Tea Party Float Portrays Obama Whipping White Taxpayer…Thanks for the Subtlety!

Amid denials by tea partiers that they are in any way motivated by white racial resentment and racial paranoia (about losing “their” country), comes now the following feast of psychological projection…a Tea Party parade in Yakima, Washington, in which some of those funny, ever ironic white conservatives have a guy dressed in an Obama mask, actually WHIPPING a white guy, wearing a shirt that says “Future Taxpayer.” WHIPPING him…Of course, the caption under the You Tube clip assures us that they really tried hard to find a Bush mask too — yeah right — so as to make this less offensive one suspects, but that’s a straight out lie. They weren’t upset when Bush created the deficit to finance illegal wars. They only have a problem with “big guvmint” when they think it’s going to disproportionately benefit “those people,” and we all know who they are…


26 Responses to “Tea Party Float Portrays Obama Whipping White Taxpayer…Thanks for the Subtlety!”

  1. you would think they’d at least have one negro in the wagon getting pulled by the white guy, but I guess they didn’t want to be too obvious (sarcasm)

    [Reply]

  2. Of course, it’s in Naches (Natches). Man, a town by any other name…

    [Reply]

  3. this is outrageous. i’ve never seen such separatist ideas. jackandjill politics has found a photoshopped food stamp with obama’s face added.

    and they say they’re not racist. yeah, and i’m the pope’s sister!

    [Reply]

  4. Why a Radio Flyer red wagon? Is it in reference to Colin Powell?

    [Reply]

  5. “They weren’t upset when Bush created the deficit to finance illegal wars.”

    Yes we (fiscal conservatives) were. Were we out there protesting like today – no. But there was certainly a Porkbusters movement among those paying attention. So why the protests now? Probably for the same reason there were anti-war protests against President Bush and none now that President Obama is continuing the same policies in foreign affairs – partisanship. Another reason – the difference in the deficits is in scale:

    http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

    There’s enough real racism out in the world without having to see it in every protest movement whose goals you disagree with.

    And as far as the symbolism of President Obama whipping a white man – what other way would you suggest to impress upon people the idea that we are slaves working for our government masters? Or is it that the only “true” interpretation of this is that the Tea Party protesters here want to scare white people into thinking black people want to enslave us?

    [Reply]

    Frederic Christie Reply:

    Okay, but if people weren’t protesting because of partisanship, then they need to admit that and acknowledge that it was a MISTAKE. With the timing of the protest being ONLY about the black man, and with the way that “small government” and “take back our country” is not only racially coded but also dismissive of black and brown voices (since government has NEVER been small for brown and black folks), I hope you can see why people would question it. Tea Party defenders never acknowledge this.

    Also, “scale” is bull. Bush committed the US to two disastrous wars that are projected to cost in the hundreds of billions to trillions, all told. Nor do most Tea Party people even get to the point of MAKING THE ARGUMENT ABOUT SCALE. They act as if the problem with big government started now. Further, it seems bizarre to bitch about big government that is at least TRYING to do something that can ARGUABLY benefit the economy, rather than military spending which is almost by definition a waste. (Think about it this way: What if we took $100 billion from the Pentagon budget and used that to feed, clothe and provide basic nutrition and care to much of the planet, as Kofi Annan famously offered as a suggestion? The worst that could happen is that it would DO NOTHING TO MAKE AMERICA SAFER, which is STILL better than Iraq and Afghanistan!)

    And even if the scale from a sheer cost perspective doesn’t favor Obama, what about PATRIOT? The attempt to get fast-track authority? Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Signing statements? Trying to expand the executive order and ignore Geneva? Those are all centralization of government power too.

    “There’s enough real racism out in the world without having to see it in every protest movement whose goals you disagree with.”

    How else can we possibly interpret the idea that health care is reparations? You guys brought race up in the first place…

    “And as far as the symbolism of President Obama whipping a white man – what other way would you suggest to impress upon people the idea that we are slaves working for our government masters? Or is it that the only “true” interpretation of this is that the Tea Party protesters here want to scare white people into thinking black people want to enslave us?”

    How about Uncle Sam whipping you? Or Joe Biden? Conservatives bitched when leftists used the Presidential imagery, say Bush with the Hitler ‘stache. Worse, they didn’t do so based on a PARTICULAR imagery. No, they claimed that IN GENERAL to criticize the President in wartime was a no-go! How amazing how almost without exception ALL of them have flip-flopped to criticizing the President. The black President. Hmmmm.

    You could have Obama holding chains, or putting white people in jail, or something. Something that isn’t SPECIFICALLY imagery of the American South (and to a lesser extent Egypt).

