The Tree of Crazy, Its Deep Roots, and Its New Branches

[Emit]

THE TREE OF CRAZY, ITS DEEP ROOTS, AND ITS NEW BRANCHES.... The Tea Party crowd, its candidates, and its zealotry are often treated as a fairly new phenomenon. Glenn Greenwald had an item the other day arguing that this is a mistaken impression -- there's nothing new about this.

The "tea party" movement is, in my view, a mirror image of the Republican Party generally. There are some diverse, heterodox factions which compose a small, inconsequential minority of it (various libertarian, independent, and Reagan Democrat types), but it is dominated -- in terms of leadership, ideology, and the vast majority of adherents -- by the same set of beliefs which have long shaped the American Right: Reagan-era domestic policies, blinding American exceptionalism and nativism, fetishizing American wars, total disregard for civil liberties, social and religious conservatism, hatred of the minority-Enemy du Jour (currently: Muslims), allegiance to self-interested demagogic leaders, hidden exploitation by corporatist masters, and divisive cultural tribalism. (...)

~snip~

~snip~

But since reading Glenn's fine piece the other day, I've been thinking about why today seems different -- or more to the point, worse.

Noting Glenn's item, digby raised a good point.

One thing to remember, however --- while these people have been around forever, this is the first time they have become a truly powerful institutional force in the Republican party. They have moved smartly into the vacuum left by the Cheney failure and they have done it in a time of crisis, which gives them opportunities they wouldn't normally have. They are more dangerous today than usual and if they win these seats this fall they cause some very serious trouble.

That rings true, too. We have to go back many years, but there was a moderate, pragmatic wing of the Republican Party. In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower (R) wrote a letter to his brother. (added link ~ Emit) "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history," Ike said. The president acknowledged in the letter that there are some who advocate such nonsense, but added, "Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

A half-century later, Republicans from the base to Capitol Hill are convinced Eisenhower was stupid...

The point isn't that the Republican fringe is new; it's clearly not. The point is that the Republican fringe is now the Republican mainstream -- and that is new. We've long seen a party with bizarre theocrats, Birchers, and the like, but they were always kept on the periphery. That's no longer the case.

I also believe today seems different from previous generations because of the decline of American journalism...

~snip~

I'd add just one related note. In previous generations, the American Right still had to contend with some accurate information. That's no longer the case -- a Republican activist can listen to talk radio during the day, listen to Fox News after work, read right-wing blogs with breakfast, and hang out with Tea Partiers over the weekend. It's possible, if not easy, for a conservative to come in contact with literally no accurate, objective journalism.

And as more and more of the right falls into this category, it makes it easier for fringe extremists to grow in number, to the point that they can take over a major political party, and purge it of those who fail to fully embrace their worldview.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025733.php#more

[Rex]

1. Well for the record, Repukes of all stripes have NEVER relied on facts or truth

to get what they want. Just look at our current problems - all stemming from Repukes not being able to (a) tell the truth and (b) care about the social network. They are the party of destruction and greed, that is why I don't think they have a chance in Hell this Nov. The majority will not vote for crazy, we had 8 years of that and it didn't work out to well.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think H2O Man's recent thread on the George Wallace-

American Independent Party was very much on target in identifying that group as a spiritual antecedent of the Tea Party and its dominant mentality. so many things fit, right down to the big-money backers (Hunt v. Koch Bros.).

[Emit]

4. Thanks Jackpine, I'll go check it out.

Don't know how, but I missed that post.

[leveymg]

3. The TEAs have even earlier roots in American history: the KKK, the Know-Nothings,

(1850s-1880s), right back to the fanatical religious sects of the 1660s. Colonial America and the United States were essentially formed by tribal, regional, racial and religious warfare. I don't understand why anyone thinks this is anything new, except that the extreme Right have pushed themselves into dominance of a modern American political party. But, this was the only way the GOP was going to survive and keep its activist base intact while (briefly) being expelled to the political wilderness.

The GOP has been remarkably successful at keeping its based mobilized, and the Democrats will have to do the same thing - but, I suspect they won't, and would rather become the neglected, abused wife minority (again) rather than allow the Left near the levers of power.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. "nothing new" -- Chris Hayes made this point very nicely on TRMS a couple of days ago...

and Rachel commented on the idea some more the following day. Some of these people have careers going back to the early 60's, and they've been doing the same thing all along.

[Emit]

6. Yes, I've seen many articles and blogs making note of it's "nothing new" in various contexts

It's not hard to see through the ruse.

I don't get cable, so didn't catch TRMS, but I'll look for a video clip. Love how Maddow deconstructs the right wing.

I've read articles this week with similar sentiments.

