Some questions about the Tea Party movement?

[ed miliband]

I've realised a lot of the coverage of the Tea Party I've read has been written from a liberal / Democrat perspective, and lately I've become very sceptical about liberal scare stories. While I think the Tea Party are worth paying attention to, I worry that their influence is overstated, and that this overstatement is in some way fueling the movement. Pastor Terry Jones is an example of this effect - a nobody with 50 followers who became a global figure in a number of hours, doing quite a bit of damage without actually burning a single Qu'ran. Now while I don't doubt that many Tea Partiers have abhorrent views, I'm intrigued as to how 'extreme' they really are within the context of American conservatism.

I've read so many different accounts of the Tea Party that it's hard to know what to believe about them. They are all of these things and more:

- Lumpenproletariats who live on benefits but are angry about immigrants receiving benefits (I read that here).
- Small business owners who want to pay less tax (I also read that here).
- Liberal democrats who want "fiscal responsibility" (I read that from a Tea Partier on another forum).
- Libertarians who want government off their backs (various places).
- Social conservatives who want to ban masturbation (various places).
- Fascists who are plotting a revolt and will soon be attacking anybody to the left of Mussolini (mainly here).
- "Anti-state extremists" (liberal blogs).

Is there any ideological unity within the movement? What is the overall class makeup of the movement? Roughly how many people are associated with the Tea Party movement? What is actually known about the movement (because so much seems to be speculation)?

How useful is this sort of thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/19/jon-stewart-daily-show-rally

Stewart is apparently including anti-war activists as people who have to be opposed by "sane moderates". I personally find this sort of thing beyond cringeworthy.

Finally, supposing the Tea Party really are a very powerful force in US politics and they really are right-wing extremists, would American business interests not be damaged by a Palin presidency, or whatever? Surely a large amount of capitalists would much prefer a Democrat like Obama representing their interests to Palin doing so?

[Reznov]

You know, you might just be better off going to the Tea Party website or one affiliated with them, and just calling/posting/asking there.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I havn't garnered the impression that the tea party is a particularly homogenous group... Foremost, the accusations of fascism are pretty bankrupt, seeing as most of them are paranoid libertarians worried about the size of excessive government as opposed to statists, there's not much correlation in economic philosophy either, I doubt many tea baggers ascribe to vertical syndicalism. In the context of 2010, 'Fascist' is just a kneejerk reaction by anyone on the left to any right wing group with slight momentum. The term has been abstracted so far it loses meaning.

As for the masturbation, I'm sure there are some fringe christians within the tea party who believe it's a sin... As evidenced by Christine O'Donnell winning her primary the other day. But to list it as one of the main characteristics of the tea party is more than tenuous... A more pertinent current of the tea party would be its opposition to Obama's healthcare bill...

As for the racial dimension, the tea party's gained a lot of momentum from its broad anti-immigration stance; from people who oppose offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, as well as supporting Arizona's immigration bill. There's an overwhelming anti-Mexican sentiment, as well as a lot of thinly veiled racism towards 'Obama the Kenyan', 'Obama the muslim' 'Obama the communist' et al.

Maybe you should take less credence in what you read here...

[ed miliband]

You've confirmed what I expected, though I wasn't informed about Tea Party support for Arizona's immigration bill, etc. (obviously makes sense though). For the record I don't believe everything I read about Tea Partiers on here, I was just pointing out that I have read so many contradictory accounts of who the Tea Party are and what they believe.

Just to reiterate my other important question:

How 'extreme' they really are within the context of American conservatism?

[chegitz guevara]

I havn't garnered the impression that the tea party is a particularly homogenous group... Foremost, the accusations of fascism are pretty bankrupt, seeing as most of them are paranoid libertarians worried about the size of excessive government as opposed to statists, there's not much correlation in economic philosophy either, I doubt many tea baggers ascribe to vertical syndicalism. In the context of 2010, 'Fascist' is just a kneejerk reaction by anyone on the left to any right wing group with slight momentum. The term has been abstracted so far it loses meaning.

As for the masturbation, I'm sure there are some fringe christians within the tea party who believe it's a sin... As evidenced by Christine O'Donnell winning her primary the other day. But to list it as one of the main characteristics of the tea party is more than tenuous... A more pertinent current of the tea party would be its opposition to Obama's healthcare bill...

