Tea Party connection just doesn't work

Full disclosure on my personal politics: I believe have two political parties here in the US; the Stupid one and the Dangerous one. I'm personally liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal and defense issues…

Ken Levine has already come out to say that this game is NOT about the Tea Party and after playing the first couple of hours, I don't see a connection either. The singular Tea Party platform (I'm not a member) is limited government - and if anything else, distrust of government. That's in stark contrast to the politician worshiping citizens of Colombia.

Interestingly, the politician worshiping citizens of Colombia immediately reminded me of some of the crazy tendencies of the American left with regards to Obama worship. Children taught to sing creepy indoctrination songs, mass-produced iconographic art pieces, etc. Just my two cents.

No, the worship of the Founding Fathers should remind you of modern day everyone worshipping of the Founding Fathers.

And the worst part is they always pick the wrong ones. They always pick exactly those three; Washington, Franklin and Jefferson. A rather simple, honest general skilled at partisan warfare and two intellectual dilettantes. They never pick Madison, Adams, or Hamilton, the boring lawyers who built the very mechanics that make America work.

Adams is shamefully ignored among the Founders. No one was more passionate for the cause than he.

I'm pretty sure you can apply the start of the game to the tea party. Limited government is exactly what Columbia has, and nobody references the founding fathers like the tea party, or at least the ones who were alleged to be involved in the Boston Tea Party. Worshiping them is an intentional exaggeration, it's artistic expression. I guess you could argue it's a broader criticism of conservatives but it seems too specific. The left's 'worship' of Obama could potentially be the reference, but the world is presented in what would in modern times be perceived as a very socially conservative light, which is more reason why there is an association with the tea party.

Whether it's true or not it certainly feels like they're taking jabs at teapartiers.

The Tea Party is NOT about limited government. There is a difference in what a group says it is and what it actually is when it endorses specific candidates and legislation. Distrust of THIS CURRENT GOVERNMENT AND PRESIDENT is a correct observation.

I should also point out that "the politician worshiping citizens of Colombia immediately reminded me of some of the crazy tendencies of the American left with regards to Obama worship. Children taught to sing creepy indoctrination songs, mass-produced iconographic art pieces, etc" comment has caused you to lose the game.

also many tea party members are racist

LOLZ

Yeah looking for modern day connections for this game seems weird to me. I mean it's a vague enough game that people can interpret whatever they want into the game. But that doesn't mean a lot of those interpretations won't be insane stretches.

Saying people worship Obama is as silly as saying people worship Bush. Neither of which has any baring in Bioshock Infinite.

I always see these "concerns" as "reflection test". If people see this game as a criticism of The Tea Party or their tactics that isn't a refection on Levine, the writing staff, or Irrational but a reflection of the person who holds that view...or fear that is. Is it more telling that Levine or the writers had something in mind while creating this game or that someone is afraid that parts of the game paints what they hold dear in a negative manner?

I just don't see how this game has any real political statement to make other than the extremism is bad in all forms.

I pretty much think the same way here, though I'm stupid when it comes to politics so I don't even try to figure out if there is any of that in games or movies etc.

Was going to put that, and you beat me to it. Quoted for truth.

I see it as a thought experiment examining philosophies and social systems, its seems as if, had they wanted to tie it to current politics they could have, extremism as an abstract is different from naming your main villain Zachery Obamastock. EDIT: that was just the first name that came to mind, not a representation of my personal politics :p

I think the idea that hte game is connected to the tea party has to do a lot with the rhetoric going back to this past election of "what the founding fathers inteded", and whatnot.

I don't think anyone thinks the founding fathers are actually worshipped. I think they just think that reasonable people think that the continual dredging up of the founding fathers as being somehow smarter than modern people, more wise than modern people, and being capable of seeing far into the future in a preternatural way is what makes them seem deified.

That's not why Tea Party people talk about the Founders. They don't think they're wiser than modern people or able to see the future--they talk about the Founders because the principles that they put in the Constitution are important. Unlike the countries of Europe, America was founded on ideas--not religious or racial identity. And understanding what the Founders said about those principles and respecting those ideas is part of understanding who we are as Americans.

