![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Why the tea parties don't matter
The "Tea Party" movement is a symbolic failure.
The original tea partiers engaged in criminal acts and risked arrest and imprisonment to destroy product from a company being propped up by unfair reduced taxes by the government, at the expense of what, at the time, amounted to "small business:" the domestic importers of tea who competed with the East India Company.
The current teabaggers are buying tea and throwing it around. That's it. When the DC teabag crew showed up with a truckload of tea bags (yes, I'm serious) to dump in Lafayette Square (because dumping in the Potomac is illegal, can't do that, after all) they were informed that they didn't have the correct permits to dump their load.
So they took it away. They're a bunch of pussies. "Civil disobedience" and "protest" are just words to them. They'll always cave in to authority rather than take a risk for their alleged principles. Samuel Adams would have dumped the tea right then and there.
If they wanted a real symbolic connection with the original Boston Tea Party they would be stealing Chrysler and GM cars and trucks from distribution centers and dumping them in the drink.
But they're not.
Pussies.
The original tea partiers engaged in criminal acts and risked arrest and imprisonment to destroy product from a company being propped up by unfair reduced taxes by the government, at the expense of what, at the time, amounted to "small business:" the domestic importers of tea who competed with the East India Company.
The current teabaggers are buying tea and throwing it around. That's it. When the DC teabag crew showed up with a truckload of tea bags (yes, I'm serious) to dump in Lafayette Square (because dumping in the Potomac is illegal, can't do that, after all) they were informed that they didn't have the correct permits to dump their load.
So they took it away. They're a bunch of pussies. "Civil disobedience" and "protest" are just words to them. They'll always cave in to authority rather than take a risk for their alleged principles. Samuel Adams would have dumped the tea right then and there.
If they wanted a real symbolic connection with the original Boston Tea Party they would be stealing Chrysler and GM cars and trucks from distribution centers and dumping them in the drink.
But they're not.
Pussies.
no subject
I'm not saying that's not sound economics. It's grade-a textbook theory with a boatload of evidence to bolster it.
But that doesn't matter.
Do you honestly believe if you took the microphone at a tea party protest and proposed a strong and detailed plan that involved a great deal of deficit spending that the crowd would believe in it? Do you honestly believe that it would be received as anything other than a big-government tax-and-spend initiative?
I don't see that. I see in response a barrage of boos and rotten tomatoes.
no subject
Regardless, that isn't what we're facing.
no subject
How would the crowd have reacted if you presented the ideas you just described here on the microphone?
no subject
no subject
An answer would be "Yes, I believe I could picked up the microphone about serious government spending on infrastructure and been received positively by the crowd" or "Yes, there were people at the podium speaking about serious government spending on infrastructure" or "No, are you crazy? I would have been lynched."
I don't get a lot of mainstream news media. I tend to cross-check coverage of things I'm interested in between CNN, Fox News, foreign press coverage (for national events) and local reporting (giving actual local reporting a little more weight).
My opinion of the tea parties and the tea party movement has been heavily influenced by Fox. They are the tea party network. They billed the whole shebang as FNC Tea Parties. They're where the blanket coverage is.
As I said, I favor print media over TV, but I caught about an hour of Fox post tea-party commentary yesterday. What was their focus?
Well, there was a lot on mortgaging our children's future, complete with the speaker's baby sitting in her lap to illustrate the point and show how much they care about the childrens. Yeah, I'm cynical on that one.
There was a lot of focus on CNN's alleged staged interview (yes, I've seen the "Founding Bloggers" footage too). I'm guessing this is to distract from Neil Cavuto being caught on open mic tripling the attendance figure he was given for the Sac tea party.
There was a lot of focus on Nancy Pelosi.
Not much love for government capital investment in infrastructure to be seen anywhere. If you believe this coverage is distorting the reality, go ahead and say so. I won't be crushed if someone accuses Fox of distorting rather than reporting.
I still think it actually does boil down to what the gal who was chastising Susan Roesgen in the "Founding Bloggers" footage about.
It's not about good economics. It's about the government taking money and spending in on things the protesters don't agree with.
That's where it breaks down.
You've got an economic model for government spending that you believe in (and I think has some definite merit). I believe you see the value of government capital investment as long as it can be demonstrated the infrastructure will actually be used, even if the return isn't direct and personal.
But that's your dividing line between spending you agree with and spending you don't agree with. Not everybody shares that line. This is a mix-up of people who have differing economic models for better government spending, people who love government spending as long as it's on their priorities, people who love government spending as long as it's not Obama and the Democrats directing it and people for whom all government spending is anathema.
The details aren't going to be so easy to hash out. It's difficult to convert a negative protest movement into a positive movement for something.
no subject
You're assuming that because Fox _said_ they're FNC Tea Parties, that they're Fox news-based.
Guess what. They aren't. I can honestly say I've watched a total of 10 minutes of Fox news coverage in the last 6 months. If that, and then only because that's what the TV in the waiting room happened to be tuned to.
Rick Santelli may have provided a high-profile, made-for-media moment, but the Tea Parties are, really, not a Santelli creation (he was reacting to the first Tea Party, and suggesting they bring it to Chicago), and certainly not an Fox-created thing.
