Tea Party movement more popular than the Republican Party

[Dimentio]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/poll-tea-party-outpolls-republicans-on-generic-ballot.php

"A new Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot) suggests that the Tea Party movement is far and away more popular than the Republican Party it seeks to influence -- so much so that if it were a full-fledged political party, it would overtake the GOP on the generic Congressional ballot.


The question was phrased as follows: "Okay, suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?"


The results: Democratic 36%, Tea Party 23%, Republican 18%."




I almost hope they form their own party. It would totally serve to annihilate the right from the national scene and marginalise them, thus making the Democrats the new right and open up for options to the left.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Tea Party movement gave up on the GOP a long time ago. They want them to be radically right or don't want to be a part of it at all.

[leninpuncher]

Hasn't the Tea Party movement been thoroughly split apart from the inside? Leadership disputes, and the sort of demagogic wankery that you'd expect to see from a political movement that takes after Glenn Beck.

They all have guns, let them kill each other.

[The Douche]

Its because the tea party movement has neo-cons, traditional conservatives, paleo-conservatives, libertarians, and virtually every other right wing tendency involved. So it is rapidly fracturing.

[the last donut of the night]

We shouldn't dismiss the Tea Party so soon. Yes, they have their internal sects, but so do we. Let us note that their fascism (seeing that they are the petty bourgeoisie reacting to the decay of capitalism and taking a falsely working-class position) is imminent and is going on without a coherent response from the left. It is time for action, to smash the teabaggers and all their racism, sexism, and homophobia.

[Raúl Duke]

I almost hope they form their own party. It would totally serve to annihilate the right from the national scene and marginalise them, thus making the Democrats the new right and open up for options to the left.

That depends...it's possible that in some areas (specifically those that are already contested between Democrats and Republicans) the tea party would not contest the Republican candidate and instead endorse them while in other similar areas the GOP would instead endorse the Tea Party candidate while in areas predominately Republican (where the Democrats have no change of winning) the Tea Party would likely contest the Republican party.

[Axle]

And to think...when they first showed up I thought the Tea Parties were just a really bad joke.

The Tea Party movement is suffering some possibly catastrophic internal breaking at the moment, though. We could see a major split in the whole thing in a few months. I really can't imagine it staying a cohesive whole for very much longer.

To me, the real hell of this ordeal isn't the Tea Parties being a legitamate political party, but how (initially) organized they were. Seriously, we have GOT to get on the ball.

[Labor Shall Rule]

We shouldn't dismiss the Tea Party so soon. Yes, they have their internal sects, but so do we. Let us note that their fascism (seeing that they are the petty bourgeoisie reacting to the decay of capitalism and taking a falsely working-class position) is imminent and is going on without a coherent response from the left. It is time for action, to smash the teabaggers and all their racism, sexism, and homophobia.

I can't see that I agree with you. If we are serious about a radical and communist project in our country, then we can't think that certain reactionary social movements 'belong' to a certain class. I mean, sure, the free market fundamentalism, theocracy, and whiteness of the far right appeals the most to the petty bourgeois. But it also appeals to white workers as well. It's important to make this distinction, because we have to get those workers out of that conceptual framework.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Tea Parties were first organized by a known industrialist and financed by huge corporate backers. They then went grassroots, so this was never a working class movement. Secondly, they're splitting because there is an obvious rift between the reactionary right conservatives that favor corporate welfare interests and more libertarian members. All in all these factions are to the extreme end of the American political spectrum and must be opposed.

My friend is about to have his third kid this month and all of the hospital bills will be payed for by Medicare. When I attended a local chapter of the Tea Party Movement, I over heard a speaker call for the abolition of Medicare in favor of opening up more room for private business to compete in the marketplace which would "lower prices". So FUCK THEM! We need action to oppose these disgusting freaks before they poison the minds of more working class people.

I just finished watching a great video on the Argentinean financial collapse and how the people mobilized against 20 years of privatization! Now when the only large protests by average people going on in this country against the government are in favor of more privatization and the abolition of any public option for health care, you know something is totally fucked. This is NOT a homegrown phenomena or a workers ideology.
We must be the laughing stock of the world actively campaigning against our own interests. C'mon guys we have to do something!

