In my (admittedly biased) opinion, similar articles to these are distorting and providing a false image of what the Tea Party is actually trying to do.
Which is sad, because the Tea Party is quite ridiculous and rage-inducing enough without distorting it. The plain truth would quite suffice in making the Tea Party look terrible.
My dad supports the Tea Party and told me that it was "for states' rights and less government"; if it were, I wouldn't have a problem with it (some people want more government, some want less, and in the end, we usually end up close to "just right"). It's the blatant racism, bigotry, and idiocy running rampant in this party that I have a problem with.
What I truly don't understand is that these people seem to think that you can only have one or the other of something, that humans aren't capable of complex ideas and a multiplicity of facets. I am perfectly capable of respecting the Founding Fathers while being able to condemn their owning slaves, culpability in genocide and relocation of Native Americans, and other things. (In a lighter example, I'm perfectly capable of reading Arthur Conan Doyle without approving of his misogyny).
If I condemn one thing someone did, it doesn't mean that I can't still appreciate their contributions. And if I respect one thing they did, it doesn't mean I have to respect everything they did--or make it disappear so I don't have to deal with it.
ETA: Sorry. This is why I try and avoid politics, because I tend to get worked up about it and become terribly long-winded. ;)
Which is sad, because the Tea Party is quite ridiculous and rage-inducing enough without distorting it. The plain truth would quite suffice in making the Tea Party look terrible.
My dad supports the Tea Party and told me that it was "for states' rights and less government"; if it were, I wouldn't have a problem with it (some people want more government, some want less, and in the end, we usually end up close to "just right"). It's the blatant racism, bigotry, and idiocy running rampant in this party that I have a problem with.
What I truly don't understand is that these people seem to think that you can only have one or the other of something, that humans aren't capable of complex ideas and a multiplicity of facets. I am perfectly capable of respecting the Founding Fathers while being able to condemn their owning slaves, culpability in genocide and relocation of Native Americans, and other things. (In a lighter example, I'm perfectly capable of reading Arthur Conan Doyle without approving of his misogyny).
If I condemn one thing someone did, it doesn't mean that I can't still appreciate their contributions. And if I respect one thing they did, it doesn't mean I have to respect everything they did--or make it disappear so I don't have to deal with it.
ETA: Sorry. This is why I try and avoid politics, because I tend to get worked up about it and become terribly long-winded. ;)
Reply
Leave a comment