Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
The 2010 elections which gave the Republican Party the majority in the House of Representatives was seen as the elevation of a “Grassroots Movement”, composed of the spontaneously combusted wrath of ordinary citizens fed up with a bloated government. It was indeed a seminal moment for those people who disdained taxation, government handouts in entitlements, and the seeming waste of our tax dollars. The initial angry explosion was a reaction to the proposal and passage of the Health Care Bill. Rallies were organized, town hall meetings disrupted and a “hit list” of both Republican and Democratic members of Congress circulated.
The initial mainstream media reaction to this nascent movement was one of disdain, particularly because it was seen as an “out of the Beltway movement”, thus not to be taken seriously. However, this changed in a large part led by FOX News and copied by its “wannabe” CNN. Led by these Cable outlets, thirsting for sensation to fill their 24/7 news maws, all media began to follow suit, not wanting to be left behind. I find it interesting though that as late as April 22, 2010, Politico, hardly a left wing outlet, noted that unwarranted attention and media frenzy had begun, elevating the status of this purported movement: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36185.html It is ironic that this article, while laying out the irrational amount of attention given to the Tea Party, at its end discounts the effect the movement would have on the election. Its authors certainly were not prescient.
Lost in the tumult of media exaggeration and sensationalism was the fact that this was not at all a grass roots movement of average Americans, but a crafty example of political manipulation laid out in tandem with the compliance of Rupert Murdoch’s news network’s assault upon all things they deem liberal. The prime mover in this is Richard “Dick” Armey, a former Texas Republican Congressman, House Majority Leader, and major senior lobbyist at a worldwide lobbying firm. Armey created the mythology of a grass roots movement, guided its progress, arranged, and then paid for its “spontaneous” events.
Dana Millbank, in the Washington Post related the involvement of Dick Armey in this movement. “Dick Armey is intellectually versatile: The former leader of House Republicans went from being a rainmaker for a Washington lobbying firm to being the unofficial leader of the anti-Washington “tea party” movement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503730.html
After the 2010 election victory, sweeping away as many “old school” Republicans as well as Democrats, the media both expressed shock and provided substantive background on what had just taken place.
“There is particular irony in Mr. Armey — who has spent three decades in Washington, where he has become one of the city’s most enduring insiders — mentoring a movement that wants to hold on to its outsider ethos.” http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/dick_armey/index.html
The vehicle for Mr. Armey’s maneuverings is an organization called FreedomWorks, which if you go to the link below you will see a picture of Glenn Beck and a link to receive kits to be used in August disruptions of Town Hall Meetings. http://www.freedomworks.org/ FreedomWorks has its origin in an organization called “Citizens for a Sound Economy” which is not surprisingly a creation of the Koch Brothers that was tactically split into two entities, one being FreedomWorks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy
In trying to make sense of politics and the forces competing within it context is everything. By its nature politics is the art of using popular mythological themes (i.e. No New Taxes, less government, terrorism, etc.) to rouse the populace to given action. The Tea Party Movement, FreedomWorks and even Dick Armey have every right to try to influence our political system. They also have every right to utilize what mythology they please, or can create, to advance their cause. Whether there is danger to our political system in their belief in, or promotion of, their myths should not result in suppression of their rights. That is not the Constitutional way in our country. Indeed, their aims and their backers are not hidden, but easily researched, as I’ve done cursorily here.
My concerns are that for this country to remain democratic and viable under our Constitution we need the information and context supplied by a free press, bolstered by freedom of expression. When the popular punditry and the mainstream news media do not supply context, but actually play a role in creating myths about the forces engaged in struggle for the hearts and minds of people, our democratic institutions suffer.
That the so-called Tea Party is a movement backed by some of the most powerful forces in this country to put forth an agenda that is beneficial to them and represents their ideology, should be contextually a part of any news report, media sound bite, or internet article. The myth of this movement being a spontaneous uprising of average citizens is well represented in media reportage. For the average citizen struggling to keep their families and themselves together, getting their news from small doses of mainstream media, it serves to reinforce the myth by omiting context. That this amalgam of people, led cunningly by a Washington Insider and lobbyist, is confused as to their purpose and misled by an ideology that is possibly antithetical to their needs is best represented by that well known poster, prominently shown at a Tea Party Rally: “Keep your Government Hands off of my Social Security and Medicare!” Such is the effect of political mythology on the minds and actions of people.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
kderosa wrote:
“That’s as good as you’re going to get from these nutters… That’s all they have.”
