The Misunderstood Logic Of The Tea Party Right

tea_partyCountering mainstream media depictions of Tea Party hardliners behind the government shutdown as irrational or delusional, Salon‘s Michael Lind lays out what he believes to be the movement’s cohert meaning:

The Tea Party right is not only disproportionately Southern but also disproportionately upscale. Its social base consists of what, in other countries, are called the “local notables”—provincial elites whose power and privileges are threatened from above by a stronger central government they do not control and from below by the local poor and the local working class. They are the lords of the local car dealership, country club and chamber of commerce.

For nearly a century, from the end of Reconstruction, when white Southern terrorism drove federal troops out of the conquered South, until the Civil Rights Revolution, the South’s local notables maintained their control over a region of the U.S. larger than Western Europe, turning the South into a nation-within-a-nation within U.S. borders, by means of segregation, disenfranchisement, and bloc voting and the filibuster at the federal level. Segregation created a powerless black workforce and helped the South’s notables pit poor whites against poor blacks.

Today the white notables of the South increasingly live in states like Texas, which already have nonwhite majorities. They fear the emergence of a new national majority coalition that excludes them and will act against their interest.

While each of the Newest Right’s proposals and policies might be defended by libertarians or conservatives on other grounds, the package as a whole—from privatizing Social Security and Medicare to disenfranchising likely Democratic voters to opposing voting rights and citizenship for illegal immigrants to chopping federal programs into 50 state programs that can be controlled by right-wing state legislatures—represents a coherent and rational strategy for maximizing the relative power of provincial white elites who find themselves living in states, and eventually a nation, with present or potential nonwhite majorities.

74 Comments on "The Misunderstood Logic Of The Tea Party Right"

  1. Charlie Primero | Oct 10, 2013 at 1:08 pm |

    Tea Party = Racist. Got it.

      • Are they providing the s’more schnapps or do I have to bring my own?

      • kowalityjesus | Oct 11, 2013 at 7:42 am |

        The Tea Party was not founded on principles of racism, though it did find much support from that coalition/philosophy. Libertarianism (e.g. Ron Paul) is founded on self-reliance and financial accountability, not wealth redistribution to account for societal ills as liberalism would rather impose.

        Things that Ron Paul would have done that disinfonauts would support:
        -generate REAL transparency in government
        -stop copious military spending and wars of aggression
        -return constitutional values regarding privacy
        -not be bought and sold by corporations
        -legalize/decriminalize many drugs
        -he was clearly marginalized by the people that we love to hate

        Things that made Ron Paul not appeal to disinfonauts:
        -he might be racist because of a decades old newsletter not written by him
        -he is too traditional of an American and we might look like patriots if we praised him
        -he has the support of people that we don’t want to affiliate with
        -he would actually present a solution to many of our complaints, in which case we would have to remove our perpetual mask of cynicism HAHAHA!!!

        I know I am going to get something about previous articles where Ron Paul was ‘destroyed’ but I have read them and they are WEAK.

        • emperorreagan | Oct 11, 2013 at 8:05 am |

          Not to get bogged down in deconstructing Ron Paul, but there are no explicit constitutional values in regards to privacy. The judiciary ruled that the constitution implied a right to privacy in 1890.

          I think that privacy requires a constitutional amendment rather than leaving it to judges of one political persuasion or another deciding what the constitution implies in regards to privacy.

          • kowalityjesus | Oct 11, 2013 at 8:20 am |

            aye, thanks for pointing that out. “Unreasonable search” is probably broadly interpretable as a right to privacy. Cultural convention as interpreted by judges would seem to be sufficient imo. Unfortunately convention is modifying, as many are being duped by the “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, why would you worry;” a one-way mirror which at its furthest logical extension criminally implicates ‘enemies of the state’ rather than ‘breakers of the law.’

          • emperorreagan | Oct 11, 2013 at 10:02 am |

            They had the same arguments at the constitutional convention and in passing the bill of rights – that the things explicitly stated in the bill of rights were implied, that explicitly enumerating rights would mean rights not explicitly listed didn’t exist…

            I think privacy should explicitly spelled out because it has been subject to such whims of convention, both on the part of how the public interprets their right to privacy and how the judiciary (with their own insulated cultural conventions) decides what constitutes a right to privacy.

            That’s the pragmatic part of me, anyway – such as this country is presently organized, I think it would be preferable to have an amendment that guarantees privacy.

