While New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently described the Tea Party as an American Hezbollah, Islamic terrorists would not have much clout without their funders in Saudi Arabia and Iran. So, too, the Republican right would be impotent without its behind-the-scenes creators. A small number of incredibly wealthy businessmen -- the principal beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts -- have created an ideological machine determined to destroy government. Taking our country back, restoring pragmatism over ideology, and making government function requires making the deep pocket money men (and they are mostly men) visible and identifying their cause with the looting of the country.
The debt limit gridlock is simply the latest episode in a war on government that has been thirty years in the making. Many of us dismissed the genial, misguided Ronald Reagan as an aberration. We saw the Gingrich revolution as self-destructive and easily contained. We cheered in 2006 and 2008 as we reached the conclusion that Bush, with his unnecessary wars and the financial crisis that was the predictable consequence of mindless deregulation, had discredited the Republican brand. Some of us voted for Obama over Hillary because we thought that with Bush and political maestro Karl Rove out of the way, Obama could transcend the partisanship of the Clinton years.
We were wrong. What we failed to recognize is the engine of Republican extremism is not Reagan or the second Bush or Gingrich. Nor is it some authentic voice of the Christian right or the disillusioned working class on the American "street." The engine of conservative ascendance is the ideologically-driven money men who have built a single-minded political machine in the United States. In Winner Take All Politics, political scientists Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker date the conservative rise to 1978, two years before Reagan. They identify conservative success with the ascendance of the Chamber of Commerce, which became a vehicle for right-wing business interests. They report that since the consolidation and channeling of conservative funding, Republicans have won an astounding 85% of closely fought contests.
Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and New Deal 2.0 pundit Thomas Ferguson, a political scientist at U Mass, Boston, documents the effective sale of Congress to special interests. The congressmen who raked consumer advocate and should-be populist hero Elizabeth Warren over the coals were the paid shills of the big banks she was willing to confront. Membership on financial services committees is now the product of the right campaign contributions. While public outrage may have led to the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, it did nothing to contain the alliance of lobbyists and business friendly Republicans (along with more than a few Democrats) working overtime to water it down and block its implementation.
In the meantime, the Republicans have launched a campaign to rig the political system. Their campaign against unions is a campaign against the last remaining source of institutional support for Democrats. At the same time, they are engaged in a wholesale initiative to make it harder to vote. Who is most likely to be affected by these measures? The answer is clear: the poor, the young, the less educated, recent immigrants, in short, those mostly likely to be Democrats and most likely to be the victims of tea party budget cuts.
The Supreme Court is no different. The rule of law is all but dead in America. The same group that funded the Tea Party and the congressional financial services committees has stacked the Court and blocked Obama appointments everywhere else. While commentators focus on issues such as abortion or campaign finance, the Supreme Court reaches its ideological height in its consistently pro-business decisions. Three of the Justices (Scalia, Thomas and Alito) are the most extreme justices since the twenties. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy are only slightly behind. Together, the five have produced a series of nakedly partisan 5-4 votes.
So how are we (everyone to the left of Paul Ryan) to respond? In the New York Times this weekend, pollster Stanley Greenberg depressingly observed that the public gets it -- and the public response has been neutralized by the right wing ideological campaign. The public gets that Wall Street runs the country. The public gets that no one represents their interests. The public gets that both Bush and Obama serve corporate interests first. And the public responds -- incredibly to some of us -- by believing that government is the problem. As Tom Frank explained in The Wrecking Crew, the point of this ideological campaign is to prove to the public that government can't work and there is no better way than to make sure it doesn't. So how to respond?
Greenberg argued that Democrats should adopt sensible policies to limit campaign contributions, tax lobbyist expenses, simplify the tax code, add fees to financial transactions and limit CEO compensation and executive bonuses. I wish! To accomplish these objectives, Greenberg needs a party that is not beholden to the same interests. To get there requires taking a few pages from the Republican playbook. Republican success has come from playing on the fears of the American public, making "liberal" a naughty word, and discrediting government especially when it works. According to independent observers, Obama's stimulus package saved jobs and probably prevented a worldwide depression; yet, most Americans think it was a failure. How do we combat propaganda? The answer requires seeing what we are up against and responding in turn.
