It's time for a pre-Halloween scare story. And, of course, every scare story about witches and their brew must begin with the Tea Party (TP), or perhaps a suntanned John Boehner riding a broom.
Last week the Associated Press carried a story that there were more than 70 Tea Party candidates running for House and Senate Seats in the midterm elections now just 15 days away. On the same day, The New York Times (NYT) nearly doubled that number, saying there were l39 TP candidates for Congress, although the article noted that some were running in strong Democratic districts and are thus seen as an outlet for protest votes rather than candidates in competitive races. The discrepancy in numbers may flow from the difficulty of sorting those who have been identified as TP or TP-backed candidates and those who have chosen to brand themselves as TP candidates to take advantage of what they perceive as the direction in which the ideological wave is moving. In any case, 70 or 139, and whether backed TP-backed or self-packaged TP candidates, all are running as Republicans and the TP is likely to score some significant victories and take their clash-and-clang policy and political agendas to Washington.
Much has been written, including several postings on this blog, about how the TP has forced the establishment Republican party to shift farther to the ideological right. With that shift has come the question of how the TP winners will effect the GOP legislative/political agenda in the next Congress. Will the establishment GOP, reflected in the current leadership of the House (Boehner) and Senate (McConnell), co-opt the more extremist new members, as some TP activists fear, or will the high decibel tactics of the TP's campaign politics carry over into the Congress and cause visible and audible dissension within the GOP ranks?
From this blogger's perspective it would seem that the TP extremist views have an advantage and will make further inroads into the policies and political strategies of the establishment GOP. The NYT numbers suggest that association with the Tea Party is seen as having more fire power than the GOP label, as indicated by the poll data that show both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress are held in very low esteem by the public. And fundamental to the success of the TP movement, as noted in a previous post, is its adoption of a new puritanism with its implicit warning--"if you are not for us, you are against us." The "for us" meaning adherence to the complete package of "anti-whatever" policies advocated by the TP and the fellow traveling organizations that have found new life under the TP umbrella . The TP movement began with a focus on a balanced-budget-now and anti-big government agenda, but it did not take long before a variety of organizations with cultural/social policy agendas attached themselves to the TP's public rallies and protests. The end result was that the TP has come to be the big tent political movement often touted by the establishment GOP. At the same time the TP became the loudest and most visible voice of the so-called disgruntled voter, further overshadowing the GOP with its more traditional, "what's new" way of representing itself as the party of change.
Sadly, and to continue the abusive use of metaphors, while we see the extremist voices being herded together in border-collie-like fashion into the TP corral, the Democrats are in an "every person for herself or himself" mode. The TP "for us or against us" herding is countered by the Democratic theme of, "it's okay, you can have it both ways, just say and do and whatever it takes to win." Thus some Democrats, while accepting money from the party's Congressional Campaign Committee, are free to campaign against their own leader in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. One example cited in a NYT article on October 16, is Democratic Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia who, according to the article, "spent much of a debate Thursday night renouncing Ms. Pelosi" whose liberal views run counter to those held by most voters in Marshall's district. Marshall's debate posturing has extended to his television commercials. It should be noted that Marshall voted for Pelosi as Speaker two years ago. In the "whatever it takes to win your seat" election guidance, Pelosi who has a big stake in the outcome, has said, "I just want them to win."
The bottom line of this pre-Halloween story is that even if the Democrats should retain control of both the House and Senate (and the House seems unlikely at this point), it would be a much reduced majority that will include enough conservative Blue Dog members so that prospects for advancing any new progressive legislation will be dim or nonexistent. The Democrats will continue to face solid GOP opposition, but the driving force may be the more conservative right wing ideology of newly elected Tea Party members. The GOP "Party of No" will be a more strident "Party of No, Never". And that's the best case scenario.
The more likely outcome is a Republican takeover of the House and a reduced Democratic majority in the Senate. The House GOP majority which will now include Tea Party adherents will seek to undo key elements of President Obama's legislative victories, most notably health care reform and increased regulation of the financial markets. Then there are the more extremist issues proposed by various TP candidates, issues such as the constitutionality of social security and abolishing the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service. Whether any of these ideas will get beyond the bill introduction or subcommittee hearing stages is doubtful, although the House leadership will need to give lip service at least to some parts of the TP wish list that differ from the establishment GOP agenda.
Overall, the process will be role reversal with a more conservative GOP House sending a liberal-led Democratic Senate a series of bills to repeal or gut Obama's victories. Now, using the same 60-vote rule exploited by the Republicans to obstruct Democratic legislative goals, Senate Democrats will try to block floor consideration of the GOP bills passed by the House. Whatever the specific outcomes, the GOP/TP (or TP/GOP) aim will be to set the legislative and rhetorical stage for making Obama a one term President who presided over what they will try to label "a failed presidency".
This year Halloween should be postponed until November 2.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
TEA PARTY ENTERS EXPORT MARKET
What started for the Tea Party (TP) movement as a home grown product may be moving into the export market. The product is one of the TP's long list of "anti-whatever-agenda" items, in this case an anti-Muslim point of view.
As noted in a previous post on October 11, and a previous post on October 4, the central thrust of the Tea Party when it began in early 2009 was opposition to President Obama and his agenda for large stimulus spending to create and save jobs, health care reform, and the cap and trade proposal, among other things. But the TP's anti-Obama attacks also included his personal background such as where he was born and his religious roots. These personal issues manifested themselves in TP activists highlighting that his middle name was Hussein, which was used against him earlier in the 2008 presidential campaign. Translated, this was intended to convey that there were questions about where he was born and his constitutional eligibility to be President and that he was a Muslim, not a Christian.