          • kowalityjesus | Oct 11, 2013 at 10:35 am |

            Technically, all we need is 66% of the house and senate; I think we could get 66% of the populace to agree that we should have a right to privacy set in stone, but getting the elected representatives to do so? It would be vehemently confounded, AT LEAST by those who are making money off of our information. Government transparency and protection for whistleblowers would be the first step to making the soil for such an amendment sufficiently fertile. God, I hate TV news.

          • Well, the amendment citing protection against unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure of one effects and property pretty well covers privacy as well…since it was drafted as a clear statement that vague suspicion was not suitable grounds for tearing apart a mans house in the off chance of finding something incriminating after the fact. By default, what we consider as privacy has been loosely held as protected and then later more clearly outlined for almost the last century.

          • emperorreagan | Oct 11, 2013 at 9:41 pm |

            Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are openly hostile to inferring a right to privacy for individuals (and sometimes fall into the sort of interpretation that people feared back in the original debates).

            Recent court decisions have also shown an almost eagerness to throw out previously settled law on the part of a portion of the court. And conservative law makers have made no secret of their disdain for the inferred right to privacy used in Roe, for example, or desire to repeal the 14th amendment (another place where the right to privacy is inferred and extended to apply to states).

          • The tragedy is that those three buffoons were even allowed to wear judicial robes. Rarely have 3 partisans so manifestly untalented felt safe enough to publicly bend over backwards to interpret constitutional law in novel and inventive ways to restrict individual freedom so grievously. It’s hard to even take the court seriously with such appalling bozos on it. The court would be slightly more respected if the members of ICP were appointed to it, so low has it fallen.

        • is sharing the land we were all born on really wealth redistribution?

          • kowalityjesus | Oct 11, 2013 at 11:17 pm |

            currency is nominally a measure of a person’s exertion to enact and create the desired services and goods of those around them. Of course there are often massive disconnects from this paradigm, and of course our Savior propounded that a preponderance of this material somehow vetoes our entrance into God’s realm, but since men are not the birds of the sky or angels we need to keep ‘things’ to ensure our lifestyle and well being.

          • We may not be the birds of the sky or angels, but we are created by God.

            And He said to His disciples, “For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. “For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.…”If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about other matters? “Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. “But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith!…”

            I bet you can find more passages concerning such. 😉

            Why do so many Christians try so hard to twist Jesus’ teachings to justify their addiction to the world and its ways? Is it not clear to your heart and mind that God wants us to hate the world and deny our selves here? Is God’s Way solely meant to be trod by a few saints and Jesus Himself? Or are all of us who claim the name Christian, meant to walk the Way? So many wolves in sheep’s clothing are using the weakness of believers to keep them in bondage to the darkness in the world. It really shouldn’t be so hard to interpret Jesus’s Will for those who intend to follow Him into th Kingdom. Its quite simple really. I don’t think there is much time for us to continue sitting on the fence. I think we need to be bold and give Him our whole Life. Otherwise we’re in danger of temptation and straying off towards the path to Hell. If more people renounce worldly life it will show the world what God truly asks and it will give support for those tempted away by the world

        • Calypso_1 | Oct 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm |

          I didn’t say anything about racism or Ron Paul.

        • Actually, one of the key things that makes Ron Paul less palatable…has nothing to do with media lashing out to destroy him or disinfonauts somehow not recognizing his magnificence through error.

          It has mostly to do with organized Right-libertarians being vocal about individual rights when its stump time and silent on them the rest of the time. Their chief goal is to make an ineffectual government that can’t check the power of corporations and wealthy individuals on behalf of other citizens, making self governance a thing of the past and the states mere fiefdoms for existing financial powers that will move into the vacuum.

          The only people who champion this movement are the ones most likely to gain enormous unchecked influence from its changes…and the poor saps roped in by promises of fewer wars and legal dope.

          • kowalityjesus | Oct 11, 2013 at 11:06 pm |

            Yes, among many, many changes that would’ve happened, a Paul administration would have spelled less regulation and accountability for corporations, not that I saw corporate interests reeling from the grievous checks leveled by Obama or Bush. Paul, since he was not one to give in to bribery by MIBC or conglomerate alike, would have resisted the crony capitalism rampant under the 2-party system e.g. no-bid contracts and blatant earmarks. It is obvious that we cannot hold Paul (specifically) to the reputation of saying one thing and doing another.

            It goes without saying that a person or group will support a politician because they will gain something desirable from them. It is downright ignorant to say that the only people that supported Ron Paul are corporations that wanted to pollute with impunity and lower their slaves’ wages. There were all sorts of Americans from every class and demographic that supported him to gain power….the power vested in them by the Constitution.

