Further to the Just Below

Me:

p.s One further thing that passes for a thought: the request for that disavowal would be like asking the Democratic Party to disavow the anti Semitic, and just generally rabid Code Pink.

Rigoronma:

"One further thing that passes for a thought: the request for that disavowal would be like asking the Democratic Party to disavow the anti Semitic, and just generally rabid Code Pink."

basman, I call BS on that one. The reason is this: name me one subgroup within the Tea Party [or whatever] that is explicitly as racist as Code Pink is anti-Semitic, according to you. [I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't know. And that is not the point.]

Me:

Sorry rigordonma--it's me, not you--but I'm missing "the point". Could you be more clear and then I'll either admit the error of my ways or quarrel with you some.

Ironyroad:

basman, I think the point might be that Code Pink is a fringe organization (grouplet?), doesn't dominate the intellectual debate inside the Democratic Party, and most certainly has little to no influence on candidate selection and state primaries. Therefore to suggest the parallel is to obscure the fact that the Tea Party is a powerful presence in the GOP, has a considerable influence on the intellectual landscape of the party, and has played a major role in candidate selection and primaries. Apples and pears.

Me:

Well let me, and be, quarrel some.

The argument is that firstly the issue is not so much a parallel which entails exactitude, as a comparison; but the bigger point is that the comparison is that: racist lunatics are to the Tea Party--a fringe grouplet, (the racists, that is to say)--what Code Pink is to the Democrats. If it's true, as I believe, that Code Pink is notoriously anti Semitic, where does that comparison break down?

Apples and at least crab apples.

Ironyroad:

"where does that comparison break down?"

I think the comparison breaks down where things don't make sense as elements in a comparison. The teabaggers can be compared to the codepinkers, but to compare the TP to the Democratic Party (or Code Pink to the GOP, come to that) seems intuitively suspect as the question of scale and part-to-whole proportion is ignored. Parties go with parties (and nobody invites me to parties anymore boohoo!) and fringe groups with fringe groups. So -- fruit trees with fruit trees (generic) and apples with apples.


Me:

I don’t think so Ironyroad.

The Tea Party is nothing in any way near the Democratic Party of course. That goes without saying and I was never meaning to say anything different. But it’s not comparable to Code Pink in that the Tea Party is a movement and somewhat of an organization of national significance and some measure of some power and influence in America. It’s an important component of the Republican Party, has some national sway and will affect and effect numbers of elections in pivotal ways.

In that sense it’s nowhere near the fringe nuts that Code Pink consists of. So the comparison is apt between the racist elements of the Tea Party on its fringe, just as the Code Pink is on the Democratic Party’s fringe. In these terms, size does not matter. In these terms, the Democratic Party’s towering predominance as a national political presence over the Tea Party is not to the point at all. It’s entirely irrelevant. The point— or my point anyway—is the matter of their like institutional reluctance –as against what McWhorter support Jealous in calling for—to disavow their fringes out of concerns for legitimating them, getting tarred by their brush in the process and so on. But if you persist in seeing the Tea Party, for whom by the way I carry no brief, as comparable to the marginality of Code Pink, what I can tell you?

And there you have it as easy as apple pie: plus, so many parties, so little time.