Progressives and Tea Partiers have combined to transform America's We Generation politics. This change has been brewing for a while: in every aspect of American life people have slowly shed blind faith in institutions and taken on leadership roles within our communities.
The We Generation is a cultural phenomenon and a power shift. Credit old school anti-establishment fervor plus new media technology that democratizes politics and increases power (especially in primary elections) for the rise of America's We Generation. Nowhere is this more evident than in our politics: beyond left and right the fight is bottom-up versus top-down ranging from progressives quoting the old Hopi Indian prayer "we are the ones we have waited for" and tea partiers saying "there is no one tea party leader -- we are all leaders." For the visually inclined, the shape of We Generation politics looks far less like a spectrum, pyramid or upside-down triangle, and more like concentric circles.
Since the tea party has emerged as the latest element of the We Generation of 21st century American politics, largely in reaction to the ultimate success in We Generation politics -- the Obama campaign -- it is worth noting the similarities. The tea partiers are at a crossroads in 2010 like progressives were ten years ago. In 2000, Green translated to many Democrats as "Getting Republicans Elected Every November," with Ralph Nader being the prime example. After the Florida recount of 2000 and Iraq War buildup of 2002 some progressives stayed with Greens, some reclaimed the Paul Wellstone "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" as delegates and founders of progressive caucuses within state parties, a few won public office, many shaped politics through activism, and the most extreme were tied to mainstream Democratic leaders regardless of connection.
Substitute "progressive" for "tea party", "Republican" for "Democratic" -- that's where the tea party is today. Some tea partiers will be Ralph Naders of the right, helping to elect Democrats, some will join the "Republican wing of the Republican Party" and others will remain on the fringes, unpoliced or unrepentant. And yes, those on the fringes will be tied to mainstream leaders because defining people by extremist persons and causes is the oldest political shorthand. Just as future President Barack Obama was asked to "reject and denounce" Louis Farrakhan's unsolicited support and aspiring Speaker Nancy Pelosi took impeaching President Bush off the table, so Republicans will be called upon to reject and denounce radical tea party elements and the calls to impeach President Obama.
The wild card in We Generation politics is defining the "we" -- building coalitions. Discrete groups however powerful must still band together to reach pluralities and majorities. Coalitions formed around issues will have consensus from a variety of viewpoints (see the Main Street versus Wall Street debate, for example), which means that organizers can't simply look at party affiliation to predict voter sentiment. Indeed, the more we learn about each other the more personal We Generation politics will become. The good news is that we can't take each other for granted; the challenging news is that we must draw those concentric circles for each set of issues and invest in a heck of a lot more grassroots infrastructure to present multiple cases to the voters, especially independents who have declined the "we" of a political party identification.
We Generation politics reward candidates who can navigate those concentric circles of friendships, values, and issues. The skill set is not just rising to the top of a political hierarchy but on simultaneously working laterally with people who openly disagree with you. Building coalitions is the key to the 'we" -- build a big tent and "we" will come. Break your word and "we" will not be with you for long. Indeed, how candidates organize progressives to coexist with Democrats (and tea partiers with Republicans) may well determine the outcome of the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Follow Christine Pelosi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sfpelosi
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
From my post: "beyond left and right the fight is bottom-up versus top-down ranging from progressives quoting the old Hopi Indian prayer "we are the ones we have waited for" and tea partiers saying "there is no one tea party leader -- we are all leaders." For the visually inclined, the shape of We Generation politics looks far less like a spectrum, pyramid or upside-down triangle, and more like concentric circles."
The thing is, the Republican party is a party of OPTIMISM. The party talks about how great America is. How we should believe and trust in the individual. That each citizen should have the maximum amount of freedom and liberty we can allow in a society. The Republicans believe in America and in the citizens of America.
The Democratic Party is the party of PESSIMISM. We are all going to die a horrible death as we over populate, over pollute and destroy the world with global warming and wars. We can't win in Iraq. We can't win in Afghanistan, people are all out of work and there is a class war going on because the wealthy are evil and want to destroy the middle class. America is a terrible place created by white European slave owners who want people to have guns and kill. We as Americans are destroying the rest of the world and they HATE America. Christians are evil and the Boy Scouts are intolerant. America is bad! You shouldn’t be proud of America and you should vote for Democrats.
Who is the negative party?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tea_Party_movement_funding
If you look at birth rates, they rise and fall slowly. Even the "Baby Boom" would not stand out.
Just another ridiculous creation of the media.
But in any case, the Tea Party are mainly Boomers, old folks like me.
There was a great Doonesbury strip where Zonker joins a rally; fits in somewhat.
I am not sure about the existence of any "We Generation." What I am sure is that the ability of the average American to critically evaluate issues and information is quickly evaporating.
I am not part of a "We" movement. And I believe I'm not alone.
I don't even claim to be a "Progressive" and I certainly don't claim to be a "Liberal" either.
But as far as the republicans are concerned, there was a time when their message of fiscal conservatism and pro-free market stance were reasonable.
Now it's hollow and and empty rhetoric.
I'm not joining forces with the Progressives or the Liberals or even the Democratic Party.
I support the President (whomever he/she may be) as long as his/her decisions have merit.
