Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the dirty-monied FreedomWorks, has a grand old time of historical interpretation when rationalizing his organization's human puppetry of contemporary town hall protests:
"You go back to the original Boston Tea Party, and I find it highly unlikely that you had 50 guys dress up like Indians, show up at a boat, bring the right tools, and then leave in an orderly fashion without any kind of organization," he said.
He's right. The original tea party was indeed an organized, though not very "orderly," affair. But what he omitted is that the Boston Tea Party was fomented by elite smugglers involved in the black market, who not surprisingly objected to a competitive cut in British taxes on imported tea -- not, as most American schoolchildren are taught to believe, an increase -- and executed by impressionable rabble-rousers so intoxicated on sponsored rum that more than a few were lights-out before they could finish their happy vandalism.
In short, the Boston Tea Party was this budding nation's first "corporate" con job of the dupe-able masses, which the well-funded and manipulative likes of FreedomWorks carries on.
One wonders where it's all headed -- this mindless agitation and antidemocratic brutishness displayed almost daily at town hall venues. Very few envision any kind of armed, right-wing revolution; first, plainly, because of the physical impossibility of such an objective against a modern, better-armed state, but second because of the fomenters' actual goal, which is, simply, to impede the opposition's progress until the right can democratically regain power through even more propagandistic manipulation.
The extent to which the opposition permits those impediments is the open question, as well as the debate-dominating topic, of the day. To use an overworked sports analogy, the in-power hometeam does indeed control its own destiny, though its head coaches seem to possess only a sickly awareness of this epic political fact: their rattled lack of poise and strategic togetherness is showing. Then again, they are Democrats, who generally score only when their opposition fumbles.
Is that what it -- the FreedomWorks & Co.-loving Republic Party -- is now doing? Is it overplaying its hand, reducing itself to the irreversible conditions of dyspeptic fringe and radical minority? The boldness of that prophecy is still a bridge too far; we've some decisive midterms to suffer through first, which, assuming the GOP afterward retains even a dram of self-preservationist instinct, will likely dictate any self-reevaluation.
In the interim, however, its reputation for something far beyond loyal oppositionism is taking a vicious hold -- and that could very well be more determinative than any attempted, post-midterm reevaluation. The 2008 election revealed what demographic support the GOP had -- that is, aging and angry white folks -- but its opportunistic collaboration with tea partyers and town hall protesters is defining what the GOP is: a bunch of aging and angry white folks.
Electorally speaking, that 's a rather bad base to have -- it's like a true, oversized death panel, a national but mostly subtropical collection of misinformed and manipulated nincompoops who are dying off daily -- no matter how thrilling the GOP may find their momentary blockading of Obamian progress.
I referenced "white folks," which implies a critical mass of anti-Obama racism in play -- that's the growing narrative; Time magazine's Joe Klein was perhaps most recently representative of this domestic view, writing of the Republican Party as "a tight, white, extremist bubble," and even overseas, Britain's The Independent portrays the GOP as a "white-skinned" horde of savages "beaten by a supposedly big government black guy" -- and there is absolutely no doubt that racism is, as a factor in modern Republicans' behavior, immense.
Is it, however, the underlying factor? There, I have my doubts. If, for instance, Hillary Clinton had prevailed in the primaries and general election, does anyone question that the right's malevolence would today be any less pronounced?
No, on the whole, this seems to me a fundamentally politico-emotional war being waged by the right, in which its profoundly antidemocratic, primal-authoritarian nature is again bubbling to the surface. Its political persuasion, paradoxically, is not even so much anti-big government, seeing how it blessed G.W. Bush's sprawling tentacles of centralized power.
At its core, the right just can't stand someone else being in charge, which, of course, is the defining element of an authoritarian personality. If they haven't all the marbles and can't invent all the rules of the game, they throw hissy fits and pull childish stunts. Just don't serve them rum.
What would be the point of
What would be the point of throwing tea in the water over a tax increase? Unless the colonists were hopelessly addicted or something. (No, that also makes no sense; simply the price of a fix would go up.) But what you call a corporate con job can also be characterized as protesting product dumping, which clearly justifies throwing the dumped tea in the water, particularly if the Crown were prohibiting a domestic industry.
Wait, this all makes too much sense. Must protest tax cuts with representation rather than use my brain ...
The Underlying Cause
For the past 160 years or so, the underlying cause of every national disaster, debacle, or calamity not related to a phenomenon of nature can be ultimately traced back to corporate personhood.
Corporate Personhood Is A Crime Against Humanity!
Pass it on!
The Skeptical Cynic hath spake!
It is truly written in the sands of time...
One must never spit in a man's face.
Unless, of course his mustache is on fire...
Wrong, Again
This is not about dirty political sniping between the Republicans and the Democrats. People have a right to make an ass out of themselves with illogical rhetoric, and to willingly eat shit propaganda.
But lying is not a Constitutional right, and if done with the intent to interfere with other people's Constitutional rights to speak freely and to aquire relevant and factual information about political issues, then that behavior becomes criminal. If that behavior is also a threat to the lives of others, then it is also domestic terrorism, as per the U.S. Patriot Act.
