Opinion> Joseph Farah> Tea Partiers As Insurgents

	23 May 2012 Good for Franklin Graham! Franklin Graham got it exactly right in his reaction to Barack Obama's official proclamation of support for … Read More.
	16 May 2012 Good for Franklin Graham! Franklin Graham got it exactly right in his reaction to Barack Obama's official proclamation of support for … Read More.
	9 May 2012 Who Was the First Leftist? Rush Limbaugh asked a question last week — and it got me to thinking. "Who was the first leftist?" … Read More.

Tea Partiers as 'Insurgents'

I remember the day when editors in American newsrooms actually edited out politically loaded and biased adjectives that reflected badly and inaccurately on a particular side in a national debate. I guess those days are simply behind us in venues like The Associated Press and The Washington Post.

As a veteran of 25 years in American newsrooms, I get the distinct impression editors in so-called "mainstream" news outlets are actually seeking out opportunities to plant those descriptive bombs.

Here's a recent example:

It's a story that originates with David Espo of The Associated Press on the "failure" of the tea party in some recent, fairly obscure Republican primaries. This version appeared in The Washington Post, giving it another opportunity for editing in a big, major-market newsroom.

First of all, the big picture: There is no evidence provided in the story that tea partiers assumed any particular role in these primaries — for a candidate or against a candidate. It raises the question: How does a movement not actively engaged in an election fail?

But now to the more specific detail that hit me as an editor when I read this dispatch. Examine the third paragraph: "While some of Tuesday night's Republican primary winners struggled to prevail — former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats' comeback bid advanced with 40 percent of the vote in a five-way race — the results renewed a debate about the clout of the insurgents in the remaining primaries and on elections this fall."

I have italicized a key descriptive term — "insurgents." Who are the "insurgents" in the story? Clearly, in context, they are the tea partiers.

And what does the term "insurgent" mean? Well, suffice it to say it is not generally speaking a term of endearment. In today's lexicon, it is akin to "terrorist."

But let's look at the dictionary definitions:

1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.

a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.

Now, do either one of these two definitions accurately describe the tea-party movement? I don't think so.

No one at the tea party has advocated the use of force or armed resistance. Nor have any of them opposed the execution of the laws of the land. Quite the opposite. I have found the biggest concern of tea partiers is that the laws of the land are being ignored, not executed.

Neither is the tea party a part of a political party. So, the second definition doesn't work, either. But maybe I'm missing some obscure definitions of "insurgent." Let's examine some more definitions:

1. rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

2. rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

Again, it seems the tea party doesn't qualify as an "insurgent" movement. The established authority in the USA is the Constitution. Tea partiers universally embrace the Constitution. They disdain that so many politicians and elected officials don't follow its tenets. And neither is the tea party rebelling against the leadership of a political party. The movement seems to be far more geared to removing incumbents than targeting one party for takeover.

Am I splitting hairs here over dictionary definitions? I don't think so, because this word has connotations that are extremely negative.

Here's another alternative definition: "a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially: one not recognized as a belligerent."

I don't mind being called a "radical," a "maverick," an "independent." But "insurgent" is another story altogether, because it suggests a person in revolt against civil authority.

That's not me. That's Washington. That's not the tea party. That's Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. But don't try to make that case in the newsrooms of The Associated Press or The Washington Post.

To find out more about Joseph Farah and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.