Thus, early on the Tea Party and other dissident groups that attached themselves to the movement propagated an anti-Muslim, anti-Islam message. Given that the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC), carried out by Muslim members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization, the general environment was fertile ground for TP efforts to wrap Obama in pro-Muslim, un-American toxic rhetoric.
This anti-Muslim message gained a new focus last spring when plans were disclosed to build an Islamic cultural/social center, including a mosque, about five blocks from where the WTC once stood. The concern about such a center was usually expressed in terms of "sensitivity". That is, if those planning the center had any feelings for the families and friends of victims of the WTC disaster and the role that terrorists who were Muslim played in the disaster, they wouldn't build an Islamic center so close to ground zero of the 9/11 attack. The result was loud street demonstrations against the building of the center. The basic counter argument was that our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion makes it a fundamental right that the center including the mosque should be allowed to proceed. But the emergence of the proposed plan for the center and the public reaction to it also raised concerns that the issue had awakened a latent anti-Muslim sentiment, stemming from the 9/11 attack, among a larger segment of the population outside the Tea Party.
Inevitably, plans for the center also became a part of campaign politics for the midterm elections next month. Opponents of the center, including TP-backed candidates, primarily based their position on the sensitivity issue; the political opposition, appearing to be backed into a defensive corner on the issue, tended to take the safe position of agreeing that the center should be relocated to a different site farther away from ground zero. But some, like Sharron Angle, seeking the Senate seat of incumbent Harry Reid in Nevada, carried an anti-Muslim sentiment farther. In another of her "what wall did that come off of" comments at a Tea Party rally she said, "there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law," (meaning Islamic-based law) to take hold in any community in the country. This anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic sentiment also manifested itself in other forms such as the burning of construction equipment at a building site for a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and an unsuccessful effort in Sidney, New York, to shut down a small Muslim cemetery there. In Temecula, California, a Tea Party group is trying to prevent the building of a mosque by the local Islamic Center.
Now this domestic brand of anti-Muslim sentiment and protest is being packaged for import into Britain, the home of many Muslims who migrated there from former British colonies. It was very recently reported in a liberal British newspaper, The Observer*, that the English Defense League (EDL), described as a "far right grouping" fighting "Islamification" of English cities is seeking to create ties with the American Tea Party movement. A first step is the invitation of a U.S. rabbi to come to Britain to discuss Islamic Sharia law, best known as the legal underpinnings of the Taliban in Afghanistan during their brutal rule of that country prior to the U.S. invasion in 2001. Also, according to the Observer, the EDL is seeking ties with Pamela Geller, who according to Wikipedia is the cofounder of the "Stop Islamification of America" organization and one of the leaders of those opposing the Islamic center in New York. Geller is also connected with the Tea Party and spoke before a statewide TP convention in Tennessee last May.
In sum, the U.S. Tea Party movement which, unfortunately, has already shown its considerable ability to mobilize a high decibel, far right voice for unhappy voters in this country, is now seen as an instrument for advancing the anti-Islam activities of a protest group in Britain. For a large part of our citizenry the TP has been a harmful product for domestic consumption; it should likewise be tagged as "dangerous to your civic health" on the export label.
*guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/10/english-defence-league-tea-party
As noted in a previous post on October 11, and a previous post on October 4, the central thrust of the Tea Party when it began in early 2009 was opposition to President Obama and his agenda for large stimulus spending to create and save jobs, health care reform, and the cap and trade proposal, among other things. But the TP's anti-Obama attacks also included his personal background such as where he was born and his religious roots. These personal issues manifested themselves in TP activists highlighting that his middle name was Hussein, which was used against him earlier in the 2008 presidential campaign. Translated, this was intended to convey that there were questions about where he was born and his constitutional eligibility to be President and that he was a Muslim, not a Christian.
Thus, early on the Tea Party and other dissident groups that attached themselves to the movement propagated an anti-Muslim, anti-Islam message. Given that the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC), carried out by Muslim members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization, the general environment was fertile ground for TP efforts to wrap Obama in pro-Muslim, un-American toxic rhetoric.
This anti-Muslim message gained a new focus last spring when plans were disclosed to build an Islamic cultural/social center, including a mosque, about five blocks from where the WTC once stood. The concern about such a center was usually expressed in terms of "sensitivity". That is, if those planning the center had any feelings for the families and friends of victims of the WTC disaster and the role that terrorists who were Muslim played in the disaster, they wouldn't build an Islamic center so close to ground zero of the 9/11 attack. The result was loud street demonstrations against the building of the center. The basic counter argument was that our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion makes it a fundamental right that the center including the mosque should be allowed to proceed. But the emergence of the proposed plan for the center and the public reaction to it also raised concerns that the issue had awakened a latent anti-Muslim sentiment, stemming from the 9/11 attack, among a larger segment of the population outside the Tea Party.