    Of course, part of the racism IS the hyperbole. Government health care is not government slavery. To say that is to trivialize not only slavery but ACTUAL government oppression: Jim Crow, disproportionate imprisonment of black men, etc. You can disagree with these policies on a libertarian or anti-statist basis without demeaning historical struggles of oppressed populations. Like a libertarian I talked to who honestly claimed that affirmative action was WORSE THAN JIM CROW.

    [Reply]

    Chris Moss Reply:

    Allen,

    Most conservatives are for war, it makes them feel secure by eliminating a false threat. When it comes to the common good of all Americans these same conservatives are against it. Conservative value is to happily spend money to destroy others, through war, and complain when money is used to improve the quality of life for all citizens. In contrast, Progressives hate wasting tax money on foolish wars. They prefer to spend tax money on things that will improve the well-being of all citizens. This explains why progressives protested the war are not with the tea-party and why conservatives who supported the war are now protesting tax increases for the extremely rich. War is evil and hate for your fellow man is evil. Both appear to be conservative values.

    [Reply]

    Allen Reply:

    Most conservatives are not for war. In point of fact, a greater share of military families are conservative/republicans compared to liberal/democrats, and therefore bear a greater burden when it comes to times of war. Many of us who supported both of these wars, even as the fair weather democrats (and some republicans) went back on their support, know that ultimately these wars are going to benefit those in the middle east and central Asia.

    Why those who claim to support the disenfranchised here in the U.S., can’t see that many people around the world suffer in far greater real-world measures, boggles my mind. If you are unaware of the atrocities that go on in many of those countries, then it is either deliberate ignorance or a poor choice in your source of news.

    I’m glad we invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. I wish it could have been done in some other way or with more support from other countries, but at least this no longer is a daily reality for many:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2mgKqW3vng

    And in Afghanistan, I’ll celebrate the day young girls no longer have to fear just trying to educate themselves:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s1oWlA3xeg

    And as far as war being evil – is that your opinion of the Civil War also? Should the North just have let the South secede and keep the institution of slavery?

    [Reply]

    Tim Reply:

    I for one never said all war was wrong, but these wars have not been justified. First, the situation in Afghanistan is hardly different: the Taliban has regained control of most of the country, and Karzai is hardly more enlightened than those he replaced…If the right had not supported Saddam all those years, there would have been no government to overthrow…deal with that perhaps.

    Frederic Christie Reply:

    Allen: Actually, people say that all the time, but it’s not entirely true. We have rates of incarceration that parallel the most repressive regimes on the planet and rates of brutality in those prisons that appall human rights organizations. Black males in Harlem have had the same mortality rate as people in Bangladesh. We have millions starving here. Yes, there are a lot of desperately poor people who have shelter and water and food and maybe even a car, and are therefore richer than a lot of the world, but that’s also a colossal, “So what?”, for a long number of reasons I am sure you aware of. You judge justice internal to a society. Bill Gates has billions while millions starve. That’s wrong, no matter how bad (or good) the rest of the world is…

    Also, it is a joke to say that conservatives are not pro-war. Conservatives overwhelmingly tend to justify wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that I have met some military families that take war much more seriously because their families are involved, and are much more sensitive to the war being necessary. I’ve seen other families take any criticism of ongoing war or of the military as being a personal insult, even when it’s made clear that we’re taking issues up with management and not with the rank and file. This is distorting and special pleading at best.

    As for Saddam: I would have loved for him to have been overthrown. By the people of Iraq. Not have that dream delayed by sanctions and US action to prop up the dictator. While I’m glad things like that aren’t happening, I’m not glad that millions have died thanks to US action in Iraq (aside from Saddam’s death toll which we supported) and I’m not glad that we have taken over the country directly rather than through a proxy. China’s freedom from the Japanese was not a reason to justify Mao, the end of the Czar was not a reason to justify the Soviets, this is a blatantly irrelevant point. We never had the right to invade their country.

    Jeffrey Reply:

    Allen, your assertion that protest racism isn’t “real” is infuriatingly dismissive and simplistic at best, if not downright enabling.

    Your suggestion that the slavery/whipping icons can be easily drafted into any sort of discussion as if it were a neutral metaphor is just plain wrong. You may want to compare taxation to slavery vocally and that’s fine. After all, we are a hyperbolic nation, whose people say ‘I’m STARVING’ when they are merely hungry.

    To get to the point of constructing a racially charged parade float is ridiculous and unquestionably racist. If it is government expecting the taxpayer to pull the wagon why not have Uncle Sam do the whipping?

    Some icons cannot be neutrally translated. In this country many people realize ‘the Aryan cross’ was used for thousands of years for relatively-normalized cultural or religious purposes. No one should want to use a swastika in this country anymore, though. No one should want to trivialize slavery in this country, but ESPECIALLY white folks.

