If Tea Partiers are such deluded fools, why are they doing so well? By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: October 26th, 2010 First, Leftie commentators ignored the Tea Party: throughout the summer of 2009, its rallies were barely covered except by Fox. Then, as it grew, they sneered at it: what a lamentable gaggle of rednecks, birthers, truthers, stump-toothed Appalachian mountain men and assorted survivalists. When these laughable Frondistes began to win primaries, pundits assured each other that they had made Republican Party unelectable. Now, with a week to go before polling day, and the GOP comfortably ahead in the polls, columnists have had to come up with a new line. Predictably, they have hit on the argument that Tea Partiers are a bunch of thickos, dupes being manipulated by powerful Right-wing corporations. There is a classic of the genre in todayâs Guardian. George Monbiot describes the Tea Party as âone of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has seenâ, and goes on to explain that the poor, deluded saps who turn up to its meetings are puppets on the strings of two wealthy industrialists, Charles and David Koch. A telling phrase, that, âfalse consciousnessâ. It was coined by Friedrich Engels, and became a mainstay of Marxist theory. Marx argued that, because proletarians didnât always understand their true interests, democracy was open to abuse. Reactionary and bourgeois elements could make the workers think that they wanted one thing, when what they really needed was something else. It was the doctrine of false consciousness which Lenin and, later, Stalin, used to justify their tyranny. Very few commentators these days consciously long for the return of the USSR. But several cling, Marx-like, to a certain disdain for the electorate: an uneasy sense that, left to themselves, people might vote for lower taxes instead of the kind of eco-correct statism that is in their ârealâ interest. Lurking behind many of the attacks on the Tea Party is an equivocal attitude to democracy. For the Tea Party is a product of perhaps the most responsive electoral process on Earth: the open primary. In Britain and in Europe, closed candidate selection allows substantial currents of opinion to be excluded altogether from national assemblies. Allow more people a say over who should be their MP and you might have popular anti-tax campaigns springing up all over the place. The idea that the Tea Party is âAstroturfâ (meaning fake grassroots) just wonât wash. The Koch brothers have been funding free market campaigns since the 1970s without ever sparking anything like this. Nor, by the way, is there anything wrong with rich men spending their money on causes rather than on themselves. On the contrary, we ought to celebrate political donations. I contribute in small ways to various campaigns and charities; Iâm sure George Monbiot does the same. The only difference between us and the Kochs is one of scale: the Kochs are wealthy, and good luck to them. No, the Tea Party is that rare beast, a genuinely spontaneous popular movement. Its proximate cause is easily enough discerned: the US federal government is 30 per cent bigger than it was two years ago, a position both main parties would have considered unthinkable as recently as 2007. Having cast the Tea Party as a deranged rabble, Leftie commentators must explain how these lunatics took over the asylum. Perhaps they should consider the most obvious explanation: that they might not in fact be lunatics. I have no special brief for the Tea Party. Iâm sure that, like all big organisations, it contains its share of cranks. But most Americans regard the proposition that taxation, spending and borrowing have risen too quickly as essentially reasonable. Thatâs the thing: neither I nor George Monbiot gets to decide what âextremeâ is any more. The Internet has broken the old cartels; pundits have lost their powers. We are finally approximating the ideal of government of, by and for the people â and, unsurprisingly, not everyone likes it. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...uch-deluded-fools-why-are-they-doing-so-well/
The first time I heard of the tea party movement it was last year, maybe year and half ago. Janeane Gerofalo was calling them out as racists and dumb white trash...etc It was right then I knew they were not that at all.
"It was right then I knew they were not that at all." Try that again. This time with at an attempt at coherence.
It is very simple. When the economy is bad and unemployment is high, the incumbent gets the blame.. not to mention blaming the immigrants, free trade, environmental regulations etc "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey." Dick Armey is a former Republican majority leader famous for his quote "politics is 97% fiction and 3% imagination" and his revenge on the American people is FreedomWorks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey
"Obama doesn't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. He's a AstroTurf (fake grass roots) event, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by demIdiotworks, an organization run by democrat idiots."
Tis messy, cannot argue there. Your thread derailment skills and off topic anon internet insults are excellent.