As this election season reaches its theatrical peak, we must think about the events that have and will continue to present themselves. We have seen the rise of a movement that is vague and misguided about what the consequences of the positions that hold as their platform. As the tea party continues their takeover of the GOP, we have seen the first cases of “buyer’s remorse” leaving many GOP regulars to question “who are these people” and how has this insurgency taken over the party.
I believe that this mass “movement” is an expression of the corporate ruling class’ desire to manipulate the masses in an effort to shut down government by eliminating social spending, increase military spending and fundamentally change the American political system to one more congenial to their aims. The members of the TEA party are often portrayed, in my estimation, as little more than just stooges, social misfits, Kool-Aid drinking “true believers”, and bigots.
The funding sources of these different organizations are not often traceable and the public should be able to know who is bankrolling these purported grassroots organizations. The Koch brothers who rank among the richest persons in the nation have spent untold millions in an effort to reduce the tax “burden” that they are required to pay for the privileged opportunity to increase the net worth of their inherited family fortune. Taxes should not be viewed as a punishment, taxes are the price of admission to a civil society. If someone wants to pay no tax and then live with the consequences, I recently heard of this little tax haven called Somalia. When no one pays taxes the results may appear similar to this. Without funding, government cannot continue to provide the collective services that people aren’t able to as individuals.
I heard a recording of an interview with Ben Stein complaining about how he felt he was being punished for being successful. The man actual states that his money should not have to be so “heavily” taxed to support government and that the less fortunate have not earned the right to his money.
The recent example of judicial activism on behalf of corporations, the Citizens United case, by the Conservative Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (makes it sound like a close baseball game, it was not ever close) has given a voice to corporate persons who have for so long been forced to suffer in silence. The significance of the ruling is that corporations to express their vote will do so by spending unlimited amounts of money on campaigns (bribes) and political action committees also known as PACs. Corporations understand very well that advertising is a powerful tool. They spend a large percentage of their budgets in pursuing a marketing strategy that they believe will increase the profit margin, why wouldn’t they do the same in the political environment if it was believed it would bring a return. This torturing of the fourteenth amendment is a travesty. We cannot pass the ERA amendment, guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens but corporations will have a special right carved out for itself. In reality the corporate board receives many votes; everytime you purchase a product, you vote with the purse. And do not forget it only took less than 29,000 votes out of over a 1/4 million possible to be the GOP senate nominee in Delaware.
During congressional debates, Democratic party members, such as Senator Schumer, have tried to introduce legislation in an effort to provide disclosure of how these new mega-citizens (multinational corporations) donate money to politicians and PACs, and more importantly the anonymous funded mouthpiece foundations (the 527) that have flourished recently. Corporations have decided this anonymous route is the safer way, which is ironic if you think about it. They wish to express its new voice from the safety of anonymity. Remember what happened to Target. The Republicans have used the filibuster to halt these attempts, in accordance with their corporate master’s wishes, and in fear of how the American public may react if they realized that by giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires it simply adds to the deficit, so the middle class is being taxed to give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut. Talk about ideology not being a good idea. It all seems a little confusing because it was meant to be confounding. Because corporations cannot act out on their own, they require a movement that appears at first glance to be an independent movement and the Taxed Enough Already party seems to fit the bill. Emotions are running high individuals that personally identify with this movement. The herd mentality of this self-identifying “individualist” has easily been manipulated by well-placed spokespeople to plant the message the corporatist wish vocalized “independently”.
I see this expression as the first real tangible evidence that our democracy has died. The system that remains is oligarchic in nature and more than likely the true beginnings of fascism of a corporate nature. Instead of a charismatic personality as the leader we are seeing the multinational corporation image making machine developing a branded corporate persona, i.e Naomi Klein. Our two-party system will be slighted and replaced with a multiparty system of Nike Party, Apple party, etc. Our new CEO Senators will decide policy not based on the human element, but rather what does it for the bottom line. This will become more evident as we see politicians who are former CEOs making decisions that favor business, especially their industries, and not concerning themselves with harm done to the citizen. This transition from democracy to oligarchy to fascism will not happen overnight; it will manifest itself in fits and pauses over the coming decade as corporations exert a newly purchased and enlarging “voice”.
