Back in the spring, Markos Moulitsas penned a column for The Hill that explained the difference between our civil war with the Democratic Party (2002-2006) and the Tea Party civil war (2011-) that the Republicans are experiencing now. I think it’s fair to say that both movements sought to get their respective parties to better live out the meaning of their creed. Progressive online Democrats wanted the party to oppose stupid wars, defend the social safety net, stay strong on reproductive choice, and promote gay rights. Those were not new ideas. For the most part, those were ideas that the Democrats had traditionally supported but were getting squishy on in the face of concerted, aggressive attacks from the right. The Tea Party is a disparate movement that is hard to precisely describe, but their main concerns are government spending and the resulting debt. They want a smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation. These are also not new ideas. They are principles that the Republican Party has claimed to stand for for a very long time.
The difference between online progressives and the Tea Party is, as Moulitsas points out, that we were driven by ideology but not controlled by it. We used data to support our positions when the data supported our positions, and we were willing to be patient when the data did not support our positions. We helped build campaigns against policies and candidates, but we were strategic about it. There were mistakes, as when MoveOn.org overreached in attacking General Petraeus, but they were few and far between.
We said that our positions would strengthen the party, and they did. The Tea Party doesn’t care about the Republican Party. All they care about is ideology. They don’t like the browning of America so they oppose immigration reform even though GOP strategists are telling them that opposing immigration reform will keep them locked out of the White House in perpetuity. They want huge budget cuts that Republican lawmakers are afraid to adopt because they are too unpopular.
Online progressives had the advantage that the policies we were promoting were more broadly popular than what the Tea Party is promoting, but we never pretended that Democratic politicians could advance our agenda by committing career suicide.
I haven’t read the Markos piece (which I realize makes me an irresponsible commenter), but I have to wonder: does he get into the fundamental difference between “us” and “them” — namely that the Progressive Movement is a legitimate populist entity while the Tea Party is a corporate construction (i.e. that one is a “bottom up” movement and the other is a “top down” movement)?
The Tea Party is the most advanced, cynical artifact of “astroturf” this country has ever seen. Without the billionaires funding it and the captive news entities supporting it, it wouldn’t exist. By contrast, the Kos-style “progressive wing” exists DESPITE the Democratic establishment.
Maybe the piece covers this. But it seems to me that any discussion of the contrasts between the two “movements” must start there.
at the end of the day I don’t think that matters as far as the politics of it is concerned
But it does matter, since all of the Tea Party’s policy positions must be viewed through the lens of whose interests they’re actually serving (vs. how they’ve been sold to constituents.
For example, rank-and-file Tea Party members strongly oppose regulating Wall Street. Can this be interpreted as an honest expression of their self interest — as the kind of conscientious position that the “progressive wing of the Democratic party” would take — or must it, instead, be understood as a deceptively force-fed opinion that serves the interests of their sponsors?
The “Tea Party” operates according to the mechanics of a sophisticated advertising campaign (like the famous effort to sell cigarettes to women that created the “Virgina Slims” brand through aggressive research and marketing). The deceptive elements of all of their policy positions must be examined according to these principles.
Tea Party supporters, as a whole, are older, whiter and more affluent than the average American. That sounds like a profile of people whose self-interest might tend to align with Wall Street.
No. No ordinary citizens/taxpayers’ interests coincide with Wall Street. CEOs and majority stockholders are a different story.
They may believe their interests are “the same” as Wall Street’s, but it’s just not true. They’ve been trained to believe this…to believe that “the economy” is the stock market.
I didn’t say their interests are “the same” as Wall Street’s. I said they may “tend to align”, and I think that’s a reasonable way to think about a demographic that’s older, whiter and richer than the average American.
We can debate whether and to what degree “they’ve been trained to believe this”, but over the years I’ve found it more useful to assume that people I disagree with are roughly as clear about their self-interests as I am. (For one thing, it forces me to take them more seriously…which is generally helpful when facing one’s opponents, or when trying to persuade people to become one’s allies.)
You’re just refusing to accept my point (which is your prerogative of course).
I’m arguing that I do not “take seriously” the “opinions” of the Tea Party people; that nobody should, because they’re victims of astroturf — because their “movement” is inherently dishonest and manipulative; because they are being explicitly controlled by means of symbols and deception, being told what to think, in so many words.
This may violate some general principle you adhere to, about “respecting the points of view” of your opponents, but that’s precisely what I’m saying doesn’t apply here. These are the people whom William Kristol and others gulled into supporting Sarah Palin as some kind of rebellious outsider (and John McCain, the most doctrinaire party Republican, as a “maverick”).
It’s a noble principle you’re espousing here, but it simply doesn’t apply. The Tea Party is the crowd falling for a huckster at a fairground.
but they don’t think their victims of astroturfing that’s why I initially said at the end of the day it doesn’t matter if it was grassroots or astroturfed right now it doesn’t change their group
O/T: Fox Sock Puppets
I think it’s very safe to assume that paid sock puppetry is extremely common. I assume ALEC, the Kochs, Heritage, AEI, the NRA, etc. are all heavily involved in paying for comments on every high volume site in existence. Just look at any story about climate change and how deniers instantly appear. Some of them are “volunteer” dupes, sure, but the consistency and volume of the noise leaves little doubt about the source of the sound.
