[Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia and Racist Groups

Thu Oct 21 17:12:33 CDT 2010

I have to disagree with Carl's assessment. I believe that there are more
anti-war, rank-and-file Democrats than anti-war Libertarians, and while the
Libertarians are part of the Tea Party movement, they have no influence in
that movement on the issue of the war.

While the liberal/left antiwar movement has declined, especially around the
time of the 2008 election, the left/liberal antiwar movement is considerably
larger than anything produced by the right-wing. 1,500 people marched in
Chicago last Saturday, and even with these relatively low numbers, this
march is larger than what the Libertarians could produce in the Midwest. The
Libertarians were ENTIRELY absent from this march, probably because they saw
it as organized by the left and also because it included the demand that our
federal dollars should be used for human needs. Where have the Libertarians
brought significant numbers of people in the street around an anti-war
demand?

Here in Bloomington-Normal, we have a very organized Young Americans for
Liberty branch at Illinois State, the successor organization to Students for
Ron Paul. They are Libertarians active in the Tea Party movement and have
attended, even spoke at, tea party rallies here that brought 500 people
(very large for Blo-No standards). But all they bring to our monthly BNCPJ
anti-war protests, which they do attend, are themselves - around 3 or 4
people out of a total of 20 to 30. At least here in Bloomington-Normal, in
terms of who shows up in the street, the rank-and-file Democrats DO
outnumber the Libertarians. I expect that this is the same elsewhere. The
Libertarians are well-organized and well-funded, for a small group of
individuals nationally. They definitely know how to use the Internet. But
their numbers are small and their influence, on the issue fo the war, is
relatively nil in the Tea Party movement. I don't have stats to back myself
up, but I would venture to guess the vast majority of Teabaggers are very
pro-military and pro-war. That's why the Libertarians can't produce any of
them in the street.

I'll be honest. I'll work with right-wingers on an individual basis, I get
along with them as individuals, and would never think of turning them away
from actions and coalition meetings. So far, Libertarians haven't come to
our BNCPJ meetings, and given our differences, I don't think we would last
very long in the same organization. But I don't think we should be seeking
out a coalition with a group of reactionaries who don't have the numbers
themselves, have no anti-war mass constituency, and wish to construct a
world even worse than 18th century, dog-eat-dog, Laissez-faire capitalism.
Even if many of the Obama supporters have been AWOL from the anti-war
movement, we have much more in common with the vast majority of them than we
do with neo-fascists and anti-tax protesters.

--- Corey
Bloomington-Normal

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com> wrote:

>  >Make a list of anti-war Democrats - ones who are willing to vote against
> funding the current war, for example - not just those who say "I'm against
> war."  (Everyone is for peace - on their own terms.)
>
> While the point about those who merely say that they are something are
> often only so in their own minds and on their own terms is a valid point to
> an extent, I might point out that the same thing can be said for your
> assertion that you are an (actual) socialist.
>
> Having said that, I also will not that you have just changed the nature and
> terms of your original assertion that there are more anti-war tea-partiers
> than there are anti-war Democrats to one that restricts the populations of
> each heading to specific sub=populations that were never specified before.
> You have restricted those that are considered for the purpose of  your
> challenge to not only members of a formally organized group (e.g., the
> Democratic Party) but to elected officials who are members of that political
> party  and not just the ordinary membership of that political party or those
> who identify as Democrats but are not formally members or participants in
> the formal organization (e.g., ordinary voters who identify as Democrats but
> have not direct affiliation with the party and its machinery except to
> contribut money to it and vote in elections for its candidates).  Similarly
> you have extended your population of  tea-partiers to those who are
> informally or loosely associated with the loosely defined tea-party movement
> , for want of a better term, as well as those who are formally members of
> formally organized and established tea-party organizations.  Moreover, you
> have arbitrarily assigned several formally organized groups that may have
> members who are part of or support the tea-party movement and its members
> but which themselves do not claim to be tea-party organizations or that all
> their members are tea-partiers.  Futhermore, none of the formally associated
> people identified as formal members of an established and organized
> tea-party organization is an elected official who has actually voted against
> funding the current war as opposed to merely saying that they are willing to
> or would if elected and placed in a position where they were given the
> choice.  As far as I know, neither Ron Paul or Tim Johnson claim to be
> tea-partiers or formally belong to a organized tea-party political party or
> established tea-party organization.  They are both Republicans, as far as I
> know, and may have organized groups of people who are their followers or
> they may associate or affiliate with certain formal journals.
>
> None of this was specified in your original assertion but only now are
> being specified.  Somehow, you have confirmed what Mort said you would do -
> changed the nature of the assertion you made
>
>
>
>  *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:18 PM
> *To:* Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
>  *Cc:* Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] DN: NAACP Report Ties Tea Party to Militia
> and Racist Groups
>
>  Mort--
>
> Make a list of anti-war Democrats - ones who are willing to vote against
> funding the current war, for example - not just those who say "I'm against
> war."  (Everyone is for peace - on their own terms.)
>
> Send me your list, and I'll send you a longer one - beginning with Ron
> Paul's and Justin Raimondo's people - of those associated with the
> teapartiers who are against this war.
>
> I remember, from a math class long ago, that this was a way to prove the
> existence of multiple infinities, by a process of iteration...
>
> Neither group is infinite, but they do differ in magnitude.
>
> Furthermore, the ones I refer to are organized - into Paul's R3VOLution,
> the Libertarian party, the paleoconservatives around several journals -
> while there is no organized Democratic party opposition to the Democratic
> president and administration.
>
> Those of us with memories of a generation ago want to believe that there is
> an anti-war movement on the left wing of the Democratic party.
>
> Unfortunately, no one's home.  It's been Obama's great contribution to the
> war effort to make that so.  --CGE
>
>
> On 10/21/10 2:38 PM, Brussel wrote:
>
> Karen,
>
> Ask Carl where he gets his data (re. his first line below). Ask where most
> of the funding, who are the biggest contributors, and where most of the PR
> for the Tea party comes from. And so what conclusion may one draw?
>
> Don't be surprised if he switches the subject, refuses to answer, or cannot
> answer, because he doesn't have reliable sources.
>
> --mkb
>
>  On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:18 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>  Come on, Karen. There are more anti-war teapartiers than anti-war
> Democrats.
>
> Obama's co-option of the anti-war movement meant that there is no parallel
> among the Democrats to Ron Paul's movement of principled opposition to the
> war, nor to that of libertarians and paleoconservatives around the website
> Antiwar.com <http://antiwar.com/> or the journal *The American
> Conservative*.
>
> As an (actual) socialist, I deplore that fact.
>
> On 10/21/10 9:30 AM, Karen Medina wrote:
>
> I did notice that there were very few "constitutionalists" around
> before the scare tactic of "they are going to give health care to
> undocumented immigrants" became popular.
>
> Very few of the tea-partiers are in the anti-war movement.
>
> All I am saying is that it is easy to count the ones that are consistent.
>
> With the ones that are inconsistent, it is harder to count them, but
> it is easy to tell if they have read the constitution.
>
> -karen medina
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101021/0d4af6b5/attachment.html>