[Marcus_Ozius]

It seems that there needs to be more consideration of the perception of government versus the reality of it. We all have a desire to see our team win and our guy make it. For some of us, this is a person linked to us by similar beliefs, for others, it is a person linked to us by other factors. At a basic level, we want to identify with our leaders, and for the vast majority of the politically apathetic population, an instant opinion needs to be reached. There is a basic tendency in people to prefer what they know, so if a person is similar to us, we will prefer them. Along those lines, if a person identifies themselves as, for instance, black above all else, then they will want a justice who is black above all else. The same with a women, men, whites, and any other group of that nature. It is difficult to figure out who best serves our interests, but it is easy to decide with whom we would feel the most comfortable. In a racially charged area, for instance the border between Detroit and its white suburbs, race becomes the defining factor of self perception for many people. It seems that something along these lines occurs in many instances where there is a mixed, but not integrated, population. Differences in religion were once central to American life during a time when religion was central. We also forget that when the blacks were a permanent, legally subjugated, underclass, there were massive racist feelings between different groups within the community we now call white. With the decline of religion and the rise of racial identity in the sixties, whites have solidified as a demographic, but are stigmatized for any attempt at believing in any merits of a white identity. On the other hand, a black identity is encouraged in society, in the media, and in our school systems. I would assume that something comparable to this has happened with the latino population in the south and west, but I have not spent enough time there to venture more than a guess. It seems to me that the tea party movement and things of that sort, the rise of white christian fundamentalism, are linked to how socially unacceptable white identity has become. For that reason, and their near connection, it seems reasonable that the movement would attract some unwelcome attention from disaffected racists in addition to honest government protesters.
Where is all of this going?
People, more than anything else, want to be able to identify with something. They want a team, and they want to cheer for it. Regardless of how we pick who is on it, we want to have one. In a world of political apathy and a general disinterest, we assume that the people who appear, at first glance, to be similar to us are the ones who will be best for us. Learning facts is hard. The first step in preference is to determine whether they belong to our main group. The qualities in a candidate are then weighed in order of our priorities of self identity and self interest. Since self identity is often confused for self interest, people will want those there similar to themselves to be governing them. Though there will certainly be exceptions, and there is certainly a place for education and a movement to educate people on what is best in the greater scheme of things, or, at the very least, a place to educate people on how to best look out for themselves, these run contrary to the nature of the society in which we live and the basic human tendency towards laziness. It's not that we follow politics more than entertainment these days, it's that in ages past, politics were the entertainment. Our disengagement in politics is not due to any degenerative quality of this generation, but, rather, to the usurpation of the place of politics by easier forms of entertainment.
I think, though, that this whole affair brings up the stigma of white identity. To see oneself as white above all else is significantly less acceptable than to view oneself as black above all else. There was remarkably little criticism for the black voters who voted for Obama, in many (but not all), instances because he was black. Often they admitted to as much, and proudly. This was lauded as a milestone in getting the black population voting. Contrast this with the coverage regarding the *possibility* that people would vote against Obama because of his blackness, and you will see the double standard. It was acceptable to vote for Obama because he was black, but for McCain because he was white. While I would argue that either of those are horrible reasons to vote for someone and should be discouraged, they are reasons that many people choose, and what's fair is fair. People are entitled to vote according to their prejudices, and if we want to condemn it, we must do it broadly and not make exceptions. What's fair is fair and if you want to do something you'd condemn someone else for, all your rationalizing aside, you're probably doing something wrong.

[Psudo]

The white racial identity accusation against Tea Parties is probably exaggerated. Look at this list of speakers to a February Dallas Tea Party convention, for an example wherein about half the scheduled speakers are black. While we're making distinctions between perception and reality, it may well be that many people have the perception of Tea Parties as a white identity movement when the reality reflects little evidence of it.

Also, there's a major distinction between grassroots organizations like the Tea Parties and official appointments like Supreme Court Justices. The human temptation for laziness is no excuse for elected officials, and racial bias is so much worse in it's consequences when implemented by central planners in Washington.

[Marcus_Ozius]

I don't think that the number of black speakers at a tea party event does a lot to undermine the point of what I said. Ideally, the world would be color blind and people would figure out what's best for them. The tea party movement is perceived, by and large, as a white movement, and they will have to work very hard to counteract that. The tea party movement is not a white identity movement, and I don't think that it ought to be, however, due to a common perception of it, it draws people in who are looking for white identity, and I think that they have a rather negative impact on the movement at large.
It doesn't seem clear that there is, at the heart of it, a difference between a well organized, albeit grassroots, movement and a government official when it comes to symbolism. Regardless of how intensely qualified the black speakers were, it can't be thought that their race was not being used to add legitimacy. The movement has gotten a reputation, however undeserved, for racism. To that end, why not have the same message any white man would give to his peers given by a black man? To the base who identify with an philosophy, what he says will be more important than who he is. To others who refuse to consider a "white" movement can be good for them, it allows a chance on the part of the tea party movement to sell their message with a foot in the door. It is human laziness, and I certainly don't think that laziness can be excused in this, or any, case. However, to make an assessment of humans without factoring in laziness is inadvisable.

[Psudo]

Welcome to the forums. It's good to have you here.