The real populism in America

[RGacky3]

http://socialistworker.org/2011/01/25/six-revolts-the-media-ignored,

The corporatist tea-party aint shit, this is whats really happening in the US, as always the corporate media ignores, and people that follow the corporate media would still think that the US was a center-right nation, when the evidence points to the opposite.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The author makes a lot of good points. Like that 87 year old woman who was arrested, had she been a tea partier she would be a martyr.

[Dimentio]

If you want a viable left-wing candidate in the USA, the person must be extremely manly (a retired 4-star general for example), must have a reactionary foreign policy (American chauvinism) at the same time as he could get the mandate to raise the taxes for the wealthy back to the period before the Reagan tax cuts (while perhaps reducing the taxes for those who are poor).

Sadly, that is probably the "best" you could get.

[RGacky3]

If you want a viable left-wing candidate in the USA, the person must be extremely manly (a retired 4-star general for example)

I think the rediculous idea of manly being "willing to send people to kill and bomb a much weaker country" is laughable, but thats beside the point.


must have a reactionary foreign policy (American chauvinism) at the same time as he could get the mandate to raise the taxes for the wealthy back to the period before the Reagan tax cuts (while perhaps reducing the taxes for those who are poor).


I totally disagree, to get the support of the media maybe? To get some corporate backing maybe, but not really for real support. Look at Obamas campain.

[Dimentio]

I think the rediculous idea of manly being "willing to send people to kill and bomb a much weaker country" is laughable, but thats beside the point.



I totally disagree, to get the support of the media maybe? To get some corporate backing maybe, but not really for real support. Look at Obamas campain.

Obama campaigned as a centrist. The only reason why progressives supported him was desperation.

The reason why an American President with a progressive agenda needs to be a military figure is that it would automatically mean some support both from the Army and from the people who are living in counties with inflated importance due to the fact that a vote in Kansas is more worth than 600 votes in New York, in short people who hate the Democrats for being effeminate.

And yes, I also dislike that notion. But the people, or at least the people in Kansas, seems to like it.

If you want to install a welfare state, the most easy method to do so is the following.

I. Start a war against Iran

II. Raise the taxes to pay for the war against Iran (90% for the billionaires)

III. Level Iran with the ground and kill it's inhabitants.

IV. Celebrate a glorious triumph and bring the Iranian leaders to Guantanamo where they are waterboarded in direct television.

V. Lower the taxes for billionaires to 77%

VI. Use the extra money to fund a single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income and reduce the size of the army.

Voilà, you have installed social democracy with the support of Glenn Beck (since he according to pundit logic must support a President who is an imperialist).

[gorillafuck]

If you want a viable left-wing candidate in the USA, the person must be extremely manly (a retired 4-star general for example), must have a reactionary foreign policy (American chauvinism) at the same time as he could get the mandate to raise the taxes for the wealthy back to the period before the Reagan tax cuts (while perhaps reducing the taxes for those who are poor).

Sadly, that is probably the "best" you could get.
Don't you live in Sweden?

Based on what you're saying, you literally know fuck all about the US political climate. Like, absolutely nothing.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have noooo clue as to the credibility of the source or its political orientation...

but here...nice link (http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/apr/28/few-candidates-rsums-include-military-service/)

[Dimentio]

Don't you live in Sweden?

Based on what you're saying, you literally know fuck all about the US political climate. Like, absolutely nothing.

If Americans are in a foreign war, the population tend to assemble around the President.

[Bardo]

Obama campaigned as a centrist. The only reason why progressives supported him was desperation.


Obama ran a pretty progressive campaign imo. He said he was going to raise taxes on the wealthy, pass healthcare reform, end the wars ect. It was only after taking office that he started moving closer and closer to centre

[Ocean Seal]

Obama campaigned as a centrist. The only reason why progressives supported him was desperation.

The reason why an American President with a progressive agenda needs to be a military figure is that it would automatically mean some support both from the Army and from the people who are living in counties with inflated importance due to the fact that a vote in Kansas is more worth than 600 votes in New York, in short people who hate the Democrats for being effeminate.

And yes, I also dislike that notion. But the people, or at least the people in Kansas, seems to like it.

If you want to install a welfare state, the most easy method to do so is the following.

I. Start a war against Iran

II. Raise the taxes to pay for the war against Iran (90% for the billionaires)

III. Level Iran with the ground and kill it's inhabitants.

IV. Celebrate a glorious triumph and bring the Iranian leaders to Guantanamo where they are waterboarded in direct television.

V. Lower the taxes for billionaires to 77%

VI. Use the extra money to fund a single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income and reduce the size of the army.

Voilà, you have installed social democracy with the support of Glenn Beck (since he according to pundit logic must support a President who is an imperialist).

I disagree imperialism will only lead to the decline of social democracy. As a war against Iran could not allow us to cut our already bloated military budget.

I see a different path. Get a candidate who represents what America considers its heartland, and at the same time its city folk. Someone who has the same appeal as Bush, the whole people person ideal. Possibly a veteran with a strong sense of morality. Someone who decries the current moral depravity in the United States could be a good candidate as a social democrat, and I would suggest that they not compromise their values, instead suggest that the rich are the source of the problems without backing down from demagogues like Hannity who yell class warfare like its a bad thing. Also the candidate should have some very strong religious values.

[gorillafuck]

If Americans are in a foreign war, the population tend to assemble around the President.
That's not even close to the gist of what you said. And that you went from saying all that stuff to reducing it to just this is pretty indicative that you realized you were just making stuff up.

[Dimentio]

Obama ran a pretty progressive campaign imo. He said he was going to raise taxes on the wealthy, pass healthcare reform, end the wars ect. It was only after taking office that he started moving closer and closer to centre

The Audacity of Hope called for Bi-partisan centrism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Obama ran a pretty progressive campaign imo. He said he was going to raise taxes on the wealthy, pass healthcare reform, end the wars ect. It was only after taking office that he started moving closer and closer to centreSome of his rhetoric sounded progressive and a couple of speeches he made were pretty impressive for a mainstream candidate from one of the two capitalist parties. But he always ran as a centrist - even in the primaries, he positioned himself as the "moderate" with Clinton taking the right and Edwards the left of the Democrat's voters.

He never said he would end the wars, he said he'd escalate Afghanistan and "wind-down" in Iraq which was more or less where the Pentagon was headed at the end of Bush's 2nd term anyway.


I see a different path. Get a candidate who represents what America considers its heartland, and at the same time its city folk. Someone who has the same appeal as Bush, the whole people person ideal. Possibly a veteran with a strong sense of morality. Someone who decries the current moral depravity in the United States could be a good candidate as a social democrat, and I would suggest that they not compromise their values, instead suggest that the rich are the source of the problems without backing down from demagogues like Hannity who yell class warfare like its a bad thing. Also the candidate should have some very strong religious values. Man you guys are talking in this thread like the reason we have bad candidates in the US is because of the voters, not the political system. First of all, elections don't reflect popular will, they reflect who is able to mobilize their base of voters more. Second, the reason why any Repub or Dem candidate HAS to be religious, HAS to be pro-US imperialism, and HAS to be (right now anyway) in favor of neoliberalism over Kenysianism is less because of the prejudices of the population and more because of the class interests and prejudices represented in the Democratic and Republican parties.

Even for a moderate like Obama, he had to prove to the establishment that he was really on-board by emphasizing his support for Israel when people questioned him about it (an early manifestation of the: "OMG he's black, he must be a Moozlem" phenomenon) and by throwing Rev. Wright under the bus in the most public way possible. But even long before the election, for any candidate to reach the point where the establishment is talking about their potential candidacy (as the media had been saying about Obama years before 2008) they have already proven whose side they stand on. To get the backing of either party, access to their campaign donation rolls and contacts, access to election infrastructure (either local or national) politicians have to prove that they are game-players and that they know which side their bread is buttered on.

The most significant difference in the Obama canadacy was not his positions or what he said which was (with the rare soaring exception) pretty average and moderate for Democrats, the difference was the Obama was able to mobilize a base that had not been mobilized for a long time and was able to counter the right-wing organized grassroots base. Young people, urban people, and blacks and Latinos were mobilized more than anytime in the 1990s or 2000s for the 2008 election. This is what gave Obama's candidacy momentum and power and also what made his candidacy seem more left-wing than it was in actual political positions. This mobilization was able to bring out more of the suburb and city-based working class vote which also impacted how votes went down in so-called "red-states". The demoralization of this same group of people kept workers, minorities, and the young at home during the mid-term elections and so the right-wing was able to walk away with the elections in most cases. Also impoirtant to note is that this base that Obama mobilized is to the left of Obama - particularly on the war and on taxing the rich and health care.

So if we want to see a real left-populist challenge, the most important factor is the mobilization of the left-wing/progressives. Either it would produce a sort of left-tea party where "populist" Democrats would begin challenging the moderate inside the party or it could produce a populist 3rd party. But either way, the politicians are not going to take on populist positions unless they think they have to because the alternatives are worse for them.

