Hudson on the Tea Party Surge

[don]

Hudson's take on why the Tea Party & European Right Are Winning Elections

[astonas]

Re: Hudson on the Tea Party Surge

I generally agree with a lot of what Hudson says, and I really wish I could agree with him again. A surge of anti-bankster sentiment showing up in a meaningful way at the polls would be great. Unfortunately, I feel he is oversimplifying a bit here - in the same way as those who said the primary win for Brat was all about immigration.

The truth of the matter is that both the Tea Party and the nationalist parties in Europe are benefitting from two separate trends, and could not be nearly as successful without including both of them under their umbrellas.

The first is indeed the dissatisfaction with the financial establishment, as Hudson asserts. But the numbers would not be nearly so strong if these parties did not also tap into much baser emotions. In the US, there is a fair amount of outright bigotry in the Tea Party movement, and in Europe, there is also a worrisome fraction of the population that is turning to old-school nationalism.

Which of the two concurrent "revolutions" will wind up setting the agenda is in each place still very much to be determined, and is sufficient cause to hold careful watch. History tells some pretty scary stories about populations that go along with one movement, and find themselves putting the other sort into power.

[don]

Re: Hudson on the Tea Party Surge

I generally agree with a lot of what Hudson says, and I really wish I could agree with him again. A surge of anti-bankster sentiment showing up in a meaningful way at the polls would be great. Unfortunately, I feel he is oversimplifying a bit here - in the same way as those who said the primary win for Brat was all about immigration.

The truth of the matter is that both the Tea Party and the nationalist parties in Europe are benefitting from two separate trends, and could not be nearly as successful without including both of them under their umbrellas.

The first is indeed the dissatisfaction with the financial establishment, as Hudson asserts. But the numbers would not be nearly so strong if these parties did not also tap into much baser emotions. In the US, there is a fair amount of outright bigotry in the Tea Party movement, and in Europe, there is also a worrisome fraction of the population that is turning to old-school nationalism.

Which of the two concurrent "revolutions" will wind up setting the agenda is in each place still very much to be determined, and is sufficient cause to hold careful watch. History tells some pretty scary stories about populations that go along with one movement, and find themselves putting the other sort into power.

You make a number of good points. The left parties in Germany were if nothing else large and active, during the right's rise in the form of the National Socialists. What role Stalin played in damping down the German left is problematic. If the US had an active left it would not necessarily mean the Tea Party would evaporate. Au contraire . . . .

[Raz]

Re: Hudson on the Tea Party Surge

I generally agree with a lot of what Hudson says, and I really wish I could agree with him again. A surge of anti-bankster sentiment showing up in a meaningful way at the polls would be great. Unfortunately, I feel he is oversimplifying a bit here - in the same way as those who said the primary win for Brat was all about immigration.

The truth of the matter is that both the Tea Party and the nationalist parties in Europe are benefitting from two separate trends, and could not be nearly as successful without including both of them under their umbrellas.

The first is indeed the dissatisfaction with the financial establishment, as Hudson asserts. But the numbers would not be nearly so strong if these parties did not also tap into much baser emotions. In the US, there is a fair amount of outright bigotry in the Tea Party movement, and in Europe, there is also a worrisome fraction of the population that is turning to old-school nationalism.

Which of the two concurrent "revolutions" will wind up setting the agenda is in each place still very much to be determined, and is sufficient cause to hold careful watch. History tells some pretty scary stories about populations that go along with one movement, and find themselves putting the other sort into power.

I think Hudson's diagnosis is quite accurate - but the treatment protocol he recommends would be disastrous.

I'd guess that the rise of European Nationalism is caused by several factors, one of which is the massive influx of immigrants who refuse to assimilate into European culture and demand their own religious law be accepted as binding, allowing them to be a separate "nation" within the nations where they reside.

And there seems to be a widespread assumption among a large segment of our population that the Tea Party is riddled with bigots and racists; do you have any clear evidence that this is in fact true?

