There's a debate shaping up in progressive circles about what the Tea Party movement means for the future of the nation. Are they just a bunch of disgruntled, disorganized kooks who are best dealt with by ignoring them? Or does the rise of this movement pose a threat to recent progressive gains, and to the nation as a whole?
As a journalist who has covered the right for more than 15 years, I see a profound threat in the rise of the Tea Party movement. To examine it through the prism of today's kookiness and disorganization is to look at a snapshot of where the movement is now, not where it might be in a year or two. A recent Gallup poll reported that 37 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the Tea Party movement -- a percentage that equals the number those who self-identified as independents (which is not to say that all independents regard the movement favorably).
That's what prompted me to write a comprehensive piece of analysis for AlterNet that makes the case for taking the Tea Party movement seriously.
There are thoughtful progressives who see things differently. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones sees the movement's relatively small number of supporters (18 percent of the general public, according to last month's New York Times/CBS News poll) as evidence of an outsized level of attention he believes it has received from the media, and Richard Kim of The Nation wonders aloud how a movement fraught with the most ridiculous of conspiracy theories could ever make its way into the mainstream.
Then there is an unthoughtful progressive who, apparently, simply wishes to distort the work of another journalist in order to make the case for his own moral superiority, as syndicated columnist David Sirota did in this space on Wednesday (and cross-posted on OpenLeft). Sirota, after attributing my work to different publication than the one in which it appeared, blockquoted three sentences from my 5,000 word piece to accuse me of "deifying white privilege," all the while refusing to name me as the author of the piece.
That's a pretty serious charge to make against an author you refuse to name.
My point is this: The threat posed by the Tea Party movement is not in the numbers it encompasses now, but the numbers it could in the future. The movement is built not on an internally consistent ideology, but on resentment that has been activated by the nation's dire economic situation. Race plays a substantial role in the narrative of that resentment.
Yet, as ably demonstrated by Thomas Frank in What's the Matter With Kansas?, middle-class whites often vote against their own interests, buying into the scapegoating of others as the cause of their woes. If progressives are to thwart the growth of the Tea Party movement, they must make the case to fence-sitters that the progressive economic agenda is in their own economic self-interest.
While it's true that Barack Obama, as Sirota points out, was elected by a multi-ethnic coalition, he would not have won without the votes of suburban whites, many of whom voted for him only reluctantly, in the wake of the economic destruction wrought by the Republican Party. To maintain a coalition that includes those white suburbanites -- even as the unemployment picture remains bleak despite signs of economic recovery -- will require progressives to make the case for what they stand to gain by staying in the coalition.
Nowhere do I say that this kind of strategic messaging should be done at the expense of messaging on racial equality, or in confronting racism in all its forms. Yet, that is exactly what Sirota accuses me -- oh, excuse me, "the article" -- of doing. He then uses my article as an example of all that is wrong with the progressive movement, which he sees as a willingness to sell out non-white people.
I agree that the power structure of the progressive movement is one of white privilege: I might say, white male privilege. I do my best to remain conscious of my own skin privilege which, ironically, has been one of my passports into the right-wing world I cover as a journalist. I know I'm not perfect in this regard, but I hope that I'm a work in progress.
But aside from his obvious insult to me and my work, Sirota's attack carries real danger at a time when progressives hash out legitimate disagreements about how to confront the growing Tea Party movement. This is a time for progressives to debate strategy on its substance -- not to attack other progressives on baseless claims (even if such claims enhance your own sense of moral rectitude).
Through his own industriousness -- and much to his credit -- Sirota has a syndicated newspaper column, meaning his words carry beyond the progressive blogosphere, to the very people the Tea Party movement would like to recruit.
As Media Matters demonstrated in a 2007 report, the conservative voice far outweighs the progressive one on the op-ed pages of most newspapers, which are still read by people over 45, from which the ranks of the Tea Party movement are drawn. That means that in certain areas, Sirota's voice is the lone progressive one in a local newspaper. And that carries with it a special responsibility -- one that David Sirota would do well to take up.
Follow Adele Stan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/addiestan
The reason to see What's the Matter with Kansas? is for an opportunity to connect with the humanity that lies within the bosoms of those whose politics we fear and loathe.
Nathan Daschle: Is Bill McCollum the Next Victim of the GOP Civil War?
After Utah Senator Bob Bennett's defeat, an emboldened Tea Party is looking for even more establishment candidates to take down. Polling out this weekend suggests the Tea Partiers' next victory could be over Florida AG McCollum.
in a newspaper or magazine. they would have been marginalized and ignored as the uninformed racial
bigots they are. they would be classed with the flat-earthers, holocast deniers, and conspiracy nuts.
in the old days they would be sitting at home stewing in their own prejudices. thanks to modern technology their delusions are validated.
I would be the first to agree that if they want to really affect change get involved at the grass roots level. No revolution ever took place from the top down. Put up their own slate of candidates, not republican retreads and act as a real third party movement, offer solutions not one liners
That means the Tea Party groups have been around long enough to become disgusted with "politics as usual." Their movement begin in the waning years of the Bush Administration -- a fact cleverly hidden by Proguessives -- and indeed, is gaining strength watching the current Administration's assault of this nation's future, plunging it in bankrupt ending debt.
Over 45 -- it will happen to you.
The U.S. MUST right its econ. after decades of trusting Greenspan et fils. and his deluded notions of the 'inerantcy(sp?) of markets.' Perhaps, the 'tea baggers' will provide, at least, some impetus in that direction....and away from vassalage to China and the Middle Eastern quagmire....whether for Israel or oil....?
Where do I say the Tea Party is dangerous?
The entire piece is about how a perceived leader of the Tea Party is "unformed", irrational, bigoted, etc.
The organizations and individuals orchestrating the Tea Party may be artificial, but those uninformed people on the ground attending rallies are not. And whether or not they are misinformed, their anger isn't going anywhere any time soon.
I have been writing about the various Tea Party factions since November. Regardless of whether their anger is based on disinformation or lies or plain falsehoods, they're still angry, and that anger isn't going anywhere any time soon. Plus, they are (very gradually) becoming MORE organized, not less. It might not seem that way but that's because the media at large doesn't bother to dig past the surface.
I do fantasize about a teabagger candidate making headway into the GOP and splitting the party like Ross Perot but miracles only happen rarely. But I can still hope.
Anger and racism, and angry racists permeate our country---always has. And it always means trouble. With the recent AZ law, their tea kettle is getting ready to blow.
If anyone's angry it's the Tea Party. Isn't that half the point? Mad as hell, not going to take it anymore, that kind of thing?
Do you even know what fascism is? What the term means? Because it has very little to do with anger.