Acrimony within the Tea Party and important issues came from an article profiling me in the NYC Daily News. While the Daily News reporter originally contacted me due to my being the President of the Brooklyn Tea Party, the conversation quickly swung to my political passion: culturism. In this context we also discussed the Brooklyn Tea Party’s rally to stop the mosque at Ground Zero of the 9 – 11 attacks. The article appeared within the context of a large story about the variety of folks in the Tea Party.
When I went to another Tea Party Chapter meeting to network and see how they run their meetings, the flack began. “That F’in idiot John Press” one member was exclaiming loudly in conversation when I entered the meeting. Shocked because I thought I had brought some good publicity to the Tea Party! When I finally calmed the movement leader down, I found he had some valid and interesting reasons to criticize me.
Many members have worked very hard to make the “Tea Party brand.” Being smeared as racists (the leaders who chastised me was black), fringe truthers concerned with Obama’s birth certificate, and dangerous militia folk, made people skittish about joining the Tea Party. Party strategists have, therefore, worked to make Tea Party membership only indicate a devotion to fiscal conservativism and upset over our nation's out-of-control borrowing. Eventually, we may be able to diversify into other areas of concern, the Chapter President explained, but to continue in a growth mode, making people think the Tea Party denounces Mosques scrambles the message and makes folks skittish about joining. Many national leaders believe we should never deviate from our main point.
Though he has valid points several responses come to mind. First of all, while it may not play strongly nationally, in Brooklyn people are hot under the collar over this mosque. And a large coalition already exists to stop another one being built in Brooklyn. Our ultimate local aim is to elect legitimately conservative candidates. Certain parts of Brooklyn have large pools of underrepresented and abused conservative citizens who would get active for legit candidates. And, if we wish to find legit candidates, an even stronger litmus test than whether or not they will go on record as favoring not overspending, is whether or not they will go on record opposing a mosque at ground zero and in Brooklyn. We will accrue passionate activists as well as politicians with integrity if we make stopping the mosque one of our areas of focus.
I wrote a policy paper about immigration being a Tea Party issue. Illegal immigration costs our states billions per year. Among other things, immigration is a fiscal issue. Can't immigration be a Tea Party issue? And what about foreign policy? I wrote another policy paper about the Tea Party using culturism to mediate the isolationism of Ron Paul and the expansionist view of Sarah Palin. Both claim Tea Party credibility despite their divergent stances. Culturism argues that we take cultural diversity seriously. Culturists agree with Ron Paul about avoiding nation building. But we culturists do so because cultural diversity dooms such efforts. So we agree with Palin that we must recognize our cultural enemies. Culturism argues that we strike our enemies hard, if we must, but then return home. The immigration issue and the culturist stance of avoiding nation building both seem intimately connected with the Tea Party message of smaller government and saving money. Are we not allowed to discuss such issues?
I asked the hostile Tea Party leader if he’d back an open-borders, pro-mosque, fiscal conservative. Having ample experience in politics, he gave me a great answer. He told me of a time where he had worked alongside an avowed socialist on the issue of driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. Politics make strange bedfellows. In the case of backing a candidate with whom many of us would disagree, he said we should never endorse candidates as such, we should endorse their economic policy. I told my disagreeing comrade that I thought that we would get more growth by taking a stance with Arizona than ignoring it. He disagreed. When I told him I thought we would soon need to choose to either side with Palin and her expansionist policies or Paul’s isolationist stance, he agreed. But, he added, the time for that decision had not yet come. To grow the movement to where it will have an impact we need numbers and that means we must stay on message.
I will bring this debate to the next Brooklyn Tea Party meeting. We will need to decide whether we entirely drop the mosque and immigration issues and just stick with the core theme of fiscal conservatism or not. I will add an argument my erstwhile compatriot did not add. As a new chapter, taking a brand others have crafted and bending it to your will is rude. If you, the reader, have any additional pertinent insights for me to bring to my chapter, please leave a comment and I will do so.
www.culturism.us
5 comments:
You might be better served to remember the Tea Party Movement began.
