EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, October 22, 2010 by The Oregonian
The Tea Party Test Case
What is the tea party? Many have tried to answer that question ever since CNBC's Rick Santelli first launched the backlash with his trading-floor rant against the poor.
Democratic operatives, for instance, say the tea party is merely a Republican Party facade. As proof, they point to GOP-linked corporate groups' involvement in tea party events, and cite the absence of tea party deficit and bailout protests during George W. Bush's presidency.
Social scientists, meanwhile, suggest that the tea party is not the entire Republican apparatus, but specifically the extreme conservative edge of the GOP. The data add credence to that argument: As the Public Religion Research Institute and the University of Washington report, tea party followers are disproportionately part of the Christian right and are more racially resentful than the general public.
For their part, tea party activists brush off these pesky facts with nostalgic paeans about the Constitution and indignant bromides against partisanship.
"Although we are conservative in political philosophy, we are nonpartisan in approach," insisted a tea party leader in a typical platitude. "Both parties need to re-dedicate themselves to the principles of our Founding Fathers."
Thus, with both sides at loggerheads, the only way to objectively define the tea party is to find a test case. And thanks to Wisconsin's Senate race, we have exactly that.
On one side is Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, who has made his name championing many of the tea party's purported views about the state, the Constitution and national sovereignty. For instance, when it comes to "big government," Feingold has opposed wasteful pork barrel spending, worked to trim the defense budget and voted against financial bailouts. When it comes to the Constitution, Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Constitution-defying Patriot Act and has boldly questioned both parties' willingness to let the state trample citizens' civil liberties. And Feingold has been one of the few senators to consistently oppose NAFTA-style trade deals – pacts that usurp domestic control over our economy and lay waste to the very industrial heartland the tea party claims to cherish.
On the other side is Republican Ron Johnson, the antithesis of everything the tea party says it stands for. In business, Johnson built a company propped up by government grants and loans – otherwise known in tea party terms as "bailouts." As a board member of a local opera house, he lobbied for funds from the same "big government" stimulus bill the tea party despises. During the campaign, he has touted NAFTA-style trade policies' "creative destruction" of Wisconsin's manufacturing economy. And rather than promoting the freedom the tea party says it values, Johnson has praised China's repressive communist regime for its economic policies.
Candidate contrasts rarely get starker than this. And clearly, if the tea party is as nonpartisan as it asserts, then its supporters should be flocking to Feingold.
If that were happening, though, Feingold would be winning. Instead, polls show Feingold trailing Johnson – and as CNN notes, Johnson "owes much of (that) political success to the tea party." Indeed, despite contradicting most major tea party positions, Johnson has been featured at Wisconsin Tea Party events; touted in the local media as a tea party favorite; called a "Champion of Freedom" by national tea party activists; and promoted by tea party opinion leaders like George Will as the epitome of "what the tea party looks like."
This, of course, gets back to the questions surrounding the tea party's true motive. Is the movement inspired by principle, as its leaders claim? Or is it propelled by partisanship?
Johnson's recent success suggests the latter, and should Feingold ultimately lose, any debate about that reality will finally be put to rest.
Democratic operatives, for instance, say the tea party is merely a Republican Party facade. As proof, they point to GOP-linked corporate groups' involvement in tea party events, and cite the absence of tea party deficit and bailout protests during George W. Bush's presidency.
Social scientists, meanwhile, suggest that the tea party is not the entire Republican apparatus, but specifically the extreme conservative edge of the GOP. The data add credence to that argument: As the Public Religion Research Institute and the University of Washington report, tea party followers are disproportionately part of the Christian right and are more racially resentful than the general public.
For their part, tea party activists brush off these pesky facts with nostalgic paeans about the Constitution and indignant bromides against partisanship.
"Although we are conservative in political philosophy, we are nonpartisan in approach," insisted a tea party leader in a typical platitude. "Both parties need to re-dedicate themselves to the principles of our Founding Fathers."
Thus, with both sides at loggerheads, the only way to objectively define the tea party is to find a test case. And thanks to Wisconsin's Senate race, we have exactly that.
On one side is Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, who has made his name championing many of the tea party's purported views about the state, the Constitution and national sovereignty. For instance, when it comes to "big government," Feingold has opposed wasteful pork barrel spending, worked to trim the defense budget and voted against financial bailouts. When it comes to the Constitution, Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Constitution-defying Patriot Act and has boldly questioned both parties' willingness to let the state trample citizens' civil liberties. And Feingold has been one of the few senators to consistently oppose NAFTA-style trade deals – pacts that usurp domestic control over our economy and lay waste to the very industrial heartland the tea party claims to cherish.
On the other side is Republican Ron Johnson, the antithesis of everything the tea party says it stands for. In business, Johnson built a company propped up by government grants and loans – otherwise known in tea party terms as "bailouts." As a board member of a local opera house, he lobbied for funds from the same "big government" stimulus bill the tea party despises. During the campaign, he has touted NAFTA-style trade policies' "creative destruction" of Wisconsin's manufacturing economy. And rather than promoting the freedom the tea party says it values, Johnson has praised China's repressive communist regime for its economic policies.
Candidate contrasts rarely get starker than this. And clearly, if the tea party is as nonpartisan as it asserts, then its supporters should be flocking to Feingold.
If that were happening, though, Feingold would be winning. Instead, polls show Feingold trailing Johnson – and as CNN notes, Johnson "owes much of (that) political success to the tea party." Indeed, despite contradicting most major tea party positions, Johnson has been featured at Wisconsin Tea Party events; touted in the local media as a tea party favorite; called a "Champion of Freedom" by national tea party activists; and promoted by tea party opinion leaders like George Will as the epitome of "what the tea party looks like."
This, of course, gets back to the questions surrounding the tea party's true motive. Is the movement inspired by principle, as its leaders claim? Or is it propelled by partisanship?
Johnson's recent success suggests the latter, and should Feingold ultimately lose, any debate about that reality will finally be put to rest.
© 2010 Creators.com
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
40 Comments so far
Show AllThis report is an incomplete analysis of Feingold and Johnson that tries to paint Feingold as some progressive hero.
1) First, the pink elephant in the room is that Feingold voted for health care bill that was a giveaway to insurance companies. Without this nugget, this isn't an honest critique as David Sirola seems to selectively choose only positive things to say about Feingold.
2) Feingold is a supporter of Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
3) Sure, Feingold speaks out for certain civil liberties while ignoring others and spoken against NAFTA; however, he hasn't changed anything because he is part of a corrupt party. A habit of the few so-called progressive legislators is that they critize policy with criticizing people in his own party for carrying out that policy. And when the criticism goes on year after year without the party changing, it becomes window dressing for the party to try and attract progressive voters.
In the end, this so-called Tea Party Test Case isn't quite the test case between good and evil as Sirota makes it out to be.
Finegold is "part of a corrupt party"... and this is supposed to distinguish him from a Republican?? Have you been living in a cave on Mars? Space limitations don't allow me to list all of the anti-middle class policies of the Repub's, their lies, treason, and record-all-time wasteful, debt-generating big spending. Not to mention race-baiting and general sleaziness. Your comment isn't serious.
Although I have never voted for a Republican and never will, Feingold is the only US Senator running for re-election on Nov. 2 that I could vote for. He is one of a handful of Senate Democrats who have at least offered progressive alternatives to Obama's corporate agenda. Other Senate Democrats have been Obama rubber stamps.
Feingold is a Proud Sponsor of Genocide.
Even with campaign finance reform bundled along with it, I cannot in good faith make myself an accessory to War Crimes by voting him. I have emailed him and called him on this, asking to explain his position and have received nothing but a form letter that told how he was a firm supporter of Israel's "security". I responded that Israel's actions against Palestine make it LESS secure, but no response...