[Bud Struggle]

Don't you live in Sweden?

Based on what you're saying, you literally know fuck all about the US political climate. Like, absolutely nothing.

I think Demento is exactly on target with what is happening in the United States. Actually he's the one person around here with a rational handle on what American politics looks like.

[RGacky3]

It was only after taking office that he started moving closer and closer to centre

More like to the right, he's not at the center of the country anymore.

[Dimentio]

I disagree imperialism will only lead to the decline of social democracy. As a war against Iran could not allow us to cut our already bloated military budget.

I see a different path. Get a candidate who represents what America considers its heartland, and at the same time its city folk. Someone who has the same appeal as Bush, the whole people person ideal. Possibly a veteran with a strong sense of morality. Someone who decries the current moral depravity in the United States could be a good candidate as a social democrat, and I would suggest that they not compromise their values, instead suggest that the rich are the source of the problems without backing down from demagogues like Hannity who yell class warfare like its a bad thing. Also the candidate should have some very strong religious values.

Yes, that would probably work as well.

[Bud Struggle]

More like to the right, he's not at the center of the country anymore.

Nope. He was slightly left now he's center.

[RGacky3]

I see a different path. Get a candidate who represents what America considers its heartland, and at the same time its city folk. Someone who has the same appeal as Bush, the whole people person ideal. Possibly a veteran with a strong sense of morality. Someone who decries the current moral depravity in the United States could be a good candidate as a social democrat, and I would suggest that they not compromise their values, instead suggest that the rich are the source of the problems without backing down from demagogues like Hannity who yell class warfare like its a bad thing. Also the candidate should have some very strong religious values.

This is the big narrative that the US media likes to play, which has NO bearing on society, that there is red American and a blue America, and that Americans are worried more about mundain issues and care much more about personality than policy.

THe ONLY reason thats an issue is because policy is almost never put on the table for discussion.

Americans care about social security, getting healthcare, having a good paying job, things like that, having economic stability, good schools.

THe other stuff is just a narrative to avoid the real issues.

[#FF0000]

Nope. He was slightly left now he's center.

I think it's more accurate to say he's slightly to the right at this point.

[RGacky3]

Nope. He was slightly left now he's center.

Of who the establishment? THe Media? Sure, of the country? Not by a long shot.

[Bud Struggle]

Of who the establishment? THe Media? Sure, of the country? Not by a long shot.

Of the people that elected him. They are the only ones that count. No one else matters in the slightest.

But as to where he ACTUALLY is: I don't think we'll know that until we get into the next congress as see where he stands on things.

[RGacky3]

Of the people that elected him. They are the only ones that count. No one else matters in the slightest.


No Bud thats not how the world works, everyone counts if you are asking "what do Americans thing" that question does not secretly mean "What do Americans ONLY THAT VOTE think?"


But as to where he ACTUALLY is: I don't think we'll know that until we get into the next congress as see where he stands on things.

Obama with a democratic congress has proven already where he stands, thats a situation where he could do whatever he wanted, and we saw what he did. Its only gonna get worse, there were reports talking about how he was thinking of cutting Social Security (he probably won't do it because that might light the dynamite of anger), but thats something that not even Bush could do seriously.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

While I hate to admit it Dimentio does have a point. Since WWII, the most domestically progressive President -by a long shot- is also perhaps one of the most horribly remembered for foreign policy. The President who created Medicare, signed the Civil Rights Act, and by and large created what we may consider the post-New Deal wealfare state is also the President who began sending US troops to Vietnam en masse. Not to mention being a Texan Dixiecrat.

Lyndon B Johnson

[Bud Struggle]

No Bud thats not how the world works, everyone counts if you are asking "what do Americans thing" that question does not secretly mean "What do Americans ONLY THAT VOTE think?"

I guess we disagree--the only poll that matters is the one that happens every other year on the first Tuesday in November. Those that take part have a say those that won't or can't don't matter in the slightest. Everything in America is built around the election.



Obama with a democratic congress has proven already where he stands, thats a situation where he could do whatever he wanted, and we saw what he did. Its only gonna get worse, there were reports talking about how he was thinking of cutting Social Security (he probably won't do it because that might light the dynamite of anger), but thats something that not even Bush could do seriously. I see your point there--but he was hamstrung by the Democrats almost as much as the republicans. I don't think it's completely his fault.

[gorillafuck]

Yeah, but he wasn't voted in on the premise of sending troops to Vietnam. In fact, he was voted in to do the opposite.

