JFK could have founded the Tea Party movement?
Published December 2, 2013
by Thomas Mills, Politics North Carolina, December 1, 2013.
State Senator Bob Rucho really is a silly little man. When he didn’t get his way on tax reform, he threw a temper tantrum and resigned as Co-Chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Now, he’s tweeting that “JFK could have been founder and leader of the Tea Party movement.”
How ridiculous. Conservatives have been trying to claim JFK for years but when he was in office they abhorred him. JFK may not have been the screaming liberal that some on the left wish he was, but he was not even close to the Tea Party.
Conservatives are trying to claim him primarily because he supported cutting taxes. Let’s put this into perspective. When Kennedy was in office, the top marginal tax rate was 91%and the top corporate rate was 52%. You read that right. So when Kennedy was calling for lower taxes, it was not comparable to what we have today.
In contrast to the Tea Party, JFK was a huge proponent of foreign aid and started the Peace Corps. He also didn’t have too much respect for states’ rights when it came to civil rights. Remember, he federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent them to desegregate the University of Alabama. Can you imagine the Tea Party cheering on the armed forces to undermine a Southern governor?
The Tea Party does have historical precedent but it’s not leaders like JFK. As a movement, its historical ancestors are the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan. They were paranoid organizations who saw themselves as patriotic saviors of the nation and used economic fear to encourage poor and working class whites to vote against their own self interests. The Tea Party are from the same strain of political paranoiacs.
So if Senator Rucho wants to claim a hero for the Tea Party, he would do better to look to Joseph McCarthy instead of JFK. McCarthy is much more of an ideological soulmate to the Tea Party than the assassinated president.
But here’s my bet. In 50 years, the same ugly strain of politics that defines the Tea Party will still be around. And just like the Birchers and the Klan, their ideological descendants won’t claim them, either.
December 2, 2013 at 6:50 am
TP Wohlford says:
Since we're throwing around gross stereotypes, it's safe to say that the same kind of pinko-commie bleeding heart baby-aborting liberal WILL be around in 50 years. And despite the deaths of 100 million people (and counting), yet another generation of the world's population will get to see, first-hand, the fruits of their labors, as we are this week in Venulzuala, not to mention this country.
Now, if this gentleman and his group would care to correctly characterize conservatives, and TEA Party, and all that goes with it, instead of trying to box with some sort of straw man to the delight of his followers -- judging by the MSNBC, CNN, Air America and NYTimes number, a dwindling crowd -- then we can get somewhere. Starting, of course, with being nicer to each other.
December 2, 2013 at 7:20 am
Robert White says:
Can somebody at NC Spin please explain to me why you continue to publish pieces by this particular author? Thomas Mills seems to do nothing but perpetuate the worst of stereotypes & insults at Republicans as a whole & in particular folks who align themselves with Tea Party ideals. He conveniently excuses the facts of history in these attack columns all the while offering his own version of what should be considered the truth. In all of my encounters with Tea Party members they have always the best manners & courtesy to even their most vocal opponents. They've never trashed public property or desicrated govt buildings. For all the stories of racist remarks, spitting, & accusations against black legislators we heard a few years ago one would think a mountain of evidence exists to verify this claim. After news media of all forms were in mass attendance at these rallies & it's near impossible to estimate the number of cell phone cameras that recorded audio & video of these happenings. Yet to this day no evidence has ever been produced to verify all of this racism. Can Mr Mills say this about the Occupy Movement? Of course not.
I often wonder if Mr Mills would be so courageous as to level insults of racism, bigotry, homophobia, trailer trash, redneck, nazi skinhead, KKK member etc at some of the very people who he often does if standing face to face? Something tells me he wouldn't. I've been in the company of many average folks & deal with a great many daily in my small business. Regardless of the differing political views we have & express to one another almost daily our divergent ideals, we treat each other with a healthy dose of respect. Mr Mills displays none of this respect only denigrating insults.
As it's been said before, NC Spin needs to "Walk the Talk" & not promote this kind of attack piece that represents vile political division & insults. Mr Mills has a freedom of speech. But he has no freedom to be published.
December 2, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Hampton Brady says:
Mr. White writes, "Can somebody at NC Spin please explain to me why you continue to publish pieces by this particular author?" Let me take a wild-ass guess.
"Freedom of Speech?" Or, would Mr. White like to eliminate that part of the Constitution. Maybe Mr. White agrees with Mr. Bush (43) "The U.S. Constitution is just another god-damn piece of paper."
December 3, 2013 at 7:27 am
Robert White says:
Freedom of speech is not a freedom to be published or have vile, fact less attack articles promoted on a website meant to harbor civil debate. The pieces written by Thomas Mills represent the worst of far left hate speech & stereotyping.
