Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Technorati button
Reddit button
Delicious button
Digg button
Flickr button
Stumbleupon button
Newsvine button

Posts tagged with tea-baggers

1 comments

8:39 AM

Beck’s Tea Party

A poll coming out of the NYTimes today shows some interesting characteristics and caricatures of the Tea Party movement. One such caricature, widely perceived as true and explored in this poll, is the intimate connection between Glenn Beck’s opinionated musings and said Tea Party movement. Similarly, the demographic info emerging about this movement shows that its proponents are largely wealthier and more educated than the average American, which as Nate Silver relates, “The tea-partiers skew older and college-educated: that’s basically the cable news demographic.”

I don’t think this poll implies any sort of causation – Tea Party to Beck or vice versa, but rather a relationship based upon mutual interests: Glenn Beck is scared shitless of the Federal Government when it is run by Democrats, and so is the Tea Party movement. The most apparent effect of this relationship is that both entities appear frequently willing to disregard the factual basis for a policy argument in favor of an emotionally driven argument (of the sort that frequently result in Beck sobbing like a spoiled child who doesn’t get their way).

Offered up as support for this relationship between the Tea Party and Beck, Nate Silver points to the conspicuous timing of Beck’s cable opinion show debut: the day before President Obama was inaugurated.

This begins to point to a certain opportunist impulse in one, Glenn Beck. Especially when one considers that Beck released 7 books, 3 dvds, 26 cds, and multiple subscriber-only media venues since 2007, his role as a media siphon and capitalist extraordinaire is all the more clear.

So what though? Who cares if someone on cable (news) happens to be continually expanding the franchise that is their name? It surely is within all of their legal rights and freedoms to do so.

And that is the point here. I guess that within the ever-expanding web of Beck’s media empire, he was able to instill a sense of seriousness within his pursuits. He capitalized not only on resources that were just waiting to be thrown at the next conservative darling, but also upon the lingering political self-consciousness of the conservative movement. His conspiracies, images of communist takeovers, out-of-control government, and the framing of the government versus the people do much to exploit the foibles of the modern conservative base.

So in context, does Beck matter to politics at large?

I would say no, unless people outside of the base to whom he directly speaks start to take him seriously. He obviously has no policy savvy. He has no credentials upon which to espouse one paradigm or policy over another, but he surely has the credentials to be the voice inside the base’s head.

I am comfortable discussing Beck within a context of media alone. The second that reputable or otherwise credible people begin to discuss him within a context of policy they should be rightly viewed as failing their audience. With or without Beck, I doubt the GOP base would ever have supported Health Care Reform under Obama. With or without Beck, I doubt that base would tacitly acknowledge Obama’s role in lowering their taxes. And I sincerely hope that no public officials are taking cues on policy from Beck or Beck’s audiences’ rantings, but no more than I hope that extreme right wing policies stop being perceived as so ethereally appropriate in this day and age.

Indeed, maybe Beck’s role in our politics today is just an indicator of to whom right wing politicians will have to pander when their poll numbers are down. But it isn’t like those politicians would have done anything differently with or without the presence of Beck.

Again, Beck just capitalizes upon those foibles of modern conservatism: government bad, taxes bad, guns good, and so on.

So whats new?

Emerging from the mist of a settled Health Care Reform, we’ve watched a movement get loud, angry, violent, and we’ve watched them get nothing done. I speak of the Tea Partiers, teabaggers and pseudo-populist rage-fomenters that comprise such groups as the Tea Party Patriots and Freedom Works. I speak of the same absurd minority protest group whose numbers are constantly dwarfed by immigration rallies, anti-war rallies and pro-health-reform rallies but whose media presence implies a greater significance than any other movement that exists, past or present.

At this point however, when the Tea Partier’s cause celebre – preventing America from obtaining democratic reforms to the health care system – has fallen flat on its face, it is hard to distract from the fact that these folks have no real influence on policy. I don’t know if this statement can be regarded as at all controversial though, considering that it is infinitely hard to infer the policy consequences of such rallying cries as “Say NO to Socialism” or “Keep Government Out of my Medicare”…

Never mind the glaring contradictions of such sentiments when one acknowledges that this movement is fueled by our bunk economy’s bad habit of bringing innocent, hard-working Americans down with it. It began with the bank bailouts, where the policy sell was tough regardless of the facts on the ground because when viewed in the abstract, who would honestly be in favor of the Federal government handing hundreds of billions of dollars over to corporate mega-banks? Obama had his work cut out for him in trying to sell that policy after the fact, especially when one considers the immediate recoil Republicans have at any fleeting mention of the consequences of George W. Bush’s 8 year debacle, but now that the taxpayer has recovered nearly all the money that was spent on the TARP bailouts of 2008, populism is in favor of the Obama administration.

