Monday, March 13, 2017

Clare Malone — The Left Might Have A Hard Time Replicating The Tea Party’s Success


Lotsa reasons why the Left is different from the Tea Party, but this is the big one.
… what made the tea party successful, according to Theda Skocpol, a Harvard professor whose field studies of the tea party movement became a 2011 book, was a particular climate on the political right. “We thought of the tea party as a set of several intersecting forces that were leveraging each other and helping to build each other’s clout to change and use the Republican Party,” she said. Self-organizing grass-roots groups, top-down professional advocacy and money groups, such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, along with right-wing media, swirled together to make the movement a success, according to Skocpol. It remains to be seen if the climate on the left will prove to be hospitable for the growth of a similarly effective movement.…
In addition, the right had been pushing ideology in an organized way for decades.

The Left lacks these resources. Occupy was a self-organizing grass-roots group, but there is no professional advocacy, no big money in the background (regardless of all the hype about Soros), and no left-wing media to speak of. Moreover, there has been no organized push for leftist ideology in the US comparable to that on the right for many decades

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right
The Left Might Have A Hard Time Replicating The Tea Party’s Success
Clare Malone

17 comments:

Noah Way said...

The Tea Party was a success? LOL

Dan Lynch said...

+1 on what Tom said.

The Tea Party only pretended to be a grass roots movement. In reality it was funded and manipulated by the 1%, as part of a continuous plan that dates back at least to Lammont Dupont in the early 1940's.

If Trump gets voted out it will be due to his own bad decisions, not due to people wearing pink hats. Trump has already made some bad decisions -- endorsing Ryan-Care, expanding the war in Yemen. What accomplishments will he run on in 2020?

Magpie said...

Two questions for you guys:

(1) As a foreigner, it's hard for me to assess how successful the Tea Party really was. Outside the US, the perception is that it succeeded both (a) in opposing Barack Obama's administration and (b) in pushing the Republican Party to the right, but is that perception accurate?

(2) One of the things Clare Malone mentioned was Another consideration from a top-down organizing perspective is that internecine struggles on the left stemming from the combative 2016 primaries could rear their heads once again within the resistance movement. She is talking about the Sanders vs Clinton thing. Should a left radicalisation be secondary to an opposition to Trump, or not? What do you guys think?

Noah Way said...

The Tea Party was founded by D.C. insiders like Dick Armey and funded by the Koch brothers. It's only "success" was in splitting the GOP.

The DEMs are finished. In fact both parties are finished. Most people - right and left alike - view them as massively corrupt, self-serving and detrimental to the well being of the people and the nation. If you thought this election was a joke, just wait until the next one (if we even have one).

Tom Hickey said...

(1) As a foreigner, it's hard for me to assess how successful the Tea Party really was. Outside the US, the perception is that it succeeded both (a) in opposing Barack Obama's administration and (b) in pushing the Republican Party to the right, but is that perception accurate?

The Tea Party successfully challenged the GOP establishment, ending the Bush dynasty, deposing the Speaker of the House, and moving the party to the right through primaries and threats of being primaried.

It was a successful coup by one faction of the 1% against another funded by big money like the Koch Bros.

(2) One of the things Clare Malone mentioned was Another consideration from a top-down organizing perspective is that internecine struggles on the left stemming from the combative 2016 primaries could rear their heads once again within the resistance movement. She is talking about the Sanders vs Clinton thing. Should a left radicalisation be secondary to an opposition to Trump, or not? What do you guys think?

There is a big fight going on now in the Democratic Party for party control between the New Democrats and the so-called Progressives. The New Democrats are pretty firmly entrenched and the big money, e.g., Wall Street, is backing them. The debate on the Left is whether to try a Tea Party kind of takeover or go for a new party altogether.

The Left is still not a strong force in US politics since there has been no articulation of a vision and agenda for decades and no organized support comparable to the right.

The Democrats may be returned to power when the GOP fails, but it will fail, too, unless it effectively reorganizes and that doesn't seem to be in the cards at this point. No vision, no plan and no organized cadre. On the other hand, this leaves it up for grabs and new blood may come to the fore to seize the opportunity.

Dan Lynch said...