I hope you are not disagreeing that the Democrats are corrupt? That has been thoroughly documented on Common Dreams.
I did not say his association with a corrupt party distinguishes him from a Republican. It actually makes him less distinguishable from a Republican since both parties are corrupt.
As for the rest of your post, it has nothing to do with my post since I am commenting on the article, which talks about the specific contest between Feingold and Johnson, not Democrats and Republicans in general.
Sirota's article calls the contest between Feingold and Johnson a test case of a Tea Party candidate. And to weigh the contest, Sirota then goes on to list only good qualities about Feingold and only bad qualities about Johnson. I don't disagree with his assessment of Johnson so I didn't comment on them and I don't know anything good about Johnson.
However, if Sirota is going to weigh two candidates in a contest, he needs to be honest and give a fair assessment of the two candidates. Sirota wasn't. In Feingold's case, Sirota just cherry pick good things about him and leaves out major drawbacks of Feingold. So in my post, I brought the drawbacks up.
Feingold's healthcare giveaway bill to insurance companies may not push people to not vote for Feingold. However, Feingold's recent letter supporting Israel's illegal actions against the Gaza aid flotilla, including hijacking an American flagged vessel in international waters, kidnapping Americans and Israel's execution of an American citizen (5 or 6 bullets, including at point blank range to the head) is a serious matter.
Feingold ain't ideal--but he is the best of a bad lot. He would be the ideal fit if the tea baggers were anything other than a dumbed-down joke, squealing about gov intrusion into healthcare while simultaneously accusing Democrats of threatening their medicare and social security. But the real irony is that voters, "demoralized" by Obama's ongoing triangulation and tacking to the Right, are sitting it out- and as a result, one of the proven independent progressives is in jeopardy--when if Obama had lived up to any of his progressive rhetoric, perhaps it would be the likes of Boehner and McConnell heading for the hills instead of smacking their lips in anticipation.
What is the matter with the people of Wisconsin? Don't be idiots- look at the fools from NJ who understandably sent arrogant prick Corzine packing only to replace him with thug, Christie. And boy, are they sorry now... You people in Wisconsin are lucky--wish I had the opportunity to vote for Feingold--heaven knows the pickins is slim.
Progressives do not sponsor Genocide.
Feingold, however does, and does so proudly.
No matter how much I may like the rest of his platform, He supports Genocide. To vote for him would make me an accessory. I have emailed and called his office on this. I am pretty sure I am not the only one. He knows that he will lose because he is a War Criminal.
Last I looked he still had not even spent 85%+ of his "war chest" - I don't think he wants to win.
Excuse me, herdpoisoning, but since Johnson supports the same genocidal position on Israel as you say Feingold has, wouldn't this issue be a wash? If the rest of Feingold's platform is better than the Republican Johnson, as you admit, then vote for Feingold on that basis. I'd rather have someone in the Senate who would oppose the Patriot Act than draft the next one.
I can guarantee you that if the war-crazed GOP has a majority in Congress, the situation for the Palestinians will worsen and the only 'lesson' you'll be teaching the Democrats is that progressive candidates can't win.
Feingold is supporting ethnic cleansing (or genocide as the other poster says) and you argue that since the other guy supports ethnic cleansing/genocide too, it is a wash, then voters should still support Feingold. Pathetic! If both candidates support ethnic cleansing/genocide, neither party deserves support. It just shows how low Democrats have set expectations among its voting base.
And so much for your guarantee. The situation has worsened since Obama and the Democrats have been in power. Israel has accelerated the settlement building process and the destruction of Palestinian homes. With Obama and the Democrats in control, Israel executed an American with 6 bullets including at point blank range in the face and the US responds by supporting Israel. After Obama was elected but before he took the oath, Israel attacked Gaza and committed massive war crimes. When Obama was asked to comment, he remained silent (Bush was already a lame duck president and was silent too).