Shortly after our country fully realized that we have a bona-fide Black President, we began to realize the political and legislative potency of that President with the passage of a historic economic stimulus package. The facts more than a year later reveal the positive impact of the stimulus, with hundreds of thousands of Americans put back to work, state governments helped to stay afloat, and tax cuts offered to 95% of Main St. America. Apparently this all threatened the egos of Republicans and Tea Partiers alike because nothing says I’m confident in the strength of my ideas like calling the opponent Hitler.

Then came Health Care Reform, the legislative priority that dominated the protest signs of teabaggers for the next year and will likely continue to exist at the forefront of anti-government activism in the year to come. All these agitations by the Obama Administration, these efforts to realign the priorities of the government from top to bottom, these audacious attempts to stave off the inevitable courses as set by the most powerful moneyed interests in the years prior, these actions incited the most virulent conservative activism in the last few decades.

The NYTimes profiles some connected figures in the Tea Party network, and the narrative that was sparked by cries against socialism and big government contrasting the ever present, supported, and oft-lauded role of government in these folks’ lives continues seamlessly. In my mind, one has no ground to stand upon to protest big government while accepting unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security or any of the other completely non-controversial, popular and necessary programs. This shallow margin by which Tea Party rhetoric has made its way into the halls of Congress is necessarily shallow. To delve deeper into the political discourse of the teabaggers, one must overlook the logical gaps of arguments that are created by the emotions of a populist reaction to economic uncertainty.

But that glaring hypocrisy is not a concern for much of the Tea Party movement. Principle and integrity of political arguments be damned, because these people are pissed! They are entitled to their government handouts, but fuck anyone else who tries to balance the scales. Fuck anyone else who has found themselves a victim of machinations larger than themselves. Fuck anyone whose woes lead them to vote for Democratic candidates or to support Democratic platforms. But to what avail is all this resentment being levied?

Rooting out government waste and spending taxpayer money more wisely is not some new idea that the Tea Party owns. Being against totalitarianism and facism isn’t new, but for christsake only the most paranoid and conspiratorial among us would actually buy into the notion that this Health Care Reform is even related to those despot regimens. Not trusting the notion of government is not an excuse for being completely and utterly irrational in one’s rhetoric. In fact, when such sentiments of paranoia and fear are allowed to prevail in political movements the result can be nothing but more paranoia and fear. As we’ve seen, the Tea Partiers and Republicans could not thwart the democratic will of the electorate or the administration to reform our health care system. But what have they done?

I can’t honestly answer that question. I can’t produce a single tangible result of this movement, beyond the ratings boost Fox News enjoyed by creating a fictional picture of America in revolt. The Tea Party movement really has no objectives beyond trying to elect Tea Party candidates and agitate for agitation’s sake. Does anyone really know what Tea Party candidates are for? What would a government run by Tea Partiers look like? Do Republicans really have to do much to convince the Tea Partiers that they are friendly? Would a Republican administration or a Republican congress just give in to the demands of this minute faction of the electorate simply because they are afraid of agitation from within?

I’m not trying to pose these questions or ruminate on this subject to salt the wounds created by Health Care reform becoming law, but because I think that any political movement needs to justify its existence in no uncertain terms. And they need to do it constantly. This isn’t a call for more delusional rhetoric to stir up the passions and prejudices of the tea-baggers, but a call for this movement to grow up and try to dispel the facts surrounding their inadequacy. I say this because I’m tired of the rigor that is applied to criticizing liberal politics and liberal movements not being applied to these Tea Partiers and the Republican/conservative ideologies that they push. This criticism is being levied not only at conservative outlets like Fox, but at similarly mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC who have dedicated countless hours of coverage to the Tea Party cohorts while unwaveringly ignoring other legitimate movements.

As a last aside, the Tea Parties are not doing themselves any favors by enlisting the inept former gov. Sarah Palin to be their poster child. Didn’t they get the memo that this person hurts things more than she helps things? Or maybe they really just want to ride the media coattails of a future reality TV star?

There has been much speculation surrounding the recent Citizen’s United supreme court ruling, ranging from those who assert that now foreign-owned corporations can and will spend unlimited money to influence American elections to those who assert that this was a major victory for free (corporate) speech. But really this is just speculation. While the ruling is indeed disheartening for those of us who do not control a majority interest in a large corporation, its ramifications have been subject to the typical Washington politicization.