@Magpie, my observation is that the Tea Party definitely pushed the GOP to the right, and they did it by primarying GOP incumbents who were not conservative enough by Tea Party standards.

As for opposing Obama, it depends on who you believe Obama is, whether you believe Obama is a reincarnation of FDR whose progressive agenda was blocked by mean ol' Republicans, or whether you believe Obama is a neoliberal warmonger who only disagrees with Republicans on a few social issues. If you ask me, Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.

Re: your second question. I do not see any way forward in America's corrupt 2 party system. No matter which corporate party is in power, nothing seems to change. I agree with Howard Zinn that we should focus on issues, not on the 2-party horse races. There is probably no light at the end of the tunnel, not in my lifetime, anyway.

There was a study published a few months ago that concluded that inequality has rarely been reversed without some cataclysmic event like war, plague, or a bloody revolution. I cannot disagree with that conclusion. As Lucy Parsons said, never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth.

Tom Hickey said...

There was a study published a few months ago that concluded that inequality has rarely been reversed without some cataclysmic event like war, plague, or a bloody revolution. I cannot disagree with that conclusion. As Lucy Parsons said, never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth.

Something like this is assumed by Strauss & Howe in The Fourth Turning. They argue the pattern is cyclical over about four 20 year generations. Which is why Bannon has said he anticipates another big war.

Magpie said...

Thanks for the answers, guys.

The debate on the Left is whether to try a Tea Party kind of takeover or go for a new party altogether.

Yes, I know that some on the left are debating that, but I wouldn't say that's the whole thing. There are many so-called progressives whose only problem is Donald Trump: Trump gone, everything is hunky dory.

They want impeachment leaving Mike Pence in charge. Policies be damned.

Tom Hickey said...

There are many so-called progressives whose only problem is Donald Trump: Trump gone, everything is hunky dory.

They want impeachment leaving Mike Pence in charge. Policies be damned.


From what I can tell, it's not the so-called progressives but the New Democrats/Clinton-wing that are behind this.

Magpie said...

From what I can tell, it's not the so-called progressives but the New Democrats/Clinton-wing that are behind this.

Well, anyone can claim the label "progressive" for him/herself: ask any Clintonite.

----------

Speaking of which:

Mike Pence responds to 'absurd' accusations from Julian Assange of a White House takeover plot
Pamela Engel
Mar 15, 2017, 4:52 AM

Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pence-julian-assange-white-house-takeover-2017-3

Tom Hickey said...

Congressional Progressive Caucus

Noah Way said...

It was a successful coup by one faction of the 1% against another funded by big money like the Koch Bros.

OCCUPY was far more successful than the Tea Party. A truly democratic grass-roots movement, It was infiltrated by every security organization we have, crapped on by the media, marginalized by "safety" legislation and so on yet it still changed the national dialogue from debt and austerity to wealth inequality. It made Bernie's run possible and its effects continue to ripple through society.

Magpie said...

From Shittypedia:

The CPC is currently co-chaired by U.S. Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN).

The guy is a progressive. From Black Agenda Report:

Keith Ellison: Sheep-dogging Through Trumpland
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“Many of the pseudo-insurgents had swallowed the poisoned pill of neo-McCarthyism.”

Keith Ellison, the Black congressman from a two-thirds white district in Minnesota, took his defeat for Democratic National Committee chairman with equanimity. “I trust Tom Perez,” he said, referring to the Obama-Clinton favorite who swamped him on the second ballot, in Atlanta, this weekend. Ellison decreed that his supporters, comprised mainly of Bernie Sanders campaign veterans, should accept the futility of resistance to the party’s new and browner version of the old guard. “If they trust me, they have to trust Tom Perez. There's a lot of action but it has to be channeled into the Democratic Party."

Ellison accepted Perez’s offer of the DNC’s deputy chairmanship, and the two exchanged campaign buttons to seal the deal. Ellison’s bloc, which had angrily erupted in chants of “Party for the people, not big money!” when their losing votes were tallied, soon quieted down. The Democratic and corporate media hackery expressed great relief that there had not been a “replay” of the bitter left-right primary elections split in the party. But in fact, the DNC contest scenario was politically identical to last year’s presidential primary race, with Keith Ellison taking up the role of Bernie Sanders’ sheepdog, herding the pretend-Left of the party into a harmless gaggle and then eagerly embracing corporate leadership at the conclusion of the charade.

https://blackagendareport.com/sheep_dogging_through_trumpland

They guy is a pseudo-progressive.

