I’m about to take exception with Mr. Morgan Freeman, perhaps one of our top five American actors, in my estimation, for some ridiculously stupid comments he made regarding the Tea Party, and his contention that it is a racist organization.
I loved Mr. Freeman in Glory. I thought he was simply magic in Bruce Almighty. I couldn’t figure out just what he was doing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but he turned in yeoman’s work in the de rigeur multi-culti paean role with no relevance to the plot. Why, if I were ever to make a movie that called for a mentor/voice of reason/your conscience is speaking to you role, Morgan Freeman would be my first choice. It’s what he does; those are the roles he was born to play.
Having said that, Mr. Freeman would probably be the LAST person I would turn to for political advice or for an explanation of the state of American Life. In this area, Mr. Freeman would probably be doing himself a favor if he returned to Sesame Street for some elementary re-education. Now, I don’t mean to single out Morgan out in this regard: I also wouldn’t ask Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, Denzell Washington, or The Rock political questions for a very simple reason.
These are people who are experts at acting. In other words, they earn their living pretending to be someone else, and in their little world of ultra-Lib Hollywood you can never a) tell when someone has dropped character, and b) assume that what’s being said publicly is colored by the fact that holding the ‘wrong’ opinions in that town can lead to unemployment and…gasp!...having to find a real job. Finally, I don't hold with the common belief that just because someone is famous, it stands to reason that they must also be brilliant.
And I’m still waiting for Alec Baldwin to move to France, too.
This doesn’t mean that I believe Mr. Freeman to be some sort of retard, incapable of forming a reasonable opinion on complicated subjects like American Politics. Far from it; I assume the man to be at least as intelligent as your pet Labrador, which is to say, about as intelligent as the average Dancing-With The Stars-Watching-I Read-People-Magazine-Jerry-Springer-is-Fine-Entertainment American that we (somehow) still allow to vote. Giving credit where it’s due, you have to assume an intelligence superior to even that low level because Freeman has somehow managed to become very rich without having to work for it. Stupid people simply don’t become rich in America; most people become rich by manipulating stupid people, after all.
But where Mr. Freeman fails in his assessment of the Tea Party is that in speaking the words “The Tea Party is Racist”, it’s evident he’s out of his depth. It’s obvious he has no first-hand knowledge.
I have little more knowledge myself, having attended but two local Tea Party events in my area, but I have learned at least three things about the people involved:
a) Most are the sort I wouldn’t associate with if you paid me. In the case of the Staten Island Tea Party, the majority of the members appear to fall into a fairly disparate spectrum that ranges from people old enough to remember when you could get a heart/lung transplant for a nickel, and the upper middle ownership class who seeks to knock the current crop of party apparatchiks out of power so as to assume power for itself. The only binding element is that none of them wish to pay the crippling taxes they have to now.
b) There was no racism on display from Tea Party members that I saw, but there certainly WAS from the libtard counter-protest groups who appeared to try to drown the Tea Party people out. Mostly, these were college students, labor union goons,and assorted Moonbats who still speak fondly about memories of vomiting copiously upon themselves at Woodstock.
c) When there was ONE incident of apparently-overt racism at another Tea Party event I attended (someone arrived at the Tea Party carrying a sign with a caricature of President Obama as a chimpanzee) it was quickly discovered that the owner of that sign was a libtard who tried to play agent provocateur at that meeting by getting that sign in front of television cameras (none showed, by the way) and paint the Tea Party as racist.
Now, personally, I happen to agree with about 95% of what my local Tea Party stands for and advocates. I just happen to think it’s being run by people who are, on balance, just as bad in terms of intentions, as the people they’re trying to replace. That’s just my local Tea Party, and I don’t believe its representative of the entire movement.
As for Herman Cain, we’re talking a True American Success Story here. The man drips with reasonable ideas, is extremely intelligent and personable, and I find myself thinking that I would gladly fix bayonets and go over the top for and with him if the opportunity ever presented itself. This may be one of the best people to come down the American political pike for quite some time, and win, lose, or draw in 2012, we’re probably going to be seeing a lot more Herman Cain in the future, and I think it’s a good thing.
But it’s a bad thing if you’re an old-school liberal for several reasons.
The first reason is that the Tea Party represents a new way of thinking, and offers a different philosophy of government which is at odds with the establishment on both ends of the political spectrum. Establishment republicans are more amenable (and adaptable) to Tea Party ideals because they are, in the main, the core of republican belief. There are those at the extreme wing of the Party (those more, shall we say, Theocratically inclined) who see the Tea Party as a threat to the Republican party, but only because they see in this program of re-ordering the GOP’s priorities the evaporation of their Social Conservative Agenda.