Inevitably, plans for the center also became a part of campaign politics for the midterm elections next month. Opponents of the center, including TP-backed candidates, primarily based their position on the sensitivity issue; the political opposition, appearing to be backed into a defensive corner on the issue, tended to take the safe position of agreeing that the center should be relocated to a different site farther away from ground zero. But some, like Sharron Angle, seeking the Senate seat of incumbent Harry Reid in Nevada, carried an anti-Muslim sentiment farther. In another of her "what wall did that come off of" comments at a Tea Party rally she said, "there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law," (meaning Islamic-based law) to take hold in any community in the country. This anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic sentiment also manifested itself in other forms such as the burning of construction equipment at a building site for a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and an unsuccessful effort in Sidney, New York, to shut down a small Muslim cemetery there. In Temecula, California, a Tea Party group is trying to prevent the building of a mosque by the local Islamic Center.
Now this domestic brand of anti-Muslim sentiment and protest is being packaged for import into Britain, the home of many Muslims who migrated there from former British colonies. It was very recently reported in a liberal British newspaper, The Observer*, that the English Defense League (EDL), described as a "far right grouping" fighting "Islamification" of English cities is seeking to create ties with the American Tea Party movement. A first step is the invitation of a U.S. rabbi to come to Britain to discuss Islamic Sharia law, best known as the legal underpinnings of the Taliban in Afghanistan during their brutal rule of that country prior to the U.S. invasion in 2001. Also, according to the Observer, the EDL is seeking ties with Pamela Geller, who according to Wikipedia is the cofounder of the "Stop Islamification of America" organization and one of the leaders of those opposing the Islamic center in New York. Geller is also connected with the Tea Party and spoke before a statewide TP convention in Tennessee last May.
In sum, the U.S. Tea Party movement which, unfortunately, has already shown its considerable ability to mobilize a high decibel, far right voice for unhappy voters in this country, is now seen as an instrument for advancing the anti-Islam activities of a protest group in Britain. For a large part of our citizenry the TP has been a harmful product for domestic consumption; it should likewise be tagged as "dangerous to your civic health" on the export label.
*guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/10/english-defence-league-tea-party
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
NEGOTIATING WITH THE TALIBAN(S)
Red Rascal, We Need you Again!
Red Rascal to the rescue? In case you don't follow the Doonesbury cartoon or haven't read a previous post, Red Rascal is Garry Trudeau's super hero who rights the wrongs committed by the Taliban "evil doers" in Afghanistan. In this week's Doonesbury series, the Red Rascal in an expanded role is being asked to deal with the problem of a U.S. contractor who, along with other such contractors, is to be banned by President Hamid Karzai from doing future business in Afghanistan. This post is to suggest that while Red Rascal is in Afghanistan, he should also talk with Karzai about the political negotiations the latter is undertaking with the "evil doers".
Karzai has officially stated that he wants to negotiate with the Taliban about a political solution to the now 10-year old war. The war began when the Afghan-based, Taliban-supported al Qaeda successfully planned and carried out the attack that destroyed the World Trade Center. After a decade of war between the United States/ NATO and the Taliban/al Qaeda, it seems clear that a military solution is not likely, thus a political way out must be found. (Sounds strangely like the situation in Vietnam in the early 70s.) In holding such talks, the Karzai government has in mind what have come to be called "moderate" Taliban leaders. Presumably that approximates how President Obama's now resigned National Security Advisor, General James Jones, referred to the Taliban recently. "The Taliban generally as a group has never signed on to the global jihad business and doesn't seem to have ambitions beyond its region". Within that context, Karzai has the U.S. blessing for negotiating with the Taliban.
While Karzai-Taliban negotiations are a necessary first step to ending the war and allowing the U.S. and its allies to extricate themselves from the Afghan mess, what comes next may not be so simple. A few major stumbling blocks lie on the path to a political settlement.
1. What does Taliban "participation" in governance mean? Is it simply je jure recognition of the de facto situation of Taliban control of various parts of the country? If so, does participation mean recognition of local Taliban leaders as the formal, officially recognized governors of the territory? (Would this also mean the United States can then stop paying contractors ((be careful Red Rascal)) who in turn pay local warlords to protect our military supplies being trucked through their areas, payments that seem to trickle down to Taliban leaders in the area.)
Or does participation in governance also mean the Taliban having a significant role in national decision making with important cabinet positions in Kabul? As noted above, participation in governance at the subnational level would simply be recognition of the Taliban's existing control of many areas of the country. That may be the easy part. Elevating Taliban participation to a significant national role is more problematic. According to reports, the 68-person peace council created by Karzai to guide the negotiations is heavily tilted toward members who have been fighting the Taliban for years. Among their concerns is that in allowing the Taliban into the national government in any capacity might lead to an eventual Taliban takeover and a return to the brutal pre-2001 Taliban control. Here I'll refer to another previous post about Germany in l933 when a devious ex-Chancellor thought he could bring Hitler into the government as a figurehead Chancellor while the "ex" would control the real reins of power. We know how that turned out with Hitler quickly taking control of everything.
2. What about that part of the Taliban, along with its al Qaeda associates, that is based in Pakistan? These are the most aggressive, hardline, elusive participants in the ongoing war. According to a Washington Post report, one part of the Pakistan-based Taliban, the Quetta Shura, is a possible participant in the negotiations. But another faction, the Haqqani group, supposedly is not agreeable and it is this group that is the principal target of the U.S. bombing campaign in Pakistan. Both groups supposedly have close ties to the Pakistani intelligence service which has long been linked with the Taliban.