[astonas]

Re: Hudson on the Tea Party Surge

You make a number of good points. The left parties in Germany were if nothing else large and active, during the right's rise in the form of the National Socialists. What role Stalin played in damping down the German left is problematic. If the US had an active left it would not necessarily mean the Tea Party would evaporate. Au contraire . . . .

Yes, I think we are thinking along the same lines. There is a lot to be concerned about.


And Yet... (There's always a way to see another side.)

And yet, it is important to remember this quote:

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”

In this case, of course, the "everyone" whose worst nightmare it would be is the banksters, not main street, since it is really the only conceivable case in which they have a chance of losing, no matter which candidate wins. (Unlike the more mainstream choices, which are already bought by them, on both sides of the aisle.)

In effect, the only way to effect change on the financialization of the economy is if not only one, but BOTH parties' candidates adopt real financial reform as a policy plank. If only one does so, the other can simply be cast as the more "moderate, reasonable" choice, and attract enough Wall Street money to sway the few remaining swing states.

So that's the catch, really. In order for the (pro-main-street, anti-FIRE) solution to be found, the nation may have to be prepared to tolerate an election between two sides that both seem extraordinarily extreme in several other dimensions. And given the current political climate, that just means that either of those two, once elected, will be that much easier to render ineffective in office. The other governmental branches will get nothing but positive (electoral/ideological) results by stymying their every move.

Still, I suppose one of three government branches is better than none. And there's always the ever-more-acceptable executive order.


In sum, this merging of the "red meat" extremism, on both sides of the aisle, with the movement to restore financial sector sanity, certainly does present a lot to worry about. But it may also present the only real hope for reform. I think Hudson's point is not that the US needs an active left to WIN the ultimate election. It really needs an active left to even HAVE a meaningful election.

p.s.

I'm mostly joining Hudson in picking on the left here because I'd say it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Cruz, Paul, or both will be primary candidates on the right. But their candidacies will be rendered academic if someone like Warren can't be convinced to run against Hillary (which would be a direct reversal of position for Warren). I'm not sure who else would/could play that role. Does Hudson's choice of Kucinich have a chance, or even a remaining interest? Does anyone else?

My personal guess is that the anti-bank movement will continue to swell up until the primaries, at which point Warren will be discussed as vice-presidential material for Hillary. In truth, I imagine that she may already have been approached, which would account for her declaring her intention to remain on the sidelines if Hillary runs.

I suspect that Warren may be enough of an idealist to not realize that the VP role would not be an opportunity to have an impact, but rather a way to guarantee she is neutralized. Idealism can be tricky like that, as can the promises of a highly experienced politician like Hillary. So if Warren is out, who can possibly be pulled in?

[astonas]

Re: Hudson on the Tea Party Surge

I think Hudson's diagnosis is quite accurate - but the treatment protocol he recommends would be disastrous.

I'd guess that the rise of European Nationalism is caused by several factors, one of which is the massive influx of immigrants who refuse to assimilate into European culture and demand their own religious law be accepted as binding, allowing them to be a separate "nation" within the nations where they reside.

The question of European assimilation is a real one, though I think less regarding immigration than is discussed in the English-language media. Some of the reporting on this subject appears to be a projection of our own country's fears, and priorities. France, and to a lesser extent Germany, does indeed have some real friction with immigrants, but the number of voters who find an anti-immigration message particularly compelling is tiny compared to those who worry about being absorbed into a new, shared, "European Culture" that at this point arguably barely exists at all. France doesn't worry about becoming Muslim nearly as much as it worries about becoming German, and probably with very good reason.

I have made the case before that present-day Europe closely resembles America under the unworkable Articles of Confederation, as it was trying to slowly shift towards a more viable Constitution. However, while the cultures of the former colonies were indeed radically different (particularly the North/South and Large/Small state divides) the newly minted states at least had a common language. I have come to believe that language is one of the more pervasive and significant elements of a culture, and it remains to be seen whether Europe can overcome the intrinsic divide stemming from the way language fundamentally shapes rational thought.

And there seems to be a widespread assumption among a large segment of our population that the Tea Party is riddled with bigots and racists; do you have any clear evidence that this is in fact true?

