Business
The History Challenged Tea Party Goes ‘Jaywalking’
Jay Leno has a popular segment on his show he calls “Jaywalking”.
The late night talk show host cruises through suburban malls and other Southern California sites that attract tourists from around the nation, posing simple questions from American history to his victims. When they respond with stunningly stupid answers, the viewers are treated to a great laugh.
It’s funny – but incredibly discomfiting. One cannot help but question how it is possible that there are people among us who don’t know that George Washington (no…not Benjamin Franklin) was the first president of the United States.
Surely, once the thrill of being on national TV passes, those who have gained their 15 minutes of fame must experience a profound sense of embarrassment.
Today, these poor souls can relax.
Thanks to the dedicated efforts of trailblazing leaders such as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, America has a political party dedicated to the proposition that all men and women, no matter what their race, creed or color, are free to proudly display their ignorance – anywhere and anytime.
Rep. Bachmann showed us how it’s done when she stood before a gathering of Iowa Tea Partiers to declare that “the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
I guess that could be true if we ignore the fact that the authors of the Constitution declared slaves to be only 3/5ths of a human being.
Maybe we can buy Bachmann’s version of history if we pretend that many of the Founders, including James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, did not own slaves at the time of the nation’s creation, although, in reality, they did.
As for Bachmann’s tip of the teapot to John Quincy Adams – I just can’t come up with a way to make any sense out of that one. It is true that Adams believed that slavery was wrong but his commitment did not take him to the point where he was willing to join the abolitionist. In fact, John Quincy was on record as opposing the abolitionists for being a danger to the nation. And then there is that whole problem with J.Q. Adams being dead well before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.
Not to be outdone by Bachmann’s display of leadership, the Tea Party’s other high priestess, Sarah Palin, has thrown herself into the mix by suggesting that it is the president who needs a history lesson when it comes to the question of who actually won the space race between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union.
He needs to remember that, uh, what happened back then with the communist U.S.S.R. and their victory in that race to space,” the Fox News contributor said Wednesday night, reacting to Obama’s reference to Sputnik in his State of the Union speech. Palin called the Sputnik name drop one of the “W.T.F.” moments in the speech, a play of the President’s call for “winning the future.”
Yeah, they won but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union,” Palin said.
Looks like Sarah Barracuda was spending too much time on the basketball court and too little in history class.
It is true that the Soviets won some of the early heats of the space race, including being the first to put a man into orbit. But it is universally agreed – even by those who speak from the remnants of the Soviet Union – that the US won the big prize when the country became the first to put a man on the moon.
As for the space program being the cause for the implosion of the Soviet Union – which happened a full 22 years after American astronaut Neil Armstrong set the first human foot down on the moon’s surface – I think Gov. Palin would find that historians and economists are united in their agreement that the collapse came as a result of a stagnant economy caused by years of unsustainable military spending of which the Soviet space program was but a tiny part.
So insane was Palin’s recount of history, Pat Buchanan, one of the Governor’s most ardent apologists, was forced to take a pass when asked to defend her this morning, going so far as to suggest that Palin was going to have a hard time digging out of this one.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that all Tea Partiers are stupid or ignorant of their nation’s history. In fact, I know from experience that this is not the case.
I also know, all too well, that Democratic and GOP leaders have, from time to time, said some pretty ridiculous things.
But here’s the difference – when others misspeak or flat out say something stupid, they quickly seek to explain, retract or find some other way to fix, or at the least cover up, the error.
Not so the grand poobahs of the Tea Party movement who choose to dig in their heals and refuse to admit error despite the fact that everyone knows they have seriously screwed up.
What’s more, when leaders of the more established parties make fools out of themselves, they are not rewarded with the spotlight as was Michele Bachmann when handed to role of providing the Tea Party response to the SOTU.