[Palingenisis]

The vital question in the USA is the sucession of the Black nation (and the first nations!) and until that happens the white nation while remain a pawn of reaction.

[gorillafuck]

The vital question in the USA is the sucession of the Black nation (and the first nations!) and until that happens the white nation while remain a pawn of reaction.
No, that's ridiculous. The leadership of the most notorious black liberation group in the US (BPP) were vocally against separatism.

I think most black people realize that secession from the US would be really horrible for the black working class.

[Palingenisis]

No, that's ridiculous.

Why the mass support for the TEA party? I think that Maoist-Third Worldists take everything way to far but they really do have point in that white nation workers look to their own ruling class as opposed to other proletarians because of perceived or real privileges.

[Palingenisis]

No, that's ridiculous. The leadership of the most notorious black liberation group in the US (BPP) were vocally against separatism. And that's during radical 60's/70's times.

They were vocal against racism and black chauvinism. They still believed in national liberation.

[gorillafuck]

Why the mass support for the TEA party? I think that Maoist-Third Worldists take everything way to far but they really do have point in that white nation workers look to their own ruling class as opposed to other proletarians because of perceived or real privileges.
You think that the tea party has mass support?

Uh, it doesn't.

[#FF0000]

They were vocal against racism and black chauvinism. They still believed in national liberation.

They did not believe in black separatism and were pretty vocal about being focused on class struggle.

[Dimentio]

This is the big narrative that the US media likes to play, which has NO bearing on society, that there is red American and a blue America, and that Americans are worried more about mundain issues and care much more about personality than policy.

THe ONLY reason thats an issue is because policy is almost never put on the table for discussion.

Americans care about social security, getting healthcare, having a good paying job, things like that, having economic stability, good schools.

THe other stuff is just a narrative to avoid the real issues.

Why then, did not Kucinich win the 2008 nomination and election?

[gorillafuck]

Why then, did not Kucinich win the 2008 nomination and election?
Kucinich and Obama were basically the same person during that nomination.

Also, lol at the idea that Americans voted for a conservative therefore they consciously want to be an imperialist country. The GOP and Dems go back and forth because people get fed up with both of them, not because people think that the dems don't blow up enough stuff. Where on Earth do you get your ideas?

[Palingenisis]

They did not believe in black separatism and were pretty vocal about being focused on class struggle.

They believed in Black nation NATIONAL LIBERATION which is not the same thing as black separatism. They recognized progressive and revolutionary allies within the white nation. That was the old position of the CP-USA and its the position of the Revolutionary Organization of Labour and the M-TWists today.

They did not want a Black capitalist nation, they believed in the Black Soviet Republic.

Listen to this speech which you will probably find shocking (and in my view its skirting the edges of acceptability)...The distortions of their views by both the Left and the Right in the aftermath of their destruction at the hands the US state needs to stop.

ET4OmJfY6T8

[Bud Struggle]

the Black Soviet Republic.


This is just nonsense. If anythiing it's racists. Nobody wants it except a few nutcases. It's not good for Blacks or whites. Nobody takes it seriously.

[Dimentio]

Kucinich and Obama were basically the same person during that nomination.

Also, lol at the idea that Americans voted for a conservative therefore they consciously want to be an imperialist country. The GOP and Dems go back and forth because people get fed up with both of them, not because people think that the dems don't blow up enough stuff. Where on Earth do you get your ideas?

Americans generally don't want war because American troops could die, but most Americans outside of the upper middle class do not care about the plight of the Iraqis or the Palestinians. They want the wars to end victoriously for the USA, with few dead Americans. Abu Ghraib did only affect those who already were liberal or progressive and were critical to the war from the start, while the real cause for the increasing dislike of the Iraq War was that it never ended during Bush's term.

Moreover, Clinton usually bombed a country as quick as his opinion ratings were dropping. Usually, they went up after he bombed something and killed a couple of hundred civilians.

So no, people do not want more bombing conciously, but they evidently do approve bombing.

Fred Johnson in a Gasoline Station might dislike politics, taxes, PETA and anti-smoking commercials, and also dislike Obama, but if the country is perceived as being threatened and Obama is perceived as the hero fighting the threat by bombing some hospital in Chad or Niger, Obama's appeal will rise for Fred.

[Dimentio]

They believed in Black nation NATIONAL LIBERATION which is not the same thing as black separatism. They recognized progressive and revolutionary allies within the white nation. That was the old position of the CP-USA and its the position of the Revolutionary Organization of Labour and the M-TWists today.