My in-person conversations with many Tea Party supporters (not, thankfully, on this site) have frequently moved sooner or later toward their making some sweeping prejudiced, sexist, or even bigoted generalizations. I presume that they assume that since I agree with them on some economic issues, and am a white male, I must also agree on other matters, and so they feel that it is safe to discuss those openly with me as well.

I've heard incredibly sexist comments because I have agreed with certain criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and incredibly racist ones after I question Obama's economic policies. I understand that such results are intrinsically anecdotal, but the percentage is nevertheless high enough to convince me that I shouldn't simply assume that there can be no correlation. I have heard the "n" word, and various misogynistic expressions more frequently in this context than in any other.

To provide more objective, numerical support, I do know that the demographics of the Tea Party strongly diverge from the nation as a whole, and I would return the question to you by asking why that might be so, if racial politics was not a factor.
From a detailed USA Today Poll:

[Tea Party supporters] are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks.

I think this may have something to do with the following:

Nearly half say blacks lag in jobs, income and housing "because most African Americans just don't have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty." One-third of non-supporters agree.

In other words, the platform of the Tea Party when it comes to race is considerably further to the right than not only the nation as a whole, but also further to the right than the Republican Party as a whole. Even if one considers the Republican party position to be the "center," the Tea Party view would still be considered to be out of step with even that, when it comes to race.


I don't mean of course that one can't have entirely non-prejudicial reasons to support the Tea Party. iTulip members, for example, seem to be almost universally passionate about financial issues first and foremost, and I would certainly not accuse members of this community of possessing baser motivations, or include them in the category of people who will sooner or later express repugnant views. But it is important to remember that in many ways we are privileged to be part of a rather exceptional group. This site hosts individuals who actively seek out meaningful dialogue with people who hold views opposite to their own. Bigots, almost by definition, don't. More broadly, the majority of our nation has increasingly avoided such challenging dialogue, and it is in that population that prejudice can and does continue to flourish. It is also that, self-separating, portion of the Tea Party that tends to frighten me a bit when I converse with them. When they realize that my alignment on certain economic views aren't indicative of a more complete alignment, they are generally very quick to end the conversation. Disagreement is not welcome.

I should emphasize that I don't single the Tea Party out as being especially guilty of such maneuvers. As I stated before, it is precisely because political movements arguing for change are opening their umbrella wide enough to also cover less savory elements that they are as influential as they are. And it should be pointed out that the Tea Party did not invent this move -- far from it. Ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy was implemented, there has been an explicit attempt to play on racial fears to win political battles. The Tea Party have merely opened their doors to that branch of the Republican Party that was first won over by this play several decades ago, and found that they have streamed in in droves, without really needing to be courted.

And I am also not leveling my accusations only to the political right. I freely acknowledge that the move to grab the white southern votes for the Republicans came after the Democratic party made its own calculation that it should push the voting rights act, in large part because it would provide them abundant black votes. Moral arguments were certainly present, but it was practical political ones that drove the decision. And going farther back, it is hardly news that even the emancipation proclamation only freed southern slaves, in the Clausewitzian spirit that war is politics continued by other means. Indeed, just about every decision regarding race that this land has ever faced has been evaluated first and foremost in political, rather than moral, terms. I'm certainly not asserting that's good. But it does appear to be the way things actually are.

We in this county like to think that we are more motivated than most nations by concepts like morality and ethics. But however true that may be for given individuals, as a nation collectively we have created a system that is both more pragmatic and more cynical than that, It deserves to be analyzed as such, that is to say, realistically. Politicians have been playing craven games with race and politics since literally before this nation was founded, and we have debacles like the Articles of Confederation's revenue debates, and the Constitution's three-fifths compromise to prove it.

So yes, I do think the Tea Party appeals to prejudice among other interests. And sadly, that appears to be in the fullest tradition of American politics, as featured in every prior political party, ever.

[subtly]

Re: Hudson on the Tea Party Surge

Originally Posted by Politico, "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016"
“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”

Wall Street's nightmare is a President married to one of their own? Heidi Cruz may not be a big wheel at Goldman Sachs, but still...

Maybe I'm just too cynical anymore.