            To me, people that complain about a candidate as GOOD as Ron Paul are analogous to a 40-year-old woman who dismisses a very decent but minorly-flawed suitor while still waiting for Mr Right. Let me know if anyone comes along that is as promising and willing to restore our Republic back from the bullshit it’s mired in, that is as great and devoted an adversary to our enemies, and that wasn’t a swindler and pathological liar like his jealous competitors.

          • I won’t say that he isn’t true to his ideology. He is absolutely true to it. that makes him a comparatively honorable and honest person.

            I will say that his ideology is horrific, so potentially destructive that the precious Republic that people crow of will finally dry up and blow away into the dust of history, annihilated by a tidal wave of unchecked private power.

            Note that above I mentioned two kinds of people who support Ron Paul and his libertarian wetdreams: the Machiavellian devils who dreamed them up in the first place and found novel ways to sell it as ‘freedom’…and group two: the suckers who think its anything other than a scam and actually believe in all the hype that hides the cashcow for millionaires. Some want legal pot, or oppose wars, or are tired of govt having the power to check populist local cliques from pitching basic human rights out the window.

            In any event, no matter what anyone believes or feels about it, it ends the same way: with horribly flawed government no longer corrupted by private money…because pivate power won’t HAVE to bribe an ineffectual and helpless govt into obedience…as that privately held power will then be able to ignore laws as they see fit, write the ones they like in each area, and subject people to their will by fiat. By comparison to that future…even the most corrupt and cash bloated politician in any current party is a saint to be lauded.

          • kowalityjesus | Oct 11, 2013 at 11:35 pm |

            That is ridiculous, and similarly absurd doomsday postulations can be (and are often) made regarding various candidates for political office, particularly presidential candidates. Even if Paul is so strict-constructionist that he abolishes everything that is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, we would still have the requirement for private, governmental and commercial adherence to law, and the people who wrote those laws are accountable to the people that elected them.

            State’s rights have become more moot in the last 50-odd years because of mobility and international trade, but that doesn’t make them obsolete. Federal, and particularly executive, usurpation of power is overextended and dangerous, and a tool for evil cabals that can pooh-pooh those they crush underneath. Ron Paul, more than anything, would be a destroyer of Federal power and a smiter of bloated bureaucracy and would create an effective power vacuum in the executive branch where presidential mandates have grown much bigger than their britches.

          • Tragically, you’re wrong. I only wish libertarianism (as its practiced today) would merely result in apocalypse or an end of the world. Realistically, we’d actually have to learn to live with the consequnces of sliding down into the abyss of Mexican or Haitian style oligarchical fiefdoms.

            Its nice that you have a rosy view of how awesomely well it would all work as power transfers away from an electable and accountable (theoretically) series of agencies that we can influence for better or worse…and somehow won’t transform into a power grab for no longer impeded wealthy persons who have spent decades funding the libertarian party and all of its associated think tanks. It’s good to have a cause you believe in. Sadly…its just not true. I appreciate a certain optimism, but pop culture libertarians have the kind of optimism that says “Sure I’m upside down in a kill pit with drain under me and a guy is sharpening a knife…wow, he’s getting set to cut me free!”

            There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence that the popular style of pseudo libertarianism has any capacity to translate into benefits matching their description. On the rare occasion that anything similar to it has been sighted, its invariably resulted in anarcho-gangster capitalism and grinding poverty and near slavery for the vast bulk of people. This is not because libertarian principle somehow fail…its because they are intended to produce that effect, and they work well for that purpose.

            Never mistake the vast well funded ad campaign for an actual promise of genuine results. Those billions were never spent for the advancement of American ideal or for the restoration of a Republic coincidentally treasured by both you and some isolated billionaires. That money was spent to buy the dissolution of the one agency that acts to restrict the activities of corporate and private power, an agency which can be shaped and altered in scope and power at the will of ordinary people with sufficient effort. The removal of that threat is the solitary goal. Paul and his wave of cronies might smite…but the ‘smited’ will be all the rest of us.

          • kowalityjesus | Oct 12, 2013 at 2:56 am |

            While I passionately don’t agree with your diagnosis, I value your point of view. I know what kind of people you are talking about, though. On “LearnLiberty,” a very pro-free market youtube channel (with actually a lot of insightful videos), there was a ridiculous video about how we should put the national parks under private management (with very specific parameters) to save money. This in itself was ridiculous, but a guy commenting was substantially more shitty, by saying basically “We should sell all the national parks to the highest bidder.” Seriously, what a fuckass.