I fully realize that there will be many who identify with the Tea Party who will be quick to cleverly suggest that every time Barack Obama opens his mouth a lie or some other foolish statement comes out. There will be pithy remarks galore. So, why pick on Palin and Bachmann?
While Palin and Bachmann have cleared the way for such responses, why not go another direction and expend your efforts thinking about the quality of the leaders you have chosen? The Tea Party is having a significant impact on the nation and stands at a point where their influence can either dissipate and become a footnote in American history or move forward as a real force. The success or failure of the movement will largely depend on the quality of your leadership.
Put another way, surely you can do much better.
If the Tea Party is comfortable standing pat with those they have chosen to represent them in the public, maybe we should just get the leaders of all the parties together on “Jeopardy” and see who can handle “American History for $1,000″.
I’ll bet that’s one reality show where Sarah Palin will be a no-show.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
Members
Log in with your Forbes account
Haven't Registered Yet?
Create an account to join Forbes now
Gov. Sarah Palin & Rep. Michele Bachmann are fashionable, fearless feminist freedom fighters who are not afraid to stand tall for conservative values. They are on the right side of history.
Now see Rick, this comment is a perfect example of what you tried to warn against in this very article.
In response to another comment. See in context »Be afraid, be very afraid.
Yeah…but I never doubted it would come.
In response to another comment. See in context »Maybe…they just don’t seem to know the history on which they are on the right side of.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re right, nomedawson. They are on the right side of history.
That is, as long as you want history to unfold in such a manner as to turn this nation into a fading backwater, with a population of devolved morons living in the woods, killing their dinner with a stick, and fearing the noises of the night.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re absolutely right!
SEE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS QUOTE JULY 4, 1837 BELOW…..
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eva Miranda, Life in Sherman Oaks. Life in Sherman Oaks said: The History Challenged Tea Party Goes ‘Jaywalking’… http://bit.ly/dU91na [...]
I think Gov. Palin would find that historians and economists are united in their agreement that the collapse came as a result of a stagnant economy caused by years of unsustainable military spending
You mean kinda like our economy is now?
And what about entitlement spending which has already surpassed defense spending? At least politicians can make cuts in this area without ending their career. Not so with entitlements.
In response to another comment. See in context »Uh…and what does that have to do with this article?
In response to another comment. See in context »Perhaps it has to do with the person I was responding to?
In response to another comment. See in context »Dan – I truly don’t want to be rude. But I write an article about how two political figures got their history wrong and you respond with a question about entitlement spending which has absolutely nothing to do with the post in any remote fashion.
I asked you what this has to do with the article and you respond with what you no doubt think is a clever answer. I really thought that maybe your original comment was directed towards another post and you accidentally placed it here. That is why I asked the question. Your response “Perhaps it has to do with he peson I was responding to.”
Tell you what. At this point I think you are simply enjoying the attention I am giving you by responding. As I say, I don’t like to be rude and try hard to respond to as many as possible. I think I don’t have much choice but to stop responding to you.
You are sincerely welcome to continue commenting on posts and I’m pleased you read them although you disagree with them. but I hope you will understand if I just let your comments stand unanswered. If you don’t understand, we’ll just that your comments are so profound and superior to my own thoughts that I no longer dare to attempt to respond to your wisdom.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ah. My mistake. I now see what you were responding to. Apologies.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, I truly don’t understand what’s so confusing to you about my comments. The previous person who commented before me implied that military spending had to do with the current state of our economy. I decided to reply to her by saying that entitlement spending is more than our defense spending. What’s so confusing about this?
My comment was nothing more than an honest question — while we do seem to be coming out of the stagnation, what I’ve read says that it is still quite wobbly. As for our military spending, let me tell you a story …
In response to another comment. See in context »My husband fought in Vietnam, and even though for a number of years we worked 3 full-time jobs between the 2 of us, none of them offered health insurance so he ignored his medical symptoms until he was so sick they wouldn’t be ignored. We went to the VA hospital in the city where we live, and after a week in the hospital we found out he has diabetes, and because he had ignored the symptoms for more than 10 years he also has congestive heart failure and chronic kidney failure. We are now living on VA benefits, and social security disability.