As for the racial dimension, the tea party's gained a lot of momentum from its broad anti-immigration stance; from people who oppose offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, as well as supporting Arizona's immigration bill. There's an overwhelming anti-Mexican sentiment, as well as a lot of thinly veiled racism towards 'Obama the Kenyan', 'Obama the muslim' 'Obama the communist' et al.

Maybe you should take less credence in what you read here...

This post is an example of massive ignorance, bolsters by a few facts.

Anyone who has studied American history is well aware that while the far right has, historically, called for very limited government, in those instances when it has gained power (the Confederacy, the Jim Crow South, the Reagan Bush administrations) is has gone to the other extreme. Any Marxist should understand that what is important is not what they say they want, but what they actually do. The fact that the Tea Parties are, in some cases, avowing libertarian rhetoric should be taken as seriously as the claims of the Fascist and Nazi Parties that they were going to abolish capitalism.

Marxism demands we take a look at the social composition of such movements and their social role. When we do this, the Tea Party bears much resemblance to the fascists of the 1920s and 30s, with one exception. Rather than being wielded directly at the worker class, instead they are being used against the subordinate layers of the capitalist class, but this keeps the workers under control as well.

The funding and power of the Tea Party movement comes from the most powerful sectors of the capitalist class: finance, insurance, and we are learning now that the energy companies are also funding them. The purpose of the Tea Party movement, far from what it imagines, is to maintain the ability of these sectors of the capitalist class to maintain their stranglehold (and that's what it is) on the American economy.

[Peace on Earth]

The Tea Party is made up of several groups. Statistically, most members are older, white, and doing ok for themselves financially. Most of these people are simply footsoldiers who are utterly uninformed on the issues due to the higher grou: the leaders. These people, who include the billionare Koch brothers, pay for and plan the rallies that make it seem as though the whole nation agrees with the Tea Party.

Even though they call for small government, most would follow GWB and his Patriot Act off a bridge if they had to. What they want is a conservative government that takes less of their taxes. What they do with those taxes (spying, war) doesn't matter, as long as it isn't "socialist."

Don't listen to people like Chomsky and Chris Hedges who warn of a facist revival. Once a Republican is elected to President, these people will calm down. The Tea Party is not facist, just conservative. And the media (Fox) plays a big part in overstating Tea Party power. They cover hundred-thousand man Tea Party rallies, but give no attention to million-man anti-SB1070 rallies.

Overall, just conservatives worried that they may lose their comfortable lives to an overzealous, Democrat-led, government.

[ed miliband]

Whether the anarchists like it or not, decentralisation, "freedom" and autonomy has always been the demand of reactionaries in America.


Your point being? The article you quoted clearly states:


The aim of the de-centralists, as stated by Madison, was to create a system whereby a dissident majority would have great difficulty seizing control of the state, an aim which has been successfully realized to this day.

Reactionary elements may very well support decentralisation, but it's for completely different reasons to anarchists. And wtf, who doesn't demand "freedom"? As Gerrard Winstanley said "all men have stood for freedom... for freedom is the man that will turn the world upside down."

Lame attempt to conflate anarchism with American conservatism is lame.

[thriller]

I think chegitz has a point. What CAN they do? They seem to be (from the Tea Party I attended) older, white, mainly christian Americans. In times of crisis people always look for an answer, and when one "surprisingly" pops up outta nowhere, they latch on to it. I mean, Fox news was all over the very first one, saying it was some grassroots movement, yet there were correspondents at all of them. They are a pretty big group, but can they be manipulated? In Nazi Germany not everyone single person wanted to exterminate the Jewish population, they just needed an answer. But when the Nazi movement became strong enough, they could even control their supporters. After a while, it became to dangerous to speak out, and one had to go along if they wanted their children to survive. Big business and the ruling class is obviously behind the Tea Party movement. So if it gets big enough and we let it balloon, they COULD turn fascist.

[GPDP]

Isn't Stormfront fond of the Tea Party?

Does anyone know what self-identifying fascists think of the Tea Party overall?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've realised a lot of the coverage of the Tea Party I've read has been written from a liberal / Democrat perspective, and lately I've become very sceptical about liberal scare stories.Yeah in an election season in which the people who vote Democratic are completely disillusioned in Obama and the Dems, you should be skeptical of the liberal doom-sayers... all they have to mobilize their base is fear of the right - who, funny enough, can only mobilize their base post-Bush with fear of "change".