[the last donut of the night]

I can't see that I agree with you. If we are serious about a radical and communist project in our country, then we can't think that certain reactionary social movements 'belong' to a certain class. I mean, sure, the free market fundamentalism, theocracy, and whiteness of the far right appeals the most to the petty bourgeois. But it also appeals to white workers as well. It's important to make this distinction, because we have to get those workers out of that conceptual framework.

Of course, I acknowledge that many workers do hold reactionary views; however, we all know that ideas come from class struggle. Our modern view of black and white, ethnically speaking, was formed by slave masters in the early colonial period who greatly feared black and white revolts. It divided the workers then and it divides them now.

[RadioRaheem84]

Of course, I acknowledge that many workers do hold reactionary views; however, we all know that ideas come from class struggle. Our modern view of black and white, ethnically speaking, was formed by slave masters in the early colonial period who greatly feared black and white revolts. It divided the workers then and it divides them now.

Do you believe that the current reactionary ideals of a segment of the working class is because of racism and not an a priori belief in that the private sector can do it better than the government?

[maya]

The Tea Parties were first organized by a known industrialist and financed by huge corporate backers.

Are there sources for this? If they are getting money, it sure isn't much.

The few activists I have spoken to represent it as a very disorganized, decentralized movement. Just a lot of pissed off and misguided middle class.

[Raúl Duke]

Are there sources for this? If they are getting money, it sure isn't much.

The few activists I have spoken to represent it as a very disorganized, decentralized movement. Just a lot of pissed off and misguided middle class.

According to one media source (http://washingtonindependent.com/63299/tea-party-activists-reject-pac-backed-tea-party-express), a section ,called Tea Party Express, of it is being accused of being GOP-linked astro-turf. However, another section of it is against it. (http://washingtonindependent.com/67544/the-tea-party-patriots-vs-tea-party-express)

There's also other sources that claim that the movement is all just astroturf (http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2009/04/14/web-site-calls-tea-parties-astroturf/)

[Dimentio]

The Tea Parties were first organized by a known industrialist and financed by huge corporate backers. They then went grassroots, so this was never a working class movement. Secondly, they're splitting because there is an obvious rift between the reactionary right conservatives that favor corporate welfare interests and more libertarian members. All in all these factions are to the extreme end of the American political spectrum and must be opposed.

My friend is about to have his third kid this month and all of the hospital bills will be payed for by Medicare. When I attended a local chapter of the Tea Party Movement, I over heard a speaker call for the abolition of Medicare in favor of opening up more room for private business to compete in the marketplace which would "lower prices". So FUCK THEM! We need action to oppose these disgusting freaks before they poison the minds of more working class people.

I just finished watching a great video on the Argentinean financial collapse and how the people mobilized against 20 years of privatization! Now when the only large protests by average people going on in this country against the government are in favor of more privatization and the abolition of any public option for health care, you know something is totally fucked. This is NOT a homegrown phenomena or a workers ideology.
We must be the laughing stock of the world actively campaigning against our own interests. C'mon guys we have to do something!

The reason why the right-wing is so strong in USA is that both liberals and conservatives have played upon "race politics" rather than class politics. In USA, workers of the historically privilegied group could oppose progressive moves on the basis that they think it would benefit workers of historically marginalised groups at their expense.

So yes, it seems to ultimately boil down to racism, even though people aren't speaking openly about it.

Europe has been steadily moving to the right for the last 20 years too, which is partially because og the manufactured splits in interests between first and second generation immigrants from Non-European countries and what is seen as the "domestic" workers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There are already fringe right parties that don't get the votes because conservatives are more concerned with winning elections. It would be nice if they drew votes away from the GOP, but in the end the two-party system would stay. It's deeply institutionalized and won't be going anywhere for a while.

[Guerrilla22]

Tea parties give loud, uniformed reactionaries the opprotunity to be loud and spew ignorance in view of everyone. Membership in the Republican party does not. That is why tea parties are so popular amongst reactionary idiots in the US.

[RadioRaheem84]

Are there sources for this? If they are getting money, it sure isn't much.

The few activists I have spoken to represent it as a very disorganized, decentralized movement. Just a lot of pissed off and misguided middle class.

