Here are two perspectives on the Tea Party movement that offer tea some sympathy. Both writers are alive to an important trend, the degree to which privilege among Democrats (and there is a clear class break between blue states and red 'uns) has separated them from populist concerns-- including the concern that their children will be killed in Afghanistan. Visionary Milton Friedman wanted this to happen by eliminating the draft; he wanted the elite not to have to decide to murder its own children; and he has got his wish.
First Chris Hedges, "The Phantom Left," at truthdig:
The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington’s National Mall [last Saturday, Jon Stewart and Stephen Coulbert], was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class. It was as innocuous as a Boy Scout jamboree. It ridiculed followers of the tea party without acknowledging that the pain and suffering expressed by many who support the movement are not only real but legitimate. It made fun of the buffoons who are rising up out of moral swamps to take over the Republican Party without accepting that their supporters were sold out by a liberal class, and especially a Democratic Party, which turned its back on the working class for corporate money.
Justin Raimondo at The American Conservative says the tea partiers are the heirs of the antiwar movement that Obama sold out:
The anti-establishment force behind Obama was one that had lain dormant for a generation: the grassroots Left. It was reawakened by the same causes that had first given it life in the 1960s—opposition to war and demands for civil liberty. Torture, executive secrecy, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan filled the roles once played by segregation and the war in Vietnam. In 2008 as in 1968, the essence of the activist Left was its antiwar faith.
...It was only in response to great shock—the 9/11 terrorist attacks and George W. Bush’s subsequent crusade to democratize the Muslim world—that these ex-Trotskyites-turned-suburbanites woke from their narcotized sleep. The resurgent Left had an ongoing drama to validate its concerns: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the spectacle of untrammeled executive power running roughshod over the Constitution.
...Obama dogged Hillary over her vote in favor of the Iraq War and made an explicit appeal to the netroots and the antiwar movement. That gave him the momentum to snatch the crown from her brow. It didn’t matter that he justified his opposition to the war on the grounds that we were prosecuting the “wrong” war and vowed to fight on the Afghan front with greater vigor than his predecessor. At that point, the anti-interventionist base of the Democratic Party was ready to nominate anybody but Hillary.
...The antiwar Left defeated itself by electing a Democrat little different from Bush. And now Barack Obama is dismantling his own party by repudiating the causes that animated his base—the opposition to war and fear of the imperial presidency. In the run-up to the midterm elections, Obama tried instead to mobilize his party around the weakest items on its agenda: big government and cultural issues....
The Democrats’ decline owes nothing to Republican leaders like John Boehner or Mitch McConnell; it is entirely the result of Obama betraying the antiwar Left at the same time as the grassroots Right finally returned to its economic principles. Should Republicans proceed again as they did under Bush, the cycle will repeat—another war, another resurgence of the Left.
Both parties, in spite of their strenuous efforts, have failed to carry off a political realignment.
I remember Bill Kristol coming on the Daily Show before the 2008 elections and he said something to the effect that hey, look, it’s just an election, no worries. Jon replied with a flabergasted response asking how he could say that.
Bill knew not much would change. He went on to say how he was in favor of a more “muscular foreign policy”, and he favored McCain, but that we should all just relax.
When you’re in power, I guess it doesn’t really matter who wins the election, eh?
When you’re in power, I guess it doesn’t really matter who wins the election, eh?
Exactly. Elections are the opiate of the masses.
It’s refreshing to see a perspective like Chris Hedges article. He cuts through the crap of what their rally in Washington, by Stewart and Colbert, was really about.
It is. I like that he goes back to Guy Debord & the idea of the spectacle as an opiate – it’s never ben truer. I wonder if you saw his speech during the Gaza Massacre? Similarly, cuts through the crap.
I did see the video. Thanks for the reminder.
What a guy…
Anyone who thought that Obama would be an antiwar candidate wasn’t listening to Obama’s words during the campaign, or really believes that Obama was an outsider candidate. The current crop of elected traitors will also disappoint their supporters.
BTW, there were many people on the right and center who wrongly believed that Obama would change American foreign policy. If Obama had to depend only on the antiwar left for votes, he would have lost by a landslide.
“there were many people on the right and center who wrongly believed that Obama would change American foreign policy. If Obama had to depend only on the antiwar left for votes, he would have lost by a landslide.”
So did a great many people around the world, and he would have won by a landslide if the rest of the world had any vote in US presidential elections. Who said that Israel doesn’t have a foreign policy, just a domestic policy (Kissinger?)? Does the US have a foreign policy?
Likewise anyone who actually thought Obama would seek justice for Palestine.
The “libertarian” arguments that somehow combine absence of intense energy conservation (with federal and state subsidy) with free market with reluctance to intervene to protect the supply chain that they are then dependant on, strikes me as a contradiction.
I don’t buy it. Its good irritation talk, but poor solution inquiry.
There is an argument articulated by some republicans and democrats of preferring a containment policy to the military opportunistic policy.
The tea party is nowhere near clear on whether its supporters regard the pride of American dominance as more important than American sobriety.
