Now the meme is how we must show the "tea-party movement" more respect. After all, it was responsible for Republican Scott Brown's victory, taking a Senate seat held for decades by Democrats. The "liberal media" flagship, The New York Times, carried an analysis that said, "The remarkable Republican victory in Massachusetts demonstrated
convincingly that the deep populist anger fueling the Tea Party
movement has migrated from the political fringe to the mainstream,
forcing both parties to confront how to channel a growing mood of
public resentment to their own ends." Others have talked about the movement's "diverse" elements, and how we shouldn't judge it merely by its loudest advocates. Some liberal talk-radio hosts have urged progressives to co-opt the tea-partiers.
Anyone who has lived in Arizona knows this is nonsense. The tea-baggers are Republicans, not independents. They an ignorant, easily-led rabble that is energized, most of all, by the fact that a black man is president of the United States. Where, for example, was their outrage when George W. Bush was running up the biggest deficit in history? Gathered and ginned up by Fox "News" and talk radio, they are against government — all government. They are against taxes — all taxes. They are animated by all manner of strange fetishes, from President Obama's birth certificate to communist plots lurking in every element of public policy. They love to hate, no matter the large number who are evangelicals. Force is their first resort, whether dealing with the Muslim world or local gun laws. They make "low information" voters seem like Plutarch, with the most recent poll showing large numbers of Republican voters believe Obama is a racist, a socialist, and not an American citizen.
In other words, the tea party is the Kookocracy taken to a national level.
The Republicans have become a party of repeated purges. First came Barry Goldwater's takeover ahead of 1964. But this meant the majority of the party was controlled by those adhering to Goldwater's new brand of conservatism, ridden to national success by Ronald Reagan. The tea-baggers would recognize neither of these leaders; they would be too liberal. In any event, the GOP was still a classic American mass party, with liberals (Jake Javits), centrists (Howard Baker) and right-wingers (John Conlan). The next purge came with the old elements of the Christian Coalition, a from-the-ground-up seizure of the party, starting with precinct members and school-board seats. This coincided with the flood of money into establishing the national infrastructure for conservative control of elections and ideas. The "Goldwater" Institute is merely one clone seen in every state, seeded by the Mont Pelerin Society, the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and the Coors family, there to take talking points from mother ships at the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Their "research" and "experts" have been remarkably successful in pushing the agenda always to the right, no matter the real facts.
Political experts kept waiting for the tension between social and economic conservatives to blow the party apart. It didn't happen. This was partly because the social conservative agenda was a useful distraction — and its adherents tireless campaign workers — for the laissez faire crowd. (And here there was a mini-purge, where the old Jack Kemp and Paul Craig Roberts economic liberals — in the classic use of the word — were pushed aside by the corporatocracy). Secondly, the social conservatives finally got their president in George W. Bush. The liberal and centrist Republicans died, retired, were forced into the Democratic Party, or kept quiet in fear of a primary challenger from the right.
The Democrats, by contrast, had their insurgency with George McGovern, but the old party of FDR, JFK and LBJ remained largely intact, although hobbled by crackup over the Vietnam War, until the old bulls were defeated in 1994. Bill Clinton represented a corporatist, centrist temporizer. Obama seems to be the same. But the Democrats are still a mass party with all wings, which is now obviously a weakness when confronted with a virulent, ideological opposition and their own lack of leadership. Nor did the Democrats ever build the national infrastructure to match that of the right.
With the tea-baggers, the third purge is well under way. The revolution eats its own. It is a familiar face in American politics: the know-nothings, the nativists, the John Birchers. Now they are thoroughly the Republican Party. To say they are the mainstream would indicate other views are allowed publicly in the Grand Old Party.
Yes, the Democrats can blame themselves for not delivering quick and obvious relief to average citizens, and for not bringing the corporate elite to heel. They have dispirited their own base while gaining nothing but a likely thumping in November. To be sure, Scott Brown faced an inept opponent and often didn't even have "Republican" on his campaign signs and materials. But all this would be to underestimate the self-reinforcing explanations and orthodoxy of the right and its ability to hold so many Americans in thrall. They don't know history. They haven't been taught critical thinking. They don't understand American civics. But they watch Fox, have drunk the right's talking points for 30 years, are afraid of the world and its changes — and it's so damned easy to hate and rage. That their personal straits are usually the result of conservative policies can't penetrate this wall of nihilism. Add in the evangelical element, and it's a potent, dangerous new "conservatism." I will give them that much respect.
Just as with the Kooks and the Real Estate Industrial Complex, they are being played for fools. The big banks, defense contractors and transnational corporations want people constantly distracted. Funny how the ideas that taxes must always be cut, unions are always evil, and people and ideas different from us are to be feared — funny how all this helps keep the economic royalists in command. Let the krackpots rage against gays — even though my big company offers partner benefits to keep talent — it keeps the proles distracted. By the time the rest of the roof falls in, when all the wealth has been siphoned off and the wars have bankrupted the U.S. — hell, we'll be headquartered in China.