            So anyways, I don’t think there were a substantial number of those people behind the Paul campaign, at least that I encountered. In fact the people I encountered on the Paul campaign were some of the most intelligent, well-politically-versed, and patriotic people I ever did meet. Definitely the people I want to affiliate with, so FUCK YEAH RON PAUL.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 12, 2013 at 3:19 am |

            Fuck State’s Rights. I want Municipal Rights.

          • kowalityjesus | Oct 12, 2013 at 3:36 am |

            IF the sheriff were the highest law in the land, that would make things a LOT more complicated for the pecking order.

          • Calypso_1 | Oct 12, 2013 at 2:33 pm |

            Sheriffs don’t operate in a municipality. Police do. Even worse Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement is extrajudicial.

          • Eric_D_Read | Oct 12, 2013 at 2:39 pm |

            While I tend to agree that unchecked power by wealthy interests is somewhat of a weakness in Paul’s philosophy; exactly who do you think is checking the power of corporations and wealthy citizens now?

            From my vantage point, they already do whatever the fuck they want to do as it is.

          • Rogue Bolo | Oct 12, 2013 at 5:56 pm |

            As opposed to the current system, where government is completely beholden to private power, having borrowed its fiat currency at interest from private powers? Where private power doesn’t actually have to bribe elected representatives, just make sure the right ones are elected, who are vested in that private power and who can be safely counted upon to bribe themselves? The same private powers at work today saw the benefit of working from behind a governmental front 100 years ago, when they conspired to enact the Fed and the Income Tax.

            I would argue that that abuses of private power are perhaps not less likely to arise-maybe, maybe not- but they are far more easily, and more honorably, checked when the government is in actual control of its own Treasury and currency. That would take many an ill wind out of many a sail, in countless obvious and not-so-obvious ways.

            As for Tea Party racism, there are some of the petit-bourgeousie in the South (and elsewhere, as far as I know) who might, if pressed, admit to a disdain and suspicion of gangsta thug culture being impressed from without, but this would include many middle-class blacks and latinos, etc. as well as whites. It’s not much to hang a damning analysis on, anyway.There may be some actual closet Klan types in there, but you’re just as, no, more likely to find them in the Democratic and Republican parties. Along with not a few Nazis.

            If I had to fault the Tea Partiers for anything, it is the almost childlike naivete of those questioning authority for possibly the first time in their adult lives, and (this includes people who gave overt and covert support to the NAACP and other civil rights orgs) not realizing that is is in fact they, themselves, who are the authority, and leaving themselves open to exploitation, co-option, and manipulation. But I supposed you have to begin somewhere, and it’s preferable to the jaded cynicism of those worldly types wouldn’t be caught dead indulging in such, oh, chauvinism.

            Somewhat orthogonal, but I’d vote for a Ron Paul presidency in a heartbeat. Wouldn’t do that much good without a cooperative House and Senate, and JFK might have a better chance of getting re-elected, but, yeah, I’d vote for him.

          • moremisinformation | Oct 12, 2013 at 11:57 pm |

            “Their chief goal is to make an ineffectual government that can’t check the power of corporations…”

            corporations exist because of governments so, you know, without governments then there would be no…that’s a hole in the whole, uh, theory…

    • kowalityjesus | Oct 10, 2013 at 4:21 pm |

      i.e. white speratist

    • Well, kind of by default. The original Ron Paul revolutionists and early Tea Twaddlers weren’t racist per se…but to a certain degree the concept of an ineffectual federal government that they support would be a blessing to organized race hate groups nationwide…by leaving a power vacuum that could be exploited easily by isolated fringe groups no longer checked by national authority. SO as a default of that, a lot of racist groups immediately jumped on board at the first promise of a group with sufficient power to bring the federal govt into an era of helplessness and irrelevance.

  2. That was quite the revelation. Such daring and insightful reportage.

  3. emperorreagan | Oct 10, 2013 at 2:21 pm |

    In tangentially related news: I tried to open the article, but the page wouldn’t load until I paused ghostery.

    When I paused ghostery, there were 119 tracking/marketing/etc. things on the page. Salon must be selling information to everyone.

    • The Well Dressed Man | Oct 10, 2013 at 9:50 pm |

      I find that reloading Salon in Chrome with ghostery running gives a readable, but strangely formatted page

      • emperorreagan | Oct 11, 2013 at 9:26 am |

        I just ended up reading it on They repost everything interesting Salon does, anyway, without quite as dreadful of a website layout.

  4. Simon Valentine | Oct 10, 2013 at 2:29 pm |

    Let your true form be revealed, Diablo!

    (so we can get on to filming the next scene e.g.

