Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
In August 2011 I wrote a guest blog titled: Tea Party and the Myth of a Grassroots Movement”. Using various newspaper and internet sources I showed that the meme created about the “Tea Party” that it was a “grassroots uprising” of ordinary citizens to take back their country from the out of control liberals, was simply not true. The “Tea Party” is a movement fabricated by certain plutocratic corporate interests to maintain themselves as relatively tax free and maintain control over the fiscal state of our country. I’m revisiting it today because of the guest blog I’ve just submitted about CNN and the rest of the news media, in light of a post by Al Gore at Huffington Post, publicizing his new book which deals with the back-story of the creation of the “Tea Party” and its negative influence upon our country. Some of Al Gores’ evidence and that forming the basis of my original guest blog overlap, but the important difference is he’s Al Gore, former Vice President and a centrist. I on the other hand am merely an aging ex-hippy, who remains a political radical. The truth of the “Tea Party’s” inception is not hidden from view and the facts are blatantly out there. What is important though is that the cable news media, press and the Washington punditry continue to describe the “Tea Party” in terms of its meme and myth as a grassroots entity and thus are complacent in a deception of the American people.
Daily we see stories about these “Tea Party” legislators elected to office on all levels of our government. They are falsely portrayed as populists, who are “fed up” and ran for office to “change things” and return to our Constitution. Large percentages of “Tea Party people in polls still believe that Barack Obama was born in Africa and is a Muslim intent on destroying Christianity and America. They see him as a communist, socialist and fascist simultaneously intent on dismantling our capitalist way of life and crushing American exceptionalism. I understand that one can be a reasonable person an oppose Barack Obama’s activity as President. I oppose some of his positions strongly and I voted for him. However, if you believe the “birthers” and those who call him radical names, then I must say in my opinion you are delusional. He is a slightly right of center Democrat, hawkish on foreign policy and deferential to the Corporate Plutocracy. He may be a Constitutional Scholar, but he certainly hasn’t done enough to protect our Constitutional Freedoms. Yet we see this ultra right wing faction of the Republican Party thinking Obama as the anti-Christ and believing they are part of a spontaneous revolution performed in the interests of “protecting” America. Here’s why that isn’t true.
“A new study funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health reveals that the Tea Party Movement was planned over a decade ago by groups with ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. The movement was not a spontaneous populist uprising, but rather a long-term strategy to promote the anti-science, anti-government agenda of powerful corporate interests.”
So begins Al Gore’s article in Huffington Post yesterday. The article is titled: “False Spontaneity of the Tea Party”. Mr. Gore goes on to explain that the two organizations mentioned in the report:
“….Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks, used to be a single organization that was founded by the Koch brothers and heavily financed by the tobacco industry. These organizations began planning the Tea Party Movement over ten years ago to promote a common agenda that advocated market fundamentalism over science and opposed any regulation or taxation of fossil fuels and tobacco products.
The disturbing history of links between market fundamentalists, the tobacco industry and the Tea Party movement is part of an even larger trend that I describe in my new book, The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change. Following the era of Progressive and New Deal reforms that restrained corporate influence in American politics following the infamous Robber Baron Era, market fundamentalists were once again motivated and radicalized by the social turbulence of the 1960s. In 1971, a prominent lawyer for the tobacco industry, Lewis Powell, wrote a memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that presented a comprehensive plan aimed at shifting the balance of political power in favor of corporations. President Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court just two months later.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/tea-party-koch-brothers-big-tobacco_b_2689380.html
These same two organizations were also dealt with extensively in my guest blog of August 2011, because their establishment and ongoing work directly led to the “Tea Party” movement by the simple fact that they created it.http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/02/tea-party-and-the-myth-of-a-grassroots-movement/#more-38049 The information missing about these organizations at the time was just how closely they were connected to tobacco and fossil fuel. Gore goes on:
“Guided by the Powell Memo, market fundamentalists have pursued a comprehensive strategy to dramatically increase corporate influence in American politics. Powell himself worked with other pro-corporate justices to interpret laws in ways that were favorable to corporate interests, most importantly expanding the precedent of corporate personhood. As a direct result, corporate lobbying exploded, increasing from $100 million in 1975 to $3.5 billion in 2010. Corporations also used increasingly voluminous campaign contributions to promote the election of pro-corporate politicians at all levels of government. Wealthy donors founded conservative think tanks to influence public opinion in favor of market fundamentalism. The Tea Party is a clear extension of Powell’s strategy to promote corporate profit at the expense of the public good.”