Now the challenges are so great, and our dilemma so monumental, that anything is possible. One is tempted to say, "Thank God they don't have an Adolf Hitler in the lead." But who knows who's pulling Sarah Palin's fetching strings? And, sure, the Fox shut-ins are too lazy to form an SA or go to a Nuremberg rally. But, as Arizonans know, they do vote. They hate. They respond to "me," not "we." And they're armed — with a large evangelical cohort in the U.S. military.
Obama had one chance to show how American liberalism could succeed, to remind Americans that they live off its legacy still. It's not too late. But dead-in-the-water, Clintonesque triangulation won't get him there. Nor will the belief that the new multi-cultural America has arrived, to consign the Republicans to irrelevancy. The angry whites still have the power to strike back, and they know time is running out.
For the rest of us, time is short, as well — to stop the darkness from falling again, to defeat the rough beast slouching to consume our future.
I don’t think the teabagging rabble is against all government so much as government that benefits people they don’t like. Say, black people. Most of these people are feeding at the trough and want their SS, Medicare, VA, or government paycheck protected. It’s always the “other” who spoils everything.
I talk to these people and it’s true they’re utterly ignorant. But the genius of Republican talking points is to provide them with all-encompassing narrative in order to explain their anger. By raising taxes, Democrats take away “jobs”. And by spending more during a recession, Democrats violate “common sense”. And by trying to reform health care, Democrats hate successful white people.
I have a good friend who’s a conservative Republican. He has all sorts of government benefits. Does he notice the disconnect between his reality and the rhetoric he believes? Not really. He’s embarrassed to be put on the spot by a sneaky liberal. He worked hard and played by the rules. But Teddy Kennedy killed somebody and Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. Republicans are normal.
Jon, you are wrong – I am a registered Arizona Independent and I am not a “tea bagger” – I am a tea party participant.
Do you tea bag?
https://teabagparty.org/
Funny how these old white xenophobes frantically backpeddled to calling themselves “tea party participant” from teabagger once they learned what that term meant to anyone born after 1960.
Don’t be ashamed of who you are Terry. We’ll still love you.
USA Today had a brilliant column yesterday contrasing FDR’s fight to establish the Tennessee Valley Authority with Obama’s weak and conciliatory waffling on healthcare and other issues. I can’t praise this column enough: it’s all there — both the parallels and the lessons Obama should (but won’t) take to heart.
For those who read the print version, take another look, because there are a number of useful and interesting hyperlinks providing background and documenting some of the claims (e.g., “Private power had been implicated in the 1929 stock market crash, and the Federal Trade Commission had uncovered a propaganda apparatus unexcelled in peacetime. Its mission, according to Thomas K. McCraw in TVA and the Power Fight, 1933-1939, was to paint public power as “Bolshevistic, socialistic, inefficient and generally odious.” “).
https://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/column-tva-holds-lessons-for-obama.html
Mr. Talton is certainly right about the Republicans: there is no Sen. George Norris today.
Thanks, Kevin, for the affirmation; I do love myself and I’m an old broad, married for 45-years. I am not a tea bagger; and FYI I do know what the term means – I have several late friends who informed me.
Terry (and her views) is always welcome at this establishment. As is everybody. Our commenters are among the most thoughtful on the blogosphere. Thanks to all.
NOT a criticism of Terry Dudas:
“…and FYI I do know what the term means – I have several late friends who informed me…”
Just curiosity. Exactly what are we talking about, here, Terry? Ouija boards? Palingenesy? John Edward, international psychic medium?
As you snarky guys obviously know, the term “tea bagger” is intended as a homophopic putdown; don’t pretend that the term wasn’t & isn’t now used to describe people who participate in the protest movement called tea parties. The term “tea bagger” was popularly corrupted by MSNBC last year, and has entered the jargon to include our estemmed POTUS. Yes, THE ONE has used the term in his rhetoric.
I strenuously object, not because of the orientation cast, but because of the implied putdown that the term, “tea bagger”, has come to represent. I am amazed that gays have not come out in protest.
Terry, et al:
Let’s skip the name-calling and engage on the substance. Jon has pointed out that many tea-party participants seem to suffer from poorly directed rage. Perhaps the most famous example is the person who demanded that “the government keep it hands off my Medicare,” apparently not realizing that Medicare is, in fact, a government program.
Perhaps we can start with one question: Many tea-party participants argue that health care reform — that is, pooling of medical risks — is an unacceptable form of socialism. That’s despite the fact that America is the only advanced democracy that doesn’t do so at a government level in one form or another, that this is what both Medicare ad Medicaid already do, and further that this is precisely what insurance companies do on a smaller scale. (The problem with that approach, of course, is that it makes economic sense for indivudual risk-poolers (insurers) to deny coverage and claims in order to maintain their individual profits).