Actually, no, they aren't. But we could go back and forth over this forever, and it's hardly worth the effort.

Like the first game, Levine is clearly taking some political jabs, and his denial of it is kind of silly. Of course, he doesn't seem very knowledgeable about the people he's going after. He says it's not about the Tea Party, but it clearly is--it's just he doesn't understand the Tea Party at all. Just like he didn't understand anything about Objectivism when he was taking jabs at that in the first Bioshock. Not that either Objectivists or Tea Partiers are or should be particularly worried about it, if this is the best their critics can do. Levine makes the common mistake of believing what he wants to about political opinions he clearly dislikes--even if those beliefs are simply wrong.

I'm neither a Tea Partier nor an Objectivist (though I am a libertarian), but anyone even passingly familiar with either movement could see both the parallels in the Bioshock games, and the complete ignorance of Levine when it came to both. Otherwise, Levine is a great writer and the games are entertaining. But the political commentary is misguided and shallow. He could have done much better. On the other hand, these sorts of themes in games are never well developed. I've never seen a game handle political commentary with any subtlety. Bioshock Infinite's story is often quite subtle and nuanced, which for me only made the ham-fisted political commentary all the more jarringly out-of-place.

I'm a strict Constitutional adherent, and I was worried about this game. The 2010 videos showed signs in Columbia like "They'll take your guns!", which was an obvious attempt to tie people worried about second amendment rights to these racist caricatures. You're correct that people today who are frequently citing the Constitution and the wisdom of its writers are not deifying them, but a lot of more Liberal folks interpret our beliefs more in the ridiculous way these early videos did.

Also of interest was how much worse the Vox were portrayed in those early versions. Publicly lynching mailmen, slaughtered bodies in the streets with HOARDER written in their own blood next to them, robbing rich people at gunpoint, etc. Both of these portrayals were a bit ludicrous. Most Tea Party folks aren't racist white supremacists, and most liberals aren't out to murder the rich and paint the streets with their blood.

It would appear that as Elizabeth became more central to the story, the writers toned down the rhetoric on both sides to focus on her instead. Probably a good thing, because reinforcing outrageous stereotypes on either side is about the simplest and least thought provoking way to comment on them.

@haggis said:

Yeah, except for the fact that anyone could easily find hundreds of examples of blatantly racist behavior at tea party rallies going unchallenged by other members, whether it was directed at arabs, at mexicans or at the fact that we have a black president. I guess those people must be from the fake tea party. You can argue that the group has other ideals and isn't primarily about race, but there's no way you can say many of them aren't massive racists.

There's no back and forth unless you want to live in a fantasy world while I talk about facts.

Also they're the exact same kind of idiots who start whining about succeeding from the union every time they think America isn't American enough for them.

I think people are confusing what the Tea Party WAS, when it was originally founded as an essentially libertarian movement and what it IS NOW, after the republican nut jobs took it over by simply adopting the name, for McCain/Palin, the better part of a decade ago.

@oraknabo:

I can easily produce dozens of videos of left wing protestors or rally members calling for the murder of bankers, or saying the only reason they're voting for Obama is because he's black, or saying Karl Marx and Che Guvara are heroes, but it doesn't mean they represent the left side of American politics either.

Judging an entire group of people based on the worst among them is ignorant, and how you end up with stereotypes. "Racist Tea Partier" and "Communist Obama Supporter" is just as much an ignorant stereotype as "greedy Jew", "ghetto black guy" or "trailer trash redneck".

I did not make that connection, but then again, I'm not American.

@thetenthdoctor:

You are eqating things that have no correlation and making a lot of assumptions about me in the process

1. I don't care if you want to stereotype either side of American politics. Go ahead.

2. I never judged "an entire group of people based on the worst among them". I didn't even stereotype the tea party (even if I did, they don't qualify as the entire right side of American politics).

Here are 3 statements:

a) All tea party members are racist

b) Most tea party members are racist

c) Many tea party members are racist

The first is a stereotype. It's most likely not true. One non-racist member of the tea party makes it not true. The second is also a stereyotype. It could be true, but without data it can't be stated as a fact. The third is a fact. If you disagree with it you need to examine your definition of either the word "many" or "racist", because you have one of those wrong. If more than just a couple of members of the tea party can be shown to be racists (and that is incredibly easy to do) then it isn't a stereotype.