They did not want a Black capitalist nation, they believed in the Black Soviet Republic.

Listen to this speech which you will probably find shocking (and in my view its skirting the edges of acceptability)...The distortions of their views by both the Left and the Right in the aftermath of their destruction at the hands the US state needs to stop.

ET4OmJfY6T8

Completely idiotic.

Blacks are like 12% of the population. To have a "Black Soviet Republic" in the USA, it would mean that there must be an ethnic cleansing of whites. In year 1900, South Carolina perhaps could pass for a black majority area, but nowadays, is there any large area which is having a black majority?

[Palingenisis]

What about their four acres and a mule?

[gorillafuck]

Dimentio: where do you get these ideas?

[Bud Struggle]

Dimentio: where do you get these ideas? He has America pegged pretty correctly.

[gorillafuck]

He has America pegged pretty correctly.
No, he doesn't.


If you want to install a welfare state, the most easy method to do so is the following.

I. Start a war against Iran

II. Raise the taxes to pay for the war against Iran (90% for the billionaires)

III. Level Iran with the ground and kill it's inhabitants.

IV. Celebrate a glorious triumph and bring the Iranian leaders to Guantanamo where they are waterboarded in direct television.

V. Lower the taxes for billionaires to 77%

VI. Use the extra money to fund a single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income and reduce the size of the army.

Voilà, you have installed social democracy with the support of Glenn Beck (since he according to pundit logic must support a President who is an imperialist).
This is completely idiotic and baseless.

[#FF0000]

That post reads like a Victoria II strategy guide or something.

[Palingenisis]

Are you sure the TEA party dont have mass support? Ron Paul has a lot more support than any leftist.

[Bud Struggle]

No, he doesn't.


This is completely idiotic and baseless.

Not at all. He's saying is better than a war to bring Americans together. It always does. Do you think George would have won a second term if he didn't engage in a couple of wars?

Once a President is riding on a war high--he could do anything he wants in the name of "American Freedom". So he could indeed turn the country more Social Democratic.

Granted it is a bit tongue in cheek but I actually think it's a pretty good plan.

[#FF0000]

the Tea Party doesn't have mass support, no. I wouldn't call them a movement or a party or anything. They're more like a Glenn Beck fandom.

And anybody remotely related to American politics has more support than any leftist.


Not at all. He's saying is better than a war to bring Americans together. It always does. Do you think George would have won a second term if he didn't engage in a couple of wars?

Once a President is riding on a war high--he could do anything he wants in the name of "American Freedom". So he could indeed turn the country more Social Democratic.

Would it work? Maybe. Probably.

Is it an outrageously inhumane and disgusting plan? Yes and I hope you'd agree.

[Bud Struggle]

Are you sure the TEA party dont have mass support? Ron Paul has a lot more support than any leftist.

The Tea Part has SOME support. Radical Leftists have NO support.

[Palingenisis]

The Tea Part has SOME support. Radical Leftists have NO support.

Maybe that SOME support is greater than the SOME Leftist support that existed in the 1960s?

[Bud Struggle]

Would it work? Maybe. Probably.

Is it an outrageously inhumane and disgusting plan? Yes and I hope you'd agree.

I do. But I don't take it seriously. It was an example of just how Americans support their troops no matter what--and how that support could be taken advantage of.

I don't think it's a real plan.

[Dimentio]

No, he doesn't.


This is completely idiotic and baseless.

Public waterboarding is probably a bit too far (though Saddam's underpants was a little in that direction), but the rest is pretty much the mechanics of how American foreign policy is affecting the domestic policy, at least after what I've observed since the 1990's.

As for wars. Americans don't like to keep ground troops in a place. Marines could actually get killed. So a President who wants to stay popular better use bomb carpets and B2's than send ground troops.

In the Russian version, ground troops could be sent in and killed en masse, including in friendly fire, and the general public won't give a damn.

In the Swedish version, the politicians would pretend that we aren't in a war and the people won't care about the war as long as the middle class are having their social benefits.

[Bud Struggle]

Maybe that SOME support is greater than the SOME Leftist support that existed in the 1960s?

That's a tough question. I really don't know. The Leftists in the 60s were outside the mainstream the Rightests now are firmly embeded in the mainstream. The Leftist then were and ACTUAL Populist movement. he Rightest movement is bought and paid for by big financial interests.

[#FF0000]

Maybe that SOME support is greater than the SOME Leftist support that existed in the 1960s?

I wouldn't be able to say for sure but the Tea Party's support is way, way lower than you'd think from watching T.V. It is overhyped to a ridiculous degree.