It's obvious to me that the republicans are complete imbeciles who are caught in a quagmire of an obsolete tradition of playing dirty politics and they are betting the farm that American voters and the technological revolution isn't sufficient enough too exploit their obvious lack of coherent policy making practices regarding the American voter.
And all of these observations are made without the help of Progressives, Liberals or Democratic Party operatives.
And I don't believe my Independent perspective is anything rare in this current time period.
Americans are destined for failure if they vote in favor of their own best interests and the republicans are proving that they have no interest in furthering prosperity in America, but rather obstructing their political opposition.
And I don't believe it has anything to do with "We".
"We"?
What do you mean "We"?
Do you have a rabbit in your pocket?
Fanned and Faved!
"We" doesn't mean a generation of joiners or followers. "We" means "We don't count on you to take care of us, so WE'll do it ourselves!" It is a generation taking our nations fate into our own hands, insisting that our voices be heard.
Based on your comment, it seems to me that "you", are very much a part of "we".
That's reasonable, but as an independent, I'm still not a "we" guy by nature. I don't trust anyone, even the well-intentioned. Not because I'm pessimistic of humanity but seeing is believing and blind faith is for when you have exhausted all of your available options.
But your comment is well-received.
As for your belief that the some Tea Partiers might join "the Republican wing of the Republican Party", well, it seems much more like the Republican party is retrenching further to the right to join the tea party.
The tenor of politics today is downright ugly and the actions and words from both sides is doing nothing to attract voters and in fact are chasing them to the other side. At least that's how I feel when I hear the President speak, as well as the Democratic leadership. I imagine the same is true for left leaning folks who listen to Boehner and his cohorts.
In my opinion, the key to the Independent vote is offering new ideas in the form of policies that don't obviously cator to special interests whether they be unions, ethnic groups, or corperations. The only special interest that matters should be the American Public at large.
Rich
BTW: GO CARDINALS!!!!!
In today's political environment, I think it's naive to believe that long term change for the better is possible with one party remaining in power. Time after time it's been shown that the longer a party is in power, the more corrupt it becomes.
GO REDS!!!!!! :)
To be perfectly honest, I saw your name, Christine, and expected the typical Cesca/Linkins style blog post attacking all Tea Partiers as racist. I was pleasantly surprised that the opposite, in fact, was true.
I applaud your statement that "defining people by extremist persons and causes is the oldest political shorthand" which tacitly acknowledges that just maybe, all conservatives and even Tea Partiers, aren't racists.
Although I have always leaned to the right, I have varied my vote based on the performance of those in office. I voted for Bush 41 the first time around, but voted for Perot when Bush reneged on his "No new taxes" pledge. At that time I became a registered Independent and voted for Clinton and then Bush 43. After seeing Bush's reckless spending and questionable foreign policy, I voted for Kerry. Finally, after four more years of the same and worse, I happily cast my vote for Obama, believing what he campaigned on. Yet again, I am disappointed and will in all likelihood vote for for the GOP alternative in 2012.
I guess what I'm trying to illustrate, is that your point about Independents is accurate but doesn't go far enough. To attract and 'retain' Independent voters, you need more than a good campaign - and Obama's was brilliant - you need to demonstrate that you really meant what you said. Platitudes from both sides get old fast.
(Continued)
Great post. I also consider myself an Independent (although I am registered Dem to have a say in the primaries).
I feel like there are so many people who are split down the middle. I myself am a 30-something, educated female; I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I am for personal accountability, smaller government, gay rights, equality, no religion in the government, less government intrusion into my life, gun rights, lower taxes, free speech even when I find it vulgar or hateful, less reliance on welfare, and student/family accountability in education (instead of blame the teachers). Which party represents me? Neither. So I vote based on which issues are the most meaningful to me at the time. The economy is doing well? I swing Left. The economy is tanking? I swing Right.
How many others are like me? Educated, deeply concerned about our country and our politics, but with allegiance to neither party? I think that there are quite a few of us. Independents.
Here's a couple of websites I hope you check out.
Thom Hartmann
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
Coffee Party
http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/
Center for American progress
http://www.americanprogress.org/
Under our current duopolistic system that is basically in the hands of big money special interests, diverse groups are exploited when convenient, but never respected. I don't think there are many progressives who feel Obama, Reid, or Pelosi represent their interests. The corporate-authored legislation that the Democrats have passed after months of phony posturing has so thoroughly alienated sincere voters that the Democrats are probably toast. I have no intention of voting for Democrats any time soon. Sincere Teabaggers will feel the same after their votes bring no change either, only more corporate welfare.
At this point, I think we need people to just organize new parties, and they should stay home if their party is denied a place on the ballot. It is not that I do not want to do my part for democracy, but we need a democratic system first. Plutocracy is not democracy.
Voting for parties that think nothing of spending a trillion per year on war, bailing out banks, and causing real wages of working people to keep declining for four decades now makes no sense. Voting only encourages the unprincipled power mongers who have sold themselves to the highest bidders. I can't outbid the NRA or Goldman Sachs; but I can, and will, stay home on election day.
How that is not participating is beyond me.
"I don't think there are many progressives who feel Obama, Reid, or Pelosi represent their interests."
And therein lies your flaw, you don't know Progressives.