While I think the Tea Party are worth paying attention to, I worry that their influence is overstated, and that this overstatement is in some way fueling the movement. Pastor Terry Jones is an example of this effect - a nobody with 50 followers who became a global figure in a number of hours, doing quite a bit of damage without actually burning a single Qu'ran. Now while I don't doubt that many Tea Partiers have abhorrent views, I'm intrigued as to how 'extreme' they really are within the context of American conservatism. According to polls last week, 29% of voters dislike the Tea Party, 23% support it and 50% say "they don't have enough information". While 23% is large and kind of scary - I don't think that that means 23% of the voting age population actively supports everything - I think a lot of these folks probably just identify with the frustration and anger and are not the racist ditto-heads that make up the active base of the tea-party.

But in regard to their relationship to general conservatives - only 50% of Republican voters support the tea party and tea-partiers approve of George Bush's Presidency at a rate of 57% which is the same percentage of general population voters who HATE George W. Bush. So even among Republican conservatives, the Tea Party is just a sizable fraction with ideas to the right of the mainstream.


I've read so many different accounts of the Tea Party that it's hard to know what to believe about them. They are all of these things and more:

- Lumpenproletariats who live on benefits but are angry about immigrants receiving benefits (I read that here).
- Small business owners who want to pay less tax (I also read that here).
- Liberal democrats who want "fiscal responsibility" (I read that from a Tea Partier on another forum).
- Libertarians who want government off their backs (various places).
- Social conservatives who want to ban masturbation (various places).
- Fascists who are plotting a revolt and will soon be attacking anybody to the left of Mussolini (mainly here).
- "Anti-state extremists" (liberal blogs).

Is there any ideological unity within the movement? What is the overall class makeup of the movement? Roughly how many people are associated with the Tea Party movement? What is actually known about the movement (because so much seems to be speculation)?


Ideologically they are all over the map - there are some like the Rand-followers and the libertarians who do have a more or less coherent ideology, but for the most part, the unifying "ideology" of the tea-party is defense of the ruling class staus quo and the opposition to reform or relief for the poor and minorities.

Evidence: there is no fucking way that someone can be ideologically anti-big governmnet and pro-immigration crackdown or pro-war. It makes no sense and so the real motivating force is just defense of the rich and those who identify with them and opposition to change for the poor.

The NY Times did a good demographic poll about the tea party and found that they tend to be richer, whiter, and older than the majority of the population. I think 60% are 45-60 and 18% are over 65 according to the NY Times poll - so I think it's fair to say that these people are primarily not spontaneously becoming right-wing but are many of the same people who developed their politics during the New Right of the 1970s.

But the problem is that with the Democrats and Republicans unable to offer anything, the far right-wing has become the place widely identified as having anger about the economic crisis and alternatives to what the government is doing - worse alternatives often (if that's possible) and shitty alternatives, but none the less, in a political vacuum this can cause more people to become convinced of right-wing ideas.


Finally, supposing the Tea Party really are a very powerful force in US politics and they really are right-wing extremists, would American business interests not be damaged by a Palin presidency, or whatever? Surely a large amount of capitalists would much prefer a Democrat like Obama representing their interests to Palin doing so?The ruling class has no alternative to Kensianism (that most of the RC doesn't want to return to) and Neoliberalism. So, because of that both the Democrats and Republicans are both set on responding to the crisis with austerity (not just the US ruling class - this was the common theme at the last G8 and G20 meetings). If Obama can't sell the austerity needed by the ruling class, then they would happily support Palin - all else being equal on the economy, they probably like Obama because he can sell the wars better domestically and internationally.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Isn't Stormfront fond of the Tea Party?

Does anyone know what self-identifying fascists think of the Tea Party overall?I know they are trying to recruit from these kinds of protests as well as being way on top of trying to recruit and spread their politics through the anti-immigrant stuff.

[Amphictyonis]

There's two different factions, the Micheal Savage/Mark Levin AM radio conservative faction and the right wing libertarian Ron Paul faction. The former has all the airwaves and attention. Either faction is bad news but Obama isn't any better. Both democrat and republican represent concentrated wealth/perpetual war.