With legalized bribery as the main influence for enacting laws in D.C., the main issue is the ruling class can't stand an incorruptable politician in Congress.
Isn't that right Dennis Kucinich?
Sorry I can't imply the same for Obama, his Blue Dog DINO-Fascists and virtually the entire GOP.
Pop!
"...this seems to me a fundamentally politico-emotional war being waged by the right, in which its profoundly antidemocratic, primal-authoritarian nature is again bubbling to the surface." And what happens when bubbles come to the surface? They burst and disappear. Let them rant on. They are exposing themselves as the racist, regressive, frightened people they are, yelling their way into the recycling bin of history.
They Are Anti's
In 1788, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington and a host of other revolutionary leaders, proposed a strong central government via a constitution. These leaders became known as Federalists and were for a specific concept. A large group was against federalism for a lot of different reasons. They became known as the Antifederalists. They were not for anything. They existed simply to be against federalism. Thomas Jefferson soon became their leader. He worked hard while in Washington's cabinet to undo Washington. The same principles apply to the current situation. They were rabid in their anti sentiments to the point risking the survival of the country. Many of their actions bordered on treason.
Sorry to belabor a point, but the Republican Party is now controlled by a group is for nothing. This controlling faction defines itself in terms of being against government. It is no longer against socialism or big government or even government waste. The Grover Norquist shrink-it-until-you-can-drown-it-in-a-tub faction is single-mindedly against government - period. They are against government even when it will help business, as with healthcare. They have already thrown the Religious Right under the bus. Now that the government is "controlled" by Democrats, they see their worst case scenario. Based on my reading of history and what I have been seeing in the news, the Republican Party and America as a whole are under seige.
Thanks Again P.M.
Thanks again PM for setting a story straight. Let me add a few tidbits. Sam Adams was a disgraced public office holder who had been caught embezzling public funds. He used political connections to avoid jail but became embittered that he had been held accountable. Essentially, he organized a street gang in order to take advantage of the political/business turmoil at that time. He used his gang to shake down businessmen and sell them mafia-styled "insurance". (Rush anyone?) Eventually, he glommed on to John Hancock, the wealthiest man in New England, who was forced to bribe the Sam Adams gang. Step by step, Hancock aand many other businessmen were put in a No Man's Land between the profiteering gangs and a corrupt Parliment.
Why is this relevant? Most American big business wants healthcare reform because employer sponsored health insurance is killing them. My recollection is that a majority of small businessmen also see the proposed reform as a help to them. And of course the employees want reform. The problem is a lot of demagogues and organizations (gangs) are making a lot of money off the chaos and shakedowns. So much so that even large corporations (not health insurance companies) are being intimidated into silence.
Currentlyy, the health insurance companies using a lot of thugs are holding up not only workers but also the management of most companies. I wonder hold long the rest of the business world will fold to the insurance companies.
At its core, the right just
At its core, the right just can't stand someone else being in charge, which, of course, is the defining element of an authoritarian personality. If they haven't all the marbles and can't invent all the rules of the game, they throw hissy fits and pull childish stunts.
Actually, PM, it's worse than that.The same mentality that believes, really and truly believes, that legitimizing homosexuality opens the door to legitimizing pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia, is the same mentality that believes that if you give a liberal an inch, he'll nationalize the production of peanut butter and recycle your euthanized grandmother to feed the poor.
How do you think the puppeteers get so many people yelling and screaming at these town hall meetings? They feed the purest, unadulterated tripe, stuff that leaves the rest of the population of the planet in slack-jawed awe, to these folks and they believe it. They really, really believe it.
The Democrats are still acting like the game is politics. The republicans, on the other hand, are playing a game of religion in which liberalism is the ideology of the Dark Side. They did it to Clinton, and they're ramping up the rhetoric with Obama: He is not legitimate. Democrats are not legitimate.To those outside the tribe, the rules don't apply (Which is why Republican fornicators and drug addicts are so easily forgiven.)
This stopped being a political game a long time ago. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats, not about Liberalism and conservatism. This is all about ignorance and reason.
We have allowed ignorance to be legitimized (See Sarah Palin.) As long as it remains so, America will be a rather embarrassing place to live.
you are so right
years ago I heard Rush Limbaugh say, fairly frequently, that no democrat should be elected to anything, not even dogcatcher. They are angry that they do not occupy every elected post, forever and ever. They would be quite happy with a one party system. And they work toward it, every day. The other night I was considering what made a fascist government. It is one where the money is spent on armies and police. Where there is one man or group at the head deciding what is moral and only one party. Does that sound familiar?? That is exactly the world the republicans want for all of us. I shudder to think.
P.M. Carpenter Town Hall article
I think that the people bringing guns to the town hall meetings has more to do with change in general than just Obama. Yes I would agree that racisim is part of it but it doesn't tell the whole story. The guns are kind of symbolic. They know that change is coming with or without Obama because change is inevitable. It is their way of saying that they do not want change and will fight against it. The country is divided between people who are ready to embrace change because they know that what we've had for the past thirty years is unsustainable and people who want nothing to do with it. We are at an unprecedented moment in our history and we have no idea what is going to happen. I just hope we survive to see the other side of all this.