@ Progressive101 October 23rd, 2010 11:42 pm: Where have you gotten this bizarre idea that Feingold supports ethnic cleansing? Supporting Israel's right to exist is not the same as supporting ethic cleansing. Provide some sources and quotes from Feingold for your extraordinary accusations.
Perhaps you think a good diplomatic technique when dealing with the paranoid right-wing Netanyahu government in Israel is to publicly condemn them, but that seems not to work so well when applied in the real world. Obama has brought the two sides to the table to try and negotiate a complicated situation and he's credited with doing much more than Bush did in this area. Yes, my guarantee still stands: If the GOP gets a majority in Congress they will be pressing for an expansion of violence in the Middle East against Muslims, as they have in the past.
Nice set of talking points, including Israel's right to exist is threatened (Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East and is the Middle East's only nuclear weapons power). Are you a Democratic campaign manager? Also, nice job of trying to wriggle out of your guarantee by responding to my statement and facts showing that things have gotten worse for Palestinians with the Democrats in Congress and Obama, and you respond, but they will get even more worse with the GOP (typical Democratic response!). Most of Congress, including Feingold, is supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing legislatively through the use of our tax dollars and military support that is supporting the ethnic cleansing, signing letters of support to Israel's policies, including the disguised "right to self-defense" that Israel uses time after time as an excuse to continue its ethnic cleansing policies and time after time making public statements vowing to support Israel and their ethnic cleansing policies in the wake of its most recent atrocities. Don't be naive, Israel nor any US politician is going to say "I support ethnic cleansing".
I answered your question, now two question for you: Do you deny that Israel is conducting policies of ethnic cleansing? And if Israel is, who are the people responsible for supporting those policies? The answer (or non-answer) to those two question tests your credibility.
No, Progressive 101, you didn't answer my question. You provided no sources for your assertions. If you say Feingold's supports 'ethnic cleansing' then I expect you to provide proof of that bizarre statement. What you are doing is attempting to read Feingold's mind. Yes, he supports Israel's right to exist; I have never heard him say he supports any form of ethnic cleansing. I think it would be naive to listen to someone who makes charges without proof to back them up. Why not provide the exact quote and source where Feingold endorses ethnic cleansing or anything like it, or even the actions taken by Israel on the flotilla?
BTW, no, I'm not a 'Democratic campaign manager,' nor even a Democrat -- I vote independent and have supported Green and third party candidates in the past. But, tell, me, are you a paid Republican troll trying to get liberals to stay home on election day in disgust with Feingold's alleged support of ethnic cleansing? (And your compatriot-in-declamation 'herdpoisoning' -- what a screen name!) I notice you say nothing about Ron Johnson's opinions on the Israel/Palestinian question.
Thanks, you answered my question. Just as I thought, this isn't about Feingold, this is about your [implicit] denial that Israel is ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and attacking anyone that brings it up. I've made my case and am done commenting on this string and will leave it to other posters to judge.
LOL -- declaring victory and quickly leaving, huh? No, this is still about your strange contention that Russ Feingold endorses ethnic cleansing and your failure to provide any valid proof of that contention. You apparently weren't able to find even one legitimate source for that spurious attack, so you change the subject. BTW, if you consider simply asking for proof an attack of some kind, you must be a Teabagger. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable (but not with that screen name) at Free Republic, where they buy this kind of nonsense without question.
While this article is an interesting analysis, I think the real danger of the tea party is that it is actually representative of the majority of U.S. citizens.
I say this based upon what the tea party members DO NOT complain about and neither do the majority of other citizens.
The Pentagon Budget.
Warmongering.
Wall Street business as usual.
The unnecessary corporate manipulation of health insurance.
The illegal (Warrantless) corporate telecommunication spying.
Military "Commissions" masquerading as if they are courts of law.
The privatizing attack on public education.
The policy of detentions without legal justification.