Perhaps our bombing campaign is an effort to convince the Haqqani leaders that they too should participate in any negotiations. (That would be akin to the efforts of the Nixon administration in l972 to carry out massive air attacks in North Vietnam to force them to the bargaining table to end that war.) However, that leaves the issue of Pakistan's role in any negotiations with the Taliban. Right now it seem like Karzai, with U.S. blessing, has taken a go-it-alone approach to negotiations with the Taliban, an approach that may work as a short-run tactic to deal with local, Afghan-based leaders. However, any long-term strategic solution to bring stability to the region is likely to require setting a chair for Pakistan at the bargaining table.
In sum, any efforts to deal with the Taliban to produce short-term and/or long-term solutions are complex undertakings with a number of moving parts and players that must be dealt with. Also,while backing Karzai in his efforts, the U.S. has learned in a variety of ways that trusting Karzai is a problem in itself. It is clearly a situation where we need the Red Rascal to work his super powers.
Red Rascal to the rescue? In case you don't follow the Doonesbury cartoon or haven't read a previous post, Red Rascal is Garry Trudeau's super hero who rights the wrongs committed by the Taliban "evil doers" in Afghanistan. In this week's Doonesbury series, the Red Rascal in an expanded role is being asked to deal with the problem of a U.S. contractor who, along with other such contractors, is to be banned by President Hamid Karzai from doing future business in Afghanistan. This post is to suggest that while Red Rascal is in Afghanistan, he should also talk with Karzai about the political negotiations the latter is undertaking with the "evil doers".
Karzai has officially stated that he wants to negotiate with the Taliban about a political solution to the now 10-year old war. The war began when the Afghan-based, Taliban-supported al Qaeda successfully planned and carried out the attack that destroyed the World Trade Center. After a decade of war between the United States/ NATO and the Taliban/al Qaeda, it seems clear that a military solution is not likely, thus a political way out must be found. (Sounds strangely like the situation in Vietnam in the early 70s.) In holding such talks, the Karzai government has in mind what have come to be called "moderate" Taliban leaders. Presumably that approximates how President Obama's now resigned National Security Advisor, General James Jones, referred to the Taliban recently. "The Taliban generally as a group has never signed on to the global jihad business and doesn't seem to have ambitions beyond its region". Within that context, Karzai has the U.S. blessing for negotiating with the Taliban.
While Karzai-Taliban negotiations are a necessary first step to ending the war and allowing the U.S. and its allies to extricate themselves from the Afghan mess, what comes next may not be so simple. A few major stumbling blocks lie on the path to a political settlement.
1. What does Taliban "participation" in governance mean? Is it simply je jure recognition of the de facto situation of Taliban control of various parts of the country? If so, does participation mean recognition of local Taliban leaders as the formal, officially recognized governors of the territory? (Would this also mean the United States can then stop paying contractors ((be careful Red Rascal)) who in turn pay local warlords to protect our military supplies being trucked through their areas, payments that seem to trickle down to Taliban leaders in the area.)
Or does participation in governance also mean the Taliban having a significant role in national decision making with important cabinet positions in Kabul? As noted above, participation in governance at the subnational level would simply be recognition of the Taliban's existing control of many areas of the country. That may be the easy part. Elevating Taliban participation to a significant national role is more problematic. According to reports, the 68-person peace council created by Karzai to guide the negotiations is heavily tilted toward members who have been fighting the Taliban for years. Among their concerns is that in allowing the Taliban into the national government in any capacity might lead to an eventual Taliban takeover and a return to the brutal pre-2001 Taliban control. Here I'll refer to another previous post about Germany in l933 when a devious ex-Chancellor thought he could bring Hitler into the government as a figurehead Chancellor while the "ex" would control the real reins of power. We know how that turned out with Hitler quickly taking control of everything.
2. What about that part of the Taliban, along with its al Qaeda associates, that is based in Pakistan? These are the most aggressive, hardline, elusive participants in the ongoing war. According to a Washington Post report, one part of the Pakistan-based Taliban, the Quetta Shura, is a possible participant in the negotiations. But another faction, the Haqqani group, supposedly is not agreeable and it is this group that is the principal target of the U.S. bombing campaign in Pakistan. Both groups supposedly have close ties to the Pakistani intelligence service which has long been linked with the Taliban.
Perhaps our bombing campaign is an effort to convince the Haqqani leaders that they too should participate in any negotiations. (That would be akin to the efforts of the Nixon administration in l972 to carry out massive air attacks in North Vietnam to force them to the bargaining table to end that war.) However, that leaves the issue of Pakistan's role in any negotiations with the Taliban. Right now it seem like Karzai, with U.S. blessing, has taken a go-it-alone approach to negotiations with the Taliban, an approach that may work as a short-run tactic to deal with local, Afghan-based leaders. However, any long-term strategic solution to bring stability to the region is likely to require setting a chair for Pakistan at the bargaining table.
In sum, any efforts to deal with the Taliban to produce short-term and/or long-term solutions are complex undertakings with a number of moving parts and players that must be dealt with. Also,while backing Karzai in his efforts, the U.S. has learned in a variety of ways that trusting Karzai is a problem in itself. It is clearly a situation where we need the Red Rascal to work his super powers.
Monday, October 11, 2010
WHAT NEXT FOR THE TEA PARTY?
A few days ago Virginia's Tea Party (TP) organizations held a state convention in Richmond. The Washington Post reported that at the meeting concerns were expressed by Manassas and Newport News attendees about the Republican party establishment co-opting the TP movement which has brought so much sound and fury to our politics and policy. Such concern is the crux of the TP organizational problem.
