OK, fine. we have lots of common ground with the teabaggers

[cali]

The consensus here seems to be that we're all populists and that we're all oppressed by the same forces. But they don't believe that. They push FOR corporatism. They believe in imposing Christianity. In short, they work for everything we oppose.

So what's the big plan for changing that? Noam Chomsky and Thom Hartmann both vaguely say we should be finding common ground and organizing with these people.

What's the common ground? Does it exist if they don't believe it does?

How do you organize with people who despise what you hold dear?

Specific please.

[Jennicut]

1. There is not common ground other then anger at "the system".

These people believe in less govt, not more. The only solution is to stop them, not try and get them on our side.

[JI7]

2. they want proof that Obama was not born in Kenya and isn't a Muslim

[liberal N proud]

3. Speak for yourself

Teabaggers are lunatics.

[leftstreet]

4. The common ground is economic, why can't we work with that?

:shrug:

[cali]

but their solutions are diametrically opposed from ours

they want less regulation, more privatization and less gov't "interference". How do you work with that? Why do you believe that their opinions are less firmly held than ours?

Oh, and specific you weren't.

[leftstreet]

11. You mean the 600 people at the er...convention, or the rest of the country?

Why is this tiny group so threatening?

[JI7]

14. the OP was about teabaggers

[cali]

17. no, I mean the millions of people who agree with those at the convention

there's ample evidence via polling that the tea party crap has popular support. You can live in denial about that if you wish, but the evidence is compelling.

[leftstreet]

19. I'm confused. Why did these millions of people vote for Obama Change?

:shrug:

[cali]

24. uh, who said they did? I doubt very much that those folks voted for Obama

You do realize that McCain and Palin got millions and millions of votes from indies, right? Why are you pretending differently?

[JI7]

25. they didn't vote for Obama

[Spazito]

29. Ummm, they didn't, you seem to have forgotten McCain/Palin...

got millions of votes, 58,343,671 votes to be exact.

[LeftishBrit]

45. The Right didn't.

[Political Heretic]

36. It has popular support because people are angry and fed up with estalbishment politics

They may be influenced into some bad thinking but a right wing actively involved in trying to capture their anger and convince them to direct that anger toward the radical right's agenda ("you're angry and I feel your pain; I'm here to tell you that its evil liberals that are to blame!")

- while on our side all we have is people like you saying "You're fucking stupid and a waste of my time."

[cali]

46. influenced into bad thinking? that's a snobby attitude.

And no, dearie, I am fucking well not saying they're stupid or a waste of my time. First of all, I don't think they're all stupid. Like any large group of people there are individuals of greatly varying abilities and backgrounds. I don't look at intelligence in a simplistic way- or much else for that matter. And I certainly don't think they're a waste of my time. I believe that their agenda has to be actively repudiated and fought.

It's funny, you're the one that's inferring that these folks are just stupid sheep who are subject to bad influences and you're accusing me of doing what YOU actually do all the time.

[Political Heretic]

55. Black is white, up is down, we've always been at war with eurasia

:eyes:

[cali]

58. lame. the last refuge of someone who can't offer a cogent response

disappointing. I thought you were brighter than that.

[Political Heretic]

69. A cogent response to what, exactly?

[LeftishBrit]

44. Only it isn't...

What do leftists or liberals have in common on economic issues with those who worship the free market, oppose all government 'handouts', and believe that preventing or relieving poverty encourages 'laziness' and 'weakens the survival instinct'.

The right would drag us all economically into the early 19th century if they could.

The difference between the elitist right and the populist right is that the former support preservation of wealth in existing hands, while the latter believe that anyone can and should be rich if they are 'enterprising' enough. But both believe equally in crushing the poor.

[annabanana]

5. The big stumbling block to getting with the populists on the

right seems to be that they have no understanding of how we got INTO this fix. They get their daily "news" devoid of history or context. The world is new for them every day and the only outlets they seem to trust are feeding them great piles of misinformation.

[G_j]

67. yea, it doesn't help that the people they listen to are professional liars

that's a big difference.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Teabaggers are nothing but Republicans in disguise.

To believe anything else is exactly what they are hoping.

[blindpig]

26. Republican voters are humans in disguise.

Same with Democratic voters. The politicians, that's another story.

