Expose the Tea Party

[Adil3tr]

"To win back workers confused by Nazi lies, Walter Ulbricht went to Nazi meetings and revealed the Nazi leaders for what they were. On 22 January 1931, a Nazi meeting in Friedrichshain ended with the complete defeat of the Nazi Gauleiter of Berlin, Goebbels." (Walter Ulbricht — ein Leben für Deutschland)

Should we do this to the Tea Party?

[Q]

It is already being done, for example by Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article22.php?id=1383).

I agree that we should engage in debates with the populist right wing.

[BuddhaInBabylon]

i hardly have faith that the constituents of the tea party are open for intelligent debate, concerning their politics and their views about american way of life.

[Adil3tr]

i hardly have faith that the constituents of the tea party are open for intelligent debate, concerning their politics and their views about american way of life.
Thats definitely the wrong way to look at this, we can;t let them corrupt workers and spread their fascist bile unimpeded.

[Q]

i hardly have faith that the constituents of the tea party are open for intelligent debate, concerning their politics and their views about american way of life.

Not everyone is as thick as the people that are featured on Glenn Beck's show. Indeed, many people that are affected by these rightwing ideas would be the exact workers we are trying to reach. We should do so by trying to counter and disarm the Tea Party ideas and put forward a positive alternative to it.

[Magón]

I was sick at the time, but when the Tea Party was in it's big swing sorta phase, my friend (another Anarchist) asked if I wanted to go to one of their rallies that was being held at some community center. I didn't since I was really sick, but from what he told me it was pretty lame. He didn't shout back or anything, he just listened to them and their flaws, but from what he said they were pretty hilarious. To him, and I guess how he described it, it really was like a blast from the past. Just without the Nazi symbols and stuff.

I'd be down to go to one of their rallies and show the other side. I think it'd be fun. :thumbup1:

[Slav92]

i hardly have faith that the constituents of the tea party are open for intelligent debate, concerning their politics and their views about american way of life.

Although I am not American, I do believe that the members of a nazi organisation can easily be swayed towards the left, remember, national socialism does have socialism, albeit in a twisted form, as its root. It is the leaders that hold the organisation together - the charismatic leaders (although as the organisation grows larger, power devolves more and more and eventually the party is swarming with these leader figures, but when the party is initially small it will be only 1 or a handful of people) that should be targetted - no matter wether your tactics be peaceful or militant.

Remember, it is often the feeling of social solidarity, and not any actual firm belief in national socialism that brings in the members - they are not going to be convinced by rational arguments as we are percieved as an agent of the jews. Instead, they follow the leaders beliefs unquestioningly, as many only have the contacts they have made within such a party as friends, and to be percieved as drifting from these views is to lose respect in the eyes of their comrades.

Destroy the leaders - whether verbally or physically, and offer your hand to the members.

[BuddhaInBabylon]

This post kind of touches on my whole socialist apologist question i had earlier this week. I feel like i want to confront reactionaries and the extreme conservative right with their own propaganda and break it all down, but compared to some of you guys, i wouldn't have a leg to stand on. My approach is philosophical you see....i'm a pretty basic dude....what's more is i don't have the scholarly knowledge that some of you can boast of, concerning these issues....but i know that opression of the poor and disenfranchised of this world is wrong in every way and that the american way of life does nothing but protract and exacerbate the sufferings of billions of people on this planet, and that's enough for me. It doesn't take a thorough and rigorous understanding of the tenets of Marxism, or Leninism, or Maoism, or Anarchism for that matter, to see that something must be done.

[Peace on Earth]

Instead of the common tactics of name-calling and ridicule, open dialogue is the only option that effectively gains support for the left. Anyway who isn't put off by the name-calling is already not a fan of the Tea Party. However crazy many Tea-Party members may seem, most are basing their opinion on lies and half-truths, making it easier to debate and discuss with them, as opposed to an idealogue who is grounded in actual events.

[Ele'ill]

I'm not sure actually going to the meetings would be an affective tactic- unless it's a debate or 'intelligent' conversation I think that disrupting the meetings would solidify the idea in their minds that they are correct.

That brings up another thought- Can enough of them be persuaded otherwise- if they believe the sky is green and refuse to change their minds then what?

I haven't seen any tea party folk that weren't wingnut crazies. I don't think they want debate.

[Peace on Earth]

I haven't seen any tea party folk that weren't wingnut crazies. I don't think they want debate.
That's a generalization. They're not all crazies. Most are just concerned with losing what they've worked for because they have been fed the corporate lies that Obama is a work of Satan and he will come and take everything that people own in hopes of achieving perfect Marxist harmony, whatever the hell that would be.