Or was, rather. I might be wrong here but I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party's support has really, really waned since the last congressional election.


I do. But I don't take it seriously. It was an example of just how Americans support their troops no matter what--and how that support could be taken advantage of.

I don't think it's a real plan.

Oh, I think it's true of any country. You should check out this book called "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" by Chris Hedges. It probably wouldn't tell you anything you didn't already know but it's worth reading just for the writing itself.

[Palingenisis]

That's a tough question. I really don't know. The Leftists in the 60s were outside the mainstream the Rightests now are firmly embeded in the mainstream. The Leftist then were and ACTUAL Populist movement. he Rightest movement is bought and paid for by big financial interests.

Its a mistake to see reactionary movements as just the puppets of big business. They may be started that way but they take on a life of their own. I dont think the TEA Party and Ron Paul represent the ruling class of the USA as such. I think they represent the small business owner and labour aristocracy.

[#FF0000]

Its a mistake to see reactionary movements as just the puppets of big business. They may be started that way but they take on a life of their own. I dont think the TEA Party and Ron Paul represent the ruling class of the USA as such. I think they represent the small business owner and labour aristocracy.

How do they represent the "labor aristocracy"?

[Palingenisis]

How do they represent the "labor aristocracy"?

Complaining about immigrants from Mexico and the other racism. Complaining about welfare. Have you ever talked to TEA party people?

[gorillafuck]

Are you sure the TEA party dont have mass support? Ron Paul has a lot more support than any leftist.
Yeah, I'm pretty positive. If anyone tells you that American whites rally around the tea party as a massive force, then they're full of crap.


In the Swedish version, the politicians would pretend that we aren't in a war and the people won't care about the war as long as the middle class are having their social benefits.War is heavily censored here too and people generally don't care about it as well.


Not at all. He's saying is better than a war to bring Americans together. It always does. Do you think George would have won a second term if he didn't engage in a couple of wars?
Most people who vote like to view their president as getting things done. Not because they just love bombing the shit out of places. Most people who used to support Obama but gave up on him perceive him as ineffective, not as too far left.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah, I'm pretty positive. If anyone tells you that American whites rally around the tea party then they're full of crap.

Ron Paul who is extremist by any stretch of the imagination is a Senator and was a candidate for the Republican Party nomination. How many people watch Glen Beck and take him seriously? Yeah not all of the White Nation but just imagine Left-Communism or Maoism having as much support?

[gorillafuck]

Ron Paul who extremist by any stretch of the imagination is a Senator and was a candidate for the Republican Party nomination.
He's not an extremist. He's a conservative.


How many people watch Glen Beck and take him seriously? Yeah not all of the White Nation but just imagine Left-Communism or Maoism having as much support?
Glenn Beck is generally either liked or thought of as a complete joke, I'd guess it's about 40% like him and 60% think he's a joke. That's a complete guess, though. Still, the tea party did bad at the last elections (yeah yeah they did better than far leftists, I know).

And yeah, class consciousness in the US is weak. That's clear.

[#FF0000]

It should also be pointed out that (it seems at least) the bulk of Tea Party folks are old, nearing retirement age, and iirc most of them have or had jobs in management or were self-employed.

Not many workers involved tbh.

[Palingenisis]

He's not an extremist. He's a conservative.


I despise Glenn Beck, on the off chance of me ever becoming the great helmsman of the USA it wouldnt be fun for him, that said I take him extremely seriously...Ron Paul is an extremist, he wants to dismantle a lot of what is necessary for capitalist rule and is supported by scum like the Mises foundation and Lew Rockwell.

[Palingenisis]

It should also be pointed out that (it seems at least) the bulk of Tea Party folks are old, nearing retirement age, and iirc most of them have or had jobs in mana gement or were self-employed.

Not many workers involved tbh.

That weirds me out...Why would such people be against healthcare?

[#FF0000]

That weirds me out...Why would such people be against healthcare?

You wanna know the kicker?

A lot of them get government healthcare via Medicare. You can find tons and tons of videos of Tea Party seat-fillers getting interviewed and revealing that they collect some kind of government scratch, totally oblivious to what the Tea Party means for the assistance they receive.

On paper, these are not stupid people. Tea Partiers tend to have at least one four-year college degree. But they are the stupidest, most bitter, spiteful, hateful and angry people in America.

[Palingenisis]

Look....you might think that Im dumb but Im a Maoist because I honestly think it offers the best way forward for me and those around me. I really believe that Anti-Revisionism/Maoism represents me and those I most empathize with. Do you honestly think that people would be so dim as to go against their obvious interests? The undercurrent is scratch for us...But not for blacks and latinos. Surely?