It is a low blow to complain that Obama is the sell-out. I remain convinced that he is following his best assessment and method of reducing the level of violence in the world, and of reducing the requirement for the US military to be the world’s police.
Actuallym the libertarian argument isn’t a contradiction. For one, if the supply chain is cut, market forces would come into play forcing a (drastic) change in consumption. If we attack Iran and gas shoots up another 6-7 dollars a gallon, I assume you’ll see this play out.
But the odds of an interruption in the supply would be minimized by following a more pure free market. There would be no sanctions on oil producing countries, no aggressive, threatening military actions against them, and we would free trade with them instead of assinating their leaders, installing puppets like the Shah, etc.
As for the moral aspect, how many Iraqis and Americans would be alive today without the Iraqi sanctions and the gulf wars? 600,000? 700,000?
The main reason it’s a poor solution is because we’re neck-deep in massive intervention policies. Hopefully Obama can do as you say, reduce our world police force.
You live in a fantasy land.
The libertarian argument has MANY primary and structural contradictions.
Most relevant is the concentration of capital, and the self-cannabalizing influence of our current distribution of wealth.
I don’t defend libertarianism in general and probably agree with much of what you’d say in criticism of it, but your generalized critique of libertarianism as a governing philosophy has nothing to do with the specifics of what MarkF said. He said that our interventions overseas are both immoral and unnecessary. It would be better if we moved away from oil, but if we must buy some of it from foreign sources there’s no reason to think that our policy of supporting dictators and starting unnecessary wars is better than the alternative–leaving other people alone.
“You live in a fantasy land.”
Take a look in the mirror Witty.
You’re the one who thinks Zionism is some altruistic, humanistic, egalitarian movement.
“The libertarian argument has MANY primary and structural contradictions.”
You wouldn’t know the first thing about libertarian ideology Witty.
Stick to what you know, which appears to be very little.
“The “libertarian” arguments that somehow combine absence of intense energy conservation (with federal and state subsidy) with free market with reluctance to intervene to protect the supply chain that they are then dependant on, strikes me as a contradiction.”
It would is that were true, but that is not the case. Yo have been getting your explanations for libertarianism through a right wing prism.
“There is an argument articulated by some republicans and democrats of preferring a containment policy to the military opportunistic policy.”
Containment of whom? And how is containment to be achieved without the military?
“The tea party is nowhere near clear on whether its supporters regard the pride of American dominance as more important than American sobriety.”
Is it any wonder why the tea party and Zionism is so closely aligned?
“It is a low blow to complain that Obama is the sell-out. ”
Of course you woudl think that. If we all accept he’s a sell out, then the veneer that he is anything but a puppet of Netenyahu would dissolve, and you wouldn’t want that would you?
“I remain convinced that he is following his best assessment and method of reducing the level of violence in the world, and of reducing the requirement for the US military to be the world’s police.”
You remain convinced in spite of the fact that he has ratcheted up the war in Afghanistan, has maintained our presence in Iraq, and is looking for any excuse to escalate wars in Somalia and Yemen.
Obama has gone even farther than Bush in turning the CIA loose to execute a revenge campaign with drone attacks, in response to a Jordanian operative blowing up several CIA agents in a suicide bomb attack.
Given Poppy Bush’s previous tenure as head of the CIA, the Bush family presumably had some insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the agency, and how to restrain it.
By contrast, Peace Laureate O’Bomber is so servile to the CIA that one might suspect he is a ‘CIA test tube baby,’ raised from birth to be the agency’s man in the oval office.
This may sound like hyperbole, but one possible explanation for Obama’s mother’s highly unusual international career trajectory is that she was working in various CIA front organizations.
Be that as it may, the result of his authorizing the CIA to conduct its own Af-Pak vendetta is the slaughter of innocents on a unprecedented scale. The sociopathic O’Bomber doesn’t merely deserve defeat; he deserves to be packed off to The Hague with Bush and Blair.
Let me begin by noting that I think that the headline to this post is misleading. I don’t see much sympathy, rather, I see the Tea Party used as a foil to criticize the Democrats and the left. Time and space preclude a discussion of what constitutes the “left,” and the degree to which it always was nothing more than an umbrella term lumping together a lot of different folks with precious little in common ideologically.
To better understand what is happening, we need to keep in mind that both major political parties are primarily organized for the purpose of electing candidates, they serve no higher purpose. Once upon a time, the Democratic Party achieved electoral success by supporting candidates representing the “enlightened” oligarchs who advocated “reform” of a system in distress (the Great Depression). This formula worked for quite a while.
During the 1980s, this formula conflicted with elite aspirations resulting in an erosion of elite support for the “New Deal” formula, thus the Democratic Leadership Council was formed to realign the Democratic Party with elite objectives (for a worthwhile discussion, see “Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politic,” by Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers). Bill Clinton was the first “New Democrat,” and enjoyed great success by combining vague rhetorical progressiveness with actual corporate subservience. Barak Obama is another New Democrat who is basically a front man for corporate/financial rule. Like Clinton, he had a PR problem when first elected insofar as a solid Democratic Congress provided little room to camouflage screwing his base. Like Clinton, he needed to triangulate, hence, he needed a Republican Congress to blame for his actions. A year and a half ago, I predicted that the elites would most likely take steps to achieve a Republican Congree so that both parties could blame the other for what is about to transpire.
