Shouting vile words is one thing. Threatening President Obama's life, as some Tea Baggers have done, is another. There is a line here and some of these people have crossed it.

It's one thing to read a story that gets the message across, but rare indeed to read stores where language and illusions are so deftly crafted as Bergers lines that follow.

*****Movements can be like Velcro, picking up everything in their path.
******a bit like the pope in a ray of divine sunlight.
******but it was part of the nasty song America sings when it ain't so beautiful.
******I emptied my rhetorical litter box at them.
******It's wrong to think a few stupid name callers represent a whole movement; it's also a mistake to think that the Tea Party movement is ideologically coherent and speaks with one voice.
It's morphing, moving, co-opted, shape-shifting along with the body politic. With any such movement, there are always people trying to mainstream their own nutty, racist, or hateful views, or trying to piggyback populism with their pet peeves.

Well done Knute.

Maybe all protests have their destructive or ugly elements. I remember seeing WTO delegates looking actually frightened while being blocked by human cordons. And my left-leaning college had a chapter of Shining Path! But some protests are better than others, by which I mean more creative, more interesting, less violent. At WTO, before the police started panicking, there were refreshing, exhilarating moments: environmentalists in sea-turtle costumes dancing in the streets to music piped in by the Teamsters. At best, protests can create a whole new kind of space for people to be together, a space where people can insist on having a role in the policy-making that shapes our lives. At worst, they become riots. I think a good protest has a lot more "yes" in it than "no," while worse protests are fueled by scapegoating more than by actual courage.
Are the Tea Partyers offering us anything, or are they just venting a lot of paranoia and looking for scapegoats?

"Hurling abuse is not only All-American" -
I want to ask what "Amurrican" then means in
this and all such contexts? Isn't it but an all-too human recourse
to entirely irrational self-righteousness, as in the once "House Un-Amurrican committee." Yes, let us defend the tea-baggers, by all means,
all the angry sheeples, suckers since the moments were conceived,
or the first moment they were plopped in front of a t.v. and started
to consume what would make them fat and sick in heart and mind
sickness in which too there was profit. all those idiot believers, born to be deceived, thinking they are freed slaves.
at the mercy of corporations that exploit every aspect of their being.
From one corral to the other they surge, occasionally they create a third,
at check out time its paper or plastic.

I was part of a protest following the Rodney King verdict in Simi Valley at the UW. I remember how our protest veered to nearly violent as students started picking up rocks and bricks to throw through windows. Cooler heads prevailed and we shut down I-5 and marched downtown. I remember people getting out of their cars and cheering us on.

My concern with the tea party and the politicians who court them is that they are fanning the flames without understanding the full impacts of their actions. Sara Palin actually has a map with crosshairs on her website marking the members of congress she is targeting. We all know of many more examples. I'm sure many Republicans are concerned about where this is going but at the same time are happy to have the support.

Well said. The Philosopher provides some context and social wisdom. I would also mention the therapeutic function of protests. A mass public protest offers a relatively benign emotional outlet for accumulated anger and a momentary sense of power to those who feel disenfranchised -- not a perfect vehicle in either case, perhaps, but better than some of the alternatives.

One line that I remember hearing a few years ago from my liberal friends decried the lack of protesting in this country, compared say to France. I haven't heard that lately.

I was very much turned off to the anti-war movement due to the things that you described, and I can tell that there are many other people out there would would be more sympathetic to the peace messages, were those messages not wrapped up in extreme rhetoric, anti-Americanism, and conspiracy theory. The anti-war movement, for all of its energy and size, can take credit for very few tangible results.

The American media seems to be quite taken by the Tea Party movement in a way that it never was with the anti-war movement, and I'm not sure why the extreme right is considered more respectable than the extreme left. For this reason I think that the predictions of a coming Republican sweep are mistaken. My expectation is that, quite to the contrary, the extremism within the Tea Party movement is likely to create a substantial backlash.