I'll use the analogy of a sickness. Many members of the Tea Party are infected with lies that make them believe the types of things that cause you to label them as "wingnut crazies." However, with the right type of medicine (the truth, discussion, etc.) they can be "cured."

All it takes is presenting the facts in a way that convey's the feeling of some sort of respect, in that we don't laugh at them and wave them off as insane. It stands to reason that there will be many who refuse to discuss anything, but there are people who can be reasoned with.

[Ele'ill]

That's a generalization. They're not all crazies. Most are just concerned with losing what they've worked for because they have been fed the corporate lies that Obama is a work of Satan and he will come and take everything that people own in hopes of achieving perfect Marxist harmony, whatever the hell that would be.

I'll use the analogy of a sickness. Many members of the Tea Party are infected with lies that make them believe the types of things that cause you to label them as "wingnut crazies." However, with the right type of medicine (the truth, discussion, etc.) they can be "cured."

All it takes is presenting the facts in a way that convey's the feeling of some sort of respect, in that we don't laugh at them and wave them off as insane. It stands to reason that there will be many who refuse to discuss anything, but there are people who can be reasoned with.


The vast majority of them are long gone.

There are people with similar views that I wouldn't necessarily call wingnuts and this group would be receptive to alternative ideas.

The actual tea partiers aren't just walking around with blinders on- they're actively attacking every alternative idea they come across.

[Magón]

I'm not sure actually going to the meetings would be an affective tactic- unless it's a debate or 'intelligent' conversation I think that disrupting the meetings would solidify the idea in their minds that they are correct.

That brings up another thought- Can enough of them be persuaded otherwise- if they believe the sky is green and refuse to change their minds then what?

I haven't seen any tea party folk that weren't wingnut crazies. I don't think they want debate.

Obviously there would be those who you couldn't change their thinking on. It happens in all political ideologies. I'm sure there are plenty of people here, that are willing to hear another's idea, but also would never change their ideology for the sake of it. It's an inevitable bridge you have to cross.

But I think if you weed yourself into their group, you can ultimately destroy it from the inside. Of course, it wouldn't just be one single person to do such a thing, it'd be dozens of people, as many as would be needed and more even if necessary to act as supports of the "new" leaders. Plus, if they start to see that their leaders aren't worth following or believing anymore, you've also done your job, because now they have no one to reach out to or follow. They're like lost little lambs, and you can show them that not all is lost. :D

[The Idler]

The vast majority of them are long gone.

There are people with similar views that I wouldn't necessarily call wingnuts and this group would be receptive to alternative ideas.

The actual tea partiers aren't just walking around with blinders on- they're actively attacking every alternative idea they come across.
If Al Franken can do it why can't the left?
SCNs7Zpqo98

[LaRiposte]

From what I can tell, there are very few workers actually involved in the tea-party; it's petty bourgeois in composition and rhetorical content. To me there isn't much use in intervening at tea-party events, there are very few workers present.

[Peace on Earth]

Statistically, most members of the Tea Party are older, white, and in the middle-to-wealthy economic class. While it may not be the target audience, one potential benefit is helping to curb the spread (if it is spreading) so that it doesn't reach the younger generation and/or a larger class of workers.

[Q]

From what I can tell, there are very few workers actually involved in the tea-party; it's petty bourgeois in composition and rhetorical content. To me there isn't much use in intervening at tea-party events, there are very few workers present.

This is a sort of reasoning I encounter a lot on the far left; "this movement can't consist of workers as this is reactionary! It must be the petty-bourgeoisie that is joining these ranks enmasse!". Sorry, but I think this isn't an analysis, but a petty-excuse (see what I did there?) to not bother about it and ignore the problem.

The video that The Idler posted, showed to me a bunch of confused people, most of them probably workers. Why are they so confused? Because people like Glenn Beck are their personification of the resistance against the crisis that is troubling them so hard. Glenn Beck and others do this by "divide and rule" of inserting racist bullshit ("the Mexicans are invading us!") with the usual rightwing ideas of anti-communism (linking the government to socialism and whatnot) and trying to reinforce the myth of capitalism ("freedom! democracy!").

In other words, these people are looking towards miserable figures like Glenn Beck, because we have been a total failure at reorganising ourselves. It has been twenty years since the collapse of the Stalinist system and we still consist of small, irrelevant grouplets that focus more on their own sectarian interests than deal with issues that actually matter, creating a vacuum of opportunity for the right to fill in.

So yes, we need to engage with the Tea Party movement and win these confused workers back by discrediting their leadership (if you can talk about such a thing in this case) and present a positive alternative of working class solidarity, genuine democracy and freedom, an end to war, poverty, etc. and the need to organise as a class in itself to consciously take over power in society to make that all happen. For this we need to build a class-movement and ironically enough the Tea Party movement has been more capable at this than us so far, be it they just recreate a class-movement in their own image (hence the accusation of the "petty-bourgeoisie" I started my post commenting on).