I read this a while back. I will find the source. But I believe the first major rally was sponsored by some engineering tycoon and then that led to the rise of more grassroots movements. The local tea party in my area is definitely not corporate backed but probably backed by some small business owners in the community. The presence there was largely working and middle class with small pockets of small to middle sized business owners.

[Prairie Fire]

I almost hope they form their own party. It would totally serve to annihilate the right from the national scene and marginalise them, thus making the Democrats the new right and open up for options to the left.


How would that work? Let me give you a Canadian example...


The rise of the breakaway Wildrose Alliance party in my country, and it's supposed "grassroots" support, has not made the Canadian Liberal party seem like the new "right wing". On the contrary, what was once a discredited "centrist" party ,with nearly identical policies to the other bourgeois parties, now is seen as "left wing" in comparrison by many of the people opposing Wild Rose.

And it would not "open up options for the left"; on the contrary, it would encourage siege mentality, and the American left would do what they did during the 2008 election, and the 2004 election before that, and they would vote for who ever was opposing the right and looking like they had a chance of winning. The chances that anyone would even go over the programs of candidates is slim, and no one would notice that the bourgeois "Right" and "Left" candidates have pretty much the same core policies.

There would be some who would say "fuck it all", and form progressive left organizations of their own, but those elements are largely the same ones that are doing it right now, and have been for years.

If anything, the rise of "grass roots" right wing 'populist' parties that more accurately represent disenfranchised sections of the bourgeoisie (in the US, the Tea baggers often represent the HMO's and medical insurance industry; in Canada, Wildrose Alliance represents the aims of the Oil and Gas industry) have turned traditional reactionaries into looking like "Centrists" in comparrison (in my country, more accurately, they have given the ruling Conservative Party "confirmation" that the people are right wing, and they have therefore pushed forward an even more reactionary agenda of policies for their party.)

But this is not the issue.

Anyone who isn't a lazy organizer doesn't need to pray for the circumstances to become dire to polarize people into our ranks, because as most of us can see, the situation of capitalism has always been dire in one sense of the word or another since Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto. No, the tasks facing the workers movement in all countries haven't changed at all, even with the rise of this brownshirt movement in the United States:

Organize, build social conciousness among the people, build the structures of peoples power and mobilize the working class and oppressed peoples to defend their own rights and achieve their own objectives (and eventually take political power for themselves). There are no shortage of reasons that this is very crucial at this time, so I suppose we should get at it.


Leninpuncher


the sort of demagogic wankery that you'd expect to see from a political movement that takes after Glenn Beck.

They don't "take after" Glen Beck. Beck is a bourgeois talking head who can be taken off the air at any moment if he displeases the people who own the Network that his show is on.

Regardless of wether or not they pay attention to Beck's show, those pulling the strings behind the tea parties are more accurately think tanks like "Freedomworks", people like Dick Armey, and other major sources of capital as Radio Raheem pointed out.

This movement is created and manouvered by sections of the American Bourgeoisie itself. Only the liberals make it a matter of Beck and his persynality.



Its because the tea party movement has neo-cons, traditional conservatives, paleo-conservatives, libertarians, and virtually every other right wing tendency involved.


Regardless of the "mixed bag" make-up of the Tea party's, they still agree on basic points, and will still be made prominent and weilded as tool for as long as it served bourgeois interests.

Remember that at one point the Ku Klux Klan had a million members, v(note: it was 6 million) and that point was when they were in line with the state policies of the United States and it's ruling class. When they ceased to be in line with these policies, they dwindled, their more affleunt membership left, and to an extent the FBI COINTELPRO program destroyed them from the inside.

I expect a similar thing to happen with these Teabaggers. If they succeec on putting pressure on Washington and making the Obama government more pliable to certain sections of the bourgeoisie, the Teabaggers will no longer be necesary (might even become a liability) and they will be scrapped.



It is time for action, to smash the teabaggers and all their racism, sexism, and homophobia.


I wouldn't advocate overzealous violence against every teabagger. But I would advocate counter protests at every one of their protests (with something to defend yourselves), and self defense organizations to protect the people from them.


To me, the real hell of this ordeal isn't the Tea Parties being a legitamate political party, but how (initially) organized they were.

You think this was an accident? You think that level of organization come sinto existence with spontaneity?