In terms of populism, it's touched upon here:

(...) Since the 1960s, populism has succeeded on the right and has produced few if any left-wing counterparts. The tradition has moved from the segregationist George Wallace, who derided the federal government and pointy-headed intellectuals, to Richard Nixon's celebration of "the silent majority" and Spiro Agnew's attack against journalists and elites. It has fed on an easy hatred of government and taxes, from the "I'm Mad as Hell" chants of the California tax protesters in 1978 -- the spirit that helped get Ronald Reagan elected president -- to the Tea Party of today. There's no way to steer this boat back to left-wing shores.

Like it or not, today Sarah Palin (whose this-great-country-of-ours remarks sound robotic and who famously stated that "the best of America" and the "real America ... is in these small towns") is today's most recognized populist. A woman who slathers love on the American people, she has tapped the essence of populism, its simplistic emotionalism about "the people yes." This is a woman whose conception of contemporary American history is foolishly providential, ignoring Vietnam, Watergate, and Iraq, along with the broader idea that, yes, America can make mistakes.

Populism -- because it glorifies the "common sense" of the people -- is prone to the sloppy, slapdash thinking of figures like Palin. Richard Hofstadter pointed out years ago that a "paranoid style" and populism march hand in hand. Hence, the outlandish charges of "socialism" and "death panels" from today's populist right. Take, for example, one of Palin's more famous remarks about Obama: "I'm not going to call him a socialist. But as Joe the Plumber has suggested, in fact he came right out and said it, it sounds like socialism to him. And he speaks for so many Americans who are quite concerned now after hearing finally what Barack Obama's true intentions are with his tax and economic plan."

Translation: The people, yes, and damn the facts.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=forget_populism

On how familiar the 'baggers seem, including how liberals have tried in the past to respond to it:

What was striking about the Glenn Beck rally was its familiarity, not its strangeness. Everything about it was a repetition of messages and ideas reinforcing the version of American tradition that ‘imagineers’ on the right have promoted for decades. A national identity erased of color or class or gender or religious plurality. A restoration fantasy of “taking this country back” (to the pre-civil war 1850’s at least, if not the 1760’s). The banal invocation to “do good” while acting really badly against anyone defined outside of the Christian nation.

In a similar vein, Jane Mayer’s expose of the Koch brothers in the New Yorker was also eerily familiar — another excellent analysis of the strategic funding and ideological commitment of right wing donors. How many times have we read this story? Yet, each decade it seems that mainstream and even progressive minded people newly “discover” the Right. We are reminded (again) that they have built a comprehensive totalitarian infrastructure (from ideas to action to communication). Liberals are shocked to realize how much money the ideological Right commits to consolidating its political power. People bemoan the collapse of a moderate wing of the Republican party. Alarms are sounded and everyone goes on as usual.

Sadly, there is a shortage of ideas about how to respond to and how to defeat the Right wing culturally and politically. (...)

http://urvashivaid.net/wp/?p=426

All in all, it bears repeating, imo, that the 'baggers = GOP = Republican party. Same ol' same ol'. And I like digby's spin on this - "The point is that the Republican fringe is now the Republican mainstream -- and that is new..." That and the decline of journalism and the fact that the right wingers do not attempt to self correct with any truth or objectivity - they watch Fox News and read their conspiracies online with nary an effort to fact check themselves.

[eppur_se_muova]

8. speaking of the fringe taking over -- ***1864*** Republican Convention ...

(OK, this wiki entry needs rewriting, but the basic facts are there ... radicals took over the GOP and voted to abandon their Commander in Chief in the middle of America's most traumatic war.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1864_Republican_National_Convention

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. IMO the completely bogus 'Tea Party' movement has replaced the Religious Right

as the visible extreme of Republicanism. After twenty years of seeing the Wall Street wing of the party make no progress on their pet issues--anti-abortion legislation, government vouchers for segregated religious K-12 education, etc, religious zealots have wised up and are much more cautious about being exploited in pursuit of the Wall Street Big Corporate agenda.

Now the always-dominant Wall Street wing of the Republican party has a new vehicle that is its own creation. Rick Santelli of CNBC openly takes credit for starting the "movement" which quickly received major financial suppport from the Koch brothers and expert leadership from Dick Armey. The Wall Street agenda no longer has to cloak itself in "social issues"--tax breaks for the rich, deregulation for corporations, and limitless financial speculation and predation are upfront for Tea-Partiers. It's like the "Brooks Brothers riot" that stopped Y2K presidential vote-counting in Miami, only every couple of weeks or so.

But this is the big weakiness in the "Tea Party" movement, IMO. It doesn't get millions of people to vote against their own economic interests, the way the Religious Right did. Tea-Partiers always were upper-income Republicans, and now the vast majority of them are 50-plus and can afford pricey tickets for Tea-Party events.

IMO this development offers big opportunities to Democrats to win back former Religious Righties and Reagan Democrats by emphasizing child poverty, hunger, homelessness, and other issues around which the "religious left" is organizing (google "Sojourners" at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=sojourners ).