Our representative "democracy" is a sham. We all know this :)

[BLACKPLATES]

its hard to define them in ideological terms because they cant do that themselves. almost everything they know is fed to them through agenda driven coporate media, propaganda, and advertising (which includes the whole gamut of crazy misinformation).even their image of themselves is fed back to them through the same media.i think they are proactive crowd control. create the crowd you can control and encourage dissenters to join themselves to it. im not saying they arent real people, with real reasons to be agitated.

[Rakhmetov]

The tea-party are a petite bourgeois coterie of mostly white fools who hate anything having a tinge of genuine democracy. :mad::crying:

[Red Commissar]

The Tea Party is not different from what right-populism has been in the US for the past few decades. It tends to show itself most strongly when there is a Democratic administration and fades to irrelevancy during a Republican one.

Typically the messages of the Tea Party and right-populism in America tends to revolve around these things

-Taxes
-Blasting "big government"
-American exceptionalism
-A focus on "middle-class" being the engine of the American economy
-Extolling the virtues of small business
-Keeping jobs in America
-Their idea of what a "free-market" is

These people have genuine concerns. It's easy to write them off as nutties, but their anxieties didn't come out of no where. Taxes are a concern for everyone, and I think much of it ties back into the issue that many of them feel that their income is diminished after taxes and they see no impact of them paying taxes. They dislike "big government" because they think it doesn't do anything for them but take their money and give it back to people they say are leeching off welfare services.

Obviously, they don't focus this onto abuses committed by the ruling class beyond a handful token statements. This is how their society has shaped them to look at those segments of society they perceive to be leeching off welfare, and therefore wasting their tax dollars.

Toss in social anxieties- perceived degradation of society's morals (homosexuals, drugs, teenagers, etc), feeling that people are not proud of their country enough, and insecurity about immigrants.

They'll sugar coat this in the framework of Americans trying to go back to founding ideals, liberties, "common sense", and making government answerable to them.

However this does not mean they hold consistent views. One can see baggers despising NAFTA while extolling the virtues of the free market system. They can be heard proclaiming they want to preserve liberties from an overreaching government, yet they'll be opposed to extending this notion of liberty to a woman's choice or LGBT rights because this is not compatible with their social views. Or the infringements on liberty committed by the police and other security forces.

It's not surprising for a populist-right group to hold contradictory statements. This is why looking at it you'll get a gambit of strange views and ideologies within their movements because when we see tea baggers it is generally them letting out steam, not carrying out their political function.

In some ways we can compare the Tea Party to the "independent" movement that rose up in the 1990s after Ross Perot's 1992 presidential bid. Following that there was a break out of various third-parties that like the tea party styled themselves as "independent" but more often than not acted as a pressure in the Republican Party (though they did get a governor elected on their ticket in Minnesota- Jesse Ventura). In someways a lot of what those people were advancing wasn't different from what the Tea Party is doing today. They were fed up with taxes, with big government and bureaucracy, they were angry about perceived social degradation, "common sense", and that they were going to make government answerable to them again.

Yet as the tea party will be directed to as well, it functioned more as a pressure in American politics, most directly on the Republicans and indirectly on the Democrats. We saw the so-called "Republican Revolution" take place and Newt Gingrich's lofty "Contract with America". The same rhetoric is being used here again by political pundits going behind the Tea Party.

The most important part of the "Tea Party" is not so much the followers but who is supporting them and to what end. Like Chegitz said the Tea Party is supported by figures from the ruling class who want to use the Tea Party as a way to readjust the Republican Party. Where the RNC refuses to change or adjust, they run candidates to oppose weak Republicans in those primaries and replace them with someone more able to carry out the functions of the state.

As a whole the Tea Party's size and influence is not really inline with the entirety of America as it may appear to seem. A lot of the Tea Party's strength is helped by the media showing their rallies- Their Tennessee convention and high-profile protests in Washington DC- and how they were able to affect the outcome of primary elections- anyone who has looked at American politics knows that primaries have really, really low turnouts that can be affected by a sufficiently dedicated enough group, like the Tea Party. All-in-all they are the back bone of American conservative principles to restore equilibrium.