[Magón]

I forgot to bring this up in my other posts, but didn't the Tea Party go through a major breakdown like two or three months ago? Like the whole party split down into two sides fighting each other?

I knew I was forgetting to mention something.:confused:

[death_by_semicolon]

Q is spot on. The tea partiers are overwhelmingly working class. Most of them are only now becoming politically aware due to the shock of the most recent crisis. A lot of them are scared and pissed (in the US vernacular sense). Unfortunately, the right has been providing the "easiest" way out through scapegoating and distraction, which in the end only serves the very bourgeois interests that oppress them. I've found that many tea partiers are open to leftist ideas if you can manage to sneak them in under the radar by not advertising them as leftist, socialist, marxist, etc. due to the obvious baggage those terms imply for the average American (but especially tea partiers). It's often a matter of appealing to reason. However, many others ARE too far gone, sadly...mainly due to our not being there (as a movement) to provide true perspective on the situation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a sort of reasoning I encounter a lot on the far left; "this movement can't consist of workers as this is reactionary! It must be the petty-bourgeoisie that is joining these ranks enmasse!". Sorry, but I think this isn't an analysis, but a petty-excuse (see what I did there?) to not bother about it and ignore the problem.

While I agree we shouldn't confuse the political outlook of a set of politics (i.e. tea-party=petty-bourgoise) with the audience these ideas are reaching. There are, after all, many working class people who adopt racist and homophobic ideas and even more that support the bourgeois parties.

But the actual facts - at least as much as there are - show that the tea party is not really representative of the American working class and isn't even representative of the mainstream of Republican party supporters!

Check it out:
Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html) [...than most Americans]

So while no doubt many workers are supporters, the ideological make-up and the social backbone of this is the confusion of the petty bourgeois with some strings being pulled by people who are basically life-long right-wing political operatives.

These people are not just regular old people who are scared of the recession - they are REACTIONARIES. They are to the right of most Republicans - other polls show that more than most Republican voters, tea-party supporters still think George W. Bush did a good job. Also at the height of Tea-Party ubiqity on the evening news, CBS did a poll and forund that most (56%) Republicans think that Sarah Palin is unfit to be President while 30% think she is... again tea-party people are that 30% and they are the minority of even the Republicans.

Also - the Tea Party (tea party nation) was going to hold a convention in Las Vegas in July and they had to cancel because not enough people were registered!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/tea-party-postpones-las-v_n_627762.html

They blamed it on the heat... people weren't going online to register over in the months leading up to July... because it was too hot:rolleyes:.

The tea party's influence is bigger than its actual organizational abilities and grassroots mobilization potential, because what they are advocating fits in nicely with what the ruling class wants right now: the tea-party makes the government's desire for state-level austerity and low expectations as far as new health care or job relief programs. And there's a reason that what the tea-parties argue for is what the ruling class wants - because these ideas are being pushed from the top... from the astro-turfers and think-tanks and pundits on talk-radio people. All the mantras of the tea-partiers come from Regan and Palin and Beck... this not some kind of working class right-wing populism that has come from nowhere.

The evangelical right-wing Christians are much more rooted in the working class and have infinitely better and more focused organizational abilities than the tea-party does. So really this "movement" currently has all the social depth of the "Republican Revolution" of Newt Gingrich.

But this isn't to say we should not intervene or try and contrast our politics to their shitty ideas. It's also not to say that some serious and genuine threat couldn't come out of this movement (obviously real fascists are recruiting and trying to get wind in their sails from the tea-party shit).

But it's important to have perspective because the Democrats are going to use fear of the tea-party among our allies and among workers in general to try and pull some people who might otherwise be upset and disappointed by Obama back into the Democratic Party fold.

So while we should counter-protest or debate the tea-party when appropriate, the best thing IMO to end their "influence" among workers is to organize our side, build movements challenging Obama from the left so that it doesn't seem like the only people angry and dissatisfied at the shitty state of things are crazy right-wing nuts.

[M-26-7]

I'm a bit confused by the OP, as I had the impression that the Tea Party movement (which is now at a serious ebb compared to one year ago) was already extremely well documented, by the mainstream media and the grassroots left-wing media alike.

Actually, I would say that the media's interest in the Tea Party bordered on obsession in Summer/Fall of 2009. A great deal of left-wing journalism was devoted to "exposing" them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/newleftmedia


Just search a site like Zmag, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, or truthout, for articles about the Tea Party movement. Between them they carried dozens of articles in 2009 analyzing or "exposing" the Tea Party.