A final comment is in order concerning the extreme debasement of our electoral system. For democracy to work at all, the electorate needs to possess some minimal ability to perceive reality as it is, and to respond rationally. Washington State, where I live, has a regressive sales tax but no state income tax. Like most states, Washington is facing a budget shortfall requiring either increasing taxes or cutting expenditures. A ballot measure was introduced for an income tax on the well to do, starting at $200K for individuals ($400K for couples), combined with a slight lowering of the sales tax. Less regression, more progression, needed funds to continue services for the less fortunate and employment for government workers. A no brainer, right? It went down to crushing defeat, strongly opposed by lower income groups who opined that the fat cats had earned their money fair and square. We have come full circle to the complete surrender to the divine right of capital to rule. For those of us who take psychological refuge in a gallows sense of humor, 2011 is shaping up to be fertile ground for mirth and merriment.
What to do, what to do, what to do? Before taking that on, there’s the matter of time running out, what with perpetual war + global warming + deepening recession = doomsday. Which means that if we continue to depend upon the electoral system to bring about change, forget it, because we’re moving backwards, not forwards and, that’s right, we’ll be wasting precious time. But if not electoral politics, what? Well, how’s about a popular mass movement for change. Check other websites, lots of people calling for it. But how? First of all we start talking about it, at least as much, that is, as we talk-talk about what’s wrong with the way it is. Initially this can be carried out online. Eventually there’ll have to be face to face, but not until there’s evidence that people are tuning in. Who’ll lead? As in every serious movement for change, everyone has to be a leader. What about the basics, such as the vision, the plan, the spirit? Well, for starters, the vision could be that of a just and peaceful world, the plan would be a work in progress in which everyone has a say, with the spirit being the tried and true all for one and one for all. Impossible? Then, continue to play the electoral game, but remember, we’ve been playing that how long now, and we’re going down, down, down, down, aren’t we?
Talk of “the left” in American politics is always comical for those of us who live elsewhere. American politics doesn’t seem to have a left. As far aws we can make out, there are only two groupings. One is the extreme right wing, and the other , to the right of them, is a bunch of foam-flecked, swivel-eyed, raving loonies.
“Obama dogged Hillary over her vote in favor of the Iraq War and made an explicit appeal to the netroots and the antiwar movement. That gave him the momentum to snatch the crown from her brow. It didn’t matter that he justified his opposition to the war on the grounds that we were prosecuting the “wrong” war and vowed to fight on the Afghan front with greater vigor than his predecessor. At that point, the anti-interventionist base of the Democratic Party was ready to nominate anybody but Hillary.”
Kept wondering why Dems the left was not hearing what Obama was saying during the campaign. Had watched him play if far too safe in the Senate. Never really took a stand. But Hillary knowingly voted for that slaughter in Iraq (according to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter) so once Obama had the nomination what are you going to do?
Obama never betrayed the anti-war left. Every word he said before the elections marked him clearly as a corporatist suit, ready to defend Washington’s bacon in every way. He was clear that he was not “anti-war”. he was anti failure and that was pretty much the only criticism against Bush he made. He clearly promised that he was going to focus on Afghanistan and he did.
Obsama kept every promise that he made. The people who feel betrayed are the people who allowed themselves to be bought for peanuts, and were ready to look the other way and to call Obama corporatist, Wall-Street centered agenda “left.” The people who did that have only themselves to blame, and perhaps to ask themselves why they are so clueles.
But don’t worry, the next “progressive” hope is just around the corner. And when that reservoir becomes exhausted, there is always the opportunity to go to other side for a “savior.” Paul Rand is already a rep., and Gen. Petraeus will soon enter politics, and when that too fails with “betrayal”, fascism will beacon. For those who have an emotional need to be “betrayed” the future was never brighter than today.
that’s a bit harsh. obama’s handlers were able to craft an aura of progressive-y-ness, even if that aura was one of a set of contradictory impressions. (maybe you didn’t know, but he’s the first black president!)that’s often the sign of a ‘good’ campaign, being able to speak to various groups’ needs, even if the messages aren’t logically consistent. but you’re right, unfortunately, 2012 looks to be uglier. Petraeus. That’s frightening.
It’s a bit harsh, but mostly accurate all the same. Simply seeing how he reacted to his pastor’s comments told me all I needed to know about him. It’s not that Wright shouldn’t have been criticized for some of what he has said, but Obama distanced himself from everything Wright said about US foreign policy, our crimes and so forth. It was crystal clear Obama was a thoroughly mainstream American politician, not any sort of progressive change agent at all. Even his much-vaunted opposition to the Iraq War was couched in technocratic terms. I think evildoer is right–Obama didn’t fool his leftist supporters. They fooled themselves.
It was thoroughly clear that Obama was set on winning office no matter how many backs he had to stab on the way.
Everyone who harbored delusions about this guy after his AIPAC ass-kissing session has only themselves to blame.