Movements like the Tea Party are breeding grounds for far-right movements, and indeed they have a presence in them. But that doesn't mean the movements in themselves are "fascist" or "nazi". Most of the people in the Tea Party can't be described as such. While it can transform into such a movement, the powers that support the Tea Party do not want it to go in that direction. Local tea party chapters that have gone outside of the approved standards have had a tendency to see their movements split and go into infighting, as their funding and support gets cut from the national organization. Those who are backing it are fairly confident it can affect change as an interest-group within the political process, and with ensuring it gets the media and political clout it needs, will be able to keep American politicians in line with the demands of those big businessmen, insurance groups, and other corporations moving the Tea Party.

[Os Cangaceiros]

its hard to define them in ideological terms because they cant do that themselves.

Pretty much this. It's a fairly diverse group.

I'd say that the only common theme is that they all feel swept away by forces beyond their control, with the economic conditions and such. The characterization of them as hardcore racists is mistaken, although there is a racist contigent.

Also, the non-economic issues (like abortion and "national greatness" and international policy in general) really do seem to be matters of little importance for the majority of them.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

This post is an example of massive ignorance, bolsters by a few facts.

Yeah, you can prove anything with facts eh? Fuck 'em.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The movement is fascistic, yes.

Chegitz's point was spot on.

Also, groups like NSM(National Socialist Movement) try to piggyback off of this movement.

some tea-partyers claim their movement is revolutionary while at the same time 'restorative.'

its mostly comprised of disenfranchised white 'middle-class' american nationalists and a few token(is this a bad term to use?) non-whites.

glenn beck's 8-28 rally really set a new tone for the tea party movement though. it is seeking to align with religious movements to possibly re-create a moral majority type movement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The movement is fascistic, yes.

Chegitz's point was spot on. I disagree - I think we look at the social make up of this group, yes, they are the people who would be the base for a fascist movement in the US, but the actual fascistic elements are either not organized or still more or less fringe although they are trying to make inroads and recruit or use the right-populism as cover to to promote their politics.

But right now, IMO, they are still more or less "useful idiots" for big business and the continued one-sided class war. Other than the Militia groups, the Minutemen are probably the closest to fascism and this is backed up by the fact that the real Neo-Nazis are taking the vigilante "border-patrol" tactics as their own now.

For what American fascism looks like, we have to look at the white-supremacist backlash against the civil rights movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s with vigilantism and organized white supremacist groups and white citizen councils and so on. Or the KKK in the 1920s when they lynched radicals and unionists as well as blacks, Jews, and Catholics but were still considered respectable enough to meet with congress and march in robes through the Capital and have big-budget movies glorifying them.

[Medvyet]

I live near the DC area and I was able to meet a number of people who are part of the Tea Party movement.
I think the other posters here have already done a good job of describing them.
When I met them I saw a lot of paranoia. A LOT of paranoia. Like, "Big Brother is watching you"-type paranoia on a large scale.
Some of them are really, genuinely concerned that the communists are taking over. I told them this is not true, because if the communists were taking over I'd be there with them at this very minute, ma'am. But they think anything liberal translates to socialist. They don't even know what socialism is and they think America is turning communist for some strange, undefinable reason.
On a humorous note, I asked this one Tea Party guy (maybe 17-18 years old) who Lenin was and he said "One of the Beatles". He didn't even know there was another Lenin.:laugh:

[Kyrite]

- Social conservatives who want to ban masturbation (various places).

How would this be enforced exactly? :rolleyes:

[chegitz guevara]

I disagree - I think we look at the social make up of this group, yes, they are the people who would be the base for a fascist movement in the US, but the actual fascistic elements are either not organized or still more or less fringe although they are trying to make inroads and recruit or use the right-populism as cover to to promote their politics.

Fascistic "elements" are not what is key to fascism, the role that the movement plays within society is, and the Tea Party plays the role of a fascist movement.


The Tea Party is not different from what right-populism has been in the US for the past few decades.

I would ague it is different for one fundamental reason, substantial support by the ruling layers of the ruling class. There would be no Tea Party "movement" were if not for the tens of millions of dollars of funding and free advertising they've gotten.

[Red Commissar]

I would ague it is different for one fundamental reason, substantial support by the ruling layers of the ruling class. There would be no Tea Party "movement" were if not for the tens of millions of dollars of funding and free advertising they've gotten.

That is the point I was making. By recent I mean in the past twenty years or so, not the praire populism of the past or Huey Long's antics.

I look at the 1990s because it seemed like the Tea Party this outpouring of emotion and the rage against the government only went as far as their backers wanted it to. Once it served its purpose they pulled the plug and the holdouts became irrelevant.