I usually agree with Mossback—in fact, I edited his book, Pugetopolis—but not this time. I'm appalled and profoundly worried by the Tea Party crowd's reflexive hatred, increasingly linked with boorish incivility in Congress itself. I'm fine with passionate opposition and unruly demonstrations, but there's a jagged line somewhere between unruliness and barbaric madness, and functional democracy does not await us on the far side of it. Frankly, I think it's not enough to "cringe" as your fellow protesters shower little baton-twirling girls with abuse; your presence in the crowd endorses it. Time to go home and find, or create, a venue for more intelligent and civilized opposition.

The New York Times' Bob Herbert has a different view on the same topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html?partner=rss&emc;=rss

Larry,
Your house or mine?

Thanks for the reminder that all politics is loco.

It had me fumbling for my book of H.L. Mencken quotes (actually, Lycos-ing for one); you and he provide the vinegar that matches the temper of the times. Such as...?

"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time."

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats."

"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."

And Vonnegut: "So it goes."

Afflicted with such jaded, weary thoughts, we can't be blamed for the sickening feeling that we're entering the End Days--witnessing the stalling of the American impulse and the unraveling of the American empire.

Odd and ironic: The one leap of human spirit that America could aspire to (an educated, literate, altruistic populace) is still beyond us, and in an abundant world, those qualities seem farther from our grasp with the passing of time).

Apologies for the dark thoughts...and thanks for sharing yours.

Nice try, Knute, but this is quite a stretch.

If you can't make the distinction between some of the admittedly outrageous characters protesting against globalization and the WTO, or Bush's invasion of Iraq, and the "tea baggers" shouting "NIGGER" and "FAGGOT" and holding up signs with guns on them, implying assassination of Democratic politicians, you're either just uninformed or being deliberately disingenuous because you think such "symmetry" makes for a cute column.

Were the Black Panthers the same as the Ku Klux Klan? After all, both groups were "extremist" and were focused on "racial issues". So let's not be obtuse here.

It won't wash, Knute. Sometimes it's not, "a plague on both your houses."

As someone who grew up watching the stylish protesters of the 60s on TV (and I'd guess I'm about a decade younger than Mossback) the thing that struck me, even as a kid, was what a narcistic behavior it was. People were always protesting against something, anything, and many of the causes were downright silly. I think that's the reason why so many of my friends and I in the baby-boomer-and-a-half generation rebelled against the 1960s' left; because to us, it was the establishment at least as much at 1950s conservatism. We didn't like either one. And it's probably why I've never been moved to protest by any injustice. Protests are usually just part of the background noise. Same thing with the "Tea Party" protesters today. As my grandfather used to say, "They think they're having a good time," but are the protests themselves going to make any difference? Probably not. I'm sure the people involved will find it a valuable social networking exercise, however.

Knute,

Still think that kids in turtle costumes are exactly the same as these Tea Baggers who show up armed at their protests? Check this out for a dose of reality:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/extra-security-for-member_n_512030.html

Disagreeing even with invective is one thing, but the hate and threats of violence against members of congress -- or anyone for that matter -- is reprehensible and should cause that person to be arrested and sentenced to jail.

A racist lynch mob is a racist lynch mob.

The tea baggers have shown themselves to be nothing more than a lynch mob.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

Knute--
Usually when I read something far out I thing "what have they been smoking (and I consider whether I want to try some)," but I'm afraid this was just a bad trip.
Don't worry, you'll be coming down soon.

Neither extreme has a monopoly on insanity.

http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20100320
http://zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_3-20-2010/

The far left doesn't much like Obama, either, and is unfortunately far likelier to parade its antisemitism in public.

I don't see much coverage of *this* in the mainstream media...

That having been said, of course threatening people's lives is reprehensible, and racist and anti-gay slurs are uncalled for. But if Skip smoked something to be able to write this piece, let me know where I can get some.

(PS I wonder what Thomas Friedman's proposed party of the "radical center" would look like? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html Hey, IRV in the New York Times… maybe we're finally getting somewhere.)