[Political Heretic]

32. Exactly.

[FrenchieCat]

41. I don't buy it.

[blindpig]

56. So who is the 'hater'?

[mwb970]

7. Isn't Hartmann backing away from the idea now? /nt

[T Wolf]

8. I too do not see much that "we" have in common with "them" - especially on the more

important political ideals that theoretically shape that "game" here in the US.

They love their children. We love our children. The key diff is that, for the most part, we also love their children and want to do good by the nation and the planet for theirs as well as ours.

Concern for others is the differentiating factor.

[timeforpeace]

9. Teabaggers are mostly independents and we need their votes.

[cali]

10. Why? What makes you think that these particular independents

ever voted for dems or progressives?

[Mari333]

15. my biological family is rife with teabaggers and they have never

voted for a dem. ever.
based on issues like abortion, prayer in schools, etc.
they are sort of , well, dominionists. not very bright people, frankly.
I dont want to see dems become dominionists just to appease these types.
:)

[blindpig]

37. Economics are primary

I for one would not propose any appeasing on these social issues. As the economic situation of the working class continues to deteriorate these issues, largely manufactured, will fade into the background for most people as the primacy of economics and power relationships makes itself unavoidable. There is where the potential for agreement lies.

[Mari333]

40. but their solutions to the economic problems persists as a nonworkable scenario

they scapegoat (against illegal immigration) and blame (welfare mothers)
they are run by corporations anyway (astroturf)

and they do not see military spending as a bad thing.
they like it.
they also hate gay people
they also want to blame others

they believe in the Reagan trickle down crapola

and they NEVER blamed BUsh ever for this mess..

and still refuse to do so..

they are being run by Dick Armey and his corporate think tanks anyway

they are being used.

I dont know why anyone is taking them seriously, including Chomsky.

[blindpig]

62. If you admit that they are being used

do you not think that might not dawn on a considerable portion of them also?

There will always be a hard core but I believe that at the end of the day that economics will be decisive for the majority. Remember, that is how they got started, it is their core issue. They were quite correct to be outraged about the bailout. Work on points of agreement. Any who claim that this or that social issue is a line in the sand, tell them to fuck off.

[Lasher]

12. Not really. They're Ross Perot Republicans.

I don't want their racist traitor separatist votes. Fuck 'em.

[DJ13]

22. Perot also drew Democrats

His message was that economics as practiced by the US government on behalf of corporate america were being used against average Americans.

That message could still reverberate .....if the right person could deliver it without getting dragged into the phony walls put up to divide us by the MSM.

[JI7]

20. that's why they paid Sarah Palin 6 over 100k for a speech

[Spazito]

30. ROFL!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


oh, wait a minute



you are serious!


:rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

47. Independents that either just left the sinking USS GOP or always

thought it was too "librul" for them.

We haven't got many Teabagger votes through the years that I see any indication of. They are at least as far Reich Republican as Jim Demint and if we need their votes then we are dead as fried chicken.

If they are mostly indies then they are the leaners that have alway voted GOP or stayed home.

[Raven]

13. I have no common ground with these people. They are haters and recists. n/t

[cali]

21. I know you don't Raven, but plenty of folks here believe

that we do. Take a look at what's on top of the Greatest. That's why I want to hear specifics from those that believe we should join forces.

[Raven]

27. Jesus Cali! This is scarey. n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

16. I don't have any common ground with them.

Don't confuse teabaggers with the normal pissed off independent. I can't think of anything we would agree on and if normal people joined and changed the movement to a sane level the original baggers would just go off and start another small (of course the media wouldn't treat them as small)movement.

[LostInAnomie]

18. Repealing NAFTA is the only thing that comes to mind.

So many of those idiots are such fans of Capitalism though (even when it is fucking them) that I don't even know it that would gain any traction.

[KansDem]

23. "They push FOR corporatism."

That's the biggest difference. I think progressives recognize the value of government as an extension of the people's will. Teabaggers hate government but love corporatism. They must see corporations as the best way of providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. They must not know that corporations represent only the will of their shareholders, and will act accordingly.

Their "Taxed Enough Already" is a ruse. Where were these concerned citizens when Bush lied us into war costing us trillions?

[Land Shark]

28. Protect self-government & elections so that our Disagreements are RELEVANT, for starters.

Teabaggers don't like bailouts, and there are other things to build on top of the above all-important Foundation against oligarchs.

[cali]

31. Tea baggers didn't organize against bushco bailouts

in fact the movement didn't even start until Obama was elected. I'm not sure from what I've read on bagger sites that they even hated the bailouts so much as they hate the idea of the gov't having any control or influence over private industry and of course Obama hate figures large in it.

