ell, I guess it’s about that time. I was really trying to avoid writing about the so-called Tea Party movement, but I now feel compelled to. I’ve discussed the teabaggers on my local radio program on 90.7 FM WTCC on several occasions and the conversations have been very lively. As a matter of fact, some teabaggers and sympathizers have called in to rail on me about my criticism of their racist movement. Uh, oh, did I say “teabagger?” Did I say “racist?” Why, yes, I did! Now, they don’t like to be called teabaggers or racists; however, let me demonstrate that they are both.

       The so-called Tea Party activists are so offended by the   term  teabagger that they are actually comparing it to the word nigger. They also don’t like being called racists, but if you’re comparing the term teabagger with the word nigger, I think you’ve pretty much earned being called racist. Even if teabagger were an offensive slur, to equate it with the brutal legacy of American racism inherent in the word nigger is far more offensive.

       Tea Party Express director Amy Kramer appeared on The View and actually said teabagger was “just as disgraceful” as nigger. “It’s disgusting, it’s disgraceful, and no one should use it,” she said. “We shouldn’t be using either of those terms.” This is like saying we shouldn’t be hitting people or blowing their heads off with a shot gun.

       In truth, teabaggers is much more accurate than Tea Party. They actually embraced the term until they realized it was a popular sexual colloquialism. Those of you who know what the sexual colloquialism teabag means understand that a teabagger is someone whose mouth is full. During the act of teabagging, one’s powers of reason and communication are compromised. For example, if you were trying to make a point about the economy, but at that moment you happened to have your mouth full, your message would be garbled and incoherent. Or let’s say you were at a rally, trying to wave a “Go Back to Kenya” sign, but your mouth was full; it would be hard to concentrate. A kind of delirium would set in. So the next time you see these folks protesting on television, imagine that they have something in their mouths, and their actions make a lot more sense.

       Tea Party, on the other hand, is a reference to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. This was a key event on the road to the American Revolution. The colonists in Boston were protesting the fact that the British crown was taxing the American colonies without granting them representation in Parliament. “No taxation without representation,” remember? The Boston Tea Party is in no way analogous to the modern-day movement which has appropriated its name. Americans today are not excessively taxed – taxes are actually lower today than they were under the Bush administration — and, more to the point, we have representation. The colonists weren’t against paying taxes; what they objected to was having no voice in their government. But the teabaggers, as American citizens, have the right to vote for their local, state, and federal representatives. The tea partiers of 1773 would wonder what the heck the teabaggers of 2010 are complaining about.

       So I will continue to refer to them as teabaggers. Just because they don’t know anything about the Boston Tea Party doesn’t mean the rest of us have to perpetuate their ignorance.  

       Okay, okay, I’ll make a concession — if they don’t want to be called teabaggers all the time, let’s alternate it with another term: Racists. The movement’s leaders have claimed that they discourage racism at their events. Obviously, they are doing an awful job at it. “We are not racists,” Amy Kramer insisted on The View. “This is about fiscal issues, as I’ve said.” Yet, she admitted that she is not an economist and totally unqualified to discuss fiscal matters. So let’s get this straight, the so-called movement is about fiscal matters, yet you don’t know anything about fiscal matters? Arsenio Hall used to say, “things that make you go hmmmmm.” 

       “What people don’t understand,” Kramer said, “[is that] this is not about President Obama.” Yet, she’s quick to admit that the “spending” she opposes began under Bush. Ironically, Amy Kramer and the vast majority of teabaggers voted for Bush/Cheney twice and for McCain/Palin once. They believe that “government spending” has been “out of control,” but they didn’t care enough to get active with their so-called Tea Party until America had a Black president. When you claim that your lower taxes are actually higher, when you protest an utterly fictitious “government takeover of healthcare,” when you confuse the stimulus with the bailouts — in short, when nothing you have to say bears any relation to reality — we have the right to wonder what you’re really upset about. All roads lead to the fact that Barack Obama is a Black man. 

       If the teabaggers were not largely racist, and if their cause was about individual freedom and limited government, they would be protesting the Arizona immigration law. If they really represented the interests of the little guy against the big guy, they would be protesting the Supreme Court’s ruling on corporate campaign contributions, and the BP oil spill. If they really cared about financial reform, they would favor breaking up the banks and regulating Wall Street. But they don’t really care about any of these things. They don’t even begin to understand them. All they know is that they’ve been really angry since. . . Oh, November 4, 2008, and now they want to “take back America.” From whom, exactly? A Black man in the White House?

       Amy Kramer claims that people like me merely want to discredit the movement with charges of racism. But there’s no need to discredit a movement that never had any credibility in the first place. What she and other teabaggers say never makes much sense. But I guess I need to give them a break — after all, they have their mouths full!  n