3. What's wrong with Marx? I have issues with Lenin, sure, but Marx was an economic philosopher. He's probably not a hero, but he's not exactly some kind of villain either. Guevara's more complicated, if he suits your definition of hero, whatever--but if a specific liberal organization holds him up as a hero or even if just a bunch of their members could be shown to, it would be factual to say "Many [LIBERAL GROUP X] members hold Che Guevara up as a hero"

4. Is voting for someone because they're black a specifically liberal problem? You have your own vote and your own reasons for casting it. I'm sure in every election there are individuals with narrow voting criteria. I know many people voted for GWB because he was a "good Christian". How's that any different?

@thetenthdoctor said:

I don't know how to start this shit, yo. You're creating a false equivalency between an, at best, marginal group of people within the broader leftist movement in the United States, with a comparatively powerful right-wing movement that has consistently been empowered by racial arsonists and has pushed to (often successfully) elect political figures with arguably racist, homophobic and/or sexist/misogynist agendas. The Tea Party's platform may have been established around practical fiscal-conservatism, but the movement has largely served to push a regressive platform to slash social services on the backs of minority groups across the country, as well as pursue a theological agenda, which includes undermining the public education system by challenging the teaching of little things like evolution. There's a big difference between that and a bunch of kids wearing Che shirts who may have or may not have read a few paragraphs of Das Kapital.

You need to spend a little time on teapartycommunity.com before you make a declaration like that. It's a real eye-opener. Also, I think you're way off-base saying that Levine doesn't know anything about objectivism; the fact that he thinks it's a poor excuse for a philosophy that breaks down as soon as there's enough people in one place who believe in it doesn't mean he doesn't understand it. It's just the conclusion he's drawn, which seems pretty rational to me. Bioshock Infinite also has very little to do with the Tea Party, in my opinion, though I believe they would be a rich source for social commentary, should he ever decide to do anything with them.

I believe that white people who hate other races will be more attracted to the republican party. This is because the party itself fights against things like welfare and affirmative action, because they are forms of government intervention not because the party itself is racist.

It's also not as if you can't find black people who are opposed to welfare or affirmative action:

I believe atheists who hate religious people are more likely to be attracted to the Democratic party. This is because the party is more likely to support the separation of church and state beyond the original definition of what the founding fathers intended. It is also because the Republican party tends to focus a lot on religion, but it does not mean that the Democratic party hates religion or God.

I believe that women who hate men will be attracted to feminism. This is because the movement focuses solely on women's issues, and focus much of their attention on the evils that men do to women, which can have the side effect of unintentionally demonizing men as a gender. It does not mean that the feminist movement hates men.

Just because extremists will side with one group because their views have more in common than the other option, that doesn't make them a hate group.

...there are some weird things being floated in this thread that I am not sure they are appropriate for the topic. When did this thread turn into a "What I Believe" thing?

@spaceinsomniac: I don't really care how they got there, just saying they are there.

---

If Giant Bomb's moderators and staff allowed rampant, unchallenged racist behavior on a regular basis all over the forums, it wouldn't be inaccurate for someone to remark that a lot of people on Giant Bomb are racists regardless of the opinions of the staff, what drew the racists to the site or the fact that the site is about video games, not race politics.

If the tea party cared about being stereotyped as racists they should have purged those people a hell of a long time ago. They didn't either because they don't care or all they care about is numbers, not ideology.

Right here.

Except the American right has been dealing in coded racist rhetoric for decades in order to garner electoral support and the Tea Party has been no exception.

@Spaceinsomniac: Very well put.

@Funkasaurusrex: How about our sitting Vice President telling a group of minorities "They gonna put ya'll back in chains!!!" in reference to his opposition candidate? Both parties engage in it- Conservatives by stoking resentment towards handouts to minorities, and Liberals by stoking resentment toward Whitey. That's why both major parties in America are shit.

And don't forget the rich. Gotta hate the rich. Never mind the fact that anyone from either political party who comes even CLOSE to the presidency likely has more money than your entire neighborhood put together.

And I'll also join you in agreement that both major parties in America are shit.