The TP perceives itself as being a "grass roots" organization with no single political leader, made up of loosely affiliated local chapters whose members share a common set of goals--make government smaller, make major cuts in the federal budget which in turn will end deficit spending. The term "grass roots" is in quotes since the TP has also become a tool of a lot of big outside money interests pursuing their own self-interests. The TP's chief targets have been stimulus spending aimed at creating or saving jobs, health care reforms, and greater regulatory control of the banking/financial industry-- major legislative accomplishments of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress. In a previous post, it has also been pointed out that the TP movement has become wrapped in religious robes and the American flag to convey the message that TP opponents are godless and un-American.
As the Tea Party movement grew, it gained adherents from other activist groups focused on a variety of social/cultural issues such as anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration reform, and more recently an anti-Islamic cadre energized by opposition to the development of an Islamic cultural/social center about five blocks from the destroyed World Trade Center in New York City. Within this organizational context, a few thoughts arise.
Right now it seems clearly evident that the tail, the TP, is wagging the dog, the establishment GOP. The TP ideological center of gravity is well to the right of the mainstream conservatism of the GOP, and even farther to the right of what is left of the moderate wing of the Republican party. The TP has become the visible and vocal expression of the so-called disgruntled voter. The ability of the TP to organize and bring its members and fellow travelers out for their anti-whatever rallies and demonstrations have shifted the party base farther to the right and thus forced many mainstream GOP congressional and gubernatorial candidates to shift their positions accordingly to avoid being outflanked by more extremist, TP-backed opponents. So, at least in the short run, meaning this round of elections, it seems that the Tea Party movement has taken control of the establishment GOP.
At the same time, it must be remembered that in defeating establishment GOP election choices in places like Kentucky, Alaska, and Delaware, the end result is that the TP candidates are now wearing the Republican label for next month's elections. So the question becomes--if the TP favorites, running as Republicans, win in three weeks, will they slowly slide into the fold of the establishment GOP as they become members of the party caucuses in the House and Senate? Put another way, how aggressive will any TP winners be in pursuing their political outsider goals now that they are inside the GOP tent?
And, while shunning any hierarchical organizational structure of its own, the TP movement has spawned something of a small industry of name-alike Tea Party organizations. There are several organizations that have sprung up using the Tea Party label to advance their own enterprises, including some for-profit activities. One is the California-based Tea Party Express (TPE) which has funded some successful candidates such as Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. In supporting these candidates, the TPE has acted similarly to a traditional campaign organization which has a paid staff for setting up and carrying out a variety of activities in behalf of a candidate.
There is also the Tea Party Nation (TPN) which organized a national TP convention in Nashville, Tennessee, last February but which came under sharp criticism from TP activists for the high fee required to attend and for the $100,000 fee paid to Sarah Palin to speak. There is also the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) which co-sponsored a 9/12 March on Washington and received $1 million to distribute to local organizations for election activities. So right now it looks like the TP movement has fostered several name-alikes, acting independently of each other, with different agendas that sometimes take on the character of for-profit rather than ideologically driven enterprises. Each of these will, of course, want to stay around to receive and spend money for the general (presidential and congressional) elections of 2012.
In sum, the Tea Party, which started as a loosely organized so-called grass roots movement and has, at least at this point, the intention of staying that way, should not be surprised if it becomes perceived as ripe for a takeover, friendly or unfriendly, by the establishment GOP or an aggressive name-alike organization it has spawned. How all of this turns out will depend greatly on how many Tea Party-backed people get elected on November 2. What we of the left and middle can hope for is that the TP is so unsuccessful in the elections that few people will care, Whither goes the Tea Party? That would still leave the question-- Whither Sarah Palin? who has been so successful at linking herself to the Tea Party base for her own political advantage.
The TP perceives itself as being a "grass roots" organization with no single political leader, made up of loosely affiliated local chapters whose members share a common set of goals--make government smaller, make major cuts in the federal budget which in turn will end deficit spending. The term "grass roots" is in quotes since the TP has also become a tool of a lot of big outside money interests pursuing their own self-interests. The TP's chief targets have been stimulus spending aimed at creating or saving jobs, health care reforms, and greater regulatory control of the banking/financial industry-- major legislative accomplishments of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress. In a previous post, it has also been pointed out that the TP movement has become wrapped in religious robes and the American flag to convey the message that TP opponents are godless and un-American.
As the Tea Party movement grew, it gained adherents from other activist groups focused on a variety of social/cultural issues such as anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration reform, and more recently an anti-Islamic cadre energized by opposition to the development of an Islamic cultural/social center about five blocks from the destroyed World Trade Center in New York City. Within this organizational context, a few thoughts arise.
Right now it seems clearly evident that the tail, the TP, is wagging the dog, the establishment GOP. The TP ideological center of gravity is well to the right of the mainstream conservatism of the GOP, and even farther to the right of what is left of the moderate wing of the Republican party. The TP has become the visible and vocal expression of the so-called disgruntled voter. The ability of the TP to organize and bring its members and fellow travelers out for their anti-whatever rallies and demonstrations have shifted the party base farther to the right and thus forced many mainstream GOP congressional and gubernatorial candidates to shift their positions accordingly to avoid being outflanked by more extremist, TP-backed opponents. So, at least in the short run, meaning this round of elections, it seems that the Tea Party movement has taken control of the establishment GOP.