Explain to us why the first is right and the second is wrong.

Magpie said...

Another example, from a comment thread of a progressive blog (the commentator shall remain anonymous):

Progressives (among whom I include myself) are kidding themselves if they believe that renegotiating NAFTA or the WTO agreements will reverse the decline of manufacturing jobs in the US. They certainly have contributed—at the same time they were offering consumers lower prices and other US producers of goods and services foreign markets. I, for one, would not want to give up fresh fruits and vegetables the year round, nor give up my Volvo.

That is an educated guy, who has written books about free trade and globalisation. He was explaining their virtues.

Dan Lynch said...

@Magpie, I got a chuckle out of the progressive who did not want to give up his Volvo just so people could have jobs.

There are winners and losers in any economic system. If you are a lawyer or a teacher, free trade gives you cheaper imports without any downside. Tough luck for those manufacturing workers. Tough luck for those engineers driving for Uber because employers would rather hire H1-B workers.

When Japanese cars and motorcycles began trickling into the U.S., I welcomed them, because they got better gas mileage than the American made cars. Gradually we learned that the Japanese vehicles were more reliable, too. American quality control sucked in those days, and the Japanese forced American companies to up their game. To my way of thinking, that was a healthy kind of competition, and I supported it.

But the Chinese and Mexican imports were not, at first, better or even equal quality. They were simply cheaper because workers were paid less and companies did not have to comply with environmental and safety regulations. That created a race to the bottom and I oppose it.

I'm more sympathetic to competition over quality than competition over price.

If I have to pay more for a hamburger so fast food workers get a living wage, I accept that as a price I have to pay to live in a civilized society. Ditto when I have to pay more because of environmental regulations.

In either case we as a society need to take care of our people. Maybe instead of protecting industries that make inferior products, we should ensure that they find equivalent paying jobs elsewhere. Or maybe we should subsidize research and investment to improve the quality and productivity of our industries that are struggling to compete. But that is not what we did.

Magpie said...

@Dan

I try not to comment too much in that blog. I know I and my kind are not welcome. For them I'm just the obnoxious anonymous; for all I care, that is enough identity for me. I did comment that time, though, but -- believe me -- I didn't exactly chuckle. :-)

But coming back to the "progressive" thing. What I find interesting of our age is that madness about words. To counter an argument, one re-defines words in the most absurd way. For instance, a claim I've seen is this: Profits can be seen as the wages of the profiteers!!!

One argues against capitalism, the counter is that that's not capitalism, but serfdom!

Not just that but people go around using words that essentially mean nothing and nevertheless become so important.

"Progressive" is one such word: until not long ago, it was universally acknowledged as something good. Except for some lunatic fringe, everybody and their dogs wanted to be seen as "progressive". Its meaning, however, always remained rather elusive, undefined, arbitrary (as in that progressive's case: for him "progressive" seems to be short-hand for culturally liberal, same sex marriage, equal opportunity, that kind of things).

Nowadays "progressive" only remains important among lefties.

Dan Lynch said...

Yep, labels like progressive mean whatever somebody wants it to mean.

My personal gold standard for "progressive" or "populist" is the 1892 platform of America's original progressive populist party. Today some of it would be considered socialism while some of it would be considered right wing (protectionism, limits on immigration). It was not based so much on left vs. right as it was based on the economic interests of the working class, who then as now had diverse views on non-economic issues.

Another gold standard for progressive populism is Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" platform, which FDR co-opted and became known as the "2nd New Deal" and the proposed "2nd Bill of Rights." Again it focused on working class economic issues. Huey believed that only a fool would campaign on divisive social issues.

Today identity politics dominates, though Bernie Sanders' campaign reminded me of a weak version of Huey, and Bernie was fairly successful with it. If the U.S. were a real democracy Bernie would be in the White House now, Stephanie Kelton would be his economic advisor, and I would be enjoying Medicare-for-All.