The first concerns the attitude leftists take towards this or that group of people, however defined. There is a tendency, how wide and deep I do not know, to identify political/intellectual error with defective "intelligence" or personal character. That I think is a stupid error on the part of the leftists who give in to it. (Notice that I call the belief stupid, not the people who hold it. It simply makes no sense to call people stupid.)
The second concerns whether certain groups defined by their _current_ politics should or could be the object of left agitaton and organizing. It seems to be argued that the teabaggers may or do have legitimate grievances but fail to understand the source of those grievances, and that therefore leftists should try (a) to teach them the r eal source and (b) on that basis organize them on our side. I believe that even if the analysis of the teabaggers is completely correct (and I have no opinion on that), it STILL is wrong to suggest that leftists try to "reach" them. EVen in periods of greater left strength and resources, the immediate 'target' of organizing has to be those who are most easily reached _now_. Perhaps many of the teabggers will at some future date (because of their "real" interests) be more open to the left. Fine. Then is then. They aren't now, regardless of their social positon or their "real" intrests or the "real" source of their troubles.
I have argued exactly the same point in the past in refernce to the followers of the religous right. It is wrong to express or feel contempt for them as persons; it is wrong to equate their politicval error with stupidity. But they are not at this time a useful group for leftists to agitate among.
Carrol