At the same time, it must be remembered that in defeating establishment GOP election choices in places like Kentucky, Alaska, and Delaware, the end result is that the TP candidates are now wearing the Republican label for next month's elections. So the question becomes--if the TP favorites, running as Republicans, win in three weeks, will they slowly slide into the fold of the establishment GOP as they become members of the party caucuses in the House and Senate? Put another way, how aggressive will any TP winners be in pursuing their political outsider goals now that they are inside the GOP tent?
And, while shunning any hierarchical organizational structure of its own, the TP movement has spawned something of a small industry of name-alike Tea Party organizations. There are several organizations that have sprung up using the Tea Party label to advance their own enterprises, including some for-profit activities. One is the California-based Tea Party Express (TPE) which has funded some successful candidates such as Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. In supporting these candidates, the TPE has acted similarly to a traditional campaign organization which has a paid staff for setting up and carrying out a variety of activities in behalf of a candidate.
There is also the Tea Party Nation (TPN) which organized a national TP convention in Nashville, Tennessee, last February but which came under sharp criticism from TP activists for the high fee required to attend and for the $100,000 fee paid to Sarah Palin to speak. There is also the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) which co-sponsored a 9/12 March on Washington and received $1 million to distribute to local organizations for election activities. So right now it looks like the TP movement has fostered several name-alikes, acting independently of each other, with different agendas that sometimes take on the character of for-profit rather than ideologically driven enterprises. Each of these will, of course, want to stay around to receive and spend money for the general (presidential and congressional) elections of 2012.
In sum, the Tea Party, which started as a loosely organized so-called grass roots movement and has, at least at this point, the intention of staying that way, should not be surprised if it becomes perceived as ripe for a takeover, friendly or unfriendly, by the establishment GOP or an aggressive name-alike organization it has spawned. How all of this turns out will depend greatly on how many Tea Party-backed people get elected on November 2. What we of the left and middle can hope for is that the TP is so unsuccessful in the elections that few people will care, Whither goes the Tea Party? That would still leave the question-- Whither Sarah Palin? who has been so successful at linking herself to the Tea Party base for her own political advantage.
Friday, October 8, 2010
JOHN BOEHNER: SINCERITY AND SUNTAN
One of the first rules for political success is that you have to be able to fake sincerity. Two days ago, I had an unusual opportunity to see, or rather read about, this rule in action. Our local newspaper has two facing editorial pages. The one on the left is, of course, liberal in its views and the columnists it carries. Conversely, the editorials on the right page and its columnists are conservative. The interesting coincidence was that both pages on the same day carried columns about House Minority leader John Boehner.
The conservative column by Cal Thomas entitled, "Mr. Speaker-in-Waiting," was based on an interview (emphasis on "interview") with Boehner, resulting in what can only be called a puff piece. The liberal writer was Bob Herbert whose column entitled, "That's where the money is,"
was based on some facts (emphasis on "facts") about Boehner's ties to big businesses and their lobbyists.
Nothing could be more contrived to put the "fake sincerity" rule to a test than Thomas's asking Boehner what his late parents "given the humble circumstances" of his background might think of him today. Quoting from Thomas, "He begins to tear up and reaches for a box of tissues." Boehner's reported reply: " 'Why me? I ask God,'" he says, " 'I'm just a regular guy with a big job.'" This is the response from the same Boehner whose "suntan" is under scrutiny as to whether it's real or fake and, if fake, does he use a tanning bed or a lotion. From there the interview allows Boehner to don his Republican robes and preach the party gospel.
Regarding the GOP loss of congressional control in 2006, Boehner said, "Our team failed to live up to our principles," the theme for asking forgiveness of fellow conservatives and vote the GOP back into power, at least in the House where his promotion awaits, next month. "I came here for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government and that has not been what's happening. We don't need any more programs; we need to undo a lot of programs," etc., etc., etc.
Thomas closes out his column, ". . . John Boehner increasingly looks like the next (s)peaker of the House. His parents would be proud."
Contrast Thomas' Boehner-serving interview with Herbert's reporting of actual events involving Boehner and his coziness with the corporate world.
The most stunning example presented by Herbert goes back about 15 years when this "quintessential influence peddler (meaning Boehner) decided to play Santa Claus by handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to fellow congressional sleazes right on the floor of the House." (Note, I said Herbert was reporting facts; I did not say he was free of judgment about those facts.) When Boehner's Chief of Staff was asked why money would be handed out on the House floor, there was no denial or hedging. The reply: "The floor is where the members meet with each other." Herbert linked this to the reply of the notorious bank robber Willy Sutton when he was asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is."
Herbert also recalled the more recent event when House Democrats were preparing for floor action on financial regulatory reform. Boehner and other GOP house leaders met with a reported 100 "industry lobbyists and conservative activists" to encourage them to get out and help Republicans defeat the legislation.
To summarize, in contrast to Thomas' Boehner puffery, Herbert puts it this way, "That's Boehner for you--always willing to stick his neck out for the elite."
So, I ask you, which is more fake, Boehner's sincerity or his suntan?
The conservative column by Cal Thomas entitled, "Mr. Speaker-in-Waiting," was based on an interview (emphasis on "interview") with Boehner, resulting in what can only be called a puff piece. The liberal writer was Bob Herbert whose column entitled, "That's where the money is,"
was based on some facts (emphasis on "facts") about Boehner's ties to big businesses and their lobbyists.