We see that there has been an obvious, ongoing strategy on the part of Corporate interests to expand their power through the funding of “front movements” disguising themselves as protectors of the rights of the American people. Gore concludes:
“Our democracy has been hacked by this expansion of corporate power, preventing meaningful action on several crucial issues. The climate crisis is an instructive example. The strategic goal of the market fundamentalists to “reposition global warming as theory not fact” has created enough false doubt around the issue to hinder progress. The potential consequences of climate change have never been clearer than they are today. Consider what we saw in America just last year. 2012 was the hottest year in American history and 60% of America experienced drought. Extreme weather events, like Superstorm Sandy, caused over $110 billion of damages. Yet Congress remains paralyzed, with many lawmakers even refusing to acknowledge the validity of climate science. The future of our planet demands that we put the sustainability of our planet before corporate profit.”
I must admit that I have been somewhat disappointed by Al Gore since the 2000 election where I thought he didn’t fight hard enough to win the Presidency in light of the Bush team’s shenanigans of cutting off a recount in Florida. His reluctance to take the battle to Congress did great harm to our Constitution. When he came out with his book on climate change and its’ movie, I began to warm to him again. However, since I’m not a fan of the policies of the Clinton Administration, of which Gore was such a prominent role-player, I see him as the kind of Centrist Democrat that has been too easy a “mark” for the forces of Corporate Plutocracy. I must say though that I will look forward to this book he is publicizing, simply because perhaps even the Centrists are finally beginning to see the threat that this Corporate Plutocracy has upon our Constitution and upon this country’s values.
To get back to where I began this piece the corporate media and its’ pundits have empowered the “Tea Party” by ignoring its roots. While given the fact that so much of the real causes of this country’s current dysfunction comes from the lack of honest journalism, this is not much of a surprise. I can remember a time when I looked to the media to provide an understanding of national and international issues, that time is long past. The only hope that we have as citizens to oppose the complete control of Corporate Plutocracy, known historically as feudalism, is from information derived from the currently independent sources on the internet. If those are blocked, as we’ve seen in places like China, then what hope will we have?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
This link will take to to the article used by Al Gore: http://bit.ly/WrwSzA
“I personally think the founders got it wrong and made mistakes and those mistakes have been exploited to create a thoroughly corrupt regime.” (Tony C)
I’m going to recommend a book for you which I hope you will find the time to read in that it is the one book I think will help in understanding the totality of the Revolution and in some ways might bolster your opinion as expressed above and in other ways might modify it. Also, it is written in a manner I think might hold your interest.
“1775 — A Good Year for Revolution” by Kevin Phillips (he also wrote American Dynasty)
Here’s a review of the book and the author from the NYTimes ( “a decision to write about a United States taking shape rather than one losing headway.”):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/books/review/1775-by-kevin-phillips.html?_r=0
Let me know if you decide to give it a go and when you’re done, I’d enjoy discussing it with you.
Blouise,
Thanks for the tip on the Kevin Phillips book. In the review it looks great and I admire Phillips writing. I’ve added it to my “wish list”, because at $19.99 for the kindle addition right now it’s a little pricey.
Here is a link to another article dealing with the true corporate origins of the “Tea Party” and how it is anything but a grassroots movement:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html A quote from it sums the reality up:
“this report might serve as a wake-up call to some people in the Tea Party itself, who would find it a little disturbing that the “grassroots” movement they are so emotionally attached to, is in fact a pawn created by billionaires and large corporations with little interest in fighting for the rights of the common person, but instead using the common person to fight for their own unfettered profits.”
