I believe it was historian Thomas Leonard who disputed Richard Hofstadter’s thesis, now widely popular, that free markets and racism in the American context are inherently linked.

This partly explains motivation to frame these protests as racist in nature. Unfortunately, there is undoubtedly more actual racism within them than at an environmental protest (unless one construes some of the extreme misanthropy as equal opportunity racism, i.e. anti-humanism).

And for those at the protest who are fed up with both parties, I don’t see why waiting until now to protest is indicative of racism, subconscious or otherwise. It could be that Bush + Obama – who was expected to be different – is the straw the broke the camel’s back.

I’d have been more in agreement with the stimulus package had it actually followed what I believe to be the advice of Keynes, but as far as I know most of it went to industries that were politically saavy, not those that were actually suffering the most or disproportionately responsible for much of US employment.

As I said in the comments over there, the ad hominem attacks of an earlier Marxism have changed from “vulgar economists are just sycophants for the bourgeoisie” to the Crit attack of “angry white protesters are just sycophants for the racist white power structure.”

I think that this is a great post.

The author from the Racism Review, a considerable number of sociologists, and members of the Congressional Black Caucas, etc. have all averred that the Tea Parties are “racist.” I certainly disagree with this charge.
But, the following reasons should enter your calculus prior to inveighing against the Racism Review author:

Try viewing this charge from the perspective of a minority. For example, where were the Tea Parties when G.W. Bush elected to undertake two (quite expensive) wars? Where were the Tea Parties when Bush gave massive handouts to steel corporations? Not to mention the massive healthcare expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid in 2007. I can go on; but, you get the point.

Minorities may believe the following: Why not healthcare for everyone? Everyone, or nearly everyone else, for example,, gets something from government, why can’t government include healthcare? Oh, I know, say minorities, because blacks, Mexicans, etc. may be able to benefit from the massive government spending that our federal government already does.

Yes, the Racism Review may be commiting what we call an ecological fallacy by claiming racism due to the skin complexion of the members of the Tea Parties present. But, this is the inevitable minority public opinion result of government spending for (a), (b), … (x), (y), but not (z).

Finally, I actually agree with many aspects of the “bailout” or the stimulus package (and no, I am not an inflationist). However, once government spending is devoted to something, public opinion will ask this: Why can’t the state extend spending to something else.

Best

And you don’t have to convince me that there’s racism among Ron Paul supporters. I wrote about this, to my own peril among libertarians, in Jan of 08: http://hnn.us/blogs/comments/45044.html But that leaves unanswered the degree to which Tea Partiers are Paul supporters, and the evidence that I’ve seen suggests that some are but many weren’t.

Thabo: That is the right question and I agree that there’s probably more subconscious racism than was in evidence from the overt signs. But is that unique to the Tea Partiers? And without the clear evidence that racism is behind the protests, isn’t the responsible thing to assume good faith disagreement and revert to racism only when such evidence is reasonably clear?

I remember reading somewhere (daily kos?) that the girlfriend of the guy who took over the blog/website of the holocaust museum shooter was involved in the Ron Paul campaign in Michigan, or at least a very vocal supporter.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3791704

Whatever the Left’s “will” on that issue, it remains the case that it was an element of some anti-War protests just as racism is a real element of some of the Tea Partiers.