Dear Representative Bachmann:
Allow me to introduce myself. I am the chairperson of the Chemists with Disabilities Subdivision within the American Chemical Society. Why would a chemist be writing to you through the media? I’m glad you asked. I’ve been a chemistry and physics educator, and science education scholar since 1984. I suffered a spinal injury in 2006, which essentially cost me my career, family, and home, not to mention my health and opportunities to remain a productive member of our American society and economy. I am, in many respects, the epitome of what you consider wrong with today’s America.
In the August 13th issue of USA TODAY (News Cover Story: ‘Tea Party’ members offer a ground-level view), you stated that you’re “not the national spokeswoman” for the Tea Party even though you personally started an official Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. Well, congresswoman, to paraphrase from Colin Powell’s erroneous Pottery Barn analogy: If you create a caucus, you speak for them.
Do I have anything personal against the Tea Party? Yes and no. A democrat for almost 30 years, I readily admit the presence of a third political party in state and national politics is a good thing. I’m far from pleased with the state of things in Washington, not to mention the direction things are headed. I’ll even admit that President Obama wasn’t even my first or second choice on the Democratic Party ticket in 2008 (P.S., neither was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton). But I reluctantly voted for President Obama and Vice-President Biden because I had zero trust or confidence in John McCain and Sarah Palin. If a better alternative to either choice existed, I likely would’ve voted accordingly. Even though he’s my president, I’m not overly pleased with Mr. Obama’s job performance so far.
The very first presidential election I took personal ownership of was in 1980, and I supported the third party candidate, John Anderson. Why? As a college student, I had little confidence in incumbent Jimmy Carter and no trust in Ronald Reagan with regards to our national economy and how it would affect higher education. Did it matter to me that Anderson stood little chance to win the election? No, because my candidate represented my ideals and national agenda. Four years later I supported the candidacy of Rev. Jesse Jackson. Why? Because I believed in similar ideals regarding what our nation could be.
So, I don’t begrudge the Tea Party’s existence, and respect its constitutional right to exist as a political party, just as I respect your constitutional right to be a U.S. representative with “non-squished” views. Do I agree with your views or those of the Tea Party? THAT’S a different story.
You see, congresswoman, no matter how much you and others advocate that the Tea Party is a “fiscal movement” rather than a “social movement,” you and your like-minded colleagues fail to convince people like me. Why? Kentucky senatorial candidate, Dr. Rand Paul, and the schizophrenic stance the Tea Party has on big government programs.
Allow me to address the latter reason first. The Tea Party is allegedly angry with both the Bush and Obama administrations for throwing large sums of federal dollars at the Wall Street bailout, Medicare prescription drug benefits, the auto industry, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Stimulus package, and extended unemployment benefits. Okay, fair enough. I agree that the federal government is tossing around major money and adding to our national debt and deficit. But where were you and your colleagues when President Bush signed off on a $1.6 trillion, 10-year tax cut plan in January 2001, effectively wiping out a federal surplus left to us by Bill Clinton’s administration? Oh? You were satisfied constituents back then, so no need to brew any tea? Funny... As a college professor, all I got was a lousy check for $350, which I then had to report on my income tax returns in 2002. I don’t recall being able to buy a lot of anything with that kickback, but I guess we come from two different worlds, don’t we?
And where were you and your colleagues when President Bush took us into, not one, but two wars, costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars daily in the name of fighting terrorism? Oh? It’s good to go deeper into debt when fighting bad guys, even though we’ve still yet to find Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice after nearly nine years? And where exactly are all those Weapons of Mass Destruction Saddam Hussein reportedly had in Iraq?
According to USA TODAY, you’re 54 years old. Congratulations, congresswoman; you qualify for AARP membership. Did you know the AARP advocates a full spectrum of Medicare benefits, the very ones the Tea Party consider an example of big government waste? Did you know that as a woman over 50, the Equal Pay Act as well as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act legally protect you? Both acts are oversaw by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that also oversees the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990?
Ah... The Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, two rather nuisance acts of legislation that stick in the craw of Dr. Rand Paul. You see, congresswoman, when you associate yourself with a political party that supports the discrimination is free will views of a political candidate, that’s when I take exception to the candidate, the political party, and its congressional spokeswoman. Does Dr. Paul have the constitutional right to be a U.S. Senator? Yes. Is he entitled to his views? Yes. Is he good for this country as a U.S. Senator holding his views towards any aspect of civil rights or the purpose of the EEOC? No. He does not, and neither do you, if Dr. Paul’s agenda is your unofficial agenda.
Listening to you and your Tea Party colleagues on various news shows (oh, that darned “liberal media”) I’m often reminded of Daniel Day-Lewis’ character Daniel Plainview in the 2007 movie There will be blood. At one point in the movie, Daniel Plainview says, “I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed.” And THAT’S what the Tea Party movement sadly reminds me of, a collection of mostly white, mostly angry people who feel they haven’t gotten enough of what they think the world and the American government owes them, and by golly, if they can’t get it, no one can. You’re the congressional spokeswoman for a political party that looks to all corners of American society as the boogeyman... Except for the corner you occupy. Everyone else needs to be blamed for your corner not having everything it wants and craves... Everyone but you. When democrats and anti-war activists protested against President Bush during his 2004 re-election campaign, we were all enemy sympathizers. When Tea Party members carry posters of President Obama with a Swastika and Hitler mustache, they’re being patriotic.
When Tea Party members and advocates hold rallies, they’re trying to stand up and save America from ruin. When we object and challenge, we’re communists, crackpots or anarchists. Whether you realize it or not, congresswoman, your “unapologetic conservative” advocacy for the free market comes across to me as Orwellian, just as much as I may seem to you like a bandit from Sherwood Forest. But there’s a difference... I don’t begrudge your advocacy of the free market as long as it doesn’t exclude or prevent everyone from a basic life of health, happiness, and human dignity. Unfortunately, neither you nor the Tea Party you “facilitate” shares a reciprocal view. You are, congresswoman, the embodiment of Daniel Plainview, a far cry from British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704).
You see, congresswoman, educated professionals like me actually need the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act in order to remain part of our society and economy, and even if I wasn’t physically disabled by my spinal injury, I’d still advocate for the continued existence of those legislative acts. When you support a political party that supports a political candidate who publically states his desire to repeal these legislative acts, that sends up a big red flag as to what “core values” you and your Tea Party colleagues hold. I’m all for a more efficient, effective, and smarter government no matter its size, and I’m all for more fiscal sanity in our state and federal governments, but I’m not for any political party, its members or endorsers if your constitutional rights mean more than mine.
If I haven’t made my point well enough, allow me to close with this: When the founding fathers established this nation and our constitution more than two centuries ago, they did so with the ideal of a United States of America, not a collection of independent and semi-warring fiefdoms. But perhaps I’m naïve and your way works better — a disjointed and polarized nation of selfish and greedy bigots, racists, misogynists and homophobes completely devoid of empathy, united by hate and mistrust.
I’m so committed in my logic and values versus your logic and values that I’m willing to debate you and Dr. Paul (feel free to bring along Mrs. Paul and her fish sticks, too) anytime on any network news show — NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, even FOX News. I think the American public could learn a lot from watching you and Dr. Paul meet face-to-face with a “cripple” to explain why and how your political agendas make America a better place for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment