Wednesday, April 28, 2010


Dance writes (with heavy editing by FLG so read the whole thing if you are going to address Dance's comment):
Actually, my central problem is that your Fed-blgs-only! argument is nonsense, and I wish you'd stop spouting it and produce an argument that really engages with the concerns people are expressing.

I do not think the Tea Party is a mass of militia members, and while I think they are misguided overall, I have some sympathy for some of their concerns. I do think there is a legit risk that the violent extremists might use the Tea Party to hide themselves or to build their network, and that avoiding suspicion this way might enable them to execute more actual violence in the US than AQ, regardless of what is planned.

My second concern with the Tea Party is that they will encourage the sort of laws that we have seen in Arizona. Again, you can have similiar concerns with the environmental movement, but I find legalizing racial/class profiling by the police far more problematic than a city ticketing people for not separating out their recyclables, as they might give parking tickets.

All good points and I don't really disagree. The issue with the Tea Party then is political. It's their agenda. That's fine. My issue is that the focus on the risk of the Tea Party producing violent extremists or allowing extremist to organize is that I think that idea is being used to discredit the whole movement, by various commenters to whom I've previously linked (see Part III below) and even to some extent by lines ever more unclear, instead of engaging with the ideas of the movement.

Also, could you add the links back to the previous posts in this conversation, please? I'm a historian and missing citations make me twitch.

I apologize. I'm a lazy blogger, but I'm certainly not trying to pull one over on anybody. Here are the previous threads, part I, part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V.

I didn't address the point about only Fed buildings versus Al-Qaeda. My point is that Al-Qaeda is a much bigger threat because it would nuke a whole city if it could while homegrown nutjobs are very unlikely to do so.

1 comment:

dance said...

comment:the focus on the risk of the Tea Party producing violent extremists or allowing extremist to organize is that I think that idea is being used to discredit the whole movement

Fair enough. I'd like to see more engagement with the actual Tea Party ideas, also (excluding the birther fringe and other wackjobs). Though it takes two to carry on a dialogue.

But I'd suspect (and I'm saying this without actually watching the media you are critiquing) that the focus on Tea Party extremists is as much about galvanizing govt & populace as it is discrediting the Tea Party. Behavior that would be reported as suspicious when done by someone brown should not be overlooked when carried out by someone flying a confederate flag. I don't know if the govt *still* identifies the ELF as the top domestic terrorist target, but that's kinda ridiculous. Wasn't there outrage on the right when the govt identified militias as a major threat? You could say the libs are meeting that hysteria with hysteria designed to redirect and deflect it.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.