The Tea Parties were first organized by a known industrialist and financed by huge corporate backers. They then went grassroots, so this was never a working class movement. Secondly, they're splitting because there is an obvious rift between the reactionary right conservatives that favor corporate welfare interests and more libertarian members.

Word.



All in all these factions are to the extreme end of the American political spectrum and must be opposed.


Whoa, whoa! What is this?

We must oppose extreme ends of the political spectrum? Are we not one of those extreme ends?

This smacks of liberal rejection of political "extremes" in favour of political moderates and centrists. The Irony is that political moderates are the ones putting up the highest death tolls, and leaving the most bodies in their wake, as we can see from Iraq,Afghanistan, Haiti, etc...

Be careful of that in the future.



Of course, I acknowledge that many workers do hold reactionary views; however, we all know that ideas come from class struggle. Our modern view of black and white, ethnically speaking, was formed by slave masters in the early colonial period who greatly feared black and white revolts. It divided the workers then and it divides them now.

Word.

[ls]

Remember that Rasmussen polls are absolutely shitty and super-biased anyways. ;)

[Jimmie Higgins]

We shouldn't dismiss the Tea Party so soon. Yes, they have their internal sects, but so do we. Let us note that their fascism (seeing that they are the petty bourgeoisie reacting to the decay of capitalism and taking a falsely working-class position) is imminent and is going on without a coherent response from the left. It is time for action, to smash the teabaggers and all their racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Yes, I think there might be a right-wing challenge to the Republicans either through some kind of splinter off of the tea-party movement (hoping to rally those forces) or an independent right-winger with the high-profile or money (maybe fresh from recent book deals, eh) to launch their own campaign.

While this means easy electoral success for the Democrats in the short term (and they will certainly see it that way and continue to treat the far-right as a joke and not call them on their racism or hysteria or quazi-fascism) ultimately it will HELP push American politics and consciousness further to the right.

What is really needed now - in terms of electoralism* - is a left-wing high profile challenge in order to bring a working-class criticism of the handling of the recession and the war and the failures of the Democracts if only to get these arguments heard by the mainstream.

The problem right now is that the only visible opposition to an establishment that Americans have no faith or trust in are right-wing conspiracists and racists! This is a real danger.

*Edit: I agree that we need to counter-protest the far-right and of course build the class struggle

[RadioRaheem84]

Whoa, whoa! What is this?

We must oppose extreme ends of the political spectrum? Are we not one of those extreme ends?

This smacks of liberal rejection of political "extremes" in favour of political moderates and centrists. The Irony is that political moderates are the ones putting up the highest death tolls, and leaving the most bodies in their wake, as we can see from Iraq,Afghanistan, Haiti, etc...

Be careful of that in the future.

What I meant to say was that they're on the extreme reactionary end of the right wing political spectrum. They must be opposed on the basis that they're willing to enact violence on anyone they deem "liberal". They're one step away from becoming a lynch mob.


Of course, I acknowledge that many workers do hold reactionary views; however, we all know that ideas come from class struggle. Our modern view of black and white, ethnically speaking, was formed by slave masters in the early colonial period who greatly feared black and white revolts. It divided the workers then and it divides them now.

You're right. I noticed that I get a much better reaction taking to minority working class people because of their willingness to unite people of all races. The white reactionary minority is largely delusional thinking that they are a part of some great class when they're too being exploited by the ruling class.

Most of the time though it stems from a hatred of culture rather than race today, IMO. They don't want outside cultures to "infest" the American way of life.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Most of the time though it stems from a hatred of culture rather than race today, IMO. They don't want outside cultures to "infest" the American way of life.

Yup, "cultural" racism is the newest and most acceptable variation of racism today. It's still taboo to say "black people are inferior because of biology, genes, some inherent flaw" - The bell curve (arguing for inherent biological inferiority of some races) was rightfully attacked and denounced as racist pseuo-science. At the same time people like Denesh DeSousa were writing about black "cultural inferiority" being the reason for high incarceration rates and low test scores (besically drawing the same result as the Bell Curve, but with a different explaination) and getting awards and academic respectability and talk-show gigs and so on. Now we even hear Obama echo DeSousa's arguments when he says that the answer to black povery and incarceration is "not sitting around watching Sportscenter all day; stop being afraid of 'acting white' (i.e. studying - as if that's what white people did at my school:rolleyes:)".

