During the next week, Chicago will play host to two political rallies: the "A New Way Forward" (ANWF) demonstration taking place tomorrow and the "Tax Day Tea Party" on April 15. The two events share some similarities: Both are part of nationally coordinated efforts. Both are also premised on frustrations with the economic plans being pursued in Washington. But there is a crucial difference between them: One is advancing a specific policy alternative, while the other seeks to ... well, we're not sure exactly.
Today, the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan took the time to dig through the literature put out by the tea party organizers and found himself "befuddled" by what exactly these protests are trying to achieve:
As a fiscal conservative who actually believed in those principles when the Republicans were in power, I guess I should be happy at this phenomenon. And I would be if it had any intellectual honesty, any positive proposals, and any recognizable point. What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don't feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum.
These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.
Steve Benen echoes Sullivan's confusion:
[W]hat are these people whining about again? They don't like economic recovery efforts, but the stimulus has already passed and it's a little late to rally opposition to it. They don't like budget deficits, unless they're run by Republican presidents. They don't want their taxes to go up, but Obama has already passed a significant tax cut.
Now let's contrast the tea parties'' "amorphous, generalized rage" with the ANWF protests taking place tomorrow in over 60 cities nationwide. The whole point of this mass action is to speak out in favor of an "idea" for how to solve the financial crisis -- and a very specific one at that:
NATIONALIZE: Experts agree on the means -- Insolvent banks that are too big to fail must incur a temporary FDIC intervention - no more blank check taxpayer handouts.
REORGANIZE: Current CEOs and board members must be removed and bonuses wiped out. The financial elite must share in the cost of what they have caused.
DECENTRALIZE: Banks must be broken up and sold back to the private market with strong, new regulatory and antitrust rules in place-- new banks, managed by new people. Any bank that's "too big to fail" means that it's too big for a free market to function.
Now, the ANWF protests don't have a major cable network or a lobbyist-run think tank promoting their events, so they may not attract the same numbers as the tea parties. But the underlying distinction is crucial: One of these movements seeks to push President Obama towards what it views as better economic policy, while the other wants to simply shake its fist at him.
Comments
Brenhin (not verified) on Fri, 04/10/2009 - 19:05
A cunning analysis indeed!
Excellent!
I'll be at the, A New Way Forward 'Rally' in Phoenix tomorrow, 'evangelizing' to my fellow citizens, the philosophy of "Decentralizing Economic Power," so I thank you for this contribution.
I admire your skill at unveiling the obfuscation of the GOP "Decepticons" (my 'lil term for conservative nuts posing as centrists or extremists trying to shift public opinion by 'stuffing the public-opinion-ballot-box').
Their subversive attempt to (use a Cognitive Science term) "frame" this as, "just another meaningless thing the public should ignore," was cunningly done.
I for one shall not look away either.
Bravo Sir!
=^D
(Cognitive Science; See, "Orwell Roll's In His Grave")
leo on Sun, 04/12/2009 - 17:15
It's hard to take seriously the street creds of a 'moment' that was born on the floor of the CME to the acclaim of commodities traders and then promoted to the high heavens by the nation's pre-eminent GOP right-wing propaganda network.
That said, they can muscle up a lot of buzz -- particularly in concern with their Talk Radio allies -- in otherwise low-participation contests. Think 'recall' or 'ballot initiative' or situations where the constant turn-over of politicians means that a progressive with name recognition is replaced by someone with none.
It's important always to keep this in mind.
jorod (not verified) on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 09:53
Maybe they don't like big government the way you dislike big business and big corporations. The huge expansion of government ala LBJ is not needed.
Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 14:31
The tea parties did offer constructive and specific suggestions about how to reduce wasteful spending, contrary to what Andrew Sullivan claims. Indeed, many of the tea parties arose in opposition to Obama's $800 billion stimulus package, which the Congressional Budget Office says will actually shrink the economy in the long run, contrary to Obama's claim that it was needed to prevent "irreversible decline."
The tea parties specifically identified two massive spending programs that need to be cut. The first is Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package. The second is the Obama Administration’s mortgage bailout, which would benefit even high-income people with modest mortgages (hence the “I can’t afford your mortgage” sign wielded by many protesters).
The protesters are right to protest the Administration's broken promises (like Obama's promise to enact a "net spending cut") and out-of-control spending.
Andrew Sullivan dismisses the tea parties as “opposition to the Obama administration’s spending plans, manned by people who made no serious objections to George W. Bush’s.”
I certainly made “serious objections to George W. Bush’s” spending plans. I condemned his costly prescription-drug entitlement in the Washington Times, and repeatedly condemned the $160 billion Bush “stimulus rebates” in 2008. I called his $700 billion Wall Street “bailout bill dangerous, inflationary, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” And I condemned his multibillion dollar auto bailout.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.