[Vision2020] Teabaggers

[Joe Campbell]

A few comments on the use of the word “teabaggers.”

1/ Nick was not the first person to call folks in the Tea Bag movement
“teabaggers.” The term “teabagger” was a finalist for the New Oxford
American Dictionary’s “word of the year.” And not for the “sex act”
use of the term but for the usage that refers to members of the Tea
Bag movement – as Nick used it. Dictionaries have no political agenda.
They just register usage. In fact, teabaggers initially called
themselves “teabaggers”!

2/ According to the Urban Dictionary, “teabagger” has FIVE distinct
meanings, the FIRST of which is “one who carries large bags of
packaged tea for shipment.” Only one of the five meanings has the
explicit sexual connotation.

3/ Why does the use of the word “teabaggers” make folks “cringe every
time” they hear it? I’m no psychologist but my guess is the term has
gay connotations and the CONSERVATIVE – not libertarian but
straight-up conservative – folks in the tea bag movement are
homophobic. Maybe there is another reason that the term makes you
cringe, Dan, but if there is I don’t get it. Maybe it’s just the
sexuality of the connotation but when my softball teammates call me a
“baller” I laugh, I don’t cringe.

4/ Teabaggers pretend to be libertarian but how many of them voted for
a state constitutional amendment against gay and lesbian marriage?
Let’s face it, once you give the state the right to tell you whom to
MARRY, you’ve crossed over to the non-libertarian side of the
political spectrum. Like Garrett, I applaud much of the teabaggers’
platform, especially the limitation of “government intrusion.” As Nick
notes, teabaggers are for “economic liberty” not freedom from
government intrusion. And they are not for economic liberty for all.
Otherwise, why on earth wouldn’t they favor gay and lesbian marriages
so that gays and lesbians can enjoy the same tax benefits as straight
married couples? This is just standard George Bush, religious-right
conservatism wearing a new hat. If it were otherwise, it would have
started long before Obama was elected.

5/ Dan, as much as I like and respect you, you are a hypocrite, as
Garrett suggested. You POSTED on Tom Forbes’ website back when he had
a tagline that was insulting to academics, like myself. When the
Christ Church guy held up the sign that said that Linda Paul, Tom
Lamar, and Aaron Ament were bigots, you told me in an exchange on the
Daily News blog that the right approach to insulting “idiots” was to
ignore them. You even went so far as to openly criticize Tom’s wife
and daughter for confronting the Christ Church bigot guy. Dale
Courtney essentially called all liberals and progressives “communists”
in the header of his blog for years – a practice that is shared each
day by Rush and Beck – and I never hear a peep from you about that. As
much as it bothers you to hear the word “teabagger,” how would you
like it if folks regularly called you a “communist”? My brother, my
father, and my grandfather fought in wars against communists to help
secure our freedoms and I can tell you I don’t like it one bit. I’ve
never heard you condemn the usage of that term in reference to
liberals and progressives.

I’ll tell you what. The next time that Donovan Arnold, or some other
Christ Church dupe, writes an insulting comment following a post by
Nick, or Tom, or Keely and you make a similar condemnation of his
language, I’ll apologize for calling you a “hypocrite.” A slight
parenthetical remark here is not convincing. Sorry. Back it up with
action. Please.

6/ I’m going to continue to use “teabaggers.” It reminds everyone of
how out of touch the movement is, and how hastily developed it was.
Anyone who forms a political movement without taking enough time to
research the alternative connotations of the NAME of their group
deserves to be reminded of it regularly!

The term is a reminder, also, of how narrow and conservative the true
aims of the Tea Party are. They are concerned merely with limited
economic relief for some, not liberty and freedom for all. They don’t
even want to think about gays, let alone afford them equal rights. It
is faux-libertarianism disguised as the real thing, the government
telling us whom to marry but giving us tax relief. Yipes! Essentially,
they are saying that they’re willing to accept the governmental
suppression of others just as long as they get some tax money back!
What a perverse “libertarian” nightmare.

Libertarianism is a tough row to hoe. It entails giving folks the
right to do things that are against your own personal beliefs, for it
puts freedom from the state ahead of all other concerns. I am far more
libertarian than ANY teabagger I know!

Best, Joe