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, I think there might be a right-wing challenge to the Republicans either through some kind of splinter off of the tea-party movement (hoping to rally those forces) or an independent right-winger with the high-profile or money (maybe fresh from recent book deals, eh) to launch their own campaign.

While this means easy electoral success for the Democrats in the short term (and they will certainly see it that way and continue to treat the far-right as a joke and not call them on their racism or hysteria or quazi-fascism) ultimately it will HELP push American politics and consciousness further to the right.

What is really needed now - in terms of electoralism - is a left-wing high profile challenge in order to bring a working-class criticism of the handling of the recession and the war and the failures of the Democracts if only to get these arguments heard by the mainstream.

The problem right now is that the only visible opposition to an establishment that Americans have no faith or trust in are right-wing conspiracists and racists! This is a real danger.

It was bound to happen. I mean the Tea Party people just represent the non-Rockefeller type elements that have long dominated the Party since the 80s. They've been silenced for far too long by the moderates and now they're mobilizing on their own without GOP restraint. All of the Bircher-lite type crap that's been disseminated through the media about socialism and communism is finally taking its toll. Now liberal and moderate politicians will have no where to run as they will be constantly hounded for being closet-Marxists. Imagine what they would do to us who openly preach Marxism?

Actually our only hope is to talk to the more libertarian less-kooky conspiracy types that listen to Alex Jones. He seems to slightly understand that 'liberal' does not equal Marxism. There is no hope with the Bircher, Glen Beck, Michael Savage crowd though, or any left over vestige group from the Cold War era. They want blood.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, I don't know if it was bound to happen - I just think that the established parties have lost all credibility and this movement is an expression of petty -bourgeois anger and frustration: they hate "elites" and blame workers and immigrants and labor unions. I can't believe how many times now I read about this or that being "controlled by labor unions" - what the fuck, the unions are weak as fuck theses days! I don't know how these idiots (the adherents, not the leaders of this movement) can constantly say down is up and not realize it, not get called on it.

Also, on the subject of astro-turfing that people here have brought up. While it's very true that much of this is being organized from the top and through think tanks and corporate interests, people would not be responding to it as they have been if there was not an actual social base for it. That base is the primordial soup of fascism: a downtrodden petty bourgoise squeezed between the failures of capitalism and their prejudices against working class interests. These think tanks and corporate interests have tried to rally people for decades and this is the largest I've ever seen it... I think it even scares the astro-turfers to some extent: it's like the think tanks are the Sourcerer's apprentice and they are not quite sure what they've unleashed. The same thing happened to McCain when he appealed to racism during the last part of the camapaign.

[RadioRaheem84]

What I meant was that it was bound to happen because of the media's constant propaganda barrage on the American public concerning socialism.

I just finished watching an excellent, excellent documentary on the downfall of Argentina's economy. It showed how politicians of both the left and the right totally dismantled Argentina's productive economy. This was largely the fault of everyone involved in the political process including leftist politicians, trade union leaders, industrialists, bankers and even organized crime. Their reaction though was one of fighting against further privatization, corruption and neo-liberalism.

The United States is unique in that we are the only major industrialist nation that has a vocal public actively campaigning against their interests. A huge section of our people united in favor of ruling class interests. The only way I could explain that is the mass indoctrination of anti-leftist propaganda and the total disconnect of the people from history, economics and politics. If anyone were to point out the financial issues of the day, a right winger would bring up that it was under Clinton that the banks were de-regulated, therefor it is a socialist liberal problem. It's a constant 'a priori' belief that the problem is due to government (or a government bent on socialism).
The people of Argentina did not turn right wing after their left wing politicians and trade union leaders betrayed them. Neither did the people of Venezuela or Bolivia. They turned more radical and neo-liberalism was seen as the enemy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Was the movie "The Take"? That was an awesome movie.

I don't think the US is unique in having a public actively campaigning against working class interests, there is a rising fascist movement in Europe with the BNP gaining some acceptability and figures like Le Pen in France and some other nationalist parties in Northern Europe coming close to legitimacy.