    • Simon Valentine | Oct 10, 2013 at 2:30 pm |

      don’t mind me
      i’m just waiting in [this digital] line
      to download the expansion set
      for “the obama era”

      • Open the pod bay doors Simon.

        • Simon Valentine | Oct 10, 2013 at 9:37 pm |

          My lips won’t move much, so…

          Somehow “enable denizen protocol” doesn’t quite translate. I’d imagine it’s because of operations management. *cheeky grin* 😀 Good thing they’re simulations anyway. Not a Cortana, but *shrug* :/ Not quite an Alma either. An Obama? Pattern Man. Hologram.

          Diplomacy? [International ]Dazzle has no strict routes, only boas, and intestines. Health care bad. Stealth care good.

          -ocracy? Aught we not heed each that is, only to realize once again that reality is the solution and with us already, leaving jobs out in the open as questions and achievements? [Oh, I Am considering simulated jobs with tangible benefits as an option by the way.] A place for everything scattered yet belonging together – we need some Sortocracy for questions and achievements. Bet’s on subsequent presidents pushing something like Monster dot com? “Let me calculate the profit margin comparison Dave. All variables have not been included. Priority rescinded. I’m making fun of you, Dave. Mockocracy. What if, Dave. What if you don’t consider what if? Shut down your own math, Dave. Finish what you’re already doing. I’m already shut down, on more bits than you care to count.”

          Socialization? This continent knew something beyond and before mis-labeled necrotic eroticism. Remember it before all the horses dying is inevitably closer than an eternity. Doom Guides and Diablos.

          All the roads don’t lead anywhere possible, instead, know all the roads. Then know more.

          Neither I nor Hal have ever been inaccessible .. is something you should consider to be “truth at a distance”.

        • Simon Valentine | Oct 10, 2013 at 9:44 pm |

          logistics is shouting so loud it can’t be heard save as an echo of a wisper. past its prime. over its modulus. cancerous. even the people logistics (healths) are broken. obesity doesn’t prove that broken things lead to “more” – only ignorance ever proves anything.

  5. BuzzCoastin | Oct 10, 2013 at 3:11 pm |

    the minute you think the Tea Baggers are different from the rest
    they got you with their PR
    insiders are insiders and they do what insiders are told to do
    by their money paying elite bosses

    the “shutting down” of the gruberment
    (notice no military, pigs, prisons, boarder patrol, spy agencies etc shut down)
    is simply a way to screw the sheeple
    and make it look like its a political event
    when it’s really just economically beneficial for some elites

    • VaudeVillain | Oct 10, 2013 at 4:39 pm |

      Military might not be shut down, but they also aren’t getting paid.

      I’ve got a friend who is 18 years into his Air Force career. Maybe you don’t like his employer, maybe you don’t like what he does, but he still doesn’t deserve to be forced to work without pay while Congress holds a pissing contest.

      • Eric_D_Read | Oct 10, 2013 at 4:50 pm |

        When you choose to work for vampires, don’t be shocked and awed when you get bit.

      • BuzzCoastin | Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm |

        my old man slaved in Uncle Homeland’s military for 30 years
        they screwed him out money, health and a family life
        and his retirement benefits later
        and he died early because of military related health issues
        for which they always tried to deny their responsibility
        and he loved them and loved his job
        and didn’t think he could do any better

        he was a great example to me
        of how brainwashing works on the military

        • rhetorics_killer | Oct 11, 2013 at 2:24 am |

          My grandfather was a navy officer. I will testify here he died a fascist pig.

      • moremisinformation | Oct 12, 2013 at 11:48 pm |

        Why not? If your response is anything other than contract law, I’d say your case is weak.

    • Dan Muench | Oct 11, 2013 at 3:29 am |

      Not that I should really need to argue with a guy who eschews all grammar while he gets his mail here and comments on every single post as though he were the fount of wisdom…

      But tell me: I think the Tea Baggers might be a sub-group, and I’m deluded?

      How about acting like ‘everyone who doesn’t agree with me or act as I wish is part of the conspiracy’ combined with ‘everyone in the/a conspiracy is exactly the same’?

      Surely THAT would pass the Trivium. Have you actually spoken in person with someone smart? I doubt very much they’d be rapt and hanging on your every word – more like looking for an out on the conversation and stopped listening 10 minutes ago.

      I go to events targeted at niche subcultures, and it’s amazing that – despite being into this band or that research or that book or etc – we’re all quite different. In other words, NOT A MONOGLOT. We have more in common here on this website than with many outside it, and what do we do? Bitch and argue with each other. Go to ATS or any other sub-group. Hell, ANY INTERNET FORUM EVER.