[gorillafuck]

You lost me....

[#FF0000]

Do you honestly think that people would be so dim as to go against their obvious interests?

Yup. Baby Boomers are, anyway.


The undercurrent is scratch for us...But not for blacks and latinos. Surely?Thaaat's actually pretty much 100% dead on.

But I think it's more than that. See, folks from the Baby Boomer generation hate pretty much everyone whose skin still has some elasticity, no matter what color it is. It's not just "GImme the loot, but don't give it to black people". It's "Fuck you, got mine, whippersnappers".

[Palingenisis]

But I think it's more than that. See, folks from the Baby Boomer generation hate pretty much everyone whose skin still has some elasticity, no matter what color it is. It's not just "GImme the loot, but don't give it to black people". It's "Fuck you, got mine, whippersnappers".

But surely a lot of baby boomers are ex-radicals? I mean I know one 60 something USAan woman in Ireland who has a lot of new age waffle about her but is basically hard left (as in wants to see proper Socialism and supports armed struggle under certain circumstances).

[Palingenisis]

You lost me....

The question is why would the TEA party people go against their obvious self interest?

[#FF0000]

But surely a lot of baby boomers are ex-radicals? I mean I know one 60 something USAan woman in Ireland who has a lot of new age waffle about her but is basically hard left (as in wants to see proper Socialism and supports armed struggle under certain circumstances).

Depends actually. The older baby boomers are the ex-hippies. The ones who born closer to Watergate are the miserable, horrible ones, I think.

[Palingenisis]

There was this Militia movement in the USA in the Clinton years...Is the TEA party a continuation of it?

How come the Militia movement blew up and than just disappeared?

[#FF0000]

There was this Militia movement in the USA in the Clinton years...Is the TEA party a continuation of it?

I wouldn't say it's a continuation of it. I'm sure folks involved with the Militia movements are fans of the Tea Party, though.


How come the Militia movement blew up and than just disappeared?

FBI, basically.

[RGacky3]

The question is why would the TEA party people go against their obvious self interest?


Because they are angry and afriad and things arn't working and the right wing gave them easy answers.

[RGacky3]

Once a President is riding on a war high--he could do anything he wants in the name of "American Freedom". So he could indeed turn the country more Social Democratic.

Granted it is a bit tongue in cheek but I actually think it's a pretty good plan.

Thats generally true but not an american phenomenon, but does'nt always work.


The Tea Part has SOME support. Radical Leftists have NO support.

Your mostly right, but leftist ideals have plenty of support, the tea party has much monied interests, and is thus organized, or leftist ideals could be organized it could be a force to be reconed with.

(BTW, don't look for organizations with a red flag and sickle and hammer, thats not the left, thats people playing games.)


Glenn Beck is generally either liked or thought of as a complete joke, I'd guess it's about 40% like him and 60% think he's a joke. That's a complete guess, though. Still, the tea party did bad at the last elections (yeah yeah they did better than far leftists, I know).

And yeah, class consciousness in the US is weak. That's clear.

Your giving Glenn Beck WAY WAY Too much, I'd guess under 10% think of him as anything more than a joke (I've never mett one).

Class consciousness in the US is actually pretty vivid, the problem is, its not organized, does'nt have and monied backing or media backing.

[southernmissfan]

I wouldn't say it's a continuation of it. I'm sure folks involved with the Militia movements are fans of the Tea Party, though.



FBI, basically.

That and the fact that there was no longer in Democrat in office.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Anybody else catch this?

Lxsi4CLH_sw

Shit like this makes me vote democrat.

[Bud Struggle]

The question is why would the TEA party people go against their obvious self interest?

I suggerst you move to America. Live here for 20 or so years and I will
guarantee you that you will never meet a Tea Partier in the course of every day life.

You will never meet a Left Radical either.

[RGacky3]

I've mett MUCH more people that read Chomsky than those that read .... what do tea-partiers read?

[Nolan]

Not sure if this is related, but anyone else notice how the American right goes back and forth on its rhetoric?

In the 80's it was the Moral Majority, law and order politics, and death to communism. The last two were of course much older.

In the 90's it was SOCIALISTS HAVE THE GUVMINT THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS AND LIBERTIES

that fell apart eventually and in the early to mid 2000s it was AMERICA FUCK YEAH SUPPORT OUR TROOPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY! GOD SHOULD BE IN EVERYTHING WE'RE TOO TOLERANT. You know. When Glenn Beck was screaming for English Only and a fence on the border.