The real irony of the tea party is the name that they have chosen, the believe that the are modeling themselves after the Boston Tea Party. Rather they do not understand the impetus of the historical event that occurred in the early founding of the country. The leaders of the Boston tea party were protesting the monopoly imposed on them by the legal government of America, located in Britain, through the East Indian Tea Company, one of the first corporations. It wasn’t about taxes; it was about corporate dominance of the economy. The Tea party movement will be short-lived, once the political realities of being leaderless sets in, the movement will go one of two ways: they will find enough organization to appoint a leader or possibly one will find them, or two they will devolve into a “We the People” type-party drawing fewer and fewer votes. I believe it will be the latter. But compromise will be a part of their new vocabulary.
But for now it is an avenue for pumping obscene copious amounts of money into an already polluted system of campaign finance. They will also have to develop willingness to compromise and negotiate to achieve the ends that they are pursuing
Good governance requires a balance and the “keep your hand out of my pocket” crowd do not care about the welfare of others. How can you govern if what you want is to shrink government to a small enough size to drown it in the bathtub, to paraphrased the words of Grover Norquist.
UCD on Election 2010 
Tony Robinson
October 3, 2010
Kevin: An intelligent and impassioned post that presents a very important truth in politics. If you want to understand much of what is really going on–“follow the money.” Your post did that in discussing the nature of Koch brothers funding of the tea party movement, and noting how these very rich funders are very interested in reducing taxes on the very rich and on mega-estates, and so they fund the tea party as a tool to winning themselves very large financial gains. There is a lot of possible truth there. Facts through history show that the stock market performs better under Dems than the GOP, more jobs are added under Dems than the GOP, the deficit is lower under Dems than the GOP–those are all truths since the 1930s. But still the very rich investors support the GOP rather than the Dems. Why? Well, its not necessarily became the GOP is better for the stock market or for getting the deficit under control–its largely because the GOP taxes the very rich less than the Dems do. So in the their own self interest (not the interests of a more healthy overall economy), upper-income investors support GOP politicians. there are a variety of studies on economic performance under Dems versus the GOP to prove the claims I just asserted–you can find one here: http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/
So there is a lot of truth to your underlying claim that money interests and corporate interests underlie a lot of the current anti-Democratic surge going on out there. If you haven’t read Thomas Frank’s Whats the Matter with Kansas, you would probably enjoy his similar analysis.
There are a few rougher moments in this post, however. One troubling point is whenyou make a prediction at the end that democracy is dead in America and corporate fascism is ascendant. Usually such apocalyptic claims are overstated and rarely come true in the forseeable political horizon. Think through whether you can find a less dramatic and maybe over-the-top way of expressing a similar sentiment in a way that doesn’t so much undermine your credibility with those who may disagree with or with more sober-minded readers. A bit of restraint usually will improve your writing in those regards. Also, this claim about coming fascism seems to contradict your later claim that the Tea Party is doomed to receive fewer and fewer votes and to fade away in coming years. I’m confused as to whether you are optimistic about the future from the standpoint of your own political views, or pessimistic about coming authoritarianism/Tea Party dominance?
Finally, your final few paragraphs where you talk about better political solutions and compromises to be cut seem the most rushed and tacked on to me. You don’t go into enough depth on these issues. I think cutting these final points and just keeping the post focused on unveiling the financial interests behind the modern conservative surge would be a better strategy.
kevincgreen
October 3, 2010
Tony- my post was a semi-stream of conscious ramble and at times I agree that I could have done a better job at tying the three layers together. My intention was to state that the Tea party movement was being used by the corporate ruling class as a front in an effort to move an agenda wrestling control of the means of governing from the public and politicians that they elect to a group of politicians wholly under their control. Support for the Tea Party will be withdrawn after they are no longer useful.
This is accomplished through the different trade associations that have the interest of their respective industries and the current efforts of lobbying groups. My question is why spend 10+ billion a year on efforts to influence a politician when you can spend 100 million and own the politician outright. You could own a majority of the senate for half the amount.
This campaign season to date is 30% over the record set last go around, and this is a non-presidential election (Heard it quoted on NPR, Friday). Imagine what will be spent next time. This is a direct effect of the lack of limits on corporate money, it is not account for and corporations do not have to answer to people that purchase their products if they never have to say that the 527 was started by them or their agent. The transition of democracy to oligrachy to outright fascism won’t happen out in the open, rather in the shadows and we won’t know until it is gone altogether. Democrats are just as easily influenced, just less honest with themselves. The republicans have no qualms telling you business has priority over people.
I did just tack on the last two little paragraphs in an effort to seem less negative, to mixed results. The negative still comes through. I have read “What the Matter with Kansas”; for the most part I thought it was good. I lived in Overland Park in Johnson County and around Wyandotte County, KS until I was 12, so I saw the beginnings of that whole up-is-down, down-is-up juxtaposition of social justice and what makes a good community.