Also note that Steve Fleisher Jim M. are “mysteriously” missing in their rebuttals. Neither one mentioned any of the evidence I provided but instead engaged in merely attacking my integrity, although I must admit they did so in a civil manner. Rebuttal though was non existent on their part, yet my friend Nick praised Steve for his “courage” and as usual offered no rebuttal of his own. With the “Tea Party” as with other ideas I can safely say that one never fails to perpetrate a con job by catering to the prejudices of the mark.
Bron: Shouldnt those things be left up to the states?
I don’t think so. I prefer national systems, because I prefer equalized opportunity and uniform application. For education, a child does not get to choose where they are born or where they grow up, and I dislike the current State-by-State disparity in their educational opportunities based on the luck of good or bad geography. I think that is unfair.
Bron: Except the Power to define and collect taxes to spend on the general welfare IS delegated to the United States by the Constitution! In Article I, Section 8!
The general welfare clause is what it is; within the context of general welfare the Congress can indeed do anything it pleases IF it doesn’t violate individual people’s rights.
However, those rights do NOT include any particular right to your money or property, the very same Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to define and collect taxes, and there is no limitation on the amount or percentage.
The Constitution is what it is, if you don’t like it just own up to the fact that you don’t like it. There is nothing wrong with disliking the Constitution or government that you live under, I personally think the founders got it wrong and made mistakes and those mistakes have been exploited to create a thoroughly corrupt regime.
rafflaw, I considered giving up sarcasm for Lent, just couldn’t do it.
nick,
I detect a hint of sarcasm! 🙂
http://www.alternet.org/story/153345/the_real_history_of_%27corporate_personhood%27%3A_meet_the_man_to_blame_for_corporations_having_more_rights_than_you
Hope this link works. Lewis Powell and the chamber of Horrors, OOPs Chamber of Commerce.
Tony C:
“Education clearly falls into the category of “general welfare,” as do other programs like health care, social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, the building of Highways, bridges and tunnels, and so on.”
Shouldnt those things be left up to the states? Especialy in light of:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Paul:
dont you understand that the general welfare clause allows congress to do anything it wants? It even negates the states sovereignty, so in essence it neuters the Constitution which is as it should be. Who wants a pesky thing like the Constitution around to protect individual rights and limit government? That wouldnt be any fun, usurping liberty and growing government is what is good for people, they dont know how to govern themselves and the Constitution prevents or at least was intended to prevent unrestrained government from terrorizing the people.
The elites should run our country how they want to, they have been ordained by their own minds to rule us. Why should they, the master race, be constrained by mere human convention?
And you dare question their supreme authority? Who gave you that right?
Reblogged this on Randy C White.
Paul:
dont you know? well god dam its right there where it says general welfare. That gives unlimited power to the govmint, dont you know that by now? Are you some sort of retrograde, apelike throwback to the days of our founders?
Paul: Where in the Constitution is there authority for the Federal government to control Education? Where is their authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to take over companies because they messed up their finances (GM, AIG, etc)?
First, here is the relevant passage:
Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; and …
[The Congress shall have Power To ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Education clearly falls into the category of “general welfare,” as do other programs like health care, social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, the building of Highways, bridges and tunnels, and so on.
Second, I believe by your comment you do not understand what the Constitution is supposed to be. It structures the government, elections, and duties of various departments and officials (the House, the Senate, the President) for the purpose of MAKING laws. The Bill of [Citizen] Rights similarly just restricts the government from making certain laws. Besides laws that fall afoul of those restrictions, the Constitution assumes the Federal government basically can make any laws it wants if the House, Senate and President agree. The Constitution doesn’t detail what laws CAN be made, it specifies HOW to make them and some categories of laws that CANNOT be made.
BTW, I was of The Tea Party of the Independents, which the Dick brothers evidently reacted to by creating what has turned out (pun intended) to be the Republican Tea Party.
Competition I guess.
Or perhaps free market natural selection.