If you’re a liberal, the Tea Party represents an existential threat to the entire edifice of liberal politics, vis-à-vis the redistribution of wealth and the elevation of rank stupidity into wedge issues which can be manipulated for electoral gain. If the Tea Party holds sway, the first thing that goes is the Progressive Tax Code, to be quickly followed by the defunding of everything from Midnight Basketball to Birth Control for Chinese Hookers programs, or in other words, government programs which purport to benefit The People, but which are really ways by which libtards achieve gainful employment without having to be economically useful. Once the tax structure and funding goes, the entire liberal house of cards collapses; we’ll soon find out that the government was bloated, overstaffed, overreaching, more expensive than at first feared, and finally, dreadfully ineffective and inefficient.
Soon, we’ll lose the entire construct built around issues of race, class, gender, and wealth, as fewer people can be manipulated so as to have to depend upon government programs and the soon-to-crumble Welfare State, and then we’ll finally have something we’ve always dreamed of in America, but haven’t quite yet achieved: a society in which talent, capacity for work, intelligence, and ambition finally defines the differences between success and failure. In other words, we’ll finally have a truly free society in which people will experience greater liberty. The double-standards erected around the subjects of race and gender will disappear, we’ll all be equally independent to rise or fall upon our own merits.
Eventually, as the entire rationale for that enormously-expensive, massively-ineffectual, liberty-crushing government comes into question and proves itself massively stupid, it will become necessary to re-evaluate the intentions and activities of the people who created it all in the first place, i.e. Progressive Liberals. When that finally happens Progressive Liberalism as we currently know it will have been quickly revealed to be the sham that it always was. And then who will need committed libtards? Anyone professing Progressive Liberal points of view would be lucky to get a greeter’s job at Wal-Mart, and have to survive in this dog-eat-dog world according to their own talents, which means, literally, they’ll starve to death in the streets.
Why do you think the Left continually raises fear of a government shutdown in budget or debt negotiations? Because if the government actually did shut down, a) its possible no one would notice, and b) it’s possible that someone would notice that the Earth has not spun off its axis because the Jabba-the-Hutt Bureaucracy was closed for a month. Having proved that the Department of X was extraneous, Department X could be shut down, leaving tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of otherwise economically-useless people to have to fend for themselves in the Job Market, where they would find themselves at a distinct disadvantage against those who have already been working for a living, and are capable of adapting to reality without a directive filed in triplicate.
This is why the Left fears the Tea Party, and why it was so quick to pull out it’s Big Guns and attack the movement from almost its inception. Remember this: whenever something appears in American Life which a Liberal doesn’t like, can’t understand, or simply cannot abide, it is immediately, even sans evidence, labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, etc, etc., and the libtards who scream these the loudest are usually the libtards who have the most to lose.
The second reason why the Left fears the Tea Party is because it elevates people like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain, people who would, in other times, perhaps not be taken seriously by either party establishment, at best, or at worst, muzzled by the apparatchiks. The System, whether Left or Right, is quite good at smothering mavericks (sorry John McCain, but you ain’t a maverick as much as you’re a craven opportunist) and bringing them to heel. The existence of a political movement which operates in parallel to the GOP, but which is not beholden or controlled by it, means that many more voices and issues can be heard. This upsets Social Conservatives, in particular, greatly.
A Herman Cain candidacy upsets liberals even more because he represents a viable alternative to what Liberals have been dishing out to Black America for fifty years. Herman Cain isn’t an Affirmative Action case. He isn’t a Class Warrior. He doesn’t go in for ridiculous notions of Social Justice, and isn’t tinged with the low-grade Socialism of other Black candidates and politicians. He isn’t a ticket puncher, who worked his way up through a party hierarchy by kissing the right butts and mouthing the proper slogans. He doesn’t rise in the morning with the word “racism” on his lips, and he doesn’t play the race card for personal advantage. He doesn’t live or die by the grace (and cash) of government. He stands as a shining example of what libtards say isn’t possible, but which conservatives and republicans have always maintained was: he’s his own Man, raised by his own talents, who represents what some would deride as an anachronistic way of life: He works, he works hard, he doesn’t attach blame for his failures to others, and he engineers his own successes. Herman Cain, then, to a liberal, is The Anti-Christ that threatens to destroy the carefully-constructed Patronizing Welfare State Heaven our Leftist Overlords have planned for us.
If Herman Cain were to be taken seriously and serve as an example of what is possible, why, who knows what might happen? It might turn out that black kids might want to study Physics instead of Zone Blitzes, or they might want to do their homework instead of working on their jump shot. They might decide to get a business degree and start a legitimate business rather than a Crack Distribution Network. And do it all without having to take a single dollar of Welfare, or reflexively crying 'racism!".
Oh, the horror!
Mr. Freeman needs to go out and educate himself a little about the Tea Party, and he would probably be best served by not speaking out in public on subjects he obviously knows nothing about. Then again, what would you expect from someone who just divorced his wife so as to marry his step-granddaughter? Obviously, Mr. Freeman must have even less intelligence or good taste than I might have originally given him credit for.