The problem in the US and where we are unique is that we do not have a visible and powerful left campaigning FOR working class interests. The reasons for this you described well - McCarthyism, anti-leftist prop. I would add, that the broad left's failure to take on the democrats and have an independent voice is also a main reason we don't have a healthy left here.

In England, the BNP faces opposition when it shows its face and there is a clear opposition to it. In the US we just have liberals mocking from the sidelines and when you try to organize a counter-protest, most say "well, we'd be just like them, then - we have to respect their freedom of speech". When Le Pen made huge electoral gains and landed in the run-off for PM, the left came out - unions, revolutionaries, people with hirn-rimmed glasses stripey shirts and berets of all sorts (I love the french) to protest him and dennouce his fascist views.

People in Latin America did not turn to the right because there was an existing left movement that had been in existence for a decade. Social Democratic parties were already making electoral gains before the econ crisis at the beginning of the decade and there was a revolutionary current within these movements.

Remember, when Chavez nationalized some industries, the opposition capitalists sent out their own tea-parties complete with armed thugs and the blessings of the US military. They even had a coup. The difference was a broad left that turned out and overwhelmed the right-wing forces and caused the elites to reverse course and allow Chavez to return.

[RadioRaheem84]

Remember, when Chavez nationalized some industries, the opposition capitalists sent out their own tea-parties complete with armed thugs and the blessings of the US military. They even had a coup. The difference was a broad left that turned out and overwhelmed the right-wing forces and caused the elites to reverse course and allow Chavez to return.Exactly. We don't have a broad left in this nation. What we have (in the majority) are left-liberal progressives who have capitulated first to Clintonism and now Obamaism. They have a distaste for real leftists and the right which both use the methods of protest and solidarity with the working class to get their message out. Liberals are having too much fun poking fun at the working class and toasting it up as the new establishment. I think of grotesque people like Eric Alterman and Joe Klein who mocked Nader voters and anyone who wasn't for establishment liberals like Al Gore.

Grave, we might as well discuss this on our own. Isn't anyone else going to chime in? :P

[Jimmie Higgins]

Grave, we might as well discuss this on our own. Isn't anyone else going to chime in? :P

I know, man. What the hell.:laugh:

I mean, don't get me wrong, I like debating with you because you seem to be open and reasonable and well though-out, but yeah I'm sure other people have things to say about this too.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Its because the tea party movement has neo-cons, traditional conservatives, paleo-conservatives, libertarians, and virtually every other right wing tendency involved. So it is rapidly fracturing.

Perhaps we should call them the 'New Left'? :lol: Well, perhaps the new British Left, anyway.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, on a more serious note, it is an interesting hypothesis that if the Tea Party movement were to form an electoral coalition/party, it could destroy both it's own credibility and that of the GOP, leading to the Democrats becoming the new right and opening up a new leftist opportunity.

Somebody with an intricate knowledge of the subject should perhaps expand a theory on this.

[Dimentio]

Also, on a more serious note, it is an interesting hypothesis that if the Tea Party movement were to form an electoral coalition/party, it could destroy both it's own credibility and that of the GOP, leading to the Democrats becoming the new right and opening up a new leftist opportunity.

Somebody with an intricate knowledge of the subject should perhaps expand a theory on this.

Its a matter of the form of electoral system the USA has. The one with most votes in a district get all the votes for that district. Hence, only one party could emerge in each district as a winner.

If there are two large right-wing parties and a large centrist party, the centrists will comb home the victory, even if the rightists together have 64% of the votes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We have a similar system - FPTP - in this country. One of the reasons that the Conservatives are likely to win outright, as opposed to a hung parliament (aside from the fact that Labour have sold even Social Democracy out) is the the Liberal Democrats have apparently swung left, according to the media, hence all those who wish to vote for 'traditional values' and all that jazz will vote Tory. Lib Dem and Labour will end up sharing the 'left' vote.