I don’t know what you consider “entitlement programs” but from where I’m sitting, we’ve got both the ‘military’ and ‘entitlement’ spending covered, so I really don’t want to see any serious cuts in either of these areas because I don’t want to be affected. And while that may sound selfish, both my husband and I have more than paid our dues, and no one who doesn’t know our whole story has the right to judge.
Very sorry you guys have had to go through this.
In response to another comment. See in context »On the good news side, I don’t want you to lose any sleep over what you might lose. I don’t see any circumstances where those on SS disability would be affected – certainly not military personnel. Further, I know of no discussion that would cut back on the VA treatment your husband requires.
I do have a question – why was the VA not an option for your husband when he was first feeling ill. I understand that you wree unable to purchase private coverage, but as a veteran, wouldn’t he have qualified to take advantage of the VA much earlier?
Back in the 90s when he first went to the VA for care they pretty much acted like taking care of the vets was the last thing they wanted to do, so Mike gave up and didn’t see ANY doctor. I also think there was an element of him thinking that if he ignored the symptoms they’d go away — we all know how well that works!
In response to another comment. See in context »As far as I know until Clinton was in office the VA did whatever they could to keep from admitting that agent orange really was a problem for the vets, but Clinton did something to change that (based on the health issues of the vets from Bush 1[s] gulf war). When we went back in 2006 everything was really different, and it’s stayed that way.
For the most part I consider entitlements to be SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. You say your comment was an honest question. I read it over again but I’m sorry. I don’t see it. You quote Rick’s blog and then relate our economy to the Russian economy that collapsed. I could be wrong.
In any case, I have the utmost respect for military veterans such as your husband who are so willing to sacrifice their lives for the rest of us and I don’t judge you. My point is that your comment relates our economy to the specific text from Rick’s blog that says Russia’s economy collapsed because of military spending. I had a big problem with that statement because our defense spending is less than entitlement spending and a lot of liberals try to make those kinds of claims. In addition, when cuts need to be made to defense, it’s not a career ending decision. On the flip side, if cuts are necessary to the entitlement programs, it pretty much can’t be done. I understand that you would want to maintain your benefits. Who wouldn’t? But if Democrats are serious about creating all these programs they also need to be serious about making changes to them when necessary.
In response to another comment. See in context »Funny how you cherry pick certain words, then write the accounts all wrong.
Our forefather’s were in fact very smart, by adding the words ” all men are created equal” laid the corner stone that one day all men would be considered equal upon all eyes.
If at the time, Alexander Hamilton,James Madison, Jr.John JayThomas,And others, would have abolished slavery at the time of writing the Constitution, and bill of rights, our great country would of never taken root. In fact there would of been spilt ” as in the civil war” our fore fathers knew this, and would let time dictate the proper course. Jefferson owned several plantations and hundreds of slaves during his lifetime. He relied partially on slavery for his wealth although as President he did sign the law that banned the slave trade.
I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. If there is something that you believe I stated inaccurately about what Rep. Bachmann and/or Sarah Palin had to say, maybe you could point out what the inaccuracy might be?
In response to another comment. See in context »While Bachmann’s and Palin’s comments may have been made out of ignorance, don’t ignore the right’s tendency to fudge the facts when it comes to our nation’s history.
Chris Rodda has caught David Barton in more than one falsehood on Glenn Beck U segments on Fox. The links below are to YouTube videos wherein Chris debunks deliberate falsifications made by Barton in regard to U.S. history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewwWM4psFo8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIFSY_BjxsY
The historical revisionism of the right is widespread and highly pernicious in its effect on political discourse. If such falsehoods are allowed to remain a part of the national conversation, the results will be nothing short of disastrous.
I certainly agree that this might very well be the case.