    The fact that there may be OTHER layers of interpretation does not excuse the fact that the most easily readable one is that IT’S REALLY RACIST.

    [Reply]

    Allen Reply:

    “To get to the point of constructing a racially charged parade float is ridiculous and unquestionably racist. If it is government expecting the taxpayer to pull the wagon why not have Uncle Sam do the whipping?”

    For the same reason anti-war protestors burned effigies of President Bush and not Uncle Sam – the President represents the nation in the eyes of most – and furthermore by demonizing the President vs. Uncle Sam you distinguish between the current administration you disagree with and your actual country.

    And that’s why I “dismiss” the idea that this was racism. While you may believe that’s the most easily readable interpretation, that doesn’t make it so. The fact that so many people so readily interpret any questionable act as having a racist message is what I find so infuriating. It cheapens the credibility of those who point out truly racist actions.

    How many here have actually gone and interacted with any Tea Party members? I would guess very few. Instead of relying on the obviously biased reporting of your favorite news source, go and actually talk to these people. No matter how much their opponents try to make it so, race is not an issue with the Tea Party movements.

    [Reply]

    Frederic Christie Reply:

    “How many here have actually gone and interacted with any Tea Party members? I would guess very few. Instead of relying on the obviously biased reporting of your favorite news source, go and actually talk to these people. No matter how much their opponents try to make it so, race is not an issue with the Tea Party movements.”

    I have. They’re not bad people, but many are far from racially enlightened.

    That having been said, what EGREGIOUS buck passing. If race really wasn’t “an issue” with you guys, then you’d be appalled by Beck, and D’Souza, and the birthers. You’re not. I have heard no grassroots Tea Party people acknowledge this shit is offensive and say, “Look, we know Obama doesn’t want to send us to slave camps and we know that he’s not a Muslim. We just don’t want government in our lives”. They stay quiet or they rally around it. Until you guys take what Beck and his ilk say seriously, we will continue to take this as special pleading.

    Also, for the umpteenth time, Allan: If you can’t understand why phrases and ideas like “Take our country back”, getting back to small government or to some halcyon day prior to Obamacare, etc. are inherently racialized (in that they only even make SENSE from a white racial viewpoint), then you already have a MAJOR issue when it comes to race. That’s something the Tea Party shares: Lack of consciousness about these issues.

    Jeffrey Reply:

    So long as you can fail to appropriately regard racist situations, Allen, you will continue to do a disservice to thinking people everywhere, white people and people of color alike.

    Tea Party logic does consist of the type of mangled rhetoric Glenn Beck spouts, whipping his minions into furies over the CZARS (that Obama, the other, somehow got a Reagan-era Senate to first institute) or any other number of illogical ideas.

    If you thought about this long enough and really were conservative enough, you’d realize it’s war bankrupting our nation and it would have behooved you to be at those antiwar protests under Bush too. Or would you like to make a false ‘Obamacare’ argument that posits it’s social programs which are more expensive?

  6. Please note in the comments of the video how the poster of the video states that the KKK is a left wing group. According to his channel, one of his goals is to “educate” and yet he gets that one simple fact wrong.

    [Reply]

    Frederic Christie Reply:

    Parker: Conservatives like to do that. Like when they call Nazism a leftist ideology.

    Right.

    [Reply]

  7. I got bad news for you Tim, this was apparently not an isolated incident…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhJ7NmU6lJI

    I guess it was nice of them to give Obama a Jesus quote to say :/

    [Reply]

  8. Vile, vicious, stupid, and nasty ~ they are so afraid it’s pathetic… how can we make them feel less fearful so they can come to their senses? (I mean, in a timely manner, of course!)

    [Reply]

    Frederic Christie Reply:

    I’ve really considered writing a book-sized Letter to the Tea Party, sort of trying to clue them in from a left perspective, but I don’t know how useful that would be…

    [Reply]

  9. Does it not matter that Obama wants to maintain tax cuts for 95% of Americans? That he wants to cut taxes on small businesses and make loans available to small business owners – an idea the GOP supported just weeks ago?

    Or, are these people who watched Sean Hannity play an edited clip of Pres Obama saying that if nothing is done, everyone’s taxes would go up? Of course, Hannity cut the clip at a pause, and viwers relying on Hannity wouldn’t know that Pres Obama went on to explain that he did not favor raising everyone’s taxes.

    Does it matter that even if everyone’s taxes do go up, tax rates will still be below what they were under Reagan? That even conservative economists agree that the stimulus worked?