[Political Heretic]

34. Yes, they did.

Sorry to rain on the re-write of history, but there were substantial "conservative" sided protests to the bank bailout before Obama was elected.

I know because I was writing about them, and sharing in the outrage. A large number of angry conservatives wanted TARP to fail and were furious about what the Bush administration was choosing to do.

[cali]

35. I said the tea party stuff itself didn't start until after Obama was elected

not that there wasn't any conservative opposition to the bailouts. There was, but it became far more vociferous when it was under Obama.

[Political Heretic]

42. "Tea Party" is just a name for the same ideas and same outrage that existed before

Obama.

[Land Shark]

50. It was a Left/Right coalition that defeated the first House bailout bill. 2d just rushed thru...

And I note cali has no response/objection to the main point about preserving our self-governing system from being rendered permanent aristocracy/oligarchy so that our disagreements will actually mean something, potentially.

[Joe the Liberal]

33. It's like the jews trying to work with the Nazi's, it ain't happening.....

I know everyone gets tired of analogy's like that but that's just how I see it, there is no common ground, they hate us to the bone.

[LeftishBrit]

38. I think that the only thing that the far right has in common with the left...

is frustration with the existing system and thinking that the status quo is bad. Which is not really sufficient for a coalition.

There are doubtless some people who are seduced by the far right due to lack of information, and could be persuaded to the left - but not, I think, a large number.

On almost every aspect of policy and attitude, far right and left diverge:

Far right: Government is evil. It should not be involved in providing public services.
Left: Government should expand provision of public services.

Far right: It is right to support your own nation/ethnic group over others. Indeed, foreigners and minorities are responsible for most economic and social evils and should be kicked out or punished.
Left: Minorities should never be scapegoats. People of different nations should unite to achieve economic and social goals.

Far right: Might is right. War on (and torture of) uppity foreigners is justified.
Left: War is a bad thing, and might is not right.

Far right: Strength and toughness are themselves virtues. People who are poor or otherwise cannot 'make it' on their own are scroungers and should not be helped. At best, helping them should be purely voluntary; at worst they deserve every kicking they get (at the extremes, note some Far RW comments on Haiti).
Left: The system should provide for ensuring a safety net so that all are protected from extreme poverty. Weakness and misfortune should not be treated as punishable offences.

Far right: Protecting people from serious adversity turns society into 'wimps' and weakens the 'survival instinct'.
Left: Protecting people from serious adversity is society's duty.

Far right: Traditional authority should be built up. Men should have power over women; fathers should have power over their families. Obedience is a key virtue.
Left: Traditional authority should be weakened, and instead we should emphasize rights for *all*. Obedience for the sake of obedience is dangerous.


So what common ground is there? Some far right wingers may oppose PARTICULAR wars, especially those that involve high long-term government spending and increase long-term contact with foreigners. And both left and right are fed up with the carte blanche that bankers have been given (though I think even here on different grounds - the right think that governments have been over-involved in the banking system; the left think that they haven't regulated the banks nearly enough). But this is not sufficient for a coalition.

There is IMO much more to be gained in going after the apolitical who think that it doesn't matter who is in government, and trying to convince them that government does make a difference, than in trying to attract the far right, who want a fundamentally different sort of society (one much more authoritarian, harsh, xenophobic, intolerant of minorities, and based on 'toughness') than the left wants.

[Javaman]

39. And here is the basic issue with Democrats.

we are always trying to bridge a divide.

You know what? sometimes that divide can't be bridged.

Until we realize that simple fact, we will always be playing catch up.

[jaxx]

43. I have nothing in common with them.

They're radical rightwing fringe, and I do mean fringe. They are against anything remotely left and pretty much hate the President.

How do I know? I post with them, and they hate me too.

[customerserviceguy]

48. There are a lot of people who are fed up

and it's all a matter of who will lead them. In 2008, it was candidate Obama, in 2009, it was nobody. Caribou Barbie and Glenn Beck are simply rushing in to fill the leadership vacuum.

I guarantee you this, if the people who are susceptable to the tea party movement's messages are derided as racists, or as ignorant hicks, they'll gladly fall into the opposing camp. In fact, I'm sure that is the strategy of the would-be leaders of this movement.

