Tea Party's Cold War Roots

[oddlots]

Interesting piece about the similarities between Tea Party obsessions and those of earlier conservative surges:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_wilentz

"Conflating modern liberalism and totalitarianism, Welch [founder of Birch Society] described government as “always and inevitably an enemy of individual freedom.” Consequently, he charged, the Progressive era, which expanded the federal government’s role in curbing social and economic ills, was a dire period in our history, and Woodrow Wilson “more than any other one man started this nation on its present road to totalitarianism.”

As this suggests, there are enough very familiar themes here to give one pause. Has the John Birch Society taken over the collective brain of the US. Oh the irony.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

Interesting piece about the similarities between Tea Party obsessions and those of earlier conservative surges:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_wilentz

"Conflating modern liberalism and totalitarianism, Welch [founder of Birch Society] described government as “always and inevitably an enemy of individual freedom.” Consequently, he charged, the Progressive era, which expanded the federal government’s role in curbing social and economic ills, was a dire period in our history, and Woodrow Wilson “more than any other one man started this nation on its present road to totalitarianism.”

As this suggests, there are enough very familiar themes here to give one pause. Has the John Birch Society taken over the collective brain of the US. Oh the irony.

Seriously?? You are seriously going to depend on The New Yorker for any kind of balanced, unbiased view of any kind of conservative thinking or conservative political movement?

Really?

What a worthless source of information on this topic.

[flintlock]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

People try to read more into the Tea Party movement than they need to. People are fed up. Its that simple. Anyone out there who thinks our problem is not enough government is crazy. The fact that corrupt officials don't ENFORCE our laws doesn't mean we need more of them. Many in the Tea Party are ill informed about what the real source of the problems are. They just know something stinks. Rather than trying to paint the Tea party as evil radicals, they should try and educate them. I'm sorry, I just don't see them as some sort of dangerous gang of radicals. Painting them as so shows the naive character of some who think that anyone who doesn't agree with them on 100% of the issues 100% of the time is to be feared. It's call a coalition. Try to find common ground towards a common goal. Because if you think we can just sit on our hands and things will fix themselves, well, thats exactly what the oligarchs want you to think.

"Paralysis of Analysis" I call it. While waiting for the perfect "messiah" to come along, crooks are screwing up the nation. I get it. Liberals fear the more right wing aspects, the religious types as so forth. But If I have to align with some of those( who actually make up less of the Tea Party than the press would have you think) to stop the crap in Washington, then so be it. If I have to choose between someone being "preachy" to me or no job, I'll deal with the preachy SOB later.

[jk]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

my impression is that the populist impulse underlying the tea party has been co-opted by the republican party, which - like the democratic party- has in turn been co-opted by corporate interests. barry ritholtz had an interesting little piece, titled:

"The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations"
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09...-corporations/ text below

ritholtz says the pardigm shift "is occurring" but i'm afraid that that is wishful thinking. my most optimistic interpretation is that we are VERY early in the process. and the tea parties are diverting instead of furthering the process.

Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.

I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.

For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.

Consider:

• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

• The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

• Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

• PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

• The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

• DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

• Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

• The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.

For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.

What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.

How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm – yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not).

What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms?

In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates.

There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content – YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren’s concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight.

But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade.

Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing . . .

[we_are_toast]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

Many in the Tea Party are ill informed about what the real source of the problems are. They just know something stinks. Rather than trying to paint the Tea party as evil radicals, they should try and educate them.

JK
my impression is that the populist impulse underlying the tea party has been co-opted by the republican party, which - like the democratic party- has in turn been co-opted by corporate interests.

Herein lies the danger of the Tea Party. They are uninformed and easily manipulated by the Corporate, or big money interests. The truth is, the exact opposite is happening at the grass roots level within the Democratic party. Everyone has heard of the enthusiasm gap this year. The reason for the gap is that the everyday Democrats have seen the Corporate interests infiltrate the party at the elected official level and have given up. They feel the Republican party is nearly 100% controlled by corporate interests, and now the corporations have a street gang called the Tea Party to channel their bull horn. And with the unknown hundreds of millions of corporate dollars secretly funneling money to campaigns (7-1 Republicans), thanks to the 5 corporate appointed Supreme court justices on the supreme court, it's enough to depress anyone who sees what's happening.

A false equivalence won't help the situation.

[don]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

I have never heard a Tea Party leader or candidate speak critically of the financial oligarchy, our boyz down at the FIRE station. They are either truly ignorant or willfully ignorant of that part of the equation. Populist anger is being channeled to...nowhere.

