Is Tea Party anger filtering into neighborhood groups?

Until last night I'd thought of Tea Party craziness as being mostly confined to the national and state levels.

But after attending a meeting of our rural south Salem (Oregon) neighborhood association last night, I'm wondering if that sort of free-floating irrational anger is making its way into deeply local concerns.

I've been the secretary of our association for many years -- almost twenty. In the not-so-good old days, soon after we moved into this area, some of the neighborhood association meetings were so vehement, people would almost come to blows.

Then the hotheads departed, or got older and a bit wiser.

For a long time we've had a pleasurably neighborly neighborhood group, a board of directors with members who have divergent political views and personalities, but who come together to make our community a better place.

After all, maintaining the common property (riding/hiking trails and a lake) doesn't have anything to do with conservatism or liberalism, Republican or Democrat, or such. I'm a Suzuki scooter-riding vegetarian Prius-driving Democrat who gets along great with a Harley-riding meat-loving pickup-driving Republican board member.

A recent election, though, brought some fresh faces to the board of directors. I don't know exactly what these two guys' political leanings are, but they strike me as quintessential Tea Party types.

Last night's meeting went on for three and a half freaking long hours. I think this is a record for the hundred or so neighborhood association board meetings I've attended. Since I had to take notes for the minutes, I almost had writer's cramp by the time my watch showed 10:30 pm.

The main reason: an astounding amount of anger, negativism, and criticism from the two Tea Party'ish guys. This was their first board meeting after being elected. It didn't take long for them to question whether a homeowner's association should even exist.

Amazing.

They run for the board of directors so they can try to dismantle the organization that is charged with maintaining the common property that makes our neighborhood so livable.

This is just like Tea Party candidates who are running for Congress so they can do away with the federal government, which is illogically bizarre. If you don't believe in people coming together to pool their money and effort so they can do things together which individuals can't on their own, why would you become part of the government that you hate so much?

Why not simply do your own thing? Why so much anger at people, like me, who value the common good rather than rampant "me, me, me" separatism?

It was interesting, and also more than a little disturbing, to watch the Tea Party philosophy in action at such a neighborhood level. These guys like living in our community, but they dont' like spending money to keep it livable (again, just like the crazy "Keep government out of my Medicare!" attitude).

Mark Morford's recent column is called "I am outraged! Are you not outraged?" This is right on:

It all adds up to one conclusion: We are so wildly, stupidly free, it's rather hilarious. And savagely ironic. Because you can also say it culminates in perhaps the ultimate expression of Outrage USA, the single place where all such screeching congeals in a shrill, silly little group, signifying nothing.

It's called the Tea Party, that gaggle of terrified, white, middle-aged men whose actual slogan is "mad as hell." What are they mad about, exactly? They have no idea. What do they want to do to change it? No clue. From whence does their timorous fear and dread come? They can't quite say. Perfect.

Comments

[Tara]

Wow, I have noticed the same thing happening here in Arizona. I don't get it either but I hope that reasonable people can still band together to triumph over loud-mouth tea party jerks.

[Rain]

We can't give up as the end result of this is chaos and control by a group with no concern for the good of the community. This is such a good example of what is going on in our country from the smallest levels to the highest.

[surefoot]

Just consider yourself lucky that it’s not a close relative, I know I would.

[Brian]

How exactly would someone unhappy with an HOA get rid of it by staying out of the HOA board and "doing their own thing" ??

[Blogger Brian]

Brian, they couldn't. But my point is that there's a big difference between (1) wanting to improve a Home Owner's Association (HOA) and (2) wanting to do away with a HOA.

(1) is a fine reason for joining the board of a HOA. (2) isn't. If someone doesn't believe a HOA should exist, they shouldn't be on the board -- because the purpose of the board is to manage the HOA.

In our neighborhood, the HOA is part of the deed restrictions. It can't be done away with, except by a unanimous vote of all 96 property owners, which would never happen. So every board member has a duty to develop, improve, and maintain the common property of the HOA, per the bylaws.

If someone is entirely negative about the HOA, feeling it shouldn't exist, they have no place on the board. Similarly, if someone runs for Congress on a platform that the federal government shouldn't do anything, they have no place in Congress.

It's like going into a Starbucks and screaming, "coffee shops shouldn't exist, shut yourself down!" Hey, dude, if you don't like coffee shops, don't go into one.

[tucson]

I don't know about your HOA. I know mine is a guard dog without teeth and it is entirely useless. All it can do is slobber and fart. All disputes ultimately are deferred to county law and the CC&Rs amount to nothing. But I am writing here, not about HOAs, but rather state and federal level politics.

