthusiastic to make.)
Also, I question whether fighting for “health care as a universal human right” is the same thing as fighting for a health care system run by the U.S. government. I mean, these are the same people who run the Post Office and the IRS.
But I’ve never been at a protest where hateful behavior was shared by more than a few people.
I certainly have — not so much in the smaller actions that you and I have participated in, but definitely in the larger anti-war marches in Washington D.C. I’ve seen people yell that Bush’s daughters should be slaughtered on the front lines in Iraq, and I’ve watched videos almost exactly like Max Blumenthal’s, except that the protesters were Democrats who hated Republicans and thought Bush was Hitler (or that 9/11 was a conspiracy masterminded by Republicans).
For the preceding 8 years, few things have united liberals more than their mutual hatred for George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. (but never the Democrats who were co-supporters of the wars). Now that these Republican leaders are gone, these same protesters seem a whole lot less interested in protesting the exact same policies that remain in place. Not that they didn’t have plenty of good reasons to hate them, of course!
Ok, I think I’m just repeating myself now, so I’ll try to stop.
My use of the word selfish was in regard to the Tea Parties that focused on opposing health care reform. While I don’t support the Public Option (either), I do think the general idea of health care reform is a just cause—the more toward universal single-payer coverage, the better. Conversely, I don’t see how opposing not only reform, but the very tiny bit of socialized care that we do have in this country—as many Tea Baggers have done—is a just cause. It seems rooted in a fear of helping people. And god forbid some of those people be “illegal aliens”! I have to believe there’s a better way to challenge gov’t power than through the measly bit of money that goes toward helping poor and sick people pay their bills, as well the chance for thousands more to not go in debt over doctor bills every year.
In the case of their opposition to the bailout and government stimulus spending, I find the Tea Baggers to be more disingenuous than selfish. Where were these people during the Bush years? I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to imagine that they would not be coming out in droves now if McCain were president. This is a deeply partisan country and I have a hard time believing the people who attend these Tea Parties are as independent-minded as you suggest. I think they are opposed to this Democrat-led government, not a Republican-led government, even though the bailouts and stimulus would have still happened under a Republican.
In short, I’m less optimistic about the motives of Tea Baggers than you are and don’t see the side benefit to their protests. I also haven’t seen any suggestions for a just health care system that doesn’t involve the government. I would love to see one. I’m certainly open to hearing about it. But so far, it’s the one issue I can’t see an anarchist way around. And ultimately, given the money and actual power involved, I’m more concerned with the military than social services.
Anyway, just so you know, I really value your opinion and have found this to be a really good discussion. Maybe we can talk about it more in person next time.