Climate change isn’t the only topic where the radid Teahadists(or the sock puppets) swarm to. And it’s all the same garbage too.
As I pointed out the last time he said this on DKos, sometimes we have to be willing to advocate positions that aren’t popular and can’t be patient.
For instance a majority of the country is okay with torture in some circumstances but we need to be against torture in all circumstances.
The original DK concept was to elect more, then better Democrats. He/we rallied for Brad Carson and Scott Kleeb and Stephanie Herseth: conservative Democrats all. Sometimes VERY conservative. But always better than the alternative. This made all kinds of sense, especially when linked to small-dollar campaign donations in the pre-Citizens United era.
Then at a certain point DK switched gears and started trying to be relentless enforcers of liberal ideology — which completely flew in the face of the original premise. (Remember when Sherrod Brown became the Establishment guy bigfooting True Liberal Paul Hackett out of the Ohio Senate race? Remember when Kirsten Gillibrand was insufficiently pure?)
If Markos is trying to tack back the other way, fine, but the Great Orange Monkey House ain’t gonna like it one bit.
Not sure what your point is and only vaguely recall that outrage, but it demonstrated the most politically naive and knee-jerk interpretation for many reasons. First of all, Hackett would have lost to the incumbent Dewine. Second, Hackett didn’t have political campaigning chops and had never been elected to anything outside of a local position. Third, he isn’t even a liberal much less a progressive like Sherrod Brown. Schumer (who is as neo-liberal as they come) as head of the DSCC at the time, could smell a potential win in Ohio with a strong candidate and likely would have preferred one more like himself. However, the Democratic bench is Ohio was weak and it was either the progressive Brown or Dewine keeps his seat. One of the few times where a pragmatic political decision by Schumer worked out well for liberalism.
The negativity about Sherrod Brown and Kirsten Gillibrand was a potent sign that DK as a community was swinging away from the “more then better Democrats” model. Ever since then they’ve been as zealous and insular as indie kids one-upping each other by hunting for “sellouts.”
Have to disagree. Brown’s Senate bid was in 2006. The negativity towards him was based on false information and an inexplicable elevation of Hackett as some sort of liberal hero. heh, he couldn’t even beat the pathetic Jean Schmidt in a House special election in 2005.
Too many dKos commentators don’t bother to do their homework on candidates. Often too quick to rally around a DINO and predictably will be disappointed if elected. Too short-term oriented. Not comparing what’s the best possible win this election cycle versus the next three. They also can’t seem to perceive (smell) wave elections; missed the GOP 2002 mini-wave and 2010 wave elections and the DEM 2006 wave. As all of those seemed easy for me to call (and even set a 60 seat DEM Senate as more likely than not), it’s a mystery to me why those outcomes weren’t obvious to others.
“we never pretended that Democratic politicians could advance our agenda by committing career suicide.”
false. the “kill the bill” conniption fit “progressives” threw, was based on a “single payer or nothing” demand. as such it was a direct requirement to weaken the democratic party given politics as they actually are (as opposed to how politics are imagined to be in happyhappyjoyjoy-land).
Well, the “kill the bill” conniption fit acts as a very helpful experiment, doesn’t it? Did that conniption exhibit control over the Speaker and Majority Leader? Did it kill the ACA? Did money-backed liberal activists mount successful primary challenges to ACA supporters? No-no-no.
Besides, if health care reform had not passed, it wouldn’t have been career suicide. Yes, much of the liberal base would have been demoralized and the Presidency would have been adrift, but that’s not the same thing as: Shutting down the government, hurting and directly threatening to do much greater harm to our economy over an unachievable goal, a goal which is not supported by the public. Now that’s career suicide if these GOP Congressmembers keep it up.
During the town halls when the Tea Party unhinged in front of cameras, it caused a bout of cognitive dissonance for me that people would advocate so passionately for less rights. An expansion of rights such as healthcare is enshrined in that whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” AmericaTM mythology. I think this is why we’ll win the long game.
I think it’s very safe to assume that paid sock puppetry is extremely common. I assume ALEC, the Kochs, Heritage, AEI, the NRA, etc. are all heavily involved in paying for comments on every high volume site in existence. Just look at any story about climate change and how deniers instantly appear. Some of them are “volunteer” dupes, sure, but the consistency and volume of the noise leaves little doubt about the source of the sound.
business loans
I think the most important difference between Tea Partiers and Progressives is how they view the value of government generally.
Tea Partiers think the meaning of, “the best government is the one that governs least” is that all government is inherently inefficient, bad, and an infringment on liberty.
Progressives see government as at least at times to protect liberties and rights and able to raise the general welfare.
In other words, Progressives what the government to operate better, Tea Partiers want it to go away, at least until they want highway funding, defense contract jobs, Medicare and SS.