I clearly stated that in my post. Perhaps you failed to read that part?
December 3, 2013 at 8:44 am
NC SPIN says:
Robert,
Thank you for your responses to our posts. Yes, I read your posts but our site attempts to present both sides of public policy issues. We call them "perspectives" and do not pretend to agree with any or all of them, merely to demonstrate to our readers what is being said.
December 3, 2013 at 8:53 am
Hampton Brady says:
I've noticed that hate speech, and vile comments come from both sides, republican and democrat.
I think freedom of speech is in fact covered in the US Constitution even if it is "perceptibly" vile, and even when the other side does not agree with it, and frankly are sometimes embarrassed and offended by it. Hate speech (as I know it) crosses the line when it is coupled to a threat. For example. I remember seeing Tea-Party demonstrators against Obama in 2009 and 2010. They were wearing and carrying guns. To me, they were a "perceived" threat, but apparently not a threat under the US Constitution. Otherwise, I suspect the Commander in Chief would have had the demonstrators arrested.
December 2, 2013 at 8:24 am
Hampton Brady says:
Tou'che! You nailed it!
You nailed it with respect to describing the mealy-mouth, negative nabob, anti-government, white-hood Republicans who recently traded in and swapped their Republican god, Ronald Reagan for a Democrat god, John Kennedy.
December 2, 2013 at 5:20 pm
TP Wohlford says:
Aw, c'mon, hiding behind that pseudo-name, you can be a better troll than that!
December 2, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Hampton Brady says:
It's hard to hide after 71-years on this earth (42-of the years as Republican.)
December 2, 2013 at 11:11 am
Norm Kelly says:
So perhaps JFK wasn't a TEA people. Except to some extent he really was. JFK was NOT a saint. He was a Democrat. He DID support tax cuts because he knew the system was illogical, immoral, and destructive. He also supported the civil rights movement. But get the record straight. Who opposed JFK on civil rights? The DEMONCRATS in Congress. Who continued to be KKK members after civil rights was passed in Washington? DEMONCRATS. Who continues to claim that blacks can't function on their own? DEMONCRATS! Who works to make sure blacks are 'taken care of' by government agencies, claiming they can't handle life on their own? Demoncrats. Who is it that claims getting a picture ID to vote is too complicated for blacks? Demoncrats.
It may be difficult for liberals to accept that JFK cut taxes, but he really did. Does the rate really matter? Only to a very minor extent. Have the liberal policies helped 'level the playing field'? Has taxing the rich, giving to the 'poor' provided anyone with a job? Has stealing money from 'rich', giving money to 'poor' made it easier for minorities (blacks) to graduate from high school (with the ability to read/write/do math)? We don't simply want people to pop out of high school or college. We want people to learn something while there besides the idea that blacks can't help themselves, blacks are oppressed, and some kindly liberal/socialist needs to take care of them. We don't need more people coming out of school with a 'liberal arts' background, who believe freedom in America actually means oppression, who believe that socialist countries in Europe have figured out how to do it right, who believe that giving things to certain people makes them better off. We need people who know that providing rewards without challenges simply stifles the human spirit.
Doesn't it make sense that a level playing field means that when you are successful, make a little bit more money, you actually get to enjoy the benefits it brings? Doesn't it make sense that you get to keep what you have earned? Doesn't it make sense that you could POSSIBLY become successful, make some real money, without having stepped on some unfortunate schlub, kept down some black person, in order to become successful yourself? Why is it that if I work hard enough, find a niche where I can make more money, liberals/socialists/Demoncrats automatically believe I stepped on someone else to do it, I oppressed some black person to do it, or did something illegal to get it? Why is it that when I make some more money, liberals/socialists/Demoncrats (redundant again!) believe they deserve more of it from me in order to give it to someone they believe must have it? Why is it right to steal money from me, at gunpoint if necessary, after I've earned it in order to support your socialist give-away program? At what point did having a cell phone become a right? At what point did it become that if I can afford my cell phone, I'm required to pay for someone elses cell phone? I know this is only 1 example, but it's a great example of outrageous over-reach that socialists these days are known for. Would JFK have supported stealing money from me in order to provide something like a phone to everyone else?
Bottom line is that socialism has gotten completely out of control in this country. The wealth redistribution has gotten to a point of stupidity, and yet the socialists in Washington refuse to recognize it. So it's left to TEA people and libertarians to take control and put things back the way they are supposed to be. Just like the socialists, it will be in incremental steps. But incremental steps in the right direction are better than incremental steps in the left/wrong direction. Return power back to the people, and take it away from the central planners.
