Tea Partying vs. War Protesting

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thetexan, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. thetexan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #1
    Allow myself to first introduce...myself. I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative independent voter not tied to any one party. Bush disappointed me with his foreign policy and his overspending and I find Obama to be a joke. I guess I align most with Ron Paul, though I don't always agree with him.

    That being said, Paul started the tea party movement during Bush's term in office and it has been hijacked by the Fox News crowd shortly after Obama took office. Because of that lots of people on the left are calling the tea party movement more anti-Obama (or even racist) than the movement is fiscal responsibility considering Bush's record on fiscal responsibility. I can buy that, since if McCain won I'd bet the tea party movement would still be a vocal libertarian movement populated by young kids and not known to most people.

    However I got to thinking about the war protesters. They were in fact the left's tea party. They protested in large numbers, held huge rallies, and called for an immediate end to the war in Iraq. Once Obama won, they for the most part disappeared. Sure there are some protests but nothing close to on the same level we saw under Bush. Obama has expanded the wars sending more troops and shows no signs of slowing down the wars except for some talk.

    Do you think we're seeing the same hypocrisy here from both sides? I do. I'm sure if McCain won the tea party movement would be largely unknown but the anti war movement would get media coverage once a week.
     
  2. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #2
    I thought the tea party started as a grass roots movement. Not started by a politician. Correct me if I'm wrong.


    Off topic bit of trivia from Wikipedia:

    The term "grass roots" was thought to have been first used in the U.S. in 1912 to describe the Progressive Party.
     
  3. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #3
    Being anti-war is not about being "left" or "right". The protests against the invasion of iraq were worldwide. And their peak was to demonstrate disquiet before the illegal and unjustified war commenced.

    You're drawing too long a bow in my opinion. The tea parties were a localised social gathering in comparison to the size and scale and unity of antiwar protestors.
     
  4. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    Ron Paul's campaign was a grass roots movement dealing with fiscal conservative/libertarian views, the Palin/Rush/Beck talking heads took that message, combined it with anti-Obama rhetoric+religion and we have the tea party. Thats why most people who saw the tea party early on were for the movement, and after seeing the rallies... not so much.
     
  5. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
    Yup, and it's really a shame that those original crowds have not tried to separate themselves from the crazies.
     
  6. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    Im not entirely sure they are actually in the crowd, the groups surrounding Ron Paul were vastly different than what is showing up for the tea parties. Most of the people at the tea parties are pro-war (we'll see if this changes since Obama is in charge now), everyone who supported Ron Paul wanted to get our troops (and money) out.
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7
    Obama did not expand both wars.

    Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq. We are in the midst of withdrawing. No need to protest this.

    Obama campaigned on Afghanistan as being the war we should be focused on. He has added additional troops, twice.
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    I believe the two movements are entirely different. The teabaggers have been co-opted by corporate media and molded into something to suit their needs, much like bushco turned the imaginary WMD into justification for invading Iraq.

    The antiwar movement was about a single issue. No war in Iraq. No racist overtones like the teabaggers, no MurdochCorp sponsorship and ultimately, the anti war crowd remained grassroots all the way through and as Andy says, it was global in nature.
     
  9. bagelche macrumors 6502

    bagelche

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Western Mass.
    #9
    How can you say he did not expand the Afghan war and at the same time note he has twice increased troop numbers?

    Sadly we are not in the midst of withdrawing from Iraq. Even his original rough estimates of considering starting to think about withdrawing keep getting pushed back.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    Source for that claim?
     
  11. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #11
    U.S. troops at lowest level in Iraq since 2003 invasion

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-02-16-iraq-troops_N.htm
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12
    Did you read what I wrote?

    He did not expand both wars. Afghanistan isn't both. :rolleyes:

    As for Iraq:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081642107227292.html
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Since we're comparing the war protestors with teabaggers, here's a question: When tens and hundreds of thousands of anti-war protestors took to the streets, the right dismissed them as "the angry left", not representative of "real America". Yet with teabagger protests that number much MUCH smaller, we're told that this is the manifestation of "real America", and is just the tip of the iceberg and completely representative of mainstream Americans.

    Why would that be? :confused:
     
  14. bagelche macrumors 6502

    bagelche

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Western Mass.
    #14
    I figured you'd come back with that. :rolleyes: right back atcha. He has had the opportunity to draw down in both and has increased one and regularly provided backpedaling on the other. So not expanding both is still a far cry from ending both (or one for that matter).

    There are indeed draw downs planned for Iraq as your link notes, but like your link and this one from the Washington Post based on the same info, they're perpetually backpedaling--there's always an excuse why something can't be done just yet.

    Obama has been solid on the talk front, but his backup has been weak (health care, closing guantanamo, limiting illegal federal wiretapping, torture prosecution, DADT repeal, banking reform, etc.). It may still happen--and I hope it does--but the Obama administration has not been good on follow-through on campaign rhetoric in these areas (in others, such as environmental issues, they've fared much better. Maybe those are piddling enough that Rahm ignores 'em).

    And still, a lot of it is semantics. There are "combat" troops and "support" troops. They're still a military presence and they're still engaged in being an occupying force. I note that these numbers also don't include the vast amounts of independent contractors which may well outnumber the number of actual soldiers. The laws around independent contractors have been notoriously loose as most often demonstrated by Blackwater (ne Xe). Jeremy Scahill has done some great work investigating that front.
     

Share This Page