    Does it matter that today, people who don’t pay taxes aren’t so much “free” as much as they don’t earn enough to pay taxes? Paying taxes means a person have sufficient income to live comfortably. You’re middle class and above and have far more economic choices and freedom than people who don’t pay taxes.

    Would that it were the case that my predecessors had been able to pay taxes for generations (and be credited for having paid taxes as opposed to white state govt enforcing the poll tax on black citizens while denying their right to vote). If taxes and slavery really are alike, then certainly African Americans are due reparations for having paid taxes for centuries without the benefits of receiving equal protection under the law.

    Does it matter that the vast majority of those who claim paying taxes is comparable to slavery have neither personal history nor collective history and memory of slavery, and therefore should probably not compare anything to slavery except slavery? You know, the way nothing is compared to the Holocaust even if the speaker/writer is describing an actually (lower-case ‘h’) holocaust.

    [Reply]

    No1KState Reply:

    My apologies, I probably left room for confusion so let me be as clear as possible.

    This president and Congress lowered taxes for 95% of Americans. That means that the current tax rate for 95% of Americans is lower than what it was under W Bush. It’s this tax rate Obama wants to maintain.

    [Reply]

    Allen Reply:

    President Obama/Congress did not cut the tax rate for 95% percent of Americans. President Obama/Congress provided tax rebates and tax credits, funded by the stimulus, for “95% of working families”. The tax rates for all people have stayed the same. Why is this distinction important? Because when that stimulus money is used up, so are these so called “tax cuts”. The rebates ($400 for single, $800 for joint) aren’t simply refunds from income tax – they are funded by all types of tax revenue and then dispensed to working families. Whether you think this is a good thing or not, this is simply redistribution of wealth.

    One thing that should clue most people in to that fact is that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) classifies these rebates and credits as “spending”.

    [Reply]

    Frederic Christie Reply:

    Which is still, as No1KState pointed out, more progressive than the redistribution of wealth UPWARDS Bush used.

    Allen Reply:

    Frederic:

    “Which is still, as No1KState pointed out, more progressive than the redistribution of wealth UPWARDS Bush used.”

    How does allowing everyone to keep more of the money they earn qualify in any way as “redistribution”? That’s almost by definition the exact opposite of redistribution. You can argue it’s unfair that in pure dollar terms that the rich “benefit” more, but it’s just flat out wrong to make the claim that under the Bush tax cuts money was taken from the poor and redistributed upwards to the rich – especially since under those tax cuts about 40% of all working people paid NO federal income tax at all.

    No1KState Reply:

    Obama wants to keep the rates/credits what they are now permanently, which is after all the stimulus money is spent. Also, as far as I know, tax cuts are generally treated as spending, too.

    The point remains: 95% of Americans pay lower taxes now than they did before.

  10. “How does allowing everyone to keep more of the money they earn qualify in any way as “redistribution”? That’s almost by definition the exact opposite of redistribution. You can argue it’s unfair that in pure dollar terms that the rich “benefit” more, but it’s just flat out wrong to make the claim that under the Bush tax cuts money was taken from the poor and redistributed upwards to the rich – especially since under those tax cuts about 40% of all working people paid NO federal income tax at all.”

    It’s that way if

    a) fiscal policy is crafted to insure unemployment to keep inflation low, a priority for lenders but not borrowers, doubly slamming the poor
    b) tax and government policy is thereafter crafted to shift costs onto the public and profits onto the rich (so scholars on the topic have pointed out that, once you take into account Social Security taxes being used as a discretionary fund, local and state taxes, sales taxes, etc., we actually have a deeply REGRESSIVE system)
    c) after all this conscious creation of vast inequity, taxes are then cut so that the poor get a tiny amount back and the rich massive amounts back

    The George Bush tax cuts benefited the rich. We’re seeing discussion of some arrangement that kinda, sorta, benefits the poor. Why is one bad and another good? At the least one is taking from people who can take it. I’m not aware of any moral philosophy that says that doesn’t matter.

    After all, Allen, inequality and the purchasing power of the rich EXPLODED after the 1970s, and got even more inequally distributed in the 80s, creating what scholars are calling “winner-take-all inequality”, marked from previous types of inequality by the split not being 80-20 but actually being 90-10 or even more regressive. Did rich people suddenly get way more productive? Smarter? Poor people more lazy? No. Society was engineered, pretty consciously, in the post-Bretton Woods period to slam the poor and float the rich.

    You can’t talk about taxes without talking about where they’re going. If the system in total benefits the rich, and then tax cuts FURTHER benefit the rich, that’s regressive social policy, plain and simple. Well, the size of corporate welfare and wealthfare is so colossally above social service spending that it’s impossible to conclude anything else…

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply