Some Thoughts About the Tea Party Movement

In a video I just watched on YouTube taped during a talk Noam Chomsky gave in October (Part 1 & Part 2), he briefly discusses the Tea Party Movement and offers a unique perspective regarding it. (Also, read here for another unique perspective.)

Too often the Tea Party movement has been treated with derision by the elite liberal community (most notably their frequent labeling as "tea baggers"), but this strikes me as counter productive and often elitist. This is likely because the movement has mostly come out in opposition to policies supported by the Democracts, something that was most clearly evident during this summer's town hall meetings. Frequently liberal commentators simply wrote these individuals off as results of 'astroturfing,' meaning that they were payed by some special-interest to protest. Although there was some truth to this argument, the fact remains that these are real people with, as Chomsky say, "legitimate grievances."


These are people who see the massive bailout of the financial industry, the power of lobbyist in Washington and the lack of choice presented by the two-party system and are angered and frightened. But unlike most with similar views they have chosen not to be cynical, but instead have decided to speak up using their inalienable right as citizens. Unfortunately most organization of these people has been precipitated by right-wing groups, who I feel have twisted this massive mobilization of people in order to support position which run contrary to most of these people's self-interest. I don't mean that the protesters are stupid, but I do believe that they haven't been presented with any viable alternatives to those presented by the right.


This lead to Chomsky's most important question, "Why isn't the left organizing these people?" It seems that most of the individuals at these protests are working-class individuals who resent the unholy relationship between government and corporate interests. Oddly, during the health care debate the protests at town hall meetings (not the same thing as the Tea Party protests, but having a similar sentiment) suggested that the status-quo was working. This is understandable. The Democrats, who were the main outlet for the venom of the protesters, only proposed minor adjustments to the system; some of which serve to strengthen the corporate bureaucracy that controls the system.


One can only imagine if the Democrats has proposed true reform in the form of some sort of single-payer system, or Medicare-For-All (as Sen. Bernie Sanders heroically defends here). Certainly the attack could not be any worse than those used over the summer (i.e. death-panels) and at least real fundamental change would be occurring. The Democrats would have more arguments on their side (universal coverage, ending bureaucracy, lower costs), but instead the Democrats proposed a tepid bill; the senate version even lacking a public option which polls continuously showed was supported by the majority of the country.


Maybe it is fanciful to think that the Tea Party protesters would come over to the the other side if these proposals were made, but it certainly could have activated a progressive groundswell in support of reform rather than the opposition most progressives have engaged in. Regardless, it is time for the elites to stop degrading the Tea Party movement and progressives to start organizing in a similar fashion.

Democracy Now!

For my first real post I'd like to make a suggestion: Democracy Now! is a great source for news. Far removed from the corporate media (New York Times, Fox, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh...) Democracy Now! receives no funds from the government, private corporations or even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting like PBS. Instead it is funded by listeners, viewers and various foundations (read about it), this allows a level of independence not usually available from many news sources.

Hosted by Amy Goodman the show, broadcasted on numerous radio stations across the country and on its website, covers stories that the vast majority of the media either ignores or covers from a perspective far removed from the experiences of the masses in the United States and around the world.

For example, just yesterday, on the 8th anniversary of the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan the show hosted an interview with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), the only Congressperson in either chamber of congress who stood up after 9/11 and asked Congress to step back and question what it was doing as it granted the President unprecedented powers to use the military. In the interview Lee states her opposition to any troop surges in Afghanistan and support of a plan for troop reduction and an eventual end to the occupation of Afghanistan.

Right now I'm listening to a talk Noam Chomsky gave in New York City on June 12 called Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours in which he discusses various topics including the financial crisis and global warming. The general thesis of his talk is that in Western (read: rich) countries when "the crisis" is discussed it is quite clear what we are talking about (the financial crisis). However when one talks about a crisis in other poorer countries it is very difficult to use the definite article as they face numerous crises even more severe than the financial crisis in the west, namely the food and AIDS crises. I'd really recommend giving it a listen or reading it.

Democracy Now! obviously cannot serve as ones only source of news, but it is a powerful supplement to the all too hegemonic mass media.