For one thing, there is no way to say for sure if this ruling will lead to increased direct advocacy/partisan activity by multi-national or domestic corporations. The big caveat to the effect of this ruling is that any corporation that engages in direct advocacy could easily become the target of negative ad campaigns, which would potentially effect their customer base, thus throwing a blanket of discouragement on the political agendas of these businesses. The bad news though, is that opportunists on K street have already solved that little dilemma.

Talking Points Memo reported on a “Public Policy and Law Alert” issued by lobbying giant K&LGates last week. This alert indicated that hope remains for those politically-minded corporations who want to pour copious amounts of money into a direct advocacy campaign, while avoiding the burden and bad-business of public scrutiny :

“Currently, any entity, including a corporation that spends more than $10,000 per year on electioneering communications, must file a disclosure statement with the FEC, sometimes within 24 hours of the date of a communication’s first public dissemination. That disclosure must state who makes the expenditure, the amount, the election to which the communication was directed, and the names of those entities donating $1,000 or more to the entity making the disbursements for that communication. Furthermore, a corporation (or any non-candidate funding an electioneering communication) must state at the end of a television or radio advertisement that “ABC Corporation is responsible for the content of this advertising” and must do so in a clear, direct way pursuant to certain technical requirements…”

“…most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.   Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in “under-the radar” sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks.”

The thing that still gets me is how the individuals who make the decisions about how a corporation’s money is spent (ceos, board of executives, share holders) are essentially endowed with more rights than individuals such as me, who have no controlling interest in any corporations. Let me explain :

These folks undoubtedly participate in and have an interest in the affairs of a corporation because they see some benefit for themselves (most notably and commonly – they make money because of their involvement in the corporation). So these individuals are already benefiting from their participation in the corporation because it generates some form of income for them. At the same time, these individuals can donate any amount of money into any political campaign, advocacy campaign and so on. The individuals who comprise the corporation had that right – the same right that I currently have – before this supreme court ruling. But now, they have an extra right, a special right that only these folks enjoy. They get to use funds that are not their own personal funds, that are business funds, to advance their own personal agendas (if controlling agents coalesce around issues).

Imagine a scenario where a state is legislating on minimum wage laws, and for fun, lets place this scenario in a tea party conservative’s fantasy – the state is legislating on abolishing minimum wage laws. Now, it would be easy to see how a corporation that has numerous employees could seek to benefit from the abolition of minimum wage laws, so in our scenario this corporation will be donating copious amounts of cash to not only electoral candidates who support the abolition but also to advocacy groups who support it and to other media campaigns supporting their agenda. This is now their right. On top of the expenditure of business funds, each individual who shares a controlling interest in the corporation may also donate as much cash as they like to support direct advocacy campaigns or electoral candidates.  But the effect of the passing of this piece of legislation, whose chances of passing become greater as more money is funneled into the campaign, is clearly detrimental to and against the interest of the employees of that corporation (both present and future employees). Yet the employees are likely to have zero say in the decision made to donate to such campaigns, even though the money being used is in part a product of their labors. The one caveat in this scenario is that the employees, if unionized, can now use union funds to advance their interests in political issues (however, this is a obscenely disproportionate caveat as the only sector of our economy that is unionized to any significant degree are federal employees).

Why in the world is our government actively creating these scenarios? The supreme court ruled in an astonishing rebuke to the balance of influence in politics, removing any barrier from allowing already powerful interests to leverage their power more greatly. The consequences of such a ruling are uncertain, but the fact remains that the ruling set the stage for a remarkable shift in power/influence in American domestic politics that favors large corporations and foreign subsidiaries over individual citizens.

My opinion remains steadfast that no such change was necessary, as the extra rights bestowed upon corporations were already guaranteed to the individuals who comprise those corporations, and that legislative action or constitutional amending will be necessary to re-align the laws governing political activity with our Constitutional tenet of individual rights.

I know the tea-baggers love them some individual rights and freedoms, but remind me – do they support those rights being granted to corporations ? Are they and the Republicans willing to damn their credibility on and emphasis upon the Constitutional rights of the individual to curry the good graces of their corporate sponsors?

Every so often, school districts face budget shortfalls. They either decide then, to hold a referendum or bond measure, or to cut back in order to work with their revenues.  But in this recession, a budget shortfall is no matter of small consequence.

In Utah, the latest attempt to rectify the state’s budgetary woes comes at the apparent expense of students attending public high school. The latest proposal, seeking to lessen the pain of a 700$ million budget shortfall, calls for the elimination of the 12th grade. Rather, it toys with the idea of eliminating the 12th grade, either fully or through an opt-out sort of arrangement.

Sidenote : the legislator who proposed this is none other than State Sen. Chris Buttars, who so callously opined that he considers gays and lesbians “the greatest threat to America going down,”. But moving on from that…

His proposal also calls for the elimination of bus service for high school students.

Seems to me, as a former public high school 12th grade, bus-riding student, that this proposal is impulsive and short-sighted. If Utah sets the precedent that budget shortfalls can be met by hacking away at the public school system, our country will be in trouble. Public school is not an entitlement, not a spending program, not social welfare and not expendable. Proposals such as this one should be called out for what they are – opportunist and disinterested.

I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes the whole-sale cutting of an entire grade has any interest in improving the public school system. Further, I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes this as a means to rectify a budget gap caused by a nationwide recession should be taken seriously as anything but an ideologue.

But then again, it may be too early to see if anyone actually takes this seriously. Things like this make for great controversy and really stir up the pot, but will it solve any problems? No. It will create a whole new slew of problems, the so-called slippery slope of selling-out Utah’s students. Because if 12th grade is dispensable, why not 11th? Why not just do away with free school lunch programs then too? Or what is to stop these partisans from just cutting all funding for school districts in time of budget shortfalls?

One thing is for sure though. I take pride in my state, Oregon’s, ability to prioritize its public schools above their corporate benefactors. We passed a tax increase, the largest one in Oregon’s history, to ensure that our budget shortfalls do not hurt the public school system and its benefactors (ie, children, students everywhere). Our state legislature passed the tax increase last year, as our 2011 budget was hinging upon the increased revenues from this increase, but it was forced to undergo a ballot referendum because of the anti-tax, Nike lobby. Even within that narrative though, common sense and the common good prevailed when a majority of Oregon voters chose their public schools over their measly 10$ minimum corporate tax rate.

0 comments

1:19 PM

Tea-bag your Sanity

Daily cartoon from the Independent :

- and then accuse the other side of being radical leftists!

Oh, if there has been anything to bring the hilarity back to Washington, it is those wacky teabaggers. It is too bad that they’ve all spurned Ron Paul’s brand of reform politics in favor of a snarling, anti-tax, anti-government, anti-factual, pro-war, pro-calling-people-Hitler platform (now with fmr Gov. resign-after-2-years-Palin at the helm). Before that ideological re-alignment happened, the establishment Republicans were campaigning against that movement in the primaries (remember when Ron Paul kept getting pushed out of the national Republican primary debates?). But nay, are those the “grass-roots” tea-baggers or the “astro-turf” tea-baggers who are pushing away from the movement created by Paul and toward the movement co-opted by Palin? Hard to tell, hard to tell.

One dead give-away though, is that the Republican establishment (Palin included) embraced the tea party movement after, not before, the movement gained corporate sponsorship and moved further to the right of the ideological spectrum.

0 comments

6:21 PM

Profit for Taxpayers?

A headline on the Huffington Post caught my eye just now. It read “Paulson, Buffet : Bank bailout may result in profit for U.S. taxpayers”.

The article was a terrible let-down, as it provided the least thorough of an analysis possible. They basically provided some out-of-context quotes and short narrative descriptions in between. Very limited. And I really wish they sourced their articles better, it is nearly impossible to look further into an issue when presented by the Huffington Post. I usually don’t get any deeper than the headlines, for this reason.

But that sounds good doesn’t it – the bank bailout resulting in a profit for the taxpayer? It would be great for it to actually be true and not just the educated guess of two very rich, white men. Despite how often that scenario leads to let-down, this time it seems likely to be true.

Now that is where the Obama administration has hit a home-run. Never mind the lock-step opposition by Republicans to Obama’s every policy, this policy really sells itself especially in a time when lob losses on Main St. are high and Wall St. is reporting record bonus payouts. You might know what I’m talking about here, especially if you watched the State of the Union. If not, look below and pay special attention around 1:40.