This is grass roots. Just as much as, if not more than, Moveon, DKos, or any of the other left groups when they got going (which, note, have evolved into online astroturf groups - I'm really hoping this doesn't head the same direction).
To give you the kind of answer you think you want, I wouldn't have been lynched, a lot of people would have wanted to think about it, and such a proposal would have been seriously received. That being said, fundamentally at that place, at that time, it's a distraction. Like I said previously _and you ignored_, that's not the set of bills that were passed, that's not the stimulus that got railroaded through, and that's not the debate we're having. So your continued insistence on it is a deliberate distraction. It's a smokescreen, so you can ignore the issue.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Fox decided to slant reporting to favor their corporate political agenda. They have one, so does every other network and print media source. I find it interesting that a group put, what, 1.5m people on the streets around the country, in a coordinated manner, in over 700 cities... and the best the Merc could do for coverage was a little blip on the bottom of the business section. Oh, and speaking of distorting the figures... Yep, Cavuto got caught. Guess what. The Merc did the same thing, in the other direction. And got caught, by multiple observers. Only thing missing is the open-mic smoking gun.
And frankly, you mistake my preferences, though I can see why. What I said originally was that IF we're going to do something like this, it should be done differently. The case studies say so, the historic models say so, and any idiot with a calculator says so. IF we're going to have Stimulus bill, it needs to be done differently. We've mortgaged our future on this thing, and spent the proceeds foolishly. We've used the next two generations as an ATM to prop up social programs we can't afford, and buy into new ones we definitely can't afford.
But that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the necessity of the Stimulus bill in the first place. The underlying issue was always getting the credit markets unfrozen (which, note, they still are, to a significant extent). Anything that distracts from that is wasted effort. Anything not aimed at that is, frankly, not relevant. We've already demonstrated that TARP was the wrong approach (and continues to be so). The Stimulus bill? No better.
My preference, that being said, is for smaller government. Frankly, (a) I have problems with the growth of the last 30+ years, and (b) I don't see that the Stimulus bill was a good idea _in the first place_. I'm one of those "balanced budget, less government is good government" people.
It's difficult to convert a negative protest movement into a positive movement for something.
Yep. As the anti-prop-8 folks so clearly demonstrated.
no subject
Thank you. I was looking for a concrete statement on the tenor of the group, not individuals.
That being said, fundamentally at that place, at that time, it's a distraction. Like I said previously _and you ignored_, that's not the set of bills that were passed, that's not the stimulus that got railroaded through, and that's not the debate we're having. So your continued insistence on it is a deliberate distraction. It's a smokescreen, so you can ignore the issue.
No, it's really not. It's differentiating between a pissed-off protest movement and a movement with a plan. Again, it's an earnest attempt to get at the tenor of the group.
The Merc did the same thing, in the other direction. And got caught, by multiple observers. Only thing missing is the open-mic smoking gun.
I'm still looking for independent confirmation or refutation of the Merc's numbers. So far I've got the Merc saying 1k, and people involved in the protest saying 2k or more. I've got no reason to accept your numbers as any more accurate than the Merc's.
The underlying issue was always getting the credit markets unfrozen (which, note, they still are, to a significant extent). Anything that distracts from that is wasted effort. Anything not aimed at that is, frankly, not relevant. We've already demonstrated that TARP was the wrong approach (and continues to be so). The Stimulus bill? No better.
The point on credit markets is a good one.
On the other hand, it's still just pissed-off protest talk. It's like the Republican budget alternative; long on complaints, long on platitudes and short on actual ideas.
The devil is in the details. Talk of credit markets is something small business owners understand, but will that fly with anti-fed/anti-bank crowd? Will it fly with the people who are focused on taxes? Will efforts to further thaw the credit markets fly with the folks who are just sick and tired of government spending?
no subject
And, honestly, that's how most such movements start. It's how moveon came to be. It's (lets be honest here) where the bulk of the anti-war crowd came from - people who were pissed off that Al Gore lost the 2000 election. It is, ultimately, why the Dems won Congress in 2006.
If you're looking for a full-blown political party with manifesto to spring fully formed for the brows of millions of pissed off centrists, it ain't gonna happen. Movements like this evolve. They start out rejectionist, and gravitate from there into a concrete set of representatives and policies and plans.
no subject
MoveOn? Yeah, it was all about putting the Clinton sex scandal in the past. On the other hand, they started out presenting a solution: censure the President and move on instead of impeaching him. It's one of the reasons they've become such a big player; they were able to successfully morph into a policy-advocacy group. I'm not their biggest fan; they play fast and loose with the facts sometimes. They've been slapped down by FactCheck and have refused to take their lumps.
I'm not sure I agree that the anti-war crowd was born out of anger at Gore's loss. I think a lot of people were angered by the war; the Gore hold-outs were just more angered. Anti-war movements can actually sustain themselves as a purely negative protest movement; they don't care about providing solutions.
The Democratic landslides in Congress in the last two elections? Definitely driven by anger and dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and the "permanent majority." From what I saw, though, Democratic politicians were campaigning as much on their agenda as they were taking advantage of being not-Bush. In the 2008 election, both parties were campaigning on being not-Bush, which, for the Republicans, tied their hands and ramped up their losses.
Landslides? Say what?
"The Democratic landslides in Congress in the last two elections?"
Huh? Say what? "Landslides?" Um, no. Not hardly. Not even close, actually.
A landslide would've meant a "fillibuster proof" majority in the Senate and not the 56/41 split it is now. You're closer to right in the House but even there it's no "landslide."
As to the 2008 election, it would've been a minor miracle for the Republicans to have kept the White House. The American voting public rarely hands over the Oval Office to the same political party three times in a row. Bush Sr. was the last get to get such a luxurious a treatment.
Combine the Iraq war, the nose-diving economy, the inarticulateness of both Bush _and_ McCain, along with that American tradition of "throw the bums out" (no matter which bums happen to have been in) and it's no surprise that Obama won. Here as well though, it was not a landslide.
True, it was a decisive victory but I see that as much more a rejection of Bush and a desire for fresh blood in the White House. And yeah, McCain was anything but fresh blood.
Madoc
Re: Landslides? Say what?
Funny how the "throw the bums out" tradition hit the Republicans unequally two cycles in a row. Even funnier considering the approval rating for Congress was crap when this happened last November.
Re: Landslides? Say what?
Yup, the GOP got hit by the "perfect storm" this last go 'round. Historically, mid-term elections never favor the party of the sitting President. This, especially in the midst of that President's _second_ term.
The Republicans in Congress had also gotten quite fat, dumb, and happy. They'd become just like the Democrats they used to gain so much political traction campaigning against. So, no surprise that the American public voted them out.
What's also no surprise is that the "most ethical Congress in history!" that Nancy and Harry promised has turned out to be anything but. The Democrats have only made things worse. That's why Congress' approval ratings were _below_ Bush's from '06 onward. That, my friend, takes work! Real, hard, work! And that work was the Democrat's singular achievement.
So, come '08 and it was time to change parties in the White House. The Democrats played it smart and simply kept pointing to Bush while soft pedaling the hoppy doppy "change" message coming from Obama. Smart move for them as they'd nothing else to go on. No accomplishments, no reforms, no honoring their campaign promises. Just blatant hypocrisy and willful inconsistency. Bog standard stuff for today's Democratic Party.
Madoc
Re: Landslides? Say what?
The Republicans in Congress had also gotten quite fat, dumb, and happy. They'd become just like the Democrats they used to gain so much political traction campaigning against. So, no surprise that the American public voted them out.
They believed their own "permanent majority" press. Unfortunately for them, nobody else did.
What's also no surprise is that the "most ethical Congress in history!" that Nancy and Harry promised has turned out to be anything but. The Democrats have only made things worse. That's why Congress' approval ratings were _below_ Bush's from '06 onward. That, my friend, takes work! Real, hard, work! And that work was the Democrat's singular achievement.
Baby steps. It's government. Molasses moves faster. "Earmark reform" falls short in some aspects, but it's not chopped liver. Easy access to earmark ("funding request," which is a meaningful name and not jargon) disclosures has made it possible for several non-partisan websites to build indexes to these disclosures (including the stealthily hidden ones). I expect, once they've got the clerical staff to do so, they will move on to building searchable databases of requests. Then, I'm sure, we'll get easily-assembled partisan catalogs of what's "pork" and what isn't.
I could wonder why Pelosi's office didn't do this last session, but I could also wonder why the Republican leadership didn't do it while they were in charge. I will choose to be happy that some transparency is being achieved.
I also wonder what's going to happen to the representatives who forgo earmarks (and there are a few). It's a great PR to fight against secret, carefully hidden and strongly symbolic "bridge to nowhere" spending, but when other districts are getting roads and sewers and districts that forgo earmarks are seeing aging infrastructure failures, there may be some surprised martyrs to principle.
You should be happy that the Congress isn't working smoothly with the administration to breeze through a progressive populist agenda (not that I honestly believe that we actually have a progressive populist majority in Congress, or an actual progressive populist President). It doesn't look like the internal party rebellion and gridlock of the early Clinton and Carter administrations, or the start of G.W. Bush's first completely Republican-controlled term, though. Some lessons may have been learned...
no subject
Note that their next step was the "we will remember" campaign - a classic of rejectionist action. It was only after that that they morphed into a policy-advocacy group.
And yes, they play fast and loose with the facts. That's been their hallmark since day one.
The initial anti-war protests were, quite bluntly, mostly anti-Bush folks. They picked up momentum, esp. as things ramped up WRT Iraq. But the core? Domestically, it was anti-Bush. Overseas, much more anti-American-exceptionalism.
And yes, I found it amusing that everyone on both sides was running on a "not-Bush" campaign basis. But 2006, I didn't see Dem's campaigning _for_ an agenda, so much as _against_ the Bush/Republican agenda. And I'll note, further, that what agenda they _did_ run on, they didn't bother to stick to. Nancy Pelosi's pledge to clean up Congress always makes me laugh, esp. WRT the shenanigans of her annointed golden boy, John Murtha.