Nothing could be more contrived to put the "fake sincerity" rule to a test than Thomas's asking Boehner what his late parents "given the humble circumstances" of his background might think of him today. Quoting from Thomas, "He begins to tear up and reaches for a box of tissues." Boehner's reported reply: " 'Why me? I ask God,'" he says, " 'I'm just a regular guy with a big job.'" This is the response from the same Boehner whose "suntan" is under scrutiny as to whether it's real or fake and, if fake, does he use a tanning bed or a lotion. From there the interview allows Boehner to don his Republican robes and preach the party gospel.
Regarding the GOP loss of congressional control in 2006, Boehner said, "Our team failed to live up to our principles," the theme for asking forgiveness of fellow conservatives and vote the GOP back into power, at least in the House where his promotion awaits, next month. "I came here for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government and that has not been what's happening. We don't need any more programs; we need to undo a lot of programs," etc., etc., etc.
Thomas closes out his column, ". . . John Boehner increasingly looks like the next (s)peaker of the House. His parents would be proud."
Contrast Thomas' Boehner-serving interview with Herbert's reporting of actual events involving Boehner and his coziness with the corporate world.
The most stunning example presented by Herbert goes back about 15 years when this "quintessential influence peddler (meaning Boehner) decided to play Santa Claus by handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to fellow congressional sleazes right on the floor of the House." (Note, I said Herbert was reporting facts; I did not say he was free of judgment about those facts.) When Boehner's Chief of Staff was asked why money would be handed out on the House floor, there was no denial or hedging. The reply: "The floor is where the members meet with each other." Herbert linked this to the reply of the notorious bank robber Willy Sutton when he was asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is."
Herbert also recalled the more recent event when House Democrats were preparing for floor action on financial regulatory reform. Boehner and other GOP house leaders met with a reported 100 "industry lobbyists and conservative activists" to encourage them to get out and help Republicans defeat the legislation.
To summarize, in contrast to Thomas' Boehner puffery, Herbert puts it this way, "That's Boehner for you--always willing to stick his neck out for the elite."
So, I ask you, which is more fake, Boehner's sincerity or his suntan?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
IRAN: THE 800 POUND GORILLA IS GETTING BIGGER
In a previous post I portrayed Iran as the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the room being the Middle East and our difficulties in finding solutions to our multiple problems in that region, including Afghanistan. It seems that no matter where we turn we bump into the gorilla, whether it be our problems with Iran itself, or Tehran's involvement in Iraq, Israel, or Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it seems that over the past week the gorilla has grown in size.
A major setback for the United States came in Iraq. For seven months we have been waiting for and involving ourselves in that country's inability to form a new government following the early March parliamentary elections. Given the complexities of Iraqi politics, we may be waiting still longer for a final resolution of the problem. But our hopes for a solution satisfactory to the United States took a great leap backwards when the interim Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki reached some kind of coalition agreement with a very anti-American faction headed by Muqtada al-Sadr with whom we had fought a separate war while fighting various insurgent groups within Iraq a few years ago.
If one price of al-Sadr's willingness to support al-Maliki is getting all U.S. troops out of the country, it would bring joy to many of us. Unfortunately, al-Sadr, who has been living in self-imposed exile in Iran, as a key government insider is likely to be the avenue for significantly greater Iranian influence in Iraq. An al-Maliki government will be Shiite dominated and thus already has strong religious attachments to Shiite Iran. Al-Maliki has already shown a willingness to establish a closer relationship with Iran, a relationship that is likely to become even greater via al-Sadr.
While the U.S. may lament the growing Iranian influence in the region in terms of political and military policy, it should be remembered that it is in a significant way a self-inflicted wound. When former President George W. Bush invaded Iraq ostensibly in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, he overthrew the major regional counterbalance, Saddam Hussein, to Iranian regional ambitions, thus further empowering those ambitions.
Enhancement of Iranian influence in Iraq through any al-Maliki/al-Sadr agreement again renews the continuously nagging question of how to deal with Iran on a host of outstanding issues ranging from stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions short of the weapons stage, to including Iran as a partner in any international effort to end the Afghan war and bring political and economic stability to Afghanistan, to release of the two American hikers who are facing charges of espionage.
While maintaining international confrontation with Iran on the nuclear issue, President Obama in early August reportedly said that for the United States, Afghanistan is a "separate track" from the nuclear talks. The "separate track" statement recalls the l970's version of the same problem. This was the Cold War "linkage" policy of President Nixon and his chief foreign policy adviser/Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. The "linkage" policy was aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, in effect saying to them that if they wanted progress on various issues such as arms control and economic/trade agreements, they would have to stop aiding and abetting revolutions and wars in the third world, including Vietnam. That policy had its biggest failure in Vietnam where it was needed the most to help end the war and our role in it.
Now we seem to be returning to the linkage/separate track issue with Iran. Despite Iran's repeated threats and blustering about the United States and Israel, and the United States being the prime conspirator behind the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center, Obama has sought to keep open a possible dialogue with Iran on the various outstanding issues. So far there is no evidence of much success for holding direct U.S.-Iranian talks, although David Ignatius in his September 17 column reported that Iran has sent positive messages through third countries about participation in the resolution of the Afghan conflict.
Certainly "separate track" is a more realistic approach than "linkage" since it is not evident how much near term leverage we have to drive any hard bargains if the issues are linked. Except for the various unilateral and U.N. sponsored economic sanctions (which have notable leakages, including military and economic ties between Iran and China and Russia), some of the outstanding near term issues with Iran involve our getting concessions or assistance from Iran. In the mid-term, we can hope that Iran will get a more moderate and agreeable President than Mahmoud Ahmadeinejad, and a religious hierarchy less inclined to view the United States as the Great Satan. In the longer term, improving working relations now might lead to ultimately to the restoration of normal U.S./international/Iranian political and economic relations, including much-needed new U.S. and international investments in Iran, as well as securing political and military stability in the region.