I'm sure there are other examples, but this list is representative of what is, largely, accepted as "pragmatic" by the majority of U.S. citizens.
I actually doubt that most Americans really support the tea party. The tea parties actually advocate some fairly radical things that probably wouldn't pass muster with most middle of the road Americans.
Public opinion polling, when not ideologically framed, has demonstrated that most Americans support a fairly progressive agenda. The tea party has gained currency because Democrats ignored their mandate after 2008. They were swept into office by millions of Americans voting for change - something they have not delivered on. People still want that change and unfortunately, the tea party has been given a media megaphone to co-opt this populist anger.
TWISTY: Well-said, especially the insights raised in your 2nd paragraph.
You are missing my point.
The "Tea Party" is portrayed as being extreme because the things they shout the loudest about are extreme (and stupid), but there are numerous examples of corruption which are quietly accepted by the majority of citizens as "pragmatic" which I think are disgusting and degenerate and which are promoted by both the democrats and the republicans and will not be challenged by either of these corrupt parties.
Call them the lowest common denominators. These unjust activities are not challenged by the majority of citizens. The majority will continue to support the corrupt and corrupting democrats and republicans out of fear, anger, and stupidity (Tea party requirements).
Good point, "we have met the enemy and it is us".
6 of one, a half dozen of the other.
Yeah, to be like the so-called Tea Partiers, "Both parties need to re-dedicate themselves to the principles of our Founding Fathers."
Right!
- like ramp up slavery...not just children in foreign countries or immigrants picking our farm crops, everyone should have a chance to be owned by a rich Repuke;
- put women back in the 17th century - keep them barefoot and pregnant (whether by rape, incest or whatever) and don't let them get an education or, for gawd's sake, vote; some of the principles the Tea Baggers like.
The people who march for the Tea Party are being Used as political slaves in the service of the uber-wealthy and they don't seem to get it. Neither do the idiots Tea Party candidates now running on the Republican ballot.
The Tea party is propelled by the Greed of the corpora-fascists....nothing more.
For me, as a woman, the principles of the Founding Fathers are to be questioned -- seriously!
Thanks, amitola, for your comments.
amitola: I totally agree with your comments;
"The people who march for the Tea Party are being Used as political slaves in the service of the uber-wealthy and they don't seem to get it. Neither do the idiots Tea Party candidates now running on the Republican ballot.
The Tea party is propelled by the Greed of the corpora-fascists....nothing more."
Yes. The way these people are being used would make a good case study in propaganda. The author dosn't seem to see there is a third choice in why they seem so schizophrenic. It's not necessarily principle or partisanship--it's very clever, very effective, brainwashing.
Or very effective pandering to the prejudices and bigotries inherent to the right.
Agreed, likely a good 1-2 punch.
The energy of the extreme religious right has upset,driven, and then been coopted by the Republican Party before. The Tea Party phenomena simply adds other people to the mix but the result has been pretty much the same. Cooptation!
Hey Buddy: “Got Some Gas?” empirePie Oct. 22, 2010
Quantitative Easing; confusion infusion
to ease the pain of the casino drain
to flip the risk and call it crisp
as cooks of the have mores;
..... Koch crooks offer hang over tea
for the parties of ease.
So bend over please
the sleaze needs to pass
the movement needs gas
Make way for the TINA train
the austerity track
to ride the rails to Flint
or the missing mint.
a Quantitative Easing Empire Noose;
cuts for the QUEEN
and the golden goose
next ... cut welfare loose
vamoose vamoose
Let the excess flow to raid the BRIC
chide them with your START schtick
as the contagion grows
and lows lead to further lows
furthering more infusion
easing, easing, ... easing
the sleaze just needs to pass.
Hey buddy: ...
.. “Got some gas?”
To be very pessimistic and cynical: The ever-rightward march of US politics appears un-stoppable, has been a trend for decades, and this is merely the latest guise.
