This is what I don't get about the teabaggers

[MrScorpio]

Historically, American rebellions (The Anti-Rent War, the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions and various slave revolts) have, for the most part, been anti-authoritarian.

And also, because America kicked out its absentee aristocracy and really had no royals to speak of and kill off subsequently, we really have no experience in overcoming some kind of vast feudal system with bloody pogroms and busy head-chopping axes. (Well, the Native-Americans would tell another story. But that's for another time).

Our relative short period of time as a country has a lot to do with that too, as we came into being during the Age of Enlightenment.

That 's why we treat the rich (and famous) like they're some kind of de-facto ruling class. The fuckers have sneakily caught the Republic off guard. Now we're stuck with them.

But why in GOD'S name would a bunch of disgruntled know nothings do their darndest to placate the very same people who are behind depressed wages, a lop sided tax distribution system, unfair trade agreements that export American jobs, an unhealthy food production system, an underperforming social welfare system and a commercially based, price gouging national health care apparatus?

Were they born that fucking obtuse, or did they just simply devolve somehow?

[EFerrari]

1. Because they're funded and organzed by the very same people?

[TwilightGardener]

2. They truly don't know any better. They believe the lies.

[izquierdista]

3. Because those very same people

Water down their education to little more than training to do useful tasks and feed them a steady diet of entertainments (which they manage to make a nice profit on).

[SpiralHawk]

4. The TATs are, in the end, a creation of the corporatocracy (R)

and they are cynically manipulated.

One must have a certain degree of compassion for people who suck up the corporate media & manipulation, and buy into the TeaBaggers Against Themselves (TAT) movement...Lord knows some of them are sincere, and that all of them are woefully misdirected.

[AlinPA]

5. They all watch Fox "news". nt

[Warpy]

6. The baggers are just not very bright and are being led

around by Rupert Murdoch and Dick Armey. One reason the movement is starting to fizzle is because of that, and populist support is just not going to happen as long as the population is being ignored in favor of propping up a plutocracy.

Would there be any teabagger movement without the massive amount of media attention their pathetic rallies are attracting? Would there be one without the constant flogging by silly TV personalities like Glen Beck?

There's your answer, right there. This is a top-down, Astroturf movement. As such, its failure is inevitable.

So relax and enjoy the show. After all, 100% of their candidates lost in Tuesday's primaries.

[Bitwit1234]

7. Remember some time ago

that a physicartist did an investigation into why people are so easily led. That they follow the leader blindly. He found that republicans seem to be those kind of people that they are like lemmings, have no will power and would follow the leader over a cliff. Not that this is something they get when they become republican. He said that those type of people are led toward the republican party and that's why they have no will power of their own. Just reporting what he said. But it seems true doesn't it. Why else would they approve of the very same people that are causing them the most trouble.

[KansDem]

8. Remember back 30 years or so when candidates for local & state offices campaigned on this slogan...

If elected, I'll run government like a business!*

I heard it many times. Usually it was a conservative Republican who made this statement, but the suggestion was that "running the country like a business" meant more efficiently for lower cost.

The mantra took off and we had the Reagan years.

I found it ironic that one of the arguments against public-financed government health care was that it would...drive the private corporations out of business!!! Really? Who can deliver better products and services with lower costs now, Capitalist?

You are correct:
...to placate the very same people who are behind depressed wages, a lop sided tax distribution system, unfair trade agreements that export American jobs, an unhealthy food production system, an underperforming social welfare system and a commercially based, price gouging national health care apparatus?

...and I often wonder how these tea baggers can truly believe that a system where a few powerful individuals working in secret for the benefit of a group of investors can really have the nation's interests at heart.

To me, government is the people...
________
*I was always amused by this statement, particularly in light of when a new CEO took over a struggling corporation, the first thing he did was fire a substantial number of employees, thereby "cutting costs" for the investors. We can't do that with a government. How could a "run-government-like-a-business" president, for example, do this? "Fire" a number of the country's citizens? I can see the inauguration: Okay, now that I'm the President, in order to contain costs, 20% of you citizens need to leave...now!!!

[wiggs]

9. Two reasons (at least)....

1) IMHO there is a psychology involved that leads RWs to seek authoritarian doctrine to follow. When you subscribe to strong doctrine in which belief is key, things are simpler, less gray. And we note that RWs are more likely to blindly follow Rush, fundamental religious doctrine, military doctrine, corporate doctrine, RW government of any ilk, etc. It's a tendency of certain people. All you need to say is ditto or yes sir and you're good.

2) The last 16 years have seen an enormous, deliberate, coordinated effort to polarize americans into philosophical camps. The effort is, by far, generated by the RW. When you belong to a group, you are expected to be loyal and logic and reason aren't needed. This tactic has been very effective.

[The_Commonist]

10. I think you answered your own question...

They're "a bunch of disgruntled know nothings."

[ljm2002]

11. They were born that obtuse, then they devolved. n/t

[MisterP]

12. mostly because they believe that all problems are caused by interference with capitalism,

never capitalism itself

this ideology is dominant among the Blue Dogs and neoliberals, so it's not a partisan problem: hence the calls for free-market "more competition"--not goal-oriented regulation--among banks or insurers

[On the Road]

13. I Think Part of It is Because They're Unable to Handle Ambiguity

They have a certain view of the world which does not allow for nuance or complexity.

Take attitudes towards business, for example. The belief is that wealth is created by entrepeneurs. Businesses are good because they provide jobs and grow the economy by creating new products and services and increasing efficiency. Taxes and regulation hinder businesses, make products more expensive and chase companies offshore. Business would flourish with fewer controls and lower taxes. In this scenario, businessmen are the good guys.

All of those points may be undeniable, but it is only a small part of the story. Businesses often act callously and greedily. Executives keep too much of the profits for themselves. They often risk their employees' or customers' health and safety unless they are regulated. If they have a functional monopoly they overcharge customers and restrain trade to prevent competitors.

There is also the flip side of the belief system in which government control seen in the context of communist economic systems. A government-run economy is seen as not only dysfuntional and inefficient, but impoverishes the people it supposedly helps and results in less and less economic, political, and personal freedom. Steps to increase government involvement in the economy are seen as a slippery slope to a command-and-control economy.

The criticism of communist economies may be well placed. On the other hand, those economies did serve the purpose of improving lives of peasants and those at the very bottom of society, albeit at a high cost. And regulation in a capitalist system has not proven to be a slippery slope.

People who have less business and economic experience and have a black-and-white world view may find it difficult to realize that the best economy is a mixed one in which business remains private but government retains oversight and regulates for the good for all the citizens. And that there are no right and wrong solutions, but different attempts that works differently in different places and times.

Inevitably, a lot has to do with identification and emotions. If businessmen are considered the good guys, they have to be defended against encroaching government. If government is parasitical, even the most needed and common-sense regulations will be suspect. And if you only have one basic news source, it's easy to be convinced of a warped view of the world and innoculated against other viewpoints. The social controls among the teabaggers are similar to the ones on DU where divergent arguments are often accused of being right-wing talking points.

In my experience, the most powerful approach against this kind of mentality is (1) to be reasonable, knowledgable, and a good witness for your beliefs, (2) don't try to change anyone's mind per se, and (3) one in a while, make an undeniable and factual point that casts doubt in the listener's mind.

I grew up in a Republican family, and in my 20s became exposed to a lot of people of the left who I liked and admired even if I didn't agree with them. They didn't alienate or turn me off, and eventually I started to understand their points and agree with some of them. That's not going to work with everyone, but it's about the effective thing to do IMO.