Oh what a tangled web...:(

[RedSonRising]

As far-fetched as it sounds, we'll probably have to start appealing towards some tea-party-minded members of the working class by first declaring frustration at some of the same things they are ("Big Government", non-participatory taxation policy, centralized authority for the State to hand out our taxes to thieves), and then proposing a model explained in a way that emphasizes the fact that it includes them in the process. Distinguishing ourselves from Democrats and presenting ourselves as a more libertarian, non-intrusive entity (very contradictory to their definition of "socialism") is our only hope of dis-empowering the right wing of the working class and the effect their propaganda may have.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have never visited America, so this question comes purely from a speculative outlook:

Do you consider that the importance of the political system is heightened in America, in contrast to other countries. For instance, would you say that changing the political system in America to something that isn't as undemocratic and 'traditional' as the current US one, would make more of a positive difference to the lives of US workers, than changing the political system in a western European nation, for instance? It strikes me as an issue unique to America, because of the entrenched nature of the Constitution and political system, and the dearly beloved states' rights which hold up any sort of progress on any political matter.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have never visited America, so this question comes purely from a speculative outlook:

Do you consider that the importance of the political system is heightened in America, in contrast to other countries. For instance, would you say that changing the political system in America to something that isn't as undemocratic and 'traditional' as the current US one, would make more of a positive difference to the lives of US workers, than changing the political system in a western European nation, for instance? It strikes me as an issue unique to America, because of the entrenched nature of the Constitution and political system, and the dearly beloved states' rights which hold up any sort of progress on any political matter.

Well I think this question as posed, is a little too abstract to say one way or another. In general I would say yes but I think that reforms to the electoral or political system would need to be considered on a case by case basis depending of what's going on in the class struggle at any given time.

For example, a fight to build a labor or social-democratic party in the US during a time when the labor movement has made a conscious break from the Democratic party would be a fantastic development. However, if it came at a time when there was a real socialist or revolutionary consciousness developing, then it would more likely be an attempt to reign in the working class back to more "reasonable and within-the-system" sort of politics.

As things stand I would definitely support reforms to get rid of the electoral college or have runoff voting or whatever else would help bring more popular democracy into the system if it means that a wider variety of (particularly left-wing) politics can be heard. I would also support reforms to make it easier for working class people to vote (right now if you are at the lower end of the working class, it is really difficult if not impossible to vote - not to mention if you are caught up in the legal system you are sometimes ineligible to vote).

[RadioRaheem84]

For example, a fight to build a labor or social-democratic party in the US during a time when the labor movement has made a conscious break from the Democratic party would be a fantastic development.We can barely build a strong left progressive coalition within the Democratic Party, you want a labor or social democratic party. The Dems own the House, Senate and the Executive branch. They have the power and they've used it to build a consensus with the GOP who has from the start said that they would systematically oppose any reform. I don't even know why the Blue Dogs are calling the shots on health care?
Whenever Republicans in the majority wanted something, they received it. The Democratic minority were called treasonous dogs for not co-tailing the Republicans who represented the American people but now that it's the other way around, the right wing calls the Democratic majority treasonous dogs for trying to enact the will of the American people!

I swear sometimes I think the right wing in this country are systematically planted to root out any dissent in this nation or to kill any reform no matter how small.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We can barely build a strong left progressive coalition within the Democratic PartyWell, that's like trying to start a vegetarian restaurant in Crocodile City. Progressives would be doing much better if they would organize outside the Democratic Party for their own principles. The Democratic party basically serves the purpose of getting people who are anti-war to support politicians who carry out wars, getting voters who want reforms on capitalism to support politicians pushing neo-liberal rather than progressive reforms.

Like you said, bi-partisan under Bush means that popular liberal demands have to compromise. Post-partisanism under Obama means that popular liberal demands need to be compromised. Obama has not convinced the right to go along with things, but he has told pro-gay manrriage protesters to wait, anti-war people to wait, immigrant rights people to wait, people wanting job or foreclosure relif to wait, people who want real national healthcare to wait, blacks to wait (actually to pull themselves up by their bootstraps), and so on. When did he ask the pentagon to wait? When did banks have to endure shared sacrifice? Obama's main accomplishment so far has been to get the left to go along with the right's status quo.

If there were a left-wing opposition, at least Glen Beck wouldn't have a monopoly on adressing the class anger in society right now.

[chegitz guevara]

And to think...when they first showed up I thought the Tea Parties were just a really bad joke.

That is almost the same thing that my college professor, a American German Jew, said his family thought about the Nazis. It wasn't until Kristallnacht that they began to take them seriously.