I would like to thank Right Wing Watch for ruining my afternoon studying session with another intellectually-stimulating video from CPAC and our friend Michele Bachmann – the Congressperson who offers those delightful Bachmann Diaries for our friend Erin Nanasi. Bachmann (R-MN) got us some more Vampire Cult Cheerleading for the heavy-hitting scholars of the intellectual Tea Party movement. Let’s begin analyzing this robust discourse, shall we?
You see, our movement [the Tea Party] at its core is an intellectual movement.
This is like when the Creation Museum calls itself “science.” See, while they borrow some findings of scientific discovery, the Answers in Genesis and other Literal Six Day Creationists reject the scientific method. But intellectualism – like science – must be honest and rigorous. It must be tested, verified, provable, brought out to the real world and brought back for more experimentation. It must come before peer review (and not just another circle-jerk). And your Tea Party movement isn’t very honest, let alone rigorous. It certainly isn’t open to new ideas; quite the opposite indeed. And except with polling with the reactionary conservative base, there really isn’t any research. So, not so intellectual Tea Party. But we digress.
We’re based on the greatest ideas that have ever been conceived in the mind of man.
You mean like feminism so that we don’t need to refer to great ideas as having naturally come out of men? Come on, say it with us, Representative Bachmann: “F**k the Patriarchy!”
Oh, these are the ideas our kids are supposed to eat, as fellow Congresscritter Paul Ryan suggested. Let’s tally them off like good intellectuals, shall we?
I wasn’t aware that the Constitution of the United States of America is an idea- let alone a Tea Party idea. Which interpretation of the Constitution and what about it? Yes, it’s a framing document for the laws in our land and it has many commendable points. For instance, the First Amendment gives freedom of, for, and from religion. But Bachmann is a Dominionist, which means she believes that the supreme Law of the Land should be the Bible – God’s Law. Not the Constitution. Again, I’d ask which law of God’s we are to follow (I’m a fan of the “Love your neighbor as yourself one,” but it’s not in the Constitution so I can’t force you to follow it with me. Also, that wouldn’t be very loving). Additionally, Tea Party folks like her have argued that the Founders of the Constitution wanted to free the enslaved, whom they loved. Do the Tea Partiers mention that many of their precious Founding Fathers were slave-holders? And there’s still the fact that the founding document had slavery encoded within it and wouldn’t end until it was forced. The Constitution had no mechanism to end slavery. So, how much of it is such a great idea, Michelle?
Why is your limited government regulating women’s bodies? And why is it changing election laws? And why is it so loving to the rich while so despiteful of the poor and oppressed? Is this intentional? Are you into “Limited Government” because you’re tired of saying “States’ Rights” because we’re on to you that “States’ Rights” means “pro anti-Black Racism”?
Free for who? It’s not really free enterprise if the poor don’t get to participate, is it? Sounds restricted to me. But what do I know? I’m just a Poors.
And again, we must ask what types of families are they defining as strong? Seems to me decreasing food aid, denying minimum wage increases, restricting reproductive rights (one example), blocking access to health care, and resisting any family not headed by a male and then a female (yes, patriarchy. Hetero patriarchy. And we thought you hated the patriarchy, Rep. Bachmann!) actually makes families weaker. Often, your party is working to make families physically weaker. Here’s something for your intellectual bonnet: How is arguing about Benghazi or voting fifty times to strike down health care options strengthening families? I’ll wait for your response.
Nothing in our Constitution says that government is supposed to be a charity.
Except for that pesky part about “the general welfare” of the United States? “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
Government is not the family
Then why do you Tea Party politicians keep trying to interfere with families that do not meet up to your specifications? Why must you insist on defining our families and punishing us for not being what you think we should be?
It is not the church.
Nah, really. This coming from someone who insists that the government should be like her church and agree with her church.
And it most definitely should not be our doctor’s offices.
Huh, what? I think I understand what conservatives like Bachmann are saying, but it’s pure gobbla-dee-gook here. The Affordable Care Act is largely an insurance exchange set-up. Alleging that the ACA interferes with and meddles with the choices between a patient and a driver is like arguing that Flo will be your legally-appointed new backseat driver when you sign up through Progressive. It’s a scary thought, for sure, but not in the most remote sense true.
But you know what else is a scary thought? Nobody in the audience got up and said, “Hey, you know… we’re not intellectuals. We pride ourselves on being anti-intellectual. But thanks for trying.”
Latest posts by jasdye (see all)
- Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech Is More than One Sentence Long - January 18, 2015
- 5 Predictions for the Progressive Movement in 2015 - January 3, 2015
- What the Best Movies of the Past Year Taught Me about Politics - December 31, 2014