The Counter Jihad and the TPM are not the same though many adherents of one are also of the other.
The Counter Jihad is global, The TPM national. And I can see where many who would support the Tea Party would be spooked by the Counter Jihad (we're painted even worse than they).
I don't think counter jihadis would NOT support the TPM simpply because the TPM doesn't push the counter jihad message, although they wouldn't support it if the TPM was openly hostile to that message.
And it's the nature of the beast almost any candidate getting a TPM endorsement is going to be counter jihad inclined anyway.
So I'd counsel you why muddy either message? Let the TPM stay on their message and the counter jihad on theirs. Nothing stopping either from openly supporting the other (mosque opposition for instance) but why make it a tenet of either's faith that they MUST support them as an organiztion?
And no, I certainly don't think you're a fucking idiot for having a different opinion.
Cheers, brother!
:)
“That F’in idiot John Press” one member was exclaiming loudly in conversation when I entered the meeting.
Well, how gratifying. [sarcasm]
I have noticed from some Tea Party emails that the TPM doesn't want to take sides on the immigration issue.
If the TPM is all about fiscal conservatism, as MR alluded to above, fine.
In my view, a voter shouldn't vote for a particular candidate based solely on fiscal conservatism. There are some fiscal conservatives who don't give a damn about immigration nor about the threat of Islam. Indeed, I know many fiscal conservatives who are dhimmis extraordinaire.
MR said: And it's the nature of the beast almost any candidate getting a TPM endorsement is going to be counter jihad inclined anyway.
I disagree.
We voters aren't likely to find many anti-jihad candidates running for office. Both political parties shy away from criticizing Islam in any way, shape, or form. I know of several conservative candidates here in Virginia who flat-out won't have anything to do with putting Islam in a bad light. Hell, they don't even talk about 9/11 anymore.
Thanks guys. Many in Brooklyn, as i wrote, are up in arms about Islam. But, as the article only implies, there are a lot of Muslims and mosques in Brooklyn. So, it becomes increasingly difficult to voice an opinion and win. And, in districts where they are only 10% it is possible to denounce a mosque now, but if a politician wants a long term career . . .
You guys have, actually, pushed me towards considering this an issue we have to separate. I think AOW is right. Many, "fiscal conservatives" (are there any any more?) talk of the "religion of peace." Given a choice, I know who'd I'd endorse, but perhaps a good conservative with ZERO global understanding will be all we can expect.
MOre thoughts? Thanks,
John
"We voters aren't likely to find many anti-jihad candidates running for office. Both political parties shy away from criticizing Islam in any way, shape, or form. I know of several conservative candidates here in Virginia who flat-out won't have anything to do with putting Islam in a bad light. Hell, they don't even talk about 9/11 anymore."
Thinking about it this morning I agree with that.
But I still think we need to keep the messages separate.
And keep in mind that The Tea Party is not a political party but simply a (big) bunch of folks gathering around a central idea and very loosely organizing to promote that idea and candidates who think like themselves. They are not putting forward or nominating their own candidate simply choosing which ones to speak loudest for or against based on their fiscal platform.
Much the way the counter jihad does.
And those messages may not always mesh. So keep them separate I say and let the voter decide for themselves.
We've seen the TPM (not directed at you, John) do some pretty goofy things we would not endorse and would rather not associate with. And I'm sure they feel the same way about us.
Our message (counter jihad) is the much harder sell. Always has been but especially these days.
You wouldn't talk about the lack of a Federal budget at an anti-mosque rally nor would you talk about Geert Wilders at a local Tea PArty against taxation rally on your state's doorsteps.
If you did, you'd have an awful lot of voters scratching their heads in a serious what the fuck moment.
Hopefully, the voters will see which candidate is present for one or the other or both and choose accordingly.
Keep the messages separate or both will get watered down to ineffectiveness.
Post a Comment