The Corporate Media Oligopoly floods the airwaves with propaganda, spin and lies.
The BigMoney campaign and electoral system that is Democracy Inc. floods the airwaves with propaganda, false frames and lies.
The education system teaches us very narrow and shallow frames of political theory and largely does not question the prevailing neo-liberal economic story-line and narrative. This is true all the way to university.
The winner-takes-all electoral system is massively disproportionate, offers only two "choices" of Corporate Candidates, results in minority rule and also favoring two-major parties, making it very very difficult for any other parties to break through.
And so on...
In short, Democracy Inc. is a BigBusiness charade that simply CANNOT produce outcomes that represent the interests of the vast majority of people- it is a virtual impossibility. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic.
Well, there is one thing where I can agree with the Tea Party: we need to take our country back.....YEAH, BACK FROM THE TEA PARTY!
if you took your country back, would you get a refund?
Amazing! So the "Tea Partiers" are just like so-called progressives who are really just Democrats.
Knock me over with a feather.
Newt and Armey are with the tea party
As I see it, the Tea Partiers basically come from middle class people, the small capitalists and the better off layers of the working class. In bad times, like now, their biggest fear is that they will be forced down into the lower layers of the working class (which includes the unemployed). That tends to make them ally themselves with the big capitalists, so that they are easily manipulated by them. A big reason they are on the rise now is that nobody wants to be working class, or takes pride in being a worker. It will take a resurgence of labor and the labor unions to remedy that and push the Tea Party aside.
Agreed. "Fear" is the operative concept, as it seems to be for the vast majority. In the end, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, et all will appear to be wise ones. A resurgence of unions and the working class will require a resurgence of pride in those mistakenly-demeaned institutions. Have we got it in us, in the necessary numbers? Seems doubtful, today. Shameful.
It is amazing that Russ is struggling to stay even with Johnson. I consider Russ to be a barely acceptable Senator-and yet he is one of the better ones. How sad that we are represented, by and large, by the elite corporate stooges and Johnson is simply another in a long line of stooges.
The average voter is ignorant of the issues. Their minds are made up of hearsay and innuendo. There, I've said it.
It ain't about logic, or facts - the rank and file teapartiers couldn't care less or know less about that, and wouldn't know it if it hit them on the head. This is tribalism pure and simple - us vs the bad guys. Feingold is a liberal, a Democrat and a Jew - nuff said; ain't need to know nuthin more.
Oh, and the fact that he cares about people who may not be white Christians, I mean come on, what's wrong with you?!
Based upon the argument presented in this article (principles versus partisanship), it could be argued that if Russ Feingold wasn't so partisan (sticking with the sleazy, lying, democrat label) and broke out as an lndependent, he might get re-elected.
In essence, Feingold is hurting his own chances by staying attached to the democrats. The democrats, as a group, have clearly proven that they do not give a rat's ass about much more than game playing and manipulation.
These are polls conducted on landline phones with respondents who have the time and inclination to chat with pollsters. As even some pollsters have admitted, the people they reach tend to be older, whiter and more conservative than the general population. So, they 'weight' the polls according to a formula that varies from polling firm to polling firm to account for all of those they can't reach. And, if they have a handful of black respondents, for example, those respondents are then speaking for the entire black community.
Polling today has changed very little from the way polls were conducted in the 1950s, when everyone had landline phones, there were no answering machines screening calls, and it was considered rude not to answer a pollster's questions.
Therefore, Finegold is running slightly behind Johnson among older, whiter, more conservative, usually retired poll respondents, who also happen to be most of what constitutes the Tea Party membership. Glad he's doing so well with that group.
Any analysis of the Tea Party would not be complete without the following underlying sentiment regarding elected officials:
"Kick them all out!"
I do not think that anyone in media realizes how extremely upset the American voters are with their Congress and their President. They want a clean sweep and to begin again. If one throws out a few good with lots of bad politicians, then Americans think they would be the winners.