The Tea Party and the Peace Movement

Like most Americans I dislike the self proclaimed Tea Party because it is arrogant, self righteous, loud, obnoxious, rude, childish and overly tolerant of kooks, cranks, crackpots and bigots. Perhaps the main reason I so dislike the Tea Party is similarity to the so called “peace” movement that was around a few years ago at the beginning of the Iraq War.

The Peace movement was loud, obnoxious, self, righteous, arrogant, rude, childish and overly tolerant of kooks, crackpots, cranks and bigots. Just like the Tea Party today, the 2003 Peace Movement seemed to be more of a publicity stunt for egotistical celebrities and would be celebrities such as Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarenden, Cyndi Shehen (remember her?), Michael Moore and Jane Fonda than a real political movement.

The Peace Movement was also a dismal failure its antics, its vitriol, and childish protests probably increased support for the war. George W. Bush probably owes his reelection in 2004 to the Peace Movement as much as anything else. Its antics left a bad taste in the mouth of the American people and sabotaged John Kerry’s presidential bid.

The Tea Party looks and acts just like the Peace Movement did, it stages noisy protests and its leaders get lots of airtime on the cable networks. Yet there seems to be no real support or any sort of message. Just a lot of noise and bluster much like the Peace Movement.

Part of the reason why the Peace Movement collapsed was that it had no real message to counter the neoconservatives or George W. Bush. Its message was “war bad, America bad, Bush Bad” when anybody raised the subject of terrorism the peace movement had no answer.

Just like the Peace Movement, the Tea Party has become a publicity event and photo op for Grade B celebrities. Although this time around it is washed up politicians and TV talking heads trying to reap the whirlwind rather than Hollywood has-beens. Egomaniacs like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck who think they can ride the Tea Party express to fame, wealth and power, need to ask themselves where is Cindi Shehan today?

The Tea Party acts in much the same way, when serious issues such as the economy or the War on Terror are raised it simply goes into attack mode. No attempt to offer any sort of alternative to Obama or his agenda is raised. No serious defense is made of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All we get is “Obama Bad, Palin good.” Just as the Peace Movement railed against Bushler (Bush as Hitler) the Tea Party rails against Obama as Stalin and can’t understand why nobody takes it seriously.

If Mr. Obama wins reelection in 2012 and my money says he will, it will largely be because of the Tea Party. My prediction is that the Tea Party will become so far out, childish and obnoxious in the next year that it will drive even many conservative voters to Mr. Obama. They’ll hold their noses while filling out the ballot but they will do it just to smite the Tea Party.

There is of course a possibility that a serious political movement might come out of the Tea Party or more precisely replace it after it becomes little more than a bad joke. The remains of the Peace Movement gave rise to a serious and successful mainstream political movement around Barrack Obama. The remains of the Tea Party could give rise to a national movement around a figure like Ron or Rand Paul.

One more thought here, as other observers have noted the Tea Party like the Peace Movement seems to take its cue from the rowdy and obnoxious New Left of the 1960s. Except for the pull out from Vietnam (which would have occurred anyway) the New Left was a miserable failure that succeeded in destroying the New Deal coalition and paving the way for nearly 20 years of Republican Presidents.

Perhaps the worst development in the US during the 1960s, at least from a political point of view; was the emergence of European style political activism in the US. The problem with this brand of political activism is that it is purely ideologically motivated with little or no thought given to practical matters. This was a break from the American tradition which viewed solving practical problems as the goal of politics.

From this destructive European import was born the attack dog politics we have today. The New Left activists of the 60s, like the Tea Party patriots today, regarded politics as war and opponents or critics as enemies to be destroyed. This attitude offers no compromise or solutions. Nor does it take into account the real world effects of its ideology.

Like the leftists who mindlessly back any Communist or Socialist “Revolution” and ignore those hurt and killed in the name of Revolution, the Tea Partiers can’t see any practical considerations. They for example demand that unemployment benefits be ended, even though ending such benefits would throw people onto the street and into the arms of the left. Tea Partiers also oppose taxes, fail to see the failure of the military operations overseas and refuse to acknowledge very real environmental problems like global warming.

Hopefully, the Tea Party will be the last out break of this obnoxious European inspired radicalism in America. This activism is one import I’d love to ship back to France where it belongs.

Is US Aid to Pakistan Causing Terrorism?

One “little” item most people probably missed in recent newscasts and elsewhere was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement of $500 million in funds for infrastructure construction in Pakistan. This $500 million was part of a larger $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan.

Many American taxpayers will be wondering why the US is giving so much money to Pakistan when we face record budget deficits and a lack of infrastructure at home. The answer is both obvious and disturbing: Pakistan is in a position to blackmail the US into sending it money.

The situation in Pakistan is well known, the country is on shaky ground with a weak central government and powerful army facing a terrorist insurgency allied with Al Qaeda. The situation is made worse by the presence of an unknown number of nuclear weapons and an unknown amount of nuclear material in Pakistan.

All the Pakistani government has to do to shake Uncle Sam down for more dough is to do nothing about the insurgency. Let the insurgents set off a few bombs or kidnap a couple of Americas. Or better yet let them send a few questionable threats about attacking America to the media. The chicken littles in the media and Congress will then demand that the US do something.

With US forces bogged down in increasingly political unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that the military no longer seems willing to fight there is very little Uncle Sam can do. The only option to do something about Pakistan is to send more money.

The bigger the terrorist threat from Pakistan the more aid money that’s forthcoming. The danger from this situation is obvious the Pakistani government has no incentive to actually control terrorism and every incentive to expand the “terrorist threat.”

It is interesting to note that this aid announcement comes just a few months after a Pakistani born man named Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a crude and ineffective bomb in New York’s Times Square. The official story in the media is that Mr. Shahzad got his bomb training from the Pakistani Taliban and was taking orders from them.

One has to wonder, though if Shahzad was working with Pakistani intelligence in an attempt to give the country more leverage over the US when it comes to foreign aid. After all, the links between the Taliban and Pakistani intelligence are well documented, and the American taxpayer has long been the main source of funding for Pakistan’s military and intelligence communities.

Particularly interesting to note is how amateur and ineffective Shahzad’s bomb was. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are experts at making effective and highly destructive low bombs as events in Afghanistan and Iraq attest. One has to wonder how one of their pupils failed so wretchedly on such an important mission. Could Shahzad have been deliberately trained to fail by somebody?

Increasing US aid to Pakistan can also benefit the Taliban because it is in a good position to siphon off a lot of that money or simply extort or steal it from those Pakistanis who receive it. Thus the US taxpayer could end up financing Islamic extremism in the name of battling “terror” as is already happening in Afghanistan.

The Times Square bombing did come right in time to convince the Congress and the White House that Pakistan needs more “aid” for its war on terror. It seems to be an intriguing coincidence.

The situation in Pakistan is a bad one, there is a government completely dependant upon foreign aid. The Pakistani government’s only recourse is to find ways to force the US to give it foreign aid. Terrorism provides the pretext for American aid to Pakistan so the Pakistani government now has no incentive to get rid of it.

Perhaps it is time that we looked at our policy of foreign aid and decide if it is an effective method of fighting terrorism. The case in Pakistan indicates that foreign aid might actually be the cause of terrorism.