Somebody call the FBI, we’ve got some NDAA candidates here.
There is hyperbole and there is appearing unhinged. Hyperbole, used sparingly to get a point across, is useful. Using it to demonize an entire category of people is cheap, easy, and hurts your own argument. And, if you grow to believe your own hyperbole it makes you useless as an agent of change unless you enjoy being a rube.
While no one would ever accuse me of being in favor of almost any conservative Tea Party policy, and while in fits of frustration I’ve let fly with close friends on issues with which I have grave disagreements, I don’t think it’s useful to be hyperbolic in such a way that what you’re saying is grossly inaccurate. If you’re willing to go full blown “they’re actually terrorists” then you run into the same problem that the Tea Party had when they accused Obama of being a Kenyan Manchurian Candidate. Once you make a statement of that kind you only have one choice, put up or shut up.
Let me explain, in the case of the Kenyan Muslim terrorist accusations, I had/have friends that adhered to this rhetoric. They did so because they were extremely shaken by the idea that their Party’s policies over the previous eight years had been deemed a failure, were a failure, and that they had been complicit in that failure. Say what you want but that’s a bitter pill to swallow. I even had family that had difficulty accepting that the Democrats had not only won but won everything. However, the problem with claiming that your new President is going to betray his country is that it requires you to do something about it. Either you get out your literal pitchfork and start taking over Washington D.C. by force or you don’t really believe what you’re saying. The same goes with claiming that current Republicans are terrorists. Besides that, it’s factually inaccurate. Republicans are not terrorists.
In Parker’s article, she lumps all 232 Republican members of the House together when the truth is that the Tea Party Caucus, the group responsible for the vast majority of legislative intransigence, is only made up of 49 members, a severe minority. The rest of the Republicans in the House are in one of two situations. Either they’re not in districts where the Tea Party has hold and they’re able to be more traditional Conservatives or they’re in districts where they are absolutely threatened by the possibility of a Tea Party affiliated Conservative running against them in their next primary. Their jobs are threatened and not just their jobs but the very life of the GOP as well.
As I stated in a recent article, if a clean Continuing Resolution hit the floor of the House right now it would get passed almost immediately and move on the Senate where it would fly through on golden wings. Most House Republicans want it to go through. They just don’t want the Tea Party whipping their constituents into a froth and running them out of office. That’s selfish and short-sighted, I agree, it’s also true for both sides. Republicans don’t have a lock on ‘self interest first.’
But lets address the ‘terrorism’ question. Terrorism has a meaning and we all know it, though some better than others.
Terrorism is force and it is death. It’s not a bunch pro-life conservatives who woke up one day and decided they were half-assed Anarcho Capitalists.
Be mad at your politicians for real things. There’s nothing to be gained from making already bad things into other bad things that they are not. Deal with the situation and what is currently true, understand it. Otherwise, you’ll be approaching things like this solely hyperbolically and that not only objectifies the problem you’re trying to talk about but it objectifies you as well. That’s no way to solve a problem. It’s escapism, pure and simple.