NPR's Robert Siegel asked this of former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond (link):
Some people read into the Tea Party's almost neuralgic reaction to government spending, a sense that white people figure black people benefit disproportionately from federal programs. Do you suspect a racial subtext to that whole argument?
Of course, Mr. Bond felt that there is a racial subtext as well as envy animating the Tea Party.

Is it possible that the Tea Party just has different ideas about deficit spending?

Could it be that the race of the recipients doesn't matter; the Tea Partiers just want smaller government and lower spending?

Is it possible that the Tea Party supporters don't see somebody else is getting a government benefit and therefore feel envious and want some too, but rather, don't want it for themselves and think the current levels of spending are fiscally irresponsible?

Is it possible that a black person could agree with the Tea Party and think some reductions in spending are in order?

Might it be that the desire for smaller and limited government is a thought unto itself and entirely unrelated to race?

Doesn't this argue that if there were no blacks in the United States that the Tea Party would feel it is OK to borrow and spend trillions? That it is only because of the racial subtext that Tea Partiers think excessive spending is wrong?

No comments: