For me, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the Tea Party "movement" in the U.S. is simply the fact of it's very existence--and a seemingly non-existent large and cohesive correlate for the Left. That the myth of it's supposed grass-roots origins has been thoroughly and adequately demolished, that it seems mostly uninformed by any sort of intelligible and unifying underlying principles, and that it boasts a handful of incomprehensibly charismatic figureheads--all these things, while disconcerting, seem rather trifling when I consider that there is such a thing as the Tea Party. I mean, even if it were genuinely a grass-roots movement, boasted an intelligible agenda, and were led by understandibly likeable proponents, how can such a thing arise while no such leftist movement exists? Unless I am mistaken. I readily concede to being somewhat in-the-dark as to the goings-on of contemporary U.S. politics. I don't offer this as an excuse for my ignorance, rather just a rationalization: my annual income is only four-figures and nearly half my time I spend living out in the "middle of nowhere," sans ready access to media sources (that is, I live on National Forest and BLM land much of the time, where I can't even pick up a cell phone signal); consequently, I pay no taxes and hardly any sales tax even (and I'm not doing anything illegal--at least in this respect) and am perhaps less effected by politics than many--and airing my grievances does seem a trifle more hypocritical. But I am aware of no such large, nationally recognized leftist movement. Even amongst Democratic politicians (locals and perhaps Dennis Kucinich aside), I cannot think of any who ought rightly be described as even just slightly left of center. And the last I recall of any noteworthy stirrings were the ranks campaigning for Ralph Nader in 2000. Those same people were pushing for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Am I correct in this assessment? Certainly there are smaller, factional movements, but is there anything even remotely approaching the status of the Tea Party for the left?
Here is an article about this exact issue that may interest you: '...it would be a mistake to see the hostility to Obama only in terms of race. Something else is going on in the tea party movement, and it has deep roots in our history. Anti-statism, a profound mistrust of power in Washington, goes all the way back to the Anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution itself because they saw it concentrating too much authority in the central government. At any given time, perhaps 20 percent to 25 percent of Americans can be counted on to denounce anything Washington does as a threat to “our traditional liberties.” This suspicion of government is not amenable to “facts”—not because it is irrational, but because the facts are beside the point. For the anti-statists, opposing government power is a matter of principle. If those who think this way are asked whether an economic collapse would have been better than passing a stimulus and bailing out the banks, the anti-statists typically say “yes,” even if they might also challenge the premise of the question. The purest expression of this disposition has come from Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican from Texas. In 2008, Paul strenuously criticized President George W. Bush’s proposed bank bailout for “propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer.” Without a bailout, Paul conceded, “It would be a bad year. But, this way, it’s going to be a bad decade.” Understanding the principled anti-government radicalism that animates this movement explains why its partisans see the conservative Bush as a sellout and the cautiously liberal Obama as a socialist. For now, their fears of Obama are enough to tether the tea partiers to the GOP. In the long run, establishment Republicans are destined to disappoint them.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_origins_of_tea_party_radicalism_20100210/ There is an element of corporate profiteering and manipulation of the tea party movement. They are tapping into fears of a confused and frightened population and these fears have some pretty good grounding. You had the Clinton years which caused job loss with NAFTA and it was the large corporations that benefitted, not to mention his further de-regulation of the financial markets. Then you follow that up with the Bush years where corporations like Halliburton literally robbed the tax payers blind by over-charging the government for services during the war in Iraq and not only was it never thwarted once the story came to light the government continued to supply them with money even though they provided mediocre services; and not just them either, you also had the privatization of the military with some 20,000 military contractors which basically sucked resources from the troops. Heap on that the patriot act and disgrace that surrounded the military and government body only to be harnessed by the financial meltdown, the cause of which laid with both Democrats and Republicans, Is it any wonder that you have a shell shocked public confused, angry, frightened & lashing out? I think not. Corporate manipulation goes so far as to convince the tea party folk that its the government ie: presently Obama that is to blame and not the incestuous relationship between corporations and government, so they waste their time attacking the wind. In regards to the Left I think journalist John Pilger had it right during his speech in 'Obama and Empire' when he said the Left progressive movements were neutralized by Obama's winning of the election. Much of the grass-roots movements such as the once vibrant anti-war movement and the universal health care movement sat quietly when he was elected and waited, and then waited and then waited for him to bring the 'change' they were expecting and failed to protest with the exigency you would have seen if there were a Republican in the White House. They sat dismayed as Obama uttered he had pulled out of Iraq as 50,000 troops continue to remain on the ground with no date for removal while a military surge in Afghanistan and drone attacks in Pakistan escalated a wasteful, inefficient and ineffective war. Did they go out and force their voice the same way they did under Bush on this same issue? No. Again as with the tea party people, instead of blaming the watered down health care reform and the bailouts they were unhappy with on the corporate lobbyists who cornered the White House they either fell silent or blamed the issue on the Right & tea party members in general, meaning they began to point fingers at each other and were not taking a look at the corporate interests that manipulate both parties which were co-opted in the disenfranchisement of the american people. Its an amazing tactic if you think about it because corporate interests can play both sides against each other, keep both parties in their pockets and remain clear of any direct attack or responsibility. The progressive agency Global Research has this article that also may interest you. They surmise that, 'Political parties have been around ever since the founding of the United States, indeed from the time of ancient Greece and perhaps earlier. There will always be legitimate differences of opinion about the extent and role of government, and the give and take of those differences are the foundation of democracy – at least as long as voters are informed and they are not being manipulated by insidious forces. Members of the newly minted Tea Party and disaffected Democrats have far more in common than the corporate-controlled mainstream media would have them believe: Both resent the loss of freedoms experienced by everyone, including electronic surveillance, airport full-body searches, and the ever-more-intrusive national security state; Both are suffering from unemployment and watching their jobs being shipped overseas; Both fear the loss of their unemployment insurance checks and the hunger of their children; Both lay awake at night worrying about how to obtain health care for their families; Both are angry about bank bailouts and are worried about how they are going to make their next mortgage or rent payment; Both fear corporate power and resent the role of lobbyists and special interests in their government; Both are aware that neither the Republican nor Democratic party really cares very much about their concerns; and they Both know, deep down inside, that their votes for the candidates of both parties are meaningless, and they feel powerless to do anything about it. The MSM would also have us believe the country has been swept by a tidal wave of conservatism and that liberalism has been cast overboard; however, the overall difference between the popular votes cast for the House candidates of both parties was less than 3%. If the election had been a public opinion poll, the results would have been statistically insignificant.The primary shift of votes from Democratic to Republican occurred among white working-class voters, who have most to lose from conservative policies. Why did they do it? Manipulation of the Electorate It should come as no surprise to most voters that both major political parties are ultimately controlled by the same corporate and wealthy interests; however, many of the disenchanted voters of both parties who have been swept along by the Tea Party Patriot movement would feel betrayed if they learned just how manipulated they have been. As oil companies continue to make exorbitant profits by cutting corners on safety, both for their workers and the environment, and by raising the price of the gasoline needed for workers to get to their jobs, how many tea partying patriots are aware that their movement is being secretly underwritten by Koch Industries, one of the oil companies that is siphoning their hard-earned wages into easy profits? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22072 The grass-root organizations have dropped the ball and then you have the left and right wasting their time and energy bickering at each other as if the Right hand could cut off the Left and vice verse and the body would still remain whole, while americans of both ideological movements continue to suffer. When they start realizing that its not really about the right or the left in terms of politics but the corruption of both right and left (government in general) by corporate entities that you will see a real change in events as political demands will become more narrow and focused on the cause of the corruption of the system as a whole. Until then they will both go on pissing in the wind while money & power continues to move upwards as they have successfully take charge of government as puppet masters.. Here is the link to Pilger's Obama and Empire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI
You are wrong that they don't exist, they just don't have the funding of the Tea Party. Even the Tea Party was small and obscure until the astroturf began.
Well, maybe for those of us who actually care about issues and the heart of the matter, but for the fake opposition, the race card has been a gold mine. And it's stunning how that gold mine has continued producing! Parmalee is right about there being no grass roots left-wing version of the Tea Party. Though, as I would understand it, the Tea Party, not the Tea Party[sup]TM[/sup] that has been branded by the Republicans, could very well be a forum for all disenfranchised United States citizens. I don't see why it shouldn't. And if that glove doesn't fit, I would like to see nominal liberals start their own version of the Tea Party. Nothing is stopping them. God knows there are any number of disenfranchised liberals, conservatives, libertarians, Green party persons, anti-war persons, etc to go around, who have little in common with the two party system at large. Many of those people have and should find common ground. What's really wrong is that self-proclaimed liberals threw all they had (well, alot of them anyway) behind the Obama juggernaut. And it is becoming more and more apparent that Obama and his puppet administration are going to do for this country what big business, Wall Street, and the warmonger industry will do to this country. Sell us out. I could easily be labeled a liberal on some issues, but due to the fact that a Democrat is in office, anything lately that I've said suddenly becomes right-wing and yada yada. I've been called that on this very forum by people who should probably know better, but because I attacked the first "black" president of the USA, I must be a right winger. Or racist. What we need is a real discussion of the critical issues, not this left vs. right banter that passes for political discourse these days. What we need is adult politics, not the pre-school BS that we see being thrown around.
Don't cry for thee Well, it's a bit hard to see one's liberal side if their main produce is a recycling of right-wing talking points. Don't cry for thee, Giambattista.
Good article. America is a center right nation. There's no grass roots left wing movement because the grass roots (outside of college campuses) aren't left wing.
Here is a relevant paragraph: "Gallup/USA Today polling in June 2010 revealed that 42% of those surveyed identify as conservative, 35% as moderate, while 20% identify as liberal.[19] In another poll in June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates, and 22% as liberals, though a strong majority of both liberals and conservatives describe themselves moderate." from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States
the tea party is the bastion of all the unfocused anger and fear to pointed at what its master dislike
No it is not. that is a lie of the right wing. the US is far more liberal than it is made out to be. most people are afraid to be liberal and label liberal because of the actions of the right wing attack machine
Research: Most Americans Not Conservative This report shows that on issue after issue, most Americans agree with progressives and have for decades, despite what we hear from the media." said David Brock, President and CEO of Media Matters. "The conventional wisdom advanced by the media -- that the United States is becoming more and more conservative -- has been debunked repeatedly by independent public polling, but that hasn't stopped them from perpetuating this clearly flawed perception." KEY FINDINGS: * The role of government -- 69 percent of Americans believe the government "should care for those who can't care for themselves"; twice as many people (43 percent vs. 20 percent) want "government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" as want government to provide fewer services "in order to reduce spending." * The economy -- 77 percent of Americans think Congress should increase the minimum wage; 66 percent believe "upper-income people" pay too little in taxes; 53 percent feel the Bush administration's tax cuts have failed because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs. * Social issues -- 61 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research; 62 percent want to protect Roe v. Wade; only 3 percent of Americans rank same-sex marriage as the "most important" social issue. * Security -- 43 percent of Americans say we are spending too much on our military; 60 percent feel the federal government should do more about restricting the kinds of guns that people can purchase. * The environment -- 75 percent of Americans would be wiling to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources to help reduce global warming; 79 percent want higher emissions standard for automobiles. * Energy -- 52 percent of Americans believe "the best way for the U.S. to reduce its reliance on foreign oil" is to "have the government invest in alternative energy sources"; 68 percent of the public thinks U.S. energy policy is better solved by conservation than production. * Immigration -- 57 percent of Americans feel "most recent immigrants to the U.S. contribute to this country" rather than "cause problems." Sixty-seven percent of Americans feel that "on the whole," immigration is a "good thing for this country today." * Health care -- 69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have access to health coverage; 76 percent find access to health care more important than maintaining the Bush tax cuts; three in five would be willing to have their own taxes increased to achieve universal coverage. http://www.marketingcharts.com/topics/defense/research-most-americans-not-conservative-743/