The Tea Party will go the same way I think once it has achieved its purpose.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm comparing it to the Moral Majority and the Promise Keepers. There has always been a reactionary nativist undercurrent in America, but the difference between this scum which America periodically vomits up and the Tea Party is the massive support by the ruling layers of capitalism, and that difference is one of the defining elements of fascism.

[Amphictyonis]

Does anyone know what the DLC is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council The same billionaires who created the tea parties are funding the DLC. When Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) rigged a pro Iraq war congress in 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html he did so with the funding from the people who created the Tea Parties. The opposition to a single payer health care bill didn't come solely from the Tea Party people but from the DLC, Obama himself. It's all a fucking sham.The illusion of democracy.

Obama and the DLC :

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/president-obama-declares-his-dlc-allegiance-says-i-am-new-democrat

Koch Industries (creators of Tea Party) and funding of the DLC (they are even on the executive council) :
http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-dlc-and.html

[Jimmie Higgins]

Fascistic "elements" are not what is key to fascism, the role that the movement plays within society is, and the Tea Party plays the role of a fascist movement.How so? So should comrades in Deleware go underground and start stockpliling weapons and forming a resistance if Christine O'Donnel wins the election? Or if Rand Paul wins, should comrades go underground in that state? Do you recommend that comrades go out and campaign for the Democrats in these states where the Tea Party candidates might win?

[KC]

The prominence of the Tea Party movement isn't really surprising. Most of us have been calling for a "break" from the two party system for a while, and this is the start of that break, if you could call it that. The right wing of the Republican party has simply moved further right and taken some other more progressive elements with it in the name of independence from that system.

The majority of people don't really have anywhere to go. There are no avenues of releasing all of the energy that has built up over the past few years for most Americans. Unions are corrupt and highly exclusive to certain professions, parties don't represent their interests (or politicians). They simply don't have anywhere to go with all of this.

This is basically the start of some kind of break off of the two party system. This first has manifested itself in the form of the Tea Party for the right. I have a feeling that we are going to see more organizing outside of the two party system in the coming years.

However, I think that most leftist organizations, as they have for the past decades, will fail to gain mass support simply due to their composition and their organizational structure, as well as their means of propagandizing/agitating. Most will probably resort to opportunism and tailism to whatever "new Democrat" organization/movement that crops up.

Then again, I'm a pessimistic motherfucker so what do I know.

[chegitz guevara]

How so? So should comrades in Deleware go underground and start stockpliling weapons and forming a resistance if Christine O'Donnel wins the election? Or if Rand Paul wins, should comrades go underground in that state? Do you recommend that comrades go out and campaign for the Democrats in these states where the Tea Party candidates might win?

As the Tea Party is not going to take control of the government anytime soon, I don't think that will be necessary.

[ed miliband]

An interesting article here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9594/

[Rusty Shackleford]

glenn becks latest episode was an attempt to speak to workers and surprise surprise he is trying to pit union workers against the rest of the workers in the world.

he goes on to say that the average union worker has a right to ask for higher pay and all that but also has an interest in the nation as a whole. and that uniting with the rest of the worlds workers means that american workers will suffer and it would be against their american values...

[anticap]

The so-called "Tea Party movement" is nothing more than disgruntled members of the Republican, "Libertarian," and Constitution parties, and the candidates they support. Most of those candidates run as Republicans, and so that is what we should call them and their supporters. I can't remember where I first heard that suggestion, but it's spot-on: don't call them "Tea Party candidates/voters" -- call them "Republican candidates/voters," and you'll knock one leg out from under their "movement."

The media is mostly what keeps this alleged "movement" alive, but it's also kept alive in part by us when we refer to it as a movement. It's just far-right Republican candidates and the far-right people who will vote for them. That's not a movement -- it's US politics as usual.

What infuriates me (but doesn't surprise me) about the whole thing is that there are many larger and better-organized leftist movements that get no coverage by the capitalist media.

[Revolution starts with U]

Marxistn00b, you marxist noob ;)
left anarchy is far from decentralization and anti-federalism... you know, what they call "state's rights."
How can an anarchist believe in state's rights?

[Orange Juche]

I can't say I completely oppose them. I mean, who doesn't like a good teabagging every now and again?