The arguments against this will be tenuous, but hopefully they will be based on facts, not like that Republican representative who used some fuzzy math during the lead-in to his question to the President. An interesting NYTimes article gives some numbers associated with this proposal, and arguments from both sides. I just don’t see there being much of an upside for the Repubs to push back on this, especially not while simultaneously trying woo the tea partiers (I’m forgetting, do they like the bank bailout?)…

0 comments

12:17 PM

Populism at its most Egomaniacal

The once closed-to-the-press Tea Party Convention was ultimately elevated to prime time, with America’s most-watched news network, FOX, providing live coverage of the speech by headliner Sarah Palin. That is right, the same Sarah Palin: former Governor of Alaska, former vice-presidential candidate and abuser of democratically-bestowed powers. While Palin has come to brand herself has the maverick, rogue, embodiment of all that is “real” about America, the fact remains that she has repeatedly made decisions while in power (and now while out of power) that would maximize her own personal gain. She latched onto the opportunity to be a heart-beat away from the presidency, without the slightest inkling of reserve based upon her own capabilities or limitations (i.e., not having a clue about a plethora of major issues). Shortly after her national political debut and subsequent national electoral defeat, she decided her time was better spent not doing the job she was elected to, but furthering her own political agenda (that she has conveniently projected onto “real America”). As she declared in her resignation speech: “My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.” Now however, we’ve seen that this “positive change outside government” translates in the real world into employment as a talking head by FOXnews. Well, I guess I jumped the gun – it first translated to a multi-million dollar book deal (that she was not allowed to accept as a sitting Governor), and national press tour (including 2 stops on Oprah!).

But for the sake of continuing Palin’s narrative, let’s put all these events aside and just say that she was trying to correct the record that she thinks has been skewed by a liberal media conspiracy by ghost-writing a book, and affixing herself as a media notable. So this next move was perfect, being the headliner at the National Tea Party Convention! That maverick, rogue group of tea-baggers, yelling so passionately for the policies that Palin so emphatically advocates – that is, the policy of anti-Obamaism. Among the memes she adopted, we find:

On Scott Brown:

You know, considering the recent conservative election sweep, it’s time that they stop blaming everyone else. When you’re 0-for-3, you’d better stop lecturing and start listening.”

On America’s problems:

“That’s where you got to look because that’s what got you into this mess — the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. It’s going to leave us less secure, more in debt, and more under the thumb of big government.”

Keep Reading »

0 comments

9:44 AM

Bla bla blog

Harold Ford, the carpetbagging politician scoping out his chances for a NY Senate run, blogs! What does this new fact mean for New Yorkers and Ford’s potential electoral opponents? Well you can be sure he will be taking every opportunity to trash Sen. Gillibrand and Democrats in general. Of most the notable elements in his anti-Democrat platform that this blog now pushes : “no bank tax is needed right now in New York…The scheduled trial for the 9/11 conspirators in New York City should be moved”

But not to be left out, Ford gives props to the epic-ly consequential victory of Scott Brown :

“SCOTT BROWN’S victory last week in the Massachusetts Senate race…marked the third time in three months that the Democratic Party has lost the support and trust of independent voters. The message these voters sent was clear. With one out of five Americans unemployed or underemployed, President Obama and the Democratic Party need to shift attention away from health care and toward a bold effort to create jobs, improve the economy and rein in the size of government”

So after this statement, am I still to believe that he is a Democrat? Sounds more like he belongs in the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

0 comments

3:16 PM

Progress in Action

Within the larger context of the national political dialogue, this was somehow lost.

Turns out that Obama has had his hands full rectifying the poor governing habits of previous administration – starting with reestablishing and supporting the regulatory agency’s role in our government. The appointment of public officials who legitimately claim ‘expert’ status in their fields into relevant regulatory agencies is only step 1. What needs to follow is the use of these people’s expertise and knowledge to positive ends, specifically in making the laws we already have work like they were designed to:

Republican presidents didn’t just undermine scientific administration by making poor appointments; they also slashed or held down the regulatory agencies’ budgets, forcing them to cut personnel. This was a particular problem in the all-important area of enforcement: If regulatory agencies can’t conduct inspections and enforce rules, it doesn’t matter how tough those rules are.” (Judis, “The Quiet Revolution”, 2.1.10)

The relevance this has to our national dialogue though, is huge. The economy, health care, energy – the ability to tackle these issues hinges upon the government’s ability to erect a regulatory regime that is both fair and beneficial to the public at large. Think of the financial sector (particularly, think “Too Big To Fail”). Think of the mayhem that the banking giants have already conclusively proven they can cause when existing regulations fail or when enforcement of those regulations is impossible. That alone is cause to applaud Obama’s initiative to resuscitate our meek regulatory agencies and begin the return to scientific administration.

As a side note, the effort by Obama should work to calm the general public’s dissatisfaction with Congress – as more pressure would be relieved from the idea that we need to make new legislation in order to solve some of our problems. Seems to me like the White House should have played up this notion at least a little, especially during that month or two this summer where all that was coming from the GOP were different versions of the same diatribes against “big government”.