[jk]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

I have never heard a Tea Party leader or candidate speak critically of the financial oligarchy, our boyz down at the FIRE station. They are either truly ignorant or willfully ignorant of that part of the equation. Populist anger is being channeled to...nowhere.

the "enthusiasm gap" referred to by toast shows up in polls of "likely voters." the anger is being channeled into turnout for republican candidates.

i hope i am wrong, and i know i am exaggerating, but the only historical analogy that really comes to mind for me are the brownshirts.

[bpr]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

i hope i am wrong, and i know i am exaggerating, but the only historical analogy that really comes to mind for me are the brownshirts.

Exaggerations and hyperbole only serve to strengthen the resolve of the motivated, uninformed political force that is populism today.

As for an historical analogy, William Hogeland makes a compelling argument for progressive populism (specifically, William Jennings Bryan) as a precursor to much of what's coming out of the tea party.

Then as now, the hottest blast of populist rhetoric was directed less at specific policies than at elites’ dismissal of ordinary people’s judgments, determinations, and desires; at what populists saw as the undemocratic, un-American claim to superior expertise; at forestalling decisive action through discussion and debate. With Bryan and his allies having ascertained the wishes of ordinary people, discussion and debate must cease...

...When today’s right-wing populists make threatening remarks like “lock and load” and talk about taking the country back, they’re applying the method that Bryan perfected.

It's a stunning indictment of both tea party politics and the liberal backlash, and worth a read.

[jk]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

Exaggerations and hyperbole only serve to strengthen the resolve of the motivated, uninformed political force that is populism today.

As for an historical analogy, William Hogeland makes a compelling argument for progressive populism (specifically, William Jennings Bryan) as a precursor to much of what's coming out of the tea party.



It's a stunning indictment of both tea party politics and the liberal backlash, and worth a read.

the bryan analogy of agrarian populism leaves out the co-option of the movement by hidden corporate wealth furthering its own agenda. hogeland rightly points to the anti-"elite" thread in the populists movements, wherein the "elites" are identified as the educated and "cultured." but in its modern incarnation, entrenched corporate interests are using them as catspaws to tighten their reins on the levers of governmental power. where is a modern populism which directs its anti-"elite" energy against corporate FIRE-power? any attempts to discuss these issues are quickly denounced as "class-warfare" and, by virtue of the vaguely marxist tone of that label, somehow unamerican. it's a big problem preventing true reform of the economy and the polity.

[BK]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

I was amazed to hear Terry Gross of NPR dedicate 30-60 minutes of Air Time to prove that Glenn Becks ideology comes from the Birch Society. Good thing we tax payers pick up the Tab because it was the dullest Radio Show I've ever listened to.....if Terry Gross worked for Private Radio would she have a job?????
The Democrats must be worried they are pulling out the big guns for this election. Has anyone notice the flurry of story on Absentee Ballots for Service men and women that may not count because deadlines were missed - the interesting thing is the missed Deadlines for these Ballots seem to happen in State that are Democratic Strong holds. But, it must just be a coincidence.
Thank god there are people who join the Tea party and OneNation - we are in real trouble when one side or the other no longer exists!
I'm amazed no one ever comments on how ignorant folks that belong to OneNation might be.......strange.....only fiscal or social conservatives are ignorant in America - ProUnion - pro- spending are smart....and never pawns of the FIRE Elites.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

The first or second week in power, and the Obama Democrats passed the TARP and bailed-out AIG and Goldman Sachs and the other big banks. Then, the Obama Democrats gave luncheons for the big bank contributors to the Demo Party. Then, the Obama Demos sold their soul to the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and that was their "Green Energy Policy. Then, the Obama Demos sold their soul to pass the most modest of health-reform measures possible, and that was what they called "The Obama Plan". Then, on top of that the Obama Demos let the Republicans write the Financial Reform. Then, on top of that, the Obama Demos re-appointed Bernanke to head the Fed, so we have zero interest rates, maybe forever. Then, on top of that, the Obama-bunch claims that the TARP is "a success". Then on top of that, we have the appeasement policy in the Middle East, so Bin Laden and his friends run-free. Then, on top of that, we have the deficits. To top that, we have nothing changing in American schools; the school curriculum is written by the standardized-testers and the Christian-right. Then, on top of that, Cap-'n-Trade is still coming. Then we have "Buy American" as a jobs policy, so trade-protectionism is next. Then, on top of that, Jeff Immelt of GE says the Obama Administration has no energy plan. Then, on top of that, inflation is back.

And in British Columbia, the NDP Caucus won't even talk to me on the telephone. "Habitat-preservation" is the agenda of the NDP, at least in BC.

The beaver buck is 99cents of one worthless U.S. dollar, and I should be impressed??????????????????????