Now it's SOCIALIST BLACK NATIONALIST MUSLIMS HAVE THE GUVMINT THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS and LIBERTY FROM BIG GOVERNMENT, FREE MARKETS RULE

It's all a ruse and if you dig deeper it never actually changes. But an interesting observation nonetheless. Different aspects of the right are put in the limelight depending on their political situation.

Or is this just me?

[Revolution starts with U]

The question is why would the TEA party people go against their obvious self interest?

Are you saying they, in fact, are acting in their own self/class interest? And/or that all actions are taken in one's self/class interest?
Was engels acting in his self/class interest?

[RGacky3]

In the 80's it was the Moral Majority, law and order politics, and death to communism. The last two were of course much older.

In the 90's it was SOCIALISTS HAVE THE GUVMINT THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS AND LIBERTIES

that fell apart eventually and in the early to mid 2000s it was AMERICA FUCK YEAH SUPPORT OUR TROOPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY! GOD SHOULD BE IN EVERYTHING WE'RE TOO TOLERANT. You know. When Glenn Beck was screaming for English Only and a fence on the border.

Now it's SOCIALIST BLACK NATIONALIST MUSLIMS HAVE THE GUVMINT THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS and LIBERTY FROM BIG GOVERNMENT, FREE MARKETS RULE

It's all a ruse and if you dig deeper it never actually changes. But an interesting observation nonetheless. Different aspects of the right are put in the limelight depending on their political situation.


Interesting observation.

In my opinion the sort of tea-party right wing, (I'm not talking about the buisiness right), are the same right wing that was the moral majority, the same right wing that was the yellow ribbon type and so on, they are just really manipulatable people, the type that have sort of automatic emotional responses based out of fear.

If you look at Soviet propeganda it was changing all the time, depending on what would work, and a certain amount of people would respond to it honestly.

It goes into the right wing psyche, the gospel pharasee psyche, total disdain for anyone below them the people of the dirt, the people who are less then them, at the same time a love and adoration of the oppressors, back then it was the romans when they said "We have no king but cesar," just sucking up to the power and trying so hard to have their approval.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not at all. He's saying is better than a war to bring Americans together. It always does. Do you think George would have won a second term if he didn't engage in a couple of wars?Didn't work for Papa George.


Once a President is riding on a war high--he could do anything he wants in the name of "American Freedom". So he could indeed turn the country more Social Democratic.

I think the reason that war-presidents can "get away with anything" is not because people want to support them, but the ruling class does and so the opposition party suddenly becomes silent on the war and stands in line behind the policy and the media obviously follows suit. As Dan Rather said: "He's my president and when we're at war, if he tells me to jump, I jump".

So the only way for a war to "unite America" and for the government to adopt social-democratic policies... is if the US ruling class wanted these things. In that case, there's no difference between the plan of "backdoor" reforms through an imperialist/populist figure or just waiting for the Democrats/Republicans to do these things anyway.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There was this Militia movement in the USA in the Clinton years...Is the TEA party a continuation of it?The more radical right - militias as well as neo-nazis had an upsurge in the early 90s - partly due to changing political terrain after the end of the cold war. Militias, for example, came out of cold-war survivalist groups who armed themselves waiting for China or Russia to attack with nukes and/or invade the US... after the cold war, it was no longer secret Russian subs and planes, it was "One world UN jew gubberment" and "CIA Black Helicopters" that was the excuse for their private rifle stockpiles).

The militias are still there although they declined along with the neo-nazis in the late 90s. They are definitely one of the more mainstream fringes of the Tea Party as opposed to the KKK/NAZI-types who are a less mainstream (but still very present) fringe. Probably the border-vigilante groups have helped there militias to recruit more and also the survivalist thing has kind of changed since the last militia movement with "sovereign citizens" groups being kind of the new face of it.

I'd check out the Southern Poverty Law Center website - they have packets of articles they put together about Militias, the Sovereign Cit. groups, Anti-Immigrant groups, and organized racists working with/in the Tea Party movement.


How come the Militia movement blew up and than just disappeared?Because they blew stuff up. The whole arguement of the militia movement was "leave us alone" we are just "citizens who want to protect ourselves, so keep the guvverment off our guns!". Like now, Liberal pundits and politicians told the population to not be too rash in condemning these people - don't call them racist, respect their values, disagree respectfully, etc. Well then when these people blow up a government building, and blow up something at the Olympics, their argument of "just want to be left alone" rings a little hollow.