October 15, 2010
-
The Fall of American Democracy
Historically, the rise of democracy, both in the US and around the world has led to a lessening of aristocratic political power. This does not mean that the upper classes have not tried to subvert democracy to their own ends. Probably in modern times, the high point of democracy in the US was that period of the New Deal through the first decade after WW2 (1932-55) This was the high point of union membership and most Americans were of like mind as far as their economic and social viewpoints were concerned. This was also a period of great prosperity for all classes despite the much higher top income brackets ( 0ver 80% for part of the time, never less than 60%. If the Bush tax cuts are renewed, the maximum bracket will remain 35% ). Even during that period a sizable part of the citizenry was denied basic civil rights in some states. The Civil Rights and "Hippy" movements marked the beginning of political polarization and the American individualistic basic values along with the marked economic boom led to a lessening of interest in unions and politics, allowing the politically focused upper classes to gain control of political parties which first acted in concert and now are violently opposed.
The American "Tea Party" movement is basically that of disaffected middle class white americans who feel dispossessed of their political control. It has been fairly easy for wealthy TV demagogs and their even wealthier corporate backers to take control of the movement and steer it into supporting policies which will, if implemented, probably be directly opposed to the average TP member's interests (e.g. changes in Medicare and Social Security).
Comments (3)
You probably know by now from our discussions and from reading my posts that I'm a centrist, espousing some ideals from the left and some from the right, and also opposing some from both wings.
Only bad thing about being a centrist is that leftwingers think you're too far right and rightwingers think you're too far left.
I find myself in agreement with most of what you say, however I don't see the Tea Party the same way you do. I never officially joined the Tea Party, but I did join their biggest forum (Tea Party Patriots) so that I could listen in on their thoughts and ideas.
They are not a tight-knit organization. They are very loosely organized, with thousands of chapters all over the country. They argue a lot among themselves and sometimes don't seem focused, but all do agree on their core values: Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
There are quite a few disaffected Democrats (I'm registered as a Democrat and might be counted in their number.) A very few individuals are far to the right, there are even fewer who might be called racists, but by and large most are moderate Conservatives who sincerely believe that Obama wants to lead the country down the path of big government and Socialism, and is taking up where Bush left off: spending us into bankruptcy (they may be right.)
I found a surprising number of Blacks on the forum, also Hispanics, Jews, and Asians.
I think a person (and the mainstream media, too) could learn much about the Tea Party by just listening in on their forums for a while every day.
Note: I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but merely saying how I see them.
@dsullivan -
Don, I stand by my assertion that the TPs have been pretty much taken over by the demagogs who are the mouthpieces for the ultra-conservatives. All they had to do was stand up and assert their love of : " their core values: Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets." even though the conservative GOP political operatives have long demonstrated their distain for those values.
During the Reagan and both Bush presidencies, the national debt has more than tripled. The only balanced budget in modern times was under Clinton, and most of Obama's much vaunted "spending us into bankruptcy" is what he inherited from the last GOP administration. He has, rather timidly tried to check the slide into recession with quite modest stimulus spending - most of which has been successful - he did, after all check the unemployment rise.
A major problem for re-employment is that ALL of the major corporations in the US are now multi-national and world-wide entities, many of whom earn their major profits overseas. No way are they interested in solving the unemployment problem as long as they can outsource jobs cheaper elsewhere. This is unfortunately, the group the Tea Party has allowed to finance them and whose leadership they are following. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal (The biggest media sources in their fields) are both totally controlled by people who could not care less for the individual American citizen. They do, however, care a great deal about lowering their taxes even though this will lead to even higher deficits and national debt.
The two areas (aside from lowering their taxes) the neo-conservatives will focus on if elected will be Social Security and Medicare. I doubt the Tea Party Patriots will be very happy with what they will try to do.
I will agree that Bush got us in this hole, primarily with the financing of his stupid wars (well, one of them anyway.) But Obama's idea of getting us out of the hole is to roll up his sleeves and start digging. Or to put it another way, he's going to get us out of debt by spending, spending, spending. Modest??? Holy Spendthrift, Batman. He's making Bush look like a penny pincher.
I supported the man during his campaign. Admittedly my support for him was mainly because of my disgust with Dubya, but support him I did. And those Independents in the same boat with me just MAY be enough to change things in November (not a sure thing, however, according to the latest polls.)