In response to another comment. See in context »REVISE THIS:
All states agreed in 1787 slavery should be banned in all new U.S. Territories.
“There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory” Northwest Ordinance July 1787.
Drafted by Thomas Jefferson. First signed into law by Congress in July 1787. Passed again by Congress & President Washington after ratification of the Constitution on Aug 7, 1789.
A more honest response might have been to say, both sides try to revise history but…
Remember when V.P. Biden said, “when the stock market crashed FDR got on the television…” ??? Trouble is: THERE WAS NO TV DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION!
Both sides need to be honest with history… especially Mr. Ungar who claimed in a prior article a couple hundred seamen in 1796 getting federal health care implied John Adams would want over 300 million to be forced to get health insurance today!
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams 1798
In response to another comment. See in context »Apology accepted Rick. It may have to do with the site changes to Forbes…
Or to put it another way, were have all the
smart people gone? Representatives of differing viewpoints were at least viable and intelligent….on what basis of common ground can one even discuss issues with the new politicos on the right? Those even close have media jobs….
Hello Rick,
I think that you are missing the key political point, the Tea Party leaders (and conservative leaders in general) few history as a tool, weapon in the political struggle. Conservatives have long argued that the Founding Fathers were perfect, all-seeing prophets who agreed with each other on all topics and whose views are binding upon all future generations rather ordinary mortal men who were simply trying to develop a political compromise to meet all of their needs. This works well for them since a document written 200 years ago must be inherently conservative by today’s standards.
The strongest progressive response has been for some time that the Constitution is hardly perfect, consider slavery. Everyone today agrees that slavery is a horror and its acknowledgment of slavery’s legal status is an obvious example of historical limitation of the document (the 3/5ths compromise is such an obvious embarrassment). This is why conservatives are working so hard to “amend” history to “rehabilitate” the founding fathers to divine perfection.
This can be most clearly seen during the recent confirmation hearing of Elena Kagan. Conservatives attempted to disqualify now Justice Kagan on grounds that she accepted her mentor’s (Thurgood Marshall) description of the Constitution as a “flawed or defective document”. Now former RNC Chairman Steele said “Given Kagan’s … statements suggesting that the Constitution ‘as originally drafted and conceived’ was ‘defective,’ you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan’s qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.” Ms. Kagan’s defenders had to do nothing more than point to the 3/5th rule to make them choke.
Ms. Palin and Ms. Buchanan are not ignorant for its own sake, rather they are ignorant with a political purpose in mind.
Very fair points. I suppose I have trouble adjusting to the fact that these women would spew these bold-faced lies knowingly. Part of me would prefer to believe they just don’t know better – but I cannot ignore the strong possibility that what you suggest is completely accurate.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello Rick,
My point is not so much that they are feigning ignorance but rather that they have no motivation to first figure out that they are indeed ignorant and then do something about it. Rather their displays of ignorance are rewarded and encouraged by their bases and colleagues. Conservatives *want* what these ignorami (ignoramae?) are saying to be true and that is enough for their political needs. More thoughtful conservatives are embarrassed by the clumsy ham-handedness of Ms. Palin and Ms. Bachman’s efforts but approve of their intent. They are “useful idiots”.
In response to another comment. See in context »WELL THERE YOU GUYS GO AGAIN…. REVISE THIS:
All states agreed in 1787 slavery should be banned in all new U.S. Territories.
“There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory” Northwest Ordinance July 1787.
Drafted by Thomas Jefferson. First signed into law by Congress in July 1787. Passed again by Congress & President Washington after ratification of the Constitution on Aug 7, 1789.
A more honest response might have been to say, both sides try to revise history but…
Remember when V.P. Biden said, “when the stock market crashed FDR got on the television…” ??? Trouble is: THERE WAS NO TV DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION!