One has to wonder why s/he stays.
Dr. Ed:
stay and post, dont go. Although I hope you have a thick skin and have a good sense of yourself. If you dont, stay away.
Mr. Bradford,
with all due respect, if you think President Obama is anti-business, you have been asleep at the wheel. One example: If he is anti business, why did he push a health insurance reform bill that adds 40 million new customers to the private insurance industry? He never did push for the Medicare for all type programs that many in his party were proposing. If he is anti-business, why did he put so many Wall Street regulars in his cabinet and on his staff? (Geithner and others) Why did he put the President of GE as the head of his commission to study jobs when GE has been at the forefront of taking jobs overseas?
That’s as good as you’re going to get from these nutters, Ed. That’s all they have.
“When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff.”
Cicero
I ask for discussion and present views and
“YES”
and
“You guys are delusional but entertaining”
is the response?
I think we can agree, I’m on the wrong site.
Ed
As the author notes above, I make many many mistakes and did not read the directions, a common failing among scientific and engineering types. Mike, and Professor Turley, I apologize for the errors of my ways.
Nevertheless, …
My statements are about writing words without substantiation. You might accuse me of doing that too, but when asked, I will provide reference material that help form my opinion. I did so above where I mentioned President Obama’s anti-business attitude. I believed when writing that, that it was a generally accepted fact. I make a lot of mistakes.
On being guided.
The history of depressions in America shows that the first time government got directly involved in ‘fixing’ the economy, the Great Depression resulted which was longer and deeper than any in history. Correlation is not causation, but between HCH and FDR, I think they swept ice and the stone went right down the hole (curling analogy). Their economic policies aggravated rather than relieved the problems. Each individual action of both can be discussed and people will differ on the results.
History also shows that government involvement in recessions since WWII has produced no provable positive (or negative) results. One might argue the Fed + Gov are what broke the 20 year depression cycle, but it would be
only an argument. It doesn’t seem possible to prove things in Political Economics.
FDR had lots of stimuli (NRA,AAA,…) , but after 5 years the unemployment rates were still 21% (1938). FDR was notoriously anti-business.
Todays government looks strikingly similar to me. Stimulus to put people to work for a little while, until the recession clears up. But both BHO’s and FDR’s anti-business attitude almost guarantees the recession won’t end.
That’s where I’m coming from. As an example, all citizens are small or micro business people. They do things with their investments that are mirrored in business. Where do you have your 401k money invested today? Where does your union have its funds invested? Where does your company have its retirement trust funds invested? Answer those questions and you’ll know where economic growth is happening.
Nice article, Mike. Don’t forget that the Koch brothers and Dick Armey could not have been as successful without the work of Ginni Thomas (or should I say the connection she affords them to her husband Clarence and his Conservative allies on the SCOTUS).
BTW Mr. T. Bagger, Ph.D….nice looney rant! You guys are delusional but entertaining. Keep being you!
Ed asks: “Am I wrong?”
*************************************
Yes.
signed,
OS, Ph.D. and a lotta other alphabet. Not retired.
I must say your comments are way to emotional and not very factual — you provide zero facts/URLS!
I am a TEA PARTY supporter. No one gives me $.
I believe a smaller government is what America needs. I believe that
without most of the current regulations [not all!],
without BHO’s anti-business attitude
[President Obama’s anti-business attitude is easily verified
with just memory. Insurance companies, Banks, Auto companies, Boeing, raising tax on small business (elim Bush Tax ‘cuts’], “Don’t go to Las Vegas”. I have a list, but thought I would google “obama anti-business actions”; it came up with 11 million results. To be fair, I also googled “obama pro-business actions” and got 6 million results – however, the articles beging like this:
1. President Obama should stop fibbing about his pro-business de-regulation policies
2. William Daley defends President Obama on business
3. Obama’s “Pro-Business” Policies Are Killing the Free Market
…]
and actions, America would be on the ascent, not the descent. Explain, in great detail why I am ‘misguided’, please. Otherwise, you just seem to
be bloviating, to me.
I doubt you will respond to this, but here are my thoughts on 2 stmts you make:
1. “My concerns are that for this country to remain democratic and viable
under our Constitution we need the information and context supplied by
a free press, bolstered by freedom of expression. When the popular
punditry and the mainstream news media do not supply context, but
actually play a role in creating myths about the forces engaged in
struggle for the hearts and minds of people, our democratic
institutions suffer.” YES!!
But you miss the All the information, not just some of the
information you like part. Tell me please, does ABC,NBC,CBS make
any effort to present both sides? If so, show me.
2. “That the so-called Tea Party is a movement backed by some
of the most
powerful forces in this country to put forth an agenda that is
beneficial to them and represents their ideology, should be
contextually a part of any news report, media sound bite, or internet
article.” — NO!!
#Wiunion, #WI Unions? #Progressive ideaology?
Explain why Pub Sect Unions should be able to
hold all citizens hostage to their demands. I bet $100 [all
I can afford to lose] you cannot do it to a random jury!
No Voir Dire! – Am I wrong?
Teaparty is about Fed Gov not interfering in my life. If I hate TX, I can vote with my feet. How does voting with my feet integrate into your ‘thinking’?
I have immense respect for your understanding of the law [nevertheless, I
do have one question I would pay dearly for an answer from you on].
I think your policy judgments should be tested in the arena of public discussion. I doubt you have done that. Am I wrong?
Ed
Ph.D. Physics
Retired from IBM
@egbegb
egbegb2@gmail.com
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/sarah-palin-if-tea-party-were-terrorists-obama-would-pal-around-with-us.php?ref=fpblg
Excellent comment, Mike. Both thoughtful and diplomatic. Well done.
“I have immense respect for your understanding of the law [nevertheless, I do have one question I would pay dearly for an answer from you on]. “
Mr. Bradford,
I am a guest blogger that Jonathan Turley has allowed to do occasional articles on his blog. I am not a Lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. Mr. Turley, who I respect deeply does not pre-review my writing, nor can one be assured he endorses my opinions. I am responding to you as a courtesy because i think you made the possibly reasonable assumption that i am either the proprietor of the Blog, or that its’ owner endorses my opinions.
Please also be aware that it is my personal policy not to get involved in discussions about what i write. They are thought pieces designed to start discussion among the intelligent people who comment here, many of whom are Lawyers. I believe that my involvement in the debate personally is a hindrance to discourse, so i choose not to engage. You, however, can find me commenting copiously on many other threads, just not my own. Perhaps we will be able to have discussions in the future. By the way on behalf of this community I welcome you aboard, your views will be interesting to discuss.
Mike Spindell, MS, CSW
Psychotherapist, retired
I see that Ed has a Ph.D. Interesting. After reading his lengthy comment, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Judge Baselon, after listening to an expert witness (paraphrasing, but reasonably accurate): “The fact that a person has occupied a seat in a classroom for a length of time does not guarantee the inculcation of knowledge.”
Mr. Bradford,
To echo gbk’s comments….Huh?
@ Ed Bradford
If this statement is addressed to the author (Mike Spindell) then your use of “comments” is not correct. If this is addressed to posters commenting on the author’s article then you should let us all know which comment(s), ” are way to emotional and not very factual . . .”
No one has said that you are; why don’t you expound on how you’re “guided.”
Your “NO!!” is not a very impressive argument.
Progressive ideology and random juries are difficult to link together, aren’t they? As to your question of “Am I Wrong?” it’s very hard to say given the lack of any coherence in your paragraph.
Before you get so riled by the ” Pub Sect Unions” demands, you should maybe look at the money this country gives to the Pentagon.
What are your questions, Ed? Save the “Am I Wrong?” (twice) I don’t see any.
Ed, maybe you should explain your perspective in a manner that people can make sense of.
Hey Blouise, don’t be a jackass.
Ed Bradford,
The backlash has begun. Get used to it.
camelriders,
That’s okay. Lots of teabaggers have memory issues.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/study-tea-partiers-outworked-democrats-in-debt-fight.php?ref=fpb