Are, say, Canada, Great Britain, France, and Germany Bolshevik countries whose example we must avoid?
A second issue, of course, is the other dynamic Jon notes: tea-party participants’ railing about government spending never seems to be directed at big corporate welfare, expensive foreign wars, etc., but rather be limited to spending on “liberal” programs. When tea-party activists start complaining about the massive amounts of money we waste fighting foreign wars and on planes and battleships the Army doesn’t want, I’ll be the first to applaud the intellectual consistency.
Best,
CDT
What ever became of reasoned debates between well-informed individuals? Only PBS seems to provide such a format with David Brooks/Mark Shields on Friday nites. Am I missing something, or has the media lapsed into (mostly) angry verbal ping pong? We the people deserve better!
I have no problem with Jim Hamblin’s remark: merely a whimsical observation.
If these individuals are truly well-informed, then on what basis do they disagree? If they are arguing about subjective matters or political ideology resistant to objective knowledge, then how can their debate be “reasoned”?
Perhaps a better description would be “educated, well-spoken, and polite” debate? Let’s have a reasoned, well-informed debate about this terminology! Perhaps we’ll learn something interesting, epistemologically speaking.
Maybe RELATIVELY well-informed would have been a better term!
With Shields and Brooks, we generally see and hear from two individuals who can see and hear both sides of most issues. They tend to digest a fairly broad cross-section of information . . at least that’s my take. Mostly, they come off a students rather than authorities. Tom Friedman probably fits in this category.
Your ball, Emil! I lack the intellect and the vocabulary for these discussions . . .
Terry, who told you that “tea-bagging” is an insult directed solely at gays? For what it’s worth, there are plenty of women who are familiar with this sex act, too.
Jim Hamblin, I’d say that you have both the intellect and the vocabulary. There are roughly one million English words; nobody knows them all; if you see an unfamiliar one, don’t fear it, just look it up.
For example, epistemology is simply the study of knowledge: what can be known, and how, and what cannot, and why.
Let’s return to the question of Shields and Brooks from a political rather than an epistemological point of view.
I came across an interesting criticism by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Media, not the immigration group), from September 2006, titled “Are You On The NewsHour’s Guest List?”
In a sidebar on Brooks and Shields (and other hosts, rather than guests) this Extra! article quotes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s (then) ombudsman, Ken Bode, praising the NewsHour commentators for balance and civility.
However, it points out that those sitting in the “Right” chair tend to be movement conservatives, whereas those sitting in the “Left” chair are milquetoast moderates (my term, not theirs). Specifically:
“While it might be civil, it’s hard to support the claim that the debate is balanced. Over the years, the NewsHour’s “right” chair has been filled by movement conservatives. David Brooks, the New York Times columnist and former editor for the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, currently holds down the conservative chair. When Brooks is unavailable, Rich Lowry, the even more staunchly conservative editor of the National Review, often substitutes for him. Paul Gigot, one of Brooks’ predecessors, was also an editor for the Journal editorial page. Even David Gergen, questionable in the eyes of some conservatives because of his work for the Clinton administration, was hired by a triangulating Bill Clinton for his solid Republican credentials: heading Richard Nixon’s speechwriting team, acting as a special counsel to President Gerald Ford and serving as communications director for the Reagan White House.
“The NewsHour’s “left” chair is a different matter. For years, these movement conservatives have been pitted against Mark Shields, a moderate whose own publicity once boasted that he was “free of any political tilt” (Extra!, 7–8/90). Shields’ most frequent substitute on the NewsHour is mildly liberal Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant.”
https://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2969&printer_friendly=1
Jim, the big impediment is that well-reasoned anything works against the fear, homophobia, xenophobia, “me-first,” anti-communitarian or flight from reality that is so politically profitably for the right. The facts have a left-wing bias.
As for Brooks, he’s a tool, albeit a nice one. For example, he recently wrote a column excoriating older people for expecting Social Security or Medicare, for being the selfish generation. Yet where is Brooks’ call for the rich, Wall Street and the big corporations to do the same?
I’d like to add to Emil’s observation about the NewsHour. Several months ago when Mark Shields was away, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post substituted for him. She’s a very nice person whose political viewpoints were nearly indistinguishable from those of David Brooks. Jim Lehrer was in heaven. This is why the elite class of journalists and government officials of Washington are sometimes referred to as “Villagers”. Their comity betrays its own class bias.
Gwen Ifill is another reliable PBS “moderate” who can be counted on to analyze any contentious issue by splitting the difference. Since the national conversation tilts to the right as it is, Gwen’s balance usually succeeds in confirming the validity of right-wing talking points.