If Columbia was the Tea Party, what was the Vox Populi?

Communism, I guess.

Exactly. How can those other dudes arguing the point deal with the reality that the Republican Party NOW wants to reach out to minorities? I put the emphasis on "NOW" because they didn't give a damn about them before until they got stomped this past election.

People who honestly believe there isn't a racist religious base at the heart of THIS CURRENT REPUBLICAN PARTY is in a completely other universe. They need Elizabeth to open up a tear to our world pronto.

In other words, "If you don't believe that those people that I don't agree with are pure evil and want to control all of us, then you're out of your mind!"

Yeah, that's always a good position to take in a debate. You sound like my mother talking about the Obama administration.

In reality, it just comes down to a difference in opinion. Conservatives would argue that they don't want to give poor people fish, they want to teach them to fish. Conversely, liberals feel that some people are disadvantaged when it comes to fishing, and that it's unfair not to provide fish for them.

Please excuse the awkward sounding use of the word "negro" as this video was made before I was even born, and I'm in my 30s.

So conservative capitalists end up fighting against welfare, affirmative action, and the minimum wage, all for reasons tied to their belief of the role that government should take in America, which liberals in turn use to make them easy targets for accusations of racism. As said, conservatives do the same thing with liberals and topics such as religion and socialism.

"Conservatives would argue that they don't want to give poor people fish, they want to teach them to fish. Conversely, liberals feel that some people are disadvantaged when it comes to fishing, and that it's unfair not to provide fish for them."

Where are these magical "Conservatives" you are describing? I mean seriously. Can you point me to a specific senator or someone who can actually change/influence policy and show me how they want to teach poor people to fish? Point me to specific legislation that is currently being spearheaded by a conservative to "help poor people fish" aside from the typical throwing of bootstraps that they love so much.

You know there is a reason why Bill O'Rielly is currently getting hate for his "Bible Thumper" comment and how he stood by what he said when he was speaking to Laura Ingraham.

Fiscal conservatives believe that less government intervention will lead to better results and less poverty, and they believe that the current system pays people to fail. Hypothetically, lets say that someone in a poor neighborhood can receive 10 fish a week from the government, or they can work in a entry level position and make 12 fish a week. If someone can live entirely off government assistance for one amount, or they can work hard all week for not much more, why would anyone ever want to get away from government assistance?

The argument isn't about teaching poor people to fish through social programs and government intervention, it's about not giving people an excuse to never learn how to fish in the first place. Do that enough, and you end up with people like this.

And please note that I'm absolutely not trying to paint Obama voters or all welfare recipients with that broad brush. I also will fully admit that I'm sure you can easily find stupid racist redneck videos who were supportive of Romney.

Where are these magical "Conservatives" you are describing? I mean seriously. Can you point me to a specific senator or someone who can actually change/influence policy and show me how they want to teach poor people to fish?

A quick you tube search turned up this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO5jwfI1ulc

Of course, they are politicians, so at least some of them are probably full of shit. Although, I would much rather think that they just want to do what they feel is right for the country, same as I like to think of Obama. Like I said, it just comes down to a difference in opinion. I understand why people like to vilify those who they disagree with, but I really don't think it ever helps persuade many people to your viewpoint.

There is nothing wrong with being a true Fiscal Conservative that believes too much government can cause problems. The true problem comes from politicians who claim to be fiscally conservative and want to get rid of "pork" until their state or their district needs money. Then it becomes an issue of their concerns being legitimate and the rest being "pork" because it's happening to them.

The Republican senator that recently announced his support for gay marriage because his son is gay is EXACTLY the type of thinking I'm talking about. It's immoral and wasteful until it's happening to you.

@spaceinsomniac: Thank you for the Milton Friedman video. Sums it up perfectly.

@golguin: That "magical conservative" you're looking for was running for President, but the left was too busy painting him as a racist elitist for anyone to notice. From a Q&A with Romney at a 2008 Political Action Conference:

-------------

Q: Democrats say your economic plan doesn’t give any money to the 50 million Americans who don’t pay taxes.

A: Well, my system is primarily based on trying to create jobs, not handing out cash to individuals. I do lower the lowest income tax bracket from 10% to 7.5%. And that helps people at the low economic level. But the heart of what I’m doing is trying to get businesses to become more active, buying capital equipment, trying to get businesses to grow in this country and to create more jobs.

Q: But what about those 50 million who don’t pay any taxes? Nothing for them?

A: Well, it’s focused on jobs. What you want to do is provide the incentives to help companies to be create new jobs. Obviously, the best antidote to having an economic slowdown is growth in the business sector, creating jobs, and that generates more income for everybody. But for those that are not paying any taxes at all, simply writing a check doesn’t seem to me to be the right course to follow.

-----------

Basically the entire Republican platform is "get people off welfare and back to work".

@spaceinsomniac: Thank you for the Milton Friedman video. Sums it up perfectly.

@golguin: That "magical conservative" you're looking for was running for President, but the left was too busy painting him as a racist elitist for anyone to notice. From a Q&A with Romney at a 2008 Political Action Conference:

-------------

Q: Democrats say your economic plan doesn’t give any money to the 50 million Americans who don’t pay taxes.

A: Well, my system is primarily based on trying to create jobs, not handing out cash to individuals. I do lower the lowest income tax bracket from 10% to 7.5%. And that helps people at the low economic level. But the heart of what I’m doing is trying to get businesses to become more active, buying capital equipment, trying to get businesses to grow in this country and to create more jobs.

Q: But what about those 50 million who don’t pay any taxes? Nothing for them?

A: Well, it’s focused on jobs. What you want to do is provide the incentives to help companies to be create new jobs. Obviously, the best antidote to having an economic slowdown is growth in the business sector, creating jobs, and that generates more income for everybody. But for those that are not paying any taxes at all, simply writing a check doesn’t seem to me to be the right course to follow.

-----------

Basically the entire Republican platform is "get people off welfare and back to work".

I thought they were way more Reign of Terror French revolution, though there's definitely strands of the Bolshevik revolution in the rhetoric. They were probably both just fictional political movements that are grounded in real-world rhetoric so as to give them more weight and allow us to better understand them.

I feel the need to reiterate my concern that this topic is getting to be completely off-topic. Out of the last set of posts 40 and 31 at least mention Bioshock Infinite where the rest are not. I'm fine with the discussion but it has nothing to do with BI or the topic post.

I felt the game balanced it's political themes rather well. Eventually they only become a backdrop to the actual story between Booker and Elizabeth. I can see some uninformed people picking up this game and quitting after the first hour or two because they think the game is rascist or outright demonizing conservitives and Christianity. In fact, I've seen more than one review or comment that seems to think this way. In the the end, the game doesn't preach at you about what's right or wrong, but instead provides a backdrop to actual narrative.

The same thing happened with Django Unchained. Some people who never saw the movie and some who did seemed to think the movie was glorifying the subject matter, when it was only a setting for a story about a man trying to find his wife. Whereas Bioshock infinite is really about a man trying to find redemption for a past wrongdoing.

I'm not great at politics but hear me out. The game, in it's early parts at least, felt like it was depicting a fairly simple conflict of Dictatorship vs. Anarchy or Security vs. Liberty. Now you can draw comparisons to the situation that has arisen in the Middle East in recent years but I'm not sure it was the writers' objective to make any sort of statement on those conflicts.

Also I'm sure there are some parallels to be drawn between Columbia and North Korea such as the hereditary dictatorship which Comstock is attempting to foster, the propaganda that is littered about the place and the way in which he is depicted in posters etc.

I'm slightly disappointed that the writers didn't go further in exploring the intricacies of these ideologies instead of just presenting them as a backdrop to the action however it probably would have ended up making the game a lot longer than it needed to be.

CrossTheAtlantic I thought the same, it was a mind game. it used strong imagry to make you feel uneasy. even people who are all in on mixing government and relion would feel uneasy about people warshiping george washimgton. its also why it lays the symbols on very heavy at the start but then eases off of it.

We had low taxes since the Bush Tax cuts and Obama essentially extended them to become the Obama Tax Cuts. How exactly did the Bush years improve job creation and growth with his tax cuts? How did that help the poor and/or people on welfare? It's funny that now Conservative are so concerned about the deficit, but they didn't say anything when Bush made it and they played their little game when Obama extended the thing.

Check any graph and study out there and you'll see that the gap between the rich and poor keep widening because business and stock holders don't suddenly start giving out larger salaries to their employees when their company makes more money. You say that lowering taxes would somehow jump start the economy despite every study out there showing that it is one of the WORST WAYS to stimulate the economy. If you're coming here with that weak sauce stuff then there is no need to continue as we are wildly off topic.

To bring it back to Bioshock Infinite and their portrayal of the Christian Right I'd say its a caricature of the most extreme elements found today. It doesn't represent any kind of majority, but its true enough that people keep making the connection.

The overly racist and religious elements found in the citizens of Columbia have direct links to the people who came out when Conservatives first implemented their "Southern strategy". They still use it, but it's apparent that changing demographics will cause it to fail again.

@golguin: Weak sauce? Here's an incredibly detailed analysis from the non-partisan Tax Foundation validating the concept of higher corporate profits and lower taxes leadig to more jobs, higher wages AND more revenue for the federal government.

"Weak sauce"...

http://taxfoundation.org/article/growth-dividend-lower-corporate-tax-rate

Someone has to be hiring for there to be jobs. PERIOD. Therefore you need profitable companies. Government assistance and government jobs are all paid for by other taxpayers, as the government is fundamentally incapable of making money through any means beyond taxation.

And I'm not worried about one off topic discussion. The game's caricatures have spawned a conversation about what exactly conservatives stand for, and it's interesting. There's enough "MY INTERPRETATION OF TEH ENDING! " threads already.

Sure, the states were founded on ideas, I'll give you that. The paradox is that the people who worship the founders, are the same people who are forcing religious ideology. On tea party rallies they tell you that the US was founded as a christian nation, and that the founders would tell you so. Yet, in the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams clearly states the follwing.

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion" - John Adams

And here's a few more.

"That our civil rights have no dependens on our religious opinions" - Thomas Jefferson

"Congress shall make no law respecting a establishment of religion" - The First Amendment

This perversion has led to former upstanding republicans going down the same rabbit hole. I quote John McCain.

"Yes, the constitution establishes the United States of America as a christian nation" - John McCain

Why is it that John McCain has to say those things? It's because if he doesn't, he doesn't get the votes from the people who are worshipping the founders. They're religious zealots, and have perverted the founders to fit into their own view. It's a shame, and it's a damn disgrace.

The Tea Party are liars, simple as that. Remember when they first came around, and claimed that they were sponsored mainly by average americans who send in "one dollar, five dollars, ten dollars, whatever they can afford". Guess they forgot about the part about the Koch brothers being their biggest benefactors.

Or hey, remember that time when Michelle Bachmann just ignored the statement from the White House regarding Obama's trip to India, and kept up the lie of it costing two billion dollars for ten days, or 200 million each day. Yeah, that was a lie. She lied to front her own agenda, and she did it in the company of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Now that's a threesome made in hell.

The tea party are a damn disgrace. They believe in loving america, but hating government. I quote Grover Norquist, an outspoken member of the tea party.

"I don't want to abolish government, I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" - Grover Norquist

So yeah, they hate government. On top of that they are paranoid to a insane degree. I remember Herman Cain saying that the objective of the liberals were to destory america, and to make it mediocre. So anyone who disagrees with them has to have sinister anti-american plans.

And while we're at it, let's quote Lt. Gov Andre Bauer of South Carolina. He believes that anyone who is worse off than he is, do not have the right to live. I quote.

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding the stray animals. You know why? Because they breed" - Andre Bauer

I don't know about you, but I find that pretty disgusting. Consider this rant to be over.

I did not really get a connection between the Tea Party and BI.

In the end, the story was more about Booker's redemption. The Vox conflict ended up being more of something in the background than central to the story. They ended up being just another faction to fight.

The only message that really stuck out, was the warning about theocracy. Columbia was more like Vatican City, or some of the Islamic states.

The one thing I have to add to this is that the Tea Party was originally fabricated by Fox News. I wonder how many people remember it's start with those rallies and wall to wall Fox News coverage for small groups consisting of a handful of people.