[MadBadger]

49. Obama didnt lead this group. They are well on the fringe and have always hated him.

Not all independents are created equal. A lot of them probably bought into the Ron Paul message

[customerserviceguy]

52. All I know is the numbers

We don't have enough progressives in this country to have elected Barack Obama, we needed independents. It was easy for the independents to look at the bank bailout and conclude that the third Bush term needed to be prevented, and they voted accordingly.

Now, we have President Obama with Larry and Timmy, and continuing the Bush policies in so very many ways. No wonder the independents are disillusioned again.

They'll find a new champion, the only question is, will that person come from the progressive side, or from the reich wing side?

[MadBadger]

53. But its ludicrous to think that all independents are moderates.

The teabaggers are far right. They were never EVER voting for Obama. The kind of indies Obama needs to focus on are those moderates

[customerserviceguy]

57. Yes, the organizers of the baggers are indeed quite far right

They're quickly trying to position themselves as the leaders of the disaffected.

Their 'reasoning' goes thusly: "Well, we didn't like Bush, because he was a moderate Republican who was in the pockets of the corporations, they were behind the bailouts and the amnesty thing. Along comes Obama, and he is a socialist who is also bought off by the corporations. We need true conservatives to lead this country out of chaos."

As you can see, the idea that Obama is both a socialist and a corporatist is ludicrous on it's face, but that doesn't stop Palin and Tancredo. We have to make the case that a progressive who is not in the pockets of big business is the way out of our situation. Otherwise, we write them off to the right wing, and it will come back to bite us in the ass, just like it did in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey.

[cali]

59. independents don't all have the same ideology.

[KonaKane]

51. What a load of crap.

Are you telling me, a leftist liberal, that I have alot in common with someone who -

* Embraces racism and racists

* Wants to protect the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class

* Wants to ramrod their "God" back into government, schools, and foreign policy

* Wants to shrink government and taxation even at the EXPENSE of everything that those elements were put in place to serve

* Despises intellect and education, and embraces fear, anger and stupidity

* Hates multiculturalism and desires a monoglot nation of same the skin color

* Adores our military policy, and in fact supports it's bloated budgets in the face of their constant catterwalling about taxes.


Is this what you are actually trying to tell me?

Fuck off, Noam. You've really blown this one.

[leftofcool]

54. Cali, here are a couple of specifics

The two teabaggers we know (only know 2 of em) believe in individual liberty and so do I believe most Democrats. That is first thing we have in common. Yet, we can never reach common ground as long as one group who says they believe in those liberties want to impose their beliefs on the other group who also wants to impose their beliefs. A perfect example is abortion. Until we reach common ground on abortion neither side will ever allow the other those individual liberties all sides claim to love. The same can be said for gay rights and gay marriage. Secondly, teabaggers and Dems both believe in fiscal responsibility. As a Democrat, I have to pay my bills on time every month, and I believe my government should have to do the same. I think teabaggers believe also believe this . Our differences are that Dems believe in spending government money on more social programs, less military spending, less tax cuts for the rich. Teabaggers believe we can do away with some social programs, more military spending and give more tax cuts to rich folks. Again, until we can meet in the middle somewhere, none of these issues get solved. We may have more in common with teabaggers than some realize, but how in hell do we get them to see that we are all in this together?

[cali]

60. thanks. well, yes, that is the rub.

"...how in hell do we get them to see that we are all in this together?"

[Fire1]

61. "How do you organize with people who despise what you

hold dear?" I don't know and don't want to know. I'm not one of those people.:hi:

[Uncle Joe]

63. By engaging, and educating, there is a video here at D.U. but I can't find it of a young man

reporting on a Teabag Protest, I believe it was the protest in D.C. and he educates some of the protesters toward the end of the video, you can watch their reactions change.

I searched D.U. over but I can't find this video but I believe that young man's approach is the best one.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[cali]

64. Thanks for the response, Joe.

I don't think the majority of them can be persuaded- anymore than I could be persuaded to believe in what they espouse.

[bergie321]

65. We can pull them to our side

As soon as the corporate controlled media decides to go against their best interests and report the truth instead of feeding the teabaggers lies to protect their profits.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[MadBadger]

66. They only watch Fox News

[Tace]

68. We Share At Least 50% Of The Same Genes

Maybe not as many as with starfish, but there's got to be some common ground. I know -- Earth -- that's the common ground. I'm not sure they're in the same dimension, though, or phase state, or quantum level, or something. Most people like cheese. Maybe we could start there. : )