You said:

"This is just like Tea Party candidates who are running for Congress so they can do away with the federal government, which is illogically bizarre."

--C'mon that's not what the tea party is about. I thought you were smarter than that.

"If you don't believe in people coming together to pool their money and effort so they can do things together which individuals can't on their own, why would you become part of the government that you hate so much?"

--The issue is not about pooling money for the common good. It's about eliminating profligate deficit spending, inefficiency and waste. It's not about leaving the health care system in it's vicious cycle of spiraling costs. It's about creating a solution step by step rather than a compulsive rush to a government run sytem without understanding, and carefully evaluating all the ramifications and potential negative unintended consequences of the current Obamacare legislation which is insane, irresponsible, and incomprehensible; a product of shady back room deals set up by the very private interests whose influence the bill ostensibly seeks to control, change or eliminate.

"Why not simply do your own thing? Why so much anger at people, like me, who value the common good rather than rampant "me, me, me" separatism?"

--People are angry for a good reason. Deficit spending is out of control and the national debt is like 13 trillion dollars and congress is corrupt. These angry people are not selfish and crazy. They feel it is in the interest of "the common good" if the country does not go bankrupt. This is not selfishness and 'me first' mentality. Even if you want an entitlement society there has to be money to pay for it. I think it is YOU who is the selfish one wanting the wealth spread around, paid for by for a government that doesn't have the money or the ability to manage it in its current corrupt condition.

The change that is needed is how business is done in Washington.

[Blogger Brian]

tucson, I'm also concerned about deficits and out of control health costs. But I think we need to look at each national issue separately, and consider the facts.

In late 2008 and early 2009 our country was on the edge of a financial meltdown. Economists and other experts were talking about the prospect of another great depression.

That didn't happen. We got to the brink, and moved back. Now the economy is growing (slowly) again, the stock market is up, and private sector job growth is happening (again, slowly).

If we hadn't "bailed out" the huge financial institutions, GM, and such, job losses would have much higher, and the economy much weaker. Now almost all of the money has been paid back, so the bailouts have been a success. Imagine the ripple effect if GM had gone under.

On health care reform, I agree that Congress didn't go far enough. We should have gone much further in the direction of a single payer plan where our premium dollars go for health care, not for insurance company profits and high executive salaries.

Currently my wife is in the midst of a horrendously bureaucratic dispute with Regence Blue Cross of Oregon, a private company. No government agency could be worse than Regence, believe me. They simply make arbitrary decisions about what prescription drugs to cover, dropping coverage without notice, then offer as a reason: "It is no longer in our formulary."

When Laurel asks why, she gets no answer. Regence just wants to save money, even though the drug that has been dropped is medically necessary and has no generic alternative.

So, yes, health care reform didn't go far enough. But I don't see the Republicans moving to genuinely improve patient care and reduce costs. Instead, they're talking about more of the same -- letting private insurance companies screw the premium payer, without oversight.

I'm not wild about much of what the Democrats have done. Neither is much of the public, obviously. But in 2006 and 2008 they were mad at what the Republicans and Bush had done. So it seems that what people want is genuine action to solve our country's problems, not political posturing.

Unfortunately, after election day I don't see anything changing. There will be gridlock in Congress, a continued lack of bipartisanship, and more name-calling. Then in a few years the current crop of politicians will be voted out, and we'll get a new bunch of do-nothings.

Depressing. But that's how the future looks to me.

[tucson]

I sure agree with you about the current state of affairs with the health insurance companies. They have us by the short and curlies due to a lack of a competitive environment. They own us. I have had similar difficulties with my company and this seems to be across the board in the industry.

I am not sure a single payer (government) run system is the way to go. I can imagine how it could be, but in the real world, accounting for human nature, I think it would be doomed to ineffiency and inequities just like the current system but in a different way. It's like trading hornets for wasps. At least in the current system I have some control and not a niggling bureaucrat basking in her little power world of regulations and protocol. I can find a way to pay if the insurance company won't, but in the government system I may not have access to the services I need at any price..."Sorry sir. Your desired procedure is not allowed under section B34-7. We must reserve the doctor for those who qualify." See what I mean? If they say no, who do I go to? A doctor operating outside the system on the island of Martinique perhaps?

You said: "in 2006 and 2008 they were mad at what the Republicans and Bush had done."

--Now they are mad at what Obama and the democrats have done. They're all fuck-ups, both parties, and I would throw the majority of them out.

Like you and others, I see gridlock coming, and the debt crisis worsening. Obama will be thrown out. If we have any chance, it is to change how business is done in Washington. One way to start is to ban earmarks on new legislation which would eliminate some of the corruption.