First, we need to put a face on the enemies of the Republic. The true powers behind the throne are the money men. The Koch Brothers, leading right-wing funders, are finally becoming visible. They own the largest privately held energy company in the country, with over $100 billion in revenues. It is one the country's ten top contributors to air pollution and a "kingpin of climate science denial." The Koch Brothers fund a largely invisible network of think tanks, political front groups and advocacy organizations that have opposed Obama Administration initiatives from health care to the stimulus package. Charles Lewis, of the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, reported that the "sheer dimension" of what the Koch Brothers spend sets them apart. "They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation.... They are the Standard Oil of our times." Where do all those tax cuts go? We should emphasize just how much the tax cuts increase the Koch Brothers' ability to game the political system to insure their unaccountability.
Right up there with the Koch Brothers is Rupert Murdoch. He has finally registered in public consciousness as a result of the scandals in Britain. His minions illegally tapped the phones of the royal family, the opposition Labor Party, missing children and 9/11 victims, all while he supped with the Conservative Prime Minister. What he has done in the U.S. is comparable. He single-handedly funded the creation of Fox News, the primary source of information for 64% of the tea party and the single entity outside of the Bush Administration itself most responsible for the war in Iraq. He subverted the Wall Street Journal from a reputable, conservative, financial publication to an ideological force. Murdoch undermines reputable journalism everywhere he goes and insulates his media empire from effective oversight (or enforcement of the criminal law). His creations are much more effective than Pravda (the Soviet newspaper and propaganda arm) ever was. We must start by making these men and similar funders the face of conservative extremists. Conservative Republican and former Louisiana Governor Buddy Romer is running for the Republican Presidential nomination by disavowing large contributions. He is close to invisible in the polls. We should make visible the obvious -- every other Republican candidate is a stalking horse for the financial sector.
Second, we need to discredit the extremists as extremists. The Ku Klux Klan and the John Birch society are appropriately viewed as wingnuts. The Tea Party should be seen in the same league. Imagine if Democrats threatened the country's credit rating to pursue an unachievable ideological agenda. They would be called traitors; Vice President Joe Biden finally called them "terrorists" but only behind closed doors. The Tea Party has held the country hostage to a manufactured crisis designed to prove their ideological purity. At best, they are partisans who put their ideological commitments ahead of the country's. More systematically, they serve the interests of those who would destroy government effectiveness. John McCain, now that he has been safely reelected for what is likely to be his last term, has been one of the more effective voices against them. They deserve to be discredited permanently.
Third, the only way to discredit them is to link the money men to the extremist policies. Progressives are proud of their video showing the Republican attack on Medicare as the equivalent of pushing Grandma off the cliff. Their far more effective refrain is the one that links sacrificing Grandma to tax cuts for the wealthy. The refrain could be done through fill in the blanks. The Republicans want to sacrifice Medicare to protect tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republicans want to fire teachers to promote tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republicans want to slash Social Security to promote tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republican held the debt limit increase hostage to their efforts to protect tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republicans, whatever they do, are beholden to the money men the country should love to hate.
Fourth, the Democrats need to claim credit for government's genuine accomplishments. The public believes that Social Security and Medicare are successes. Somehow, it thinks that the extension of Medicare to more people is socialism. Obama failed to put an effective government (and Democratic) label on the programs that in fact produced the most results -- the jobs created by the stimulus for government infrastructure, the federal funds that staved off the need for state layoffs, etc. In Kansas, Republican Governor Brownback and Republican Senator Pat Roberts are claiming credit for a new federally funded Bio-Defense Facility even as they bash federal spending. Either the federal government should be getting credit for the facility or it should be on the chopping block.
Fifth, the Democrats need an overriding agenda. An easy one is the need to rebuild community and equality. Impressive empirical studies suggest that inequality necessarily undermines community health. It results in writing off large numbers as chronically unemployed, mentally ill, likely to abuse drugs or alcohol and effectively unmarriageable. It also makes it easy for those with six figure bonuses to escape accountability. The right wing extremism machine is possible only because the Koch Brothers can amass fortunes worth over $35 billion between them.
I am not optimistic. Naomi Cahn and I wrote a book on the family called Red Families v. Blue Families. We expected it to appeal to family law scholars and women's groups. Instead, we received immediate attention from conservative family institutes. We were eventually invited to speak by same-sex marriage advocacy organizations. We never heard much from the feminist left. At first we were mystified. Then we realized that while there is a well funded network of right wing think tanks, the organized left -- and much of the center -- has starved on the vine for lack of funds. Same-sex marriage passed in New York State because Republican funders, who identify with their gay sons and lesbian daughters, supported the cause. Efforts that require limiting the influence of the billionaires we have empowered and insulated from accountability face an uphill struggle.