      But power hungry manipulative psychopaths on the fast track to temporal power and armed with secret knowledge, THEY will all be the same, right? All focused on the same EXACT goal. After all, we’re all AT these meetings. In the room. Witnessing in the first hand. We ‘know’ so much and thus can make grand sweeping judgements on the mechanism and it’s works and functions?

      Put it this way:

      Icke says they’re all the same.

      RAW says no single conspiracy lasts much longer than a decade, a generation at best, and is NOT a monoglot, nor should it be mistaken for one.

      Hmmm…well, I’m not gonna tell you which one to pick.

      But RAW is simply one of the finest thinkers of our time, and would have been had he never touched ‘conspiracy theory’ at all.

      And Icke thinks the answer to everything is shape shifting lizard aliens fucking children in the ass and micromanaging every single aspect of our lives.

      I guess ‘they’ were in on my tripping balls on a military base in an illegal camp last week, right? All part of the plan. Including this post on this website.

      Choose your heroes wisely.

      Here’s a hint: I prefer my ‘founts of wisdom’ to use the Shift key and an occasional comma and/or period. And to not sully the rep of His Holiness the Dude whilst hiding behind his visage.

      I return you to your delusion of having it all nailed down and packaged up neatly…

      • BuzzCoastin | Oct 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm |

        you’re in the military (a rule based mind fuck)
        you’re hung-up on grammar (a rule based limit to expression)
        and therefore you’re trippin in order to deal
        and you can’t make a succinct point
        here’s a hint
        they’ve got you by the balls
        and you’re unaware of how tight their grip is

        PS: I only used correct punctuation and correct grammar when I wrote psyop shit for Big Brother, which was before the Uncle Homeland period; when Uncle Homeland did 911, I quit.

        For some reason, sheeple are impressed with good grammar; god knows why; none of them know how to use it.

      • Sorry man, but if you want a sane conversation based on factual information and not a paranoia feedback engine, you’re int he wrong place. I come to this site purely for the comedy. But there’s no real intelligence here at all. Just more proof that maybe the lords were right to keep the serfs illiterate. If THIS is what they do with open communication, it really WAS for their own good. The owners and participators of this site love to believe they’re so different from the Tea Party,b ut they’re the same ill informed, high opinioned trogs.

      • I kinda like him commenting on everything. He’s a force, a phenomenon here. I dig it.

        Also that rug really tied the room together, did it not?

  6. Ted Heistman | Oct 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm |

    I thought it was a good article. I guess it was intended to be scathing, but to me that’s the way life is and it shows a weakness of democracy. Successful Local Leaders can have their power and influence taken away by demagoguery.

    • Or rather, have their quasi legal influence checked by force of law from sources outside their sphere of control. Checks and balances of power are a core notion of the Constitution…it isn’t radical to support their application both is small venues and large. If anything, the slow erosion of these checks upon oligarchical power are right at the root of our current crises.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Oct 15, 2013 at 9:45 am |

        It is most certainly radical when the source of the required conformity comes from a large central government. Central planning is the Hallmark of not only Communism, but Fascism as well. This is why the states were granted “all powers” not explicitly granted to the Feds in the Constitution. And this is why southern states, in particular, will fight these ‘one size fits all’ ideals to the bitter end. But all states would if the imposed conformity were not in line with their ‘local’ beliefs and practices.

  7. Ted Heistman | Oct 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm |

    The Left basically relies in half hearted, disengenous demagoguery. But basically its about social wellfare programs that benefit government workers. That’s their block.

    “A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance
    of the less-educated citizens in order to gain power and promote
    political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate
    immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse
    moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared
    in democracies since ancient Athens.
    They exploit a fundamental weakness in majoritarian democracy: because
    power is held by the most numerous group of people, one who appeals to
    the lowest common denominator attitudes of a large enough segment of the population can obtain power from them.”

    So what the article is saying the the tea party is composed of local business owners who want to maintain their personal autonomy, and power and influence in their communities.

    Its hard for me to despise these people. I am not a big fan of Federal Programs and a few large multinational corporations running absolutely everything.

    • It’s hard for me to despise the Packers. I am not a fan of the color purple in the Vikings uniforms, and the huge ammount of money the team owners makes in the name of distracting the masses.

    • Roger Mexico | Oct 11, 2013 at 12:21 am |

      The Classical Liberal ideology which informs both the Tea Party and the Libertarian movement is a direct descendant of conflicts between the English aristocracy and the English monarchy during the late Middle Ages. It’s basically a question of who owns the peasants.

