In her keynote address at yesterday’s tea party, Sarah Palin called for a “new revolution.” Former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo told the audience that the Obama Presidency resulted from the lack of a “literacy test” in the last election. One must wonder what section of our national demographic he is referring to when characterizing those who voted for Obama as “people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in English.” Then, in an obvious reference to Palin’s comments he added, “I’ve heard we need a revolution. My friends, we already had it. We lost. I mean, what happened to us in that last election was a revolution.”
If these statements seem extreme, it is important to remember that the anger and passion that surfaced during the notorious “Town Hall meetings” of last summer have set the tone for the direction this “movement” has taken since then. Many Republicans felt it was important to tap into that anger in order to build momentum going into 2010, an election year. Words like secession and revolution can have several meanings but have often been used at rallies where people have held signs that read, “Time to water the tree of liberty.” Taken separately, these things can be seen as blowing off steam. However when use in conjunction with the “tree of liberty” reference, provokes a starkly different mental image. The quote from Thomas Jefferson reads, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who they are referring to and whether they consider him a patriot or a tyrant.
So both Palin and Tancredo are calling for a new revolution. What is surprising is that Tancredo admits that the 2008 election was also a type of revolution. This being the case, logic dictates that Tancredo finds the result of the previous three revolutions (if you count the unsuccessful one in the 1860′s) to be unsatisfactory. It is the height of arrogance for one to believe that we must incite revolution after revolution until we get things the way I want them. Of course, that is clearly impractical. The attendees of the Tea Party Convention claim to have the interests of the U.S. Constitution in mind. It appears however, that they do not favor a constitution that codifies an electoral process where it is permissible for them to lose an election from time to time. When that happens: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
Perhaps the “Tree of Liberty” reference is actually appropriate after all. Sarah Palin and her ultra-conservatives have decided that if you do not like the way the tree blossoms, you can use the chainsaw of intolerance to bring it down. Tancredo’s comments encapsulate the very essence of intolerance and hatred.
Here is a suggestion: Honor the American electoral process, win or lose. We have had our revolution and enough blood has been shed. Why dishonor the memory of those Americans who have fallen for the cause of liberty every time the opposition wins an election? It is time to rule by law, not by emotion.
A Revolution Of The RIGHT Kind
If these statements seem extreme, it is important to remember that the anger and passion that surfaced during the notorious “Town Hall meetings” of last summer have set the tone for the direction this “movement” has taken since then. Many Republicans felt it was important to tap into that anger in order to build momentum going into 2010, an election year. Words like secession and revolution can have several meanings but have often been used at rallies where people have held signs that read, “Time to water the tree of liberty.” Taken separately, these things can be seen as blowing off steam. However when use in conjunction with the “tree of liberty” reference, provokes a starkly different mental image. The quote from Thomas Jefferson reads, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who they are referring to and whether they consider him a patriot or a tyrant.
So both Palin and Tancredo are calling for a new revolution. What is surprising is that Tancredo admits that the 2008 election was also a type of revolution. This being the case, logic dictates that Tancredo finds the result of the previous three revolutions (if you count the unsuccessful one in the 1860′s) to be unsatisfactory. It is the height of arrogance for one to believe that we must incite revolution after revolution until we get things the way I want them. Of course, that is clearly impractical. The attendees of the Tea Party Convention claim to have the interests of the U.S. Constitution in mind. It appears however, that they do not favor a constitution that codifies an electoral process where it is permissible for them to lose an election from time to time. When that happens: VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
Perhaps the “Tree of Liberty” reference is actually appropriate after all. Sarah Palin and her ultra-conservatives have decided that if you do not like the way the tree blossoms, you can use the chainsaw of intolerance to bring it down. Tancredo’s comments encapsulate the very essence of intolerance and hatred.
Here is a suggestion: Honor the American electoral process, win or lose. We have had our revolution and enough blood has been shed. Why dishonor the memory of those Americans who have fallen for the cause of liberty every time the opposition wins an election? It is time to rule by law, not by emotion.
Comments
If you find the article interesting, please email the link to someone you think might like it.