I have never been in the crowd of a tea party protest but I can tell you that most people I saw and knew in civil rights marches, peace rallies, the WTO and immigration policy protests quickly distanced themselves from the nut cases. Leaders denounced destruction and violence in clear voices. Until this starts to happen with the tea baggers, the better historical analogy is a KKK rally.

I just love how we wax nostalgic over the Viet Nam era anti-war movement - yet, what was the lasting imagery which the movement cloaked itself in? I was actually swept up in the crowds at some of the largest demonstrations during that time. I was in Chicago in 1968 and 1969. The "Days of Rage" and all. Amidst a sea of Viet Cong flags, what were the masses (not just a few agitators) chanting during these demonstrations while US soldiers were dying in Viet Name? "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! NLF is gonna win!" (NLF being the North Vietnamese communist "National Liberation Front"). Another slogan: "Off the PIGS!" or "Kill the PIGS!" Meaning to kill police officers.

Now what are the so-called "tea-baggers" being castigated for? Being upset because the government is imposing on the entire country an unconstitutional requirement - to be enforced at gunpoint, if need be, by the IRS and agents of the state - that every person must buy an insurance policy and allow government bureaucrats dictate how and when a person may choose to provide for his or her own medical care, or choose not to? For a few loudmouths yelling epithets at "the man" for imposing the most massive intrusion into the personal privacy of every human being in the US by the government?

What concerns me the most is how, despite all the lip-service paid to the "Question Authority" skepticism of government by so-called "progressives", they have completely sold out to auhoritarianism, while their fellow-citizens who are maligned as "tea-baggers" are the ones who are following in the finest tradition of American dissent - arguing for civil rights and questioning the authority of any group, including the US Congress, to try to take away unalienable rights and arrogate to themselves such unbridled power that they think they can get away with it - and, it appears that they have, given that progressives have joined the forces of back-room dealing politicians and insurance company monopolies.

@Seattle Observer: I agree with you about the '60s--the antiwar movement had its low points. But maybe you can help me understand something that completely baffles me--why the tea partyers are so worked up about health care reform. The government already requires us all to have car insurance, so why not health insurance? I think there's a good reason to require people to have health insurance: you can say we should all have the right not to, but will those who opt out follow through on their convictions all the way? If someone chooses not to have health insurance, but then gets injured or seriously ill, will they stay away from the ER out of principle, and say, "I took the risk, so I'll just die of my appendicitis now, that's fair enough." No, they'll go to the ER and their care will be subsidized by taxpayers, and it will be more expensive overall than good preventive care would have been. A civilized country needs a health care system that actually covers people when they get sick or hurt, and we need a way to pay for it.
Do the tea partyers feel that our current system is working well? This is what I'd love to know.

I'd have a little more sympathy for the supposedly anti-mandate Republicans if they hadn't proposed the idea in the 1990s:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612

And my favorite take on tea-baggers so far:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/03/22/health-care-passage-thoughts/
"That said, the Democrats were magnificently fortunate that, as incompetent as they are, they are ever-so-slightly less incompetent than the GOP, which by any realistic standard has been handed one of the largest legislative defeats in decades. The GOP was not simply opposed to health care, it was opposed to it in shrill, angry, apocalyptic terms, and saw it not as legislation, or in terms of whether or not health care reform was needed or desirable for Americans, but purely as political strategy, in terms of whether or not it could kneecap Obama and bring itself back into the majority. As such there was no real political or moral philosophy to the GOP’s action, it was all short-term tactics, i.e., take an idea a majority of people like (health care reform), lie about its particulars long enough and in a dramatic enough fashion to lower the popularity of the idea, and then bellow in angry tones about how the president and the Democrats are ignoring the will of the people. Then publicly align the party with the loudest and most ignorant segment of your supporters, who are in part loud because you’ve encouraged them to scream, and ignorant because you and your allies in the media have been feeding them bad information. Whip it all up until health care becomes the single most important issue for both political parties — an all-in, must win, absolutely cannot lose issue.

It’s a fine plan — unless you’re on the losing side, which the GOP now is. "

Ruth Markus: Any winner who is is not, at least privately, saying "Gee, I sure hope this works," did not have the appropriate sense of caution. Put that together with losers having had too much negativity, and citizens have their work cut out for them.

Time will tell, folks. None of us and Congress included, whichever side we think we are on, knows what is in that new law just amended again yesterday and how as a whole it will play out, e.g. the loop-hole that Boeing didn't want closed--now moved back several years. It is even hard to tell if some or all the phase-ins serve political or practical purposes. Whichever:they mean it will be some time before time tells.

What is different today is that less and less of us can be sure that community, the nation, or the planet, whichever is your higher cause, has a great deal of time to spare.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Vietnam War was an extremely violent event, chewing up high school graduating classes and spitting out bodies, as 50,000 Americans and 2,000,000 Vietnamese died in a war in which we dropped more bombs than in all of WW II. At the same time, black people in the US were simply being murdered by police who went unpunished. This was simply a very violent time in which 99% of the violence in the US was committed by men in uniform.

The Vietnam protesters were protesting a real violent event. The teabaggers are worked up about imaginary threats because they believe talk radio and their "leaders" in Congress. Witness 'Seattle Observer' above, who thinks the Affordable Care Act will "allow government bureaucrats dictate how and when a person may choose to provide for his or her own medical care, or choose not to". This is simply totally untrue.

The goal of the Vietnam War protesters was to restore a functioning democracy in an America ruled by militaristic political gangs. The goal of the teabaggers has been to prevent the majority. through their representatives in Congress, from acting to solve major problems with a healthcare system that costs us twice as much per capita as any other nation, but delivers no better care.

In short, the teabaggers are hysterical mobs incited by propaganda broadcasters and lying politicians to attempt an overthrow of our democratic government. And that is, indeed, to be deplored.

The protests by right wing conservatives, including so called Tea Party folks, over health care is misplaced. They are so pro their free enterprise ideology that they can't see that the free enterprise system of health care has Americans paying twice what other industrialized countries pay. To maximize profit for shareholders and company profits they excluded insuring those with pre-existing conditions and dropping those whose illnesses they didn't want to cover or pay for.

Change can be frightening, but Obama and the Democrats have chosen to move forward rather than stay with a failed status quo system. The Republicans decided for political purposes to en masse oppose any health care reform legislation.

Health care is a right and should not just be a privilege of the wealthy. Tea Party proponents need to look closer at what health care reform will do for them and see beyond the ideological rhetoric of the failed free enterprise Republican corporate mantra that puts profits above human life and health. Just like social security and Medicare, over time more and more people will support the current healthcare legislation as they see its real benefits and positive impacts.

In short, "progressives" are hysterical mobs incited by propaganda broadcasters and lying politicians to attempt an overthrow of our democratic government. And that is, indeed, to be deplored.

The only reason---the ONLY reason--that Johnson decided not to run again in '64 was the Vietnam protests. The only reason Nixon was forced to get out was the protests. And the only reason those protests had such impact was that there was a draft in place, and upper-middle-class white boys had to figure out to stay out of it and a lot of them knew they wouldn't be able to. But our wars are now fought by "volunteers" who have no other life options, and young upper-middle-class whites involve themselves with bicycle culture and electronics (even while moving back home because they don't have jobs). So protests are now the province of Tea Party types who know they have been shafted but don't know why or by whom, and all they're certain of is that they're pissed. They're willing to be led by whomever tells them they're right to be pissed, and they will help the Republicans scratch and lie their way back to power in November. Enjoy your iPads, people.

The Tea Party is illegitimate because it claims to be a grassroots movement when it is actually funded by big corporations. I fear the tea party "activists", because they are so easily lead to fight a battle against their own best interests. They are motivated by fear and ignorance.