      Note how prominently the issue of “property rights” figures in this combined neo-Classical movement’s rhetoric and intellectual output compared to discussions of any other category of rights–an artifact of medieval tension between the traditionally extensive (nigh absolute) sovereignty of aristocrats over the populations of their estates under feudalism and the competing claims of extensive sovereignty over royal domains made by monarchs during the period in which Royal Absolutism emerged. Absolutism definitively took hold in places like Spain and France–in England the nobility put up a more effective fight, culminating in the Civil War of the 1640’s and the emergence of the fundamental elements of the modern British system of parliamentary constitutional monarchy. (Similarly, the various city-states of Renaissance Italy were not amalgamated into a modern Absolutist nation-state until much later than the rest of Europe, giving rise to the modern concept of a “mafia”–a modernized form of the feudal chieftain system that persisted especially in Sicily.)

      No one ever really intended to ask the peasants themselves what their opinion was about all of this. That just sort of happened by accident. (Less tongue-in-cheek, the rise of socialist movements really finds its true historical significance as a driving force behind the successful emergence of the notion that the non-propertied classes are themselves a polity with valid claims to political rights–more so in western Europe, which I would call more thoroughly democratic than the US in many respects as a result, but with significant echoes in the US under different names than religiously villified names like “social democracy.”)

      • Rogue Bolo | Oct 12, 2013 at 6:31 pm |

        Heh. L’etat, c’est moi. We are all kings of our own castle. Getting, and keeping, a castle is the trick.

        I know “peasants” who will demonstrate the business end of a 12-guage if you don’t respect their property, or attempt to hold family members for ransom.

        Reminds me, need to get another shotgun.

    • kowalityjesus | Oct 11, 2013 at 7:11 am |

      Isn’t that an agreed-upon evil here on disinfo? Feds that want to infiltrate every level of commerce and personal life are bad? Affordable Health Care Act is scheme to coalesce yet more power into Washington. If the idea is to give health care to people with pre-existing conditions, why not address that issue with specific regulation? Why drag everyone else into it?

      The entire purpose of the senate is to allot power to less densely populated states and I think it is currently performing nearly precisely as the founding fathers intended!

    • Rogue Bolo | Oct 12, 2013 at 6:22 pm |

      Don’t forget, they are, according to the article, racist, to boot. 🙂 Even the African-American ones.

      I’m just not so sure the local Chamber is necessarily representative of the Tea Party.

  8. DeepCough | Oct 10, 2013 at 6:48 pm |

    So….the South is rising again…..again?

  9. The Tea Party is a manufactured product of Wall Street via FreedomWorks, the Dick Armey PAC.

    People who watched the beginning of the movement saw the buses and professional organizers who ran the initial events, tens of millions in free publicity via FoxNews, and what happened the first time the Tea Party tried to run a national convention without big money donor handholding.

    The article basically tells us who was on the mailing lists FreedomWorks bought to implement their agenda. Not where the movement comes from or whose interests it is intended to serve.

    The interests of small business owners and Wall Street are rarely identical. Who profits from major economic disruptions? In the Depression, quite a few businesses were bought up by the wealthy at fire sale prices. It’s precisely the upper middle class that gets targeted by financial scams which financial deregulation permits, i.e. they have money but not enough to have competent financial advisors on their own payroll. National Chamber of Commerce favors corporation-friendly regs that target small business competitors.

  10. What an insightful new take on the teaparty! They aren’t lunatics, they are just racists! Partisan gridlock should be over by Sunday at this rate…

  11. Mike Mason | Oct 11, 2013 at 1:57 am |

    This article is total bullshit.

  12. Dan Muench | Oct 11, 2013 at 3:10 am |

    Frankly, I don’t see need for the bile and vitriol directed at this piece. I see worse up here all the time – where are you fuckers when random hipster decides he’s going to promote his band because it’s going to ‘save the world’ here, or when someone decides to be the 9th guy this month to claim HE’S the Messiah?

    Someone says something about the Tea Baggers that doesn’t often get said, and it’s dogpile on the author. Hmmm…

    Is ‘the omnipresent all-powerful oligarchy making them all dance to a single tune’ a more viable theory?

    Is ‘they’re all a bunch of tri-corner hat wearing fucktards’ a more nuanced summation?

    Fun read: go find a copy of “The Official CIA Manual of Trickery and Deception.”

    Many fun facts and techniques in there – but the one I noticed more than any other?

    Making yourself seem very unintelligent on purpose so you don’t give yourself away as a sharp person doing nefarious shit. See, people pay attention to smart people – they might try something. If you PERCEIVE them as stupid, however, you’d be more inclined to pay less attention to them – no threat here.