And to top all of this, the Lockarbie bomber is released by the Govn't of Scotland, and no-one takes responsibility for it. So, I am very un-impressed by government, everywhere. I have lost faith. And I am as far to the left as one can get!

Meanwhile, gold is singing louder than ever, off to Stage-right. Thus it was said (on Broadway), "The fat lady is singing."
The end of the Obama Show is near.

[oddlots]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

Seriously?? You are seriously going to depend on The New Yorker for any kind of balanced, unbiased view of any kind of conservative thinking or conservative political movement?

Really?

What a worthless source of information on this topic.

I posted this because I thought it was interesting that so many of the views that the John Birch Society espoused have become commonplace. I happen to harbour a number of these views myself - a hatred of the Federal Reserve system for one - and I found it interesting, if not disquieting, that this "package" of beliefs maps onto those of another era so well.

I also thought that the history of William F. Buckley's views on and interaction with the "Birchers" was interesting, especially in contrast to Glenn Beck's apparent wholesale adoption of the "Bircher" viewpoint. I grew up watching William F. Buckley's with my dad and then arguing about it over dinner. I didn't ever agree with him that much but I did think he was a cogent critic of the left and I learned a lot from that process. I also credit those talks as the one of the sources of my belief in an Open Society in Popper's sense. I would trade William F. Buckley or his re-incarnation for Glenn Beck anyday.

But maybe there's someone else that you would recommend as your favoured exemplar of American Conservatism. Who are the best and brightest of American Conservatism these days?

Regarding the New Yorker, I think it's coverage of the financial crisis has been apallingly bad, mostly by its almost complete absence. But I suspect that's not why you hate it so much so it's probably irrelevant. I have always found their analysis - in the form of their best writers: Jeffrey Toobin, George Packer et al - to be worthwhile reading. So why do you hate it so much?

[bpr]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

The first or second week in power, and the Obama Democrats passed the TARP and bailed-out AIG and Goldman Sachs and the other big banks.

The TARP was passed on October 3, 2008, signed into law by President Bush. Re-writing history is far more effective if you try it, say, fifty years after the fact instead of two.

[bpr]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

... but in its modern incarnation, entrenched corporate interests are using them as catspaws to tighten their reins on the levers of governmental power. where is a modern populism which directs its anti-"elite" energy against corporate FIRE-power?

Excellent point. The thing is, the old left/right paradigm, which has a firm grasp on the traditional media, cannot allow for any point of view not already controlled by corporate interests. The ritholtz article you posted hints at this without suggesting a solution.

The Hogeland article merely cautions against hyperbolic comparisons, which, I would argue, can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In other words, the more the tea partiers are ridiculed and compared to Nazis, the closer they will come to the real thing.

[oddlots]

Re: Tea Party's Cold War Roots

Anyone out there who thinks our problem is not enough government is crazy.

Indulge me for a second. I'm watching all this from Canada. We have our problems and we've had our share of luck, especially with regard to the timing of our fiscal crises (a Liberal government paid down debt aggressively during a relatively prosperous period of growth worldwide.) Much of our apparent virtue is dumb luck.

But I really think there is one thing we've sidestepped that has been disastrous to America and it is this: the wholesale repudiation of the existence of a common interest among citizens expressed, imperfectly of course, in public services.

I'm sitting here with decent if not exceptional schools; banks that have needed only marginal support (bailing out ABS market as an example) through a world-wide banking crisis; and universal health care. All this with a pretty tolerable tax regime and the best performance of I believe the G20 through the crisis.

This can be put down to the fact that there is enough belief in state power as an expression of common interests that bank regulators - as a key example - can regulate. There is a public utility aspect to banking. It is not like any other business. The creation of credit can be privatised and made more efficient in the process (as in Canada) but only if supervision is correspondingly vigilant. It can't be if the regulatory plumbing has been gutted and it can only be gutted if the whole project of protecting the common interest has been de-legitimised.

Much of what I've seen of American political trends in my lifetime looks to me like a wholesale de-legitimising of any expression of common interest. My favourite example is that of the bankruptcy judge. That is simply an essential service in a capitalist economy and it is completely reliant on state power for legitimacy. And yet somehow the media were able to spin the idea of resolving insolvent banks through bankruptcy proceedings was somehow deemed nationalisation and creeping socialism. (As if the entire mortgage market and banking system had not already been absorbed into the state and essentially nationalised already and was being gamed wholesale by private interests.)

I really think the "big government" meme, especially if it is allowed to be shrunk-fit around essential state functions like regulation, is a political poison pill that is killing the "post-industrial" west.

If this sounds like "big government" to anyone here, fine.