Both sides need to be honest with history… especially Mr. Ungar who claimed in a prior article a couple hundred seamen in 1796 getting federal health care implied John Adams would want over 300 million to be forced to get health insurance today!
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams 1798
In response to another comment. See in context »The last thing I want to do this weekend is get involved with your nonsense so I’ll respond once and then you can go to town.
If you think you can sell that our Founders were committed to doing away with slavery because the Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in the states north of the Ohio River, I got some useless real estate you can sell next.
For starters, you choose to ignore that there were a number of southern states that joined the union subsequent to 1787 that were slave states. Secondly, you’re pretending that there were no Southerners that were among the Founders who were going to bail out on the Constitution because of the northern reps. desire to do away with slavery.
And if you refuse to appreciate the irony of Jefferson drafting this legislation while insisting of keeping his own many slaves subsequent to the Constitution, then Michele Bachmann is clearly your candidate.
Good luck with this line of reasoning. I can see your fellow Tea Partiers who know better rolling their eyes everwhere.
Which part of the following sentence I wrote in this piece failed to speak to the point you felt had to made regarding others of all parties saying equally stupid things-
“I also know, all too well, that Democratic and GOP leaders have, from time to time, said some pretty ridiculous things.”
And finally, at absolutely NO point in this piece did I accuse ANYONE of revising history. Go read it again, assuming you actually read it in the first place. What I said, in so many words, is that Bachmann and Palin don’t know crap about American history. You are the one suggesting that anyone is trying to revise history.
You know, you are so busy being angry, I don’t think you actually read these pieces. If you think you are doing your position any justice, I can assure you that you are not. All you are communicating is profound anger and no wisdom.
In response to another comment. See in context »You state: “ Bachmann and Palin don’t know crap about American history.”
I beg to differ, Backmann was referring to this:
“The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.”
John Quincy Adams July 4, 1837
Now we can argue if this is “crap” too but Backmann at least has an argument!
You are revising history by implying you know what our founders would want today (i.e. forced health ins.) You are the angry person, Mr. Ungar when all I’m doing is quoting the founders (something you have yet to do in ANY PIECE I’ve read)…. something that seems to make you very angry. Why?
My quoting the founders no less than 8 times is “no wisdom”????
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello rrellis,
What Ms. Bachman said was:“the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
1) The younger Mr. Adams was not one of founding fathers, he was far too young and played no role in the war for independence or writing the constitution.
2) While John Quincy Adams was indeed opposed to slavery, he was not an active abolitionist. He took no concrete actions to end slavery. The nearest he ever came to any practical activity was his role in the Amistad Uprising (United States v. Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 518 (1841)). Notably, he never challenged the legality of slavery in the case, he merely argued these particular Mende men were not legally enslaved. While the case galvanized the abolitionist movement, this had nothing to do with Mr. Adams.
3) Mr. Adam’s defense of the “southern patriots” is only half true. While it is true that during the revolution many southerners did indeed fret and wring their hands about slavery (there more more abolitionist groups in the South than the North at the time), this because slavery was a dying institution so many leaders were looking for a graceful way for it end. However, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin changed all of that. The cultivation of cotton suddenly became hugely profitable, as did slavery. Attitudes towards slavery changed quickly as well. Had the cotton gin been invented a few years earlier, the constitution would have looked quite different.
In response to another comment. See in context »Loved your last sentence. Can we assume that it is your belief that the Constitution was created only for religious people?
In response to another comment. See in context »I know you love John Adams based on your misread of the Seamen’s Act!
Just trying to get you to see the founders would not agree with much of what you claim they believe!
Would you like more Adams quotes?
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello rrellis,
You wrote:”All states agreed in 1787 slavery should be banned in all new U.S. Territories.”
I would point out that the Northwest Ordience only applied to the Northwest Territory where slavery was unlikely to ever exist. No states agreed to ban slavery from the territories of Tennesse, Alabama, Mississippi, or the Louisiana.
In response to another comment. See in context »