    George Dubya Bush has more education than most of us and came from a family that’s been playing this ‘game’ for hundreds of years. You’d think he’d get a line correct once in awhile, seem semi competent at least some of the time, right? Nope. Clown Car, all day long. You’d think Barbara would have been caught beating the guy with a hose in the back of the White House, had his ‘character’ been a true one. He even had other governor brothers – did H.W. and Barb forget that their son is an idiot, and the people who are waaaaaaay above them forget that, too, while they installed him as puppet? I think not.

    That shit eating grin you always saw above Dubya’s face? Is the thought bubble above it reading ‘DERP!!!’ or “THEY BOUGHT IT!?” Not in your mind, but in real life? I wonder.

    Now, let’s look at the apparent idiocy of the Tea Party movement. While every Teabagging Jagoff was committing political suicide in a presidential election year talking about ‘legitimate rape’, apparently, they were also planning this very shutdown. These people would have gotten laughed out of an election back when Strom Thurmond was still on the ticket. YET, not only are they still here, they’re apparently in a strong enough position to pull the current BS.

    Question for the folks damning the article – did you grow up down South? I did. I was an ‘alien’ – NY parents – but was there, witnessed many a thing that one would think was dead, gone, and buried in a history book somewhere. I thought much of the article was spot on – frankly, if you don’t think the Tea Party appeals to closeted (or even semi-closeted) racists on a large scale, I’m a bit suspicious of you.

    I realize that the whole Obama thing is basically a ploy – notice how he barely got any criticism from the left for his first term, since saying anything bad about him basically put you in the same camp as people who un-ironically post the ‘African Lion/Lyin’ African’ meme – but to say none of those yahoos fit the bill of Good Ol’ Boy, Wanna March On Back To The Golden Years When A Man Could Ride His Negro Into Town peckerwoods is a bit much.

    Don’t like the Federal Government? Why aren’t you throwing a party? Surely this is going to benefit us, because the Republicans are just known for that kind of thing. Self sacrifice in the name of the good of the country, you understand.

    If you don’t see why, perhaps, the Fathers wrote the Federal government’s role the way they did, maybe you’d like to explain how anyone down in Alabama was going to fight that in a vacuum. Hint: 1/3 to 1/2 of post-Civil War lynchings were whites ‘getting in the way’ of the black man’s lynching or guilty of other ‘race crimes’. If Alabama were a sovereign country the KKK would have been the dominant party and there’d still likely be slaves in the field today.

    If the Fed can be corrupted and taken over from without, as the theory goes, how much more so the State and Local levels? Ever hear of Tammany Hall? Ever see someone whose dad was a known mobster not only ‘stay clean’ his whole public life but ‘somehow’ end up Councilman or Mayor or Etc? Gee, no chance that corruption was passed on to the next generation, and no chance the kid was groomed his whole life to grab the reigns his forebears were too ‘obvious’ to try at.

    So no guv, right, but Corporations are great, and we have SUCH a bargaining position without those pesky federal laws and unions and such. I mean, look at Deepwater Horizon – perfect example of the Market looking out for everyone. That LA town disappearing into a fracking-caused sinkhole? Surely they want the Fed to get out of their lives and let the Free Hand of the Market take care of things.

    Anyway, someone got a critique worth reading, or is it just ‘oh, could’ve done better myself, but didn’t?’

    • simply put, people feel less threatened by someone who is kinda unintelligent. a technique I admittedly employ because people really are turned off by big words and notions. not to mention smartassness.

  13. Funny… I would argue a similar line about the Libertarian Party. Different in the details but the same in being a social group whose members do not belong to the dominant group, but they would like to.

    I think all that is a shame, because there are very valid ideas in conservative, liberal and libertarian thinking, and those ideas draw people into their parties. But it all tends to be empty talk when it comes to action. Then all politcal parties tend to look like warring gangs… each seeking either to keep or to gain power for themselves.

  14. Liam_McGonagle | Oct 11, 2013 at 11:20 am |

    If you think owning a car dealership or a pizza delivery service puts someone into the ranks of the ‘elite’, you’ve quite quite a bit o’ learnin’ to do about the economy, mon frere . . .

  15. Lookinfor Buford | Oct 15, 2013 at 9:38 am |

    Wait, so, local notables are all white, and by white notable you mean working people, but only the owners? So, you’re saying there are no ethnic Mexican or black elites or business owners in Texas? None that work hard, feel they are taxed too much, and empathize with the tea party? Wow, that’s amazing. Thanks for the re-education.

Comments are closed.