Maybe we should go back to writing all this religious stuff in Latin.
Or Sweediiiiissssshhhhh.
It appears polemic critical mass has maybe been reached?
I went to a right wing blog and read this about Mike’S post he did today:
(“I know it is time to unsuscribe”). Suscribe? Unsuscribe?
Hey, they only do that at CNN and Fox News.
They have a Refudiate form you can fill out then boogie.
You can’t refudiate your suscribe here bro, cause there is no suscribe to refudiate.
TLDR:Voter support for the Tea Party can’t possibly come from an aversion to high taxes or the nanny state, but is instead the result of brainwashing by corporate propaganda designed to drive corporate profits for the likes of tobacco companies. I will blindly ignore that government makes more money though tobacco taxes than any producer does in profits not seized by the states, and that primary shareholders are state sector pension plans. My views are not widely accepted because of dishonest pro-feudalist journalists.
Thank goodness there are no self serving people in positions of power in the democratic or republican parties. They can only be found in the Tea party? Please.
Where in the Constitution is there authority for the Federal government to control Education? Where is their authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to take over companies because they messed up their finances (GM, AIG, etc)?
How about we have an honest discussion about what our Constitution allows our Federal government to do. People who feel they have been taxed enough have a valid concern that our Federal Government is hell bent on taxing them more.
“I know it is time to unsuscribe.”
Jim M. what subscription are you writing about?
“Such intellectually dishonest, academically vacuous, and agenda driven pieces have no place on a site previously committed to logic and reason driven by unbiased facts.”
And the proof of your claims is……what?
“If there were any doubt as to the foregoing conclusions, the replys of the author resorting to demagoguery and banal replies to readers comments eliminates any such doubt.”
And the proof of your claims is……what exactly?
“Extremely dissapointing, but a clear sign that measured debate and reason has abandoned this site. Or rather, the site has abandoned measured debate and reason.”
And your definition of measured “reason and debate” is…….what?
I would hope that you understand, as the lawyer you allude to be, that debate is not about mere assertion, but also requires some evidence to back the opinions asserted. I’m sure that in expressing your opinion, you were motivated by your disagreement with my blog and your distaste was such that you unknowingly omitted any supportive evidence. I’m sure that as a lawyer knowing about the rules of evidence you will hasten to supply proof of your assertions and I am waiting with bated breath to read them. Until that felicitous moment though, I can infer that you didn’t like my piece, which is your prerogative.
Incidentally, would you be so kind as to actually offer a explanation as to why you think my cordial, albeit questioning, replies to Steve Fleisher were demagogic? That you also call them banal, that being the obvious expression of an opinion, is of course clearly a judgment on your part and therefore requires no proof since your intent was obvious.
I am certain that as a lawyer you are scrupulous in supplying evidence to back up your claims. This forum though is not a Court of Law, but I would think that even here rebuttal requires evidence of some sort rising above mere assertion. Were that not the case, then all we would be doing here would be the equivalent of ten year olds on the schoolyard going Nyannh!, Nyanhh! Nyanhh!, and I am certain you would want a greater level of intellectual stimulation.
I met a gentleman that was, is from far west Texas that stated to me that bush was the worst president ever….. And that he back to building million dollar houses again…. He can’t keep up with the demand…. He claimed to be a republican….. Go figure…. Seems the tea party was an off shoot of the GOP when bush was in dismal character….
Good article Mike….
As lawyers, we are required to deal in hard facts. When I see an article published via Jonathan Turley that builds a case using premises from Al Gore and biased media sources to butress a conclusion, I know it is time to unsuscribe.
Such intellectually dishonest, academically vacuous, and agenda driven pieces have no place on a site previously committed to logic and reason driven by unbiased facts.
If there were any doubt as to the foregoing conclusions, the replys of the author resorting to demagoguery and banal replies to readers comments eliminates any such doubt.
Extremely dissapointing, but a clear sign that measured debate and reason has abandoned this site. Or rather, the site has abandoned measured debate and reason.