June Carbone is the Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, the Constitution and Society at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and contributor to the New Deal 2.0 blog. She is the co-author, with Naomi Cahn, of Red Families v. Blue Families.
David Bromwich: Why Has Obama Never Recognized the Tea Party?
Matthew L. Skinner: Matthew 14:22-33: Faith within the Chaos
Patrick Sharma: Can We Focus on Unemployment Now?
Palin, Bachmann blast Biden for alleged "terrorist" comment
Is the tea party gaining or waning in influence?
Jon Stewart blasts Obama, Tea Party over debt deal
The moderate middle wins the day
The Tea Parties are billed as a people's movement. But they wouldn't exist without the help of deep-pocketed billionaires.
By Adele M. Stan
http://www.alternet.org/media/148598/tea_party_inc.%3A_the_big_money_and_powerful_elites_behind_the_right_wing's_latest_uprising
http://www.alternet.org/multimedia/tea_party_inc/
look up
www.ALEXexposed.org
These are the "shadow elite", they work in the shadows with powerful amounts of money and privilege, exploiting the masses through mainstream media and crooked politicians. The American people are wising up to these tricks. They can buy a TV network, but they cant buy the minds and hearts of our people any longer.
Spread the word. Rise above the shadow elite, and vote smart!
It is encouraging that activists such as yourself can admit that they were wrong in 2008 to support Obama because they believed he could "compromise with the right". You have identified why such "compromise" is doomed to failure with your point that Elizabeth Warren was raked over the coals by Congressmen who were "paid shills of the big banks". Obama and his followers never realized that you can neither negotiate nor reason with "paid shills". Why? Because they are paid to oppose you no matter what substance there is to your arguments. If they do not, they will be removed and replaced by a more cooperative stooge.
Obama negotiating with the Stooges: that's what we have today.
I encourage you to continue on the path you have recognized.
The GOP makes it look good with all their anti-Obama rhetoric, but more and more I have to wonder if he isn't their "Manchurian candidate".
Back during the primaries for the 2008 Presidential election, my hubby and I split on who to support among the Dems. I was for Hillary and he was for Obama. When we were discussing it, I told him about a clip I'd seen where someone asked a member of the GOP which Dem candidate they would most like to see win the nomination and perhaps the Presidency. Their answer was swift and sure - Obama. They said it was because he was the "most reasonable" of the Dems, someone they could work with.
That made me nervous. And since his election, my fears have been proven to be well-founded over and over again.
Wait -- it probably is already in place, since the unpopular Harper managed, mysteriously, to gain a "majority" in your parliament.
The truth is that no side serves the people. They are all politicians and will do what it takes to get and keep power. Both parties are dedicated to expanding government power so they can reward their special interest supporters.
Do we throw up our hands and give up all power to the corporations and the monied elite? Or do we muster up the courage of our forebears and fight to KEEP a government that is "of, by and for the PEOPLE"?
What I'm hearing in your comment is capitulation. But I am not yet ready to give up my country so easily.
If you are anti-war then commit to voting only for people that will end wars and excess funding of the military.
I also want people to give up the illusion that politics is a good way to solve our problems. Federal politics is particularly toxic. We need to take our lives back from the politicians.
Colbert, being the "super conservative" the way he is, would have to set up his Super PAC as an Ultra Tea Party that is so far to the right that it has circled back around to the left. And if anyone could do such a thing it is Steve Colbert.
Not saying we go to war or anything but maybe we as liberals owe it to ourselves to be a LOT meaner. Facts are on our side, lets simplify those talking points. Conservatives give us soooooo much ammo on a daily basis...they just forced us into a deal that made getting higher education harder, most people under 30 have historically been liberal. It's okay to say that Republicans are against the future outright. And I think they should have to answer on why they are so against the youth and the future?
It's okay to say that Republicans haven't been on the right side of history since Lincoln. It's okay to say that if you own a dog and know what a wolf is and STILL don't believe in evolution you are an idiot.
It's okay to say conservatism is inherently silly; In a world and universe where everything changes, how can you be against change and expect to survive?
Damn them and their stale, stagnant ideology.
Sincerely,
Rush Libraughl