There is little else in the Tea Party factioning of the Republican Party. That's its foundation, and major support. Blaming Clinton for the Republican deregulation of the financial markets is corporate propaganda originating from the sources of the Tea Party movement - a standard corporate manipulation of the discourse. So is the trick of beginning the timeline with Clinton in the first place - "Then you follow that up with the Bush years - - " being the corporate version, the manipulated narrative. Start the story with Reagan, and after Clinton's impeachment and neutering try the phrase "but the return to the full Reagan agenda ushered in with Bush - - "; more clarity lies in avoiding the corporate manipulations. Don't do this, for example: Of all the disasters of US history over the years, few have been as clearly ascribable to one political Party as the crash of 2008. Some Dems played a role here and there, true - especially such as Phil Gramm, before he switched Parties - but to include the Dem Party as a whole as if it was of comparable influence and responsibility is to create grossly misleading fiction, a misrepresentation so flagrant and damaging as to be simply a lie. And don't fall into this basic confusion: There is no substantial left in US national politics, and what fragments there are of it have not been corrupted by corporate entities - that's an odd assertion, anyway (in what sense is a politician in the pockets of the corporations, and representing their interests in Congress through legislation and votes etc, "left" ?). In evaluations such as those of Political Compass, Americans tend to score left and libertarian. They like Social Security, they want Medicare, they approve of universal health care provision, they approve of freeways and public schooling and government fire departments and so forth. When Wellstone took his socialized health care plan (not just socialized insurance, like we see advocated by current version "extremists" now) to community meetings (think Tea Party without the shouting and lying and threats) people all over the country preferred it in large majorities. This is hardly a surprise - the early pioneers were outright communists, often, and certainly not favorably inclined to corporate influence. Their national government reps tend to score right and authoritarian. That is an interesting split.
true I remember reading a study( can't remember if it was republican/democrat/ independent/libertarian or liberal/conservative/moderate though I think it was the later) where that they removed the label from ideas. the right wing fell a lot the middle fell a little bit and the left got a big boost I think the total swing in favor of the left wing position from the right was like 10 points or more
Indeed. I'm just getting into Chris Hedge's Death of the Liberal Class, in which he explores how this curious split came into being. It's fascinating to observe supposed "liberals" (not only elected officials, but media persona and academics, as well) denouncing everything from Noam Chomsky to "socialistic" or "communistic" ideals to vocal opponents of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while feigning (or perhaps genuinely so) ignorance of their own historical foundations. Not to mention their obliviousness to their estrangement from the populace they purportedly represent. That said, Americans do largely seem to be either suspicious or disdainful of most anything and everything that is genuinely grass-roots--or lacking "appropriate" corporate backing and endorsement. I vaguely recall a piece on Dennis Kucinich in the Sunday magazine supplement to the New York Times a few years back in which the writer actually mocked Kucinich for having an annual income of something like 32 thousand dollars--the implication being that a man of merely "average" means (actually, somewhat above the national average) was somehow unfit to govern.
Oh, aren't you cute?!? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Coming from you, I guess this is a compliment.
Well, I guess the answer to the question posed in the title, is, "Too busy being hoodwinked by Obama."
pj, the last election proves you wrong, that wasn't unfocused anger, it was extreamly focused anger and the results prove so.
I still see your as wrong as ever. they voted the way their master told them them too. the tea party is unfocused fear and anger. if they seriously were focused and knowledgeable they would have gone after the republican party for its ways of racheting up the debt.
Tired of it! From my own personal experience as a volunteer benefits coordinator in the low income communities in several cities of California, the left is mostly too busy helping the less fortunate, that are this way because of failed economic policies of the right like Enterprise Zones and not willing to pay living wages. We need clones so we can organise rallies and then we could also use MSNBC to promote unrest and outrage on a daily basis.