Last week, I asked the question "What does progress look like?" in the Middle East, focusing on the status of the Israeli-Palestinian talks and formation of a government in Iraq. I answered the question, saying, "How can I tell? I don't see any." Viewing events in Iraq over the past week (also, still no progress in the Israeli-Palestinian talks), I can add, "But I do know what a step backward looks like."
A major setback for the United States came in Iraq. For seven months we have been waiting for and involving ourselves in that country's inability to form a new government following the early March parliamentary elections. Given the complexities of Iraqi politics, we may be waiting still longer for a final resolution of the problem. But our hopes for a solution satisfactory to the United States took a great leap backwards when the interim Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki reached some kind of coalition agreement with a very anti-American faction headed by Muqtada al-Sadr with whom we had fought a separate war while fighting various insurgent groups within Iraq a few years ago.
If one price of al-Sadr's willingness to support al-Maliki is getting all U.S. troops out of the country, it would bring joy to many of us. Unfortunately, al-Sadr, who has been living in self-imposed exile in Iran, as a key government insider is likely to be the avenue for significantly greater Iranian influence in Iraq. An al-Maliki government will be Shiite dominated and thus already has strong religious attachments to Shiite Iran. Al-Maliki has already shown a willingness to establish a closer relationship with Iran, a relationship that is likely to become even greater via al-Sadr.
While the U.S. may lament the growing Iranian influence in the region in terms of political and military policy, it should be remembered that it is in a significant way a self-inflicted wound. When former President George W. Bush invaded Iraq ostensibly in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, he overthrew the major regional counterbalance, Saddam Hussein, to Iranian regional ambitions, thus further empowering those ambitions.
Enhancement of Iranian influence in Iraq through any al-Maliki/al-Sadr agreement again renews the continuously nagging question of how to deal with Iran on a host of outstanding issues ranging from stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions short of the weapons stage, to including Iran as a partner in any international effort to end the Afghan war and bring political and economic stability to Afghanistan, to release of the two American hikers who are facing charges of espionage.
While maintaining international confrontation with Iran on the nuclear issue, President Obama in early August reportedly said that for the United States, Afghanistan is a "separate track" from the nuclear talks. The "separate track" statement recalls the l970's version of the same problem. This was the Cold War "linkage" policy of President Nixon and his chief foreign policy adviser/Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. The "linkage" policy was aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, in effect saying to them that if they wanted progress on various issues such as arms control and economic/trade agreements, they would have to stop aiding and abetting revolutions and wars in the third world, including Vietnam. That policy had its biggest failure in Vietnam where it was needed the most to help end the war and our role in it.
Now we seem to be returning to the linkage/separate track issue with Iran. Despite Iran's repeated threats and blustering about the United States and Israel, and the United States being the prime conspirator behind the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center, Obama has sought to keep open a possible dialogue with Iran on the various outstanding issues. So far there is no evidence of much success for holding direct U.S.-Iranian talks, although David Ignatius in his September 17 column reported that Iran has sent positive messages through third countries about participation in the resolution of the Afghan conflict.
Certainly "separate track" is a more realistic approach than "linkage" since it is not evident how much near term leverage we have to drive any hard bargains if the issues are linked. Except for the various unilateral and U.N. sponsored economic sanctions (which have notable leakages, including military and economic ties between Iran and China and Russia), some of the outstanding near term issues with Iran involve our getting concessions or assistance from Iran. In the mid-term, we can hope that Iran will get a more moderate and agreeable President than Mahmoud Ahmadeinejad, and a religious hierarchy less inclined to view the United States as the Great Satan. In the longer term, improving working relations now might lead to ultimately to the restoration of normal U.S./international/Iranian political and economic relations, including much-needed new U.S. and international investments in Iran, as well as securing political and military stability in the region.
Last week, I asked the question "What does progress look like?" in the Middle East, focusing on the status of the Israeli-Palestinian talks and formation of a government in Iraq. I answered the question, saying, "How can I tell? I don't see any." Viewing events in Iraq over the past week (also, still no progress in the Israeli-Palestinian talks), I can add, "But I do know what a step backward looks like."
Monday, October 4, 2010
A TALE OF TWO PARTIES -- TEA AND COFFEE
In early 2009, a new movement was born, the Tea Party (TP). It billed itself as a grass roots movement to combat what it saw as a big government getting bigger, excessive government spending, accompanied by huge and growing federal deficits. It was quickly perceived as a right wing anti-Obama movement that focused its protests on major pieces of President Obama's legislative program: 1) stimulus spending to create and save jobs; 2) health care reform to provide health services to millions of the uninsured and to weaken the hold of insurance companies on the nation's health care system; and 3) greater regulation of the financial system that was at the core of the nation's severe economic recession. The TP made itself known and felt politically through shrill street demonstrations across the country. It also gained significant financial backing from wealthy sources who used the TP to advance their own right wing political agendas.
About a year later another new movement emerged -- the Coffee Party (CP). It billed itself as an alternative to the TP. It was meant to attract liberals and moderates through recruitment on the Facebook social network. Instead of the noisy and very visible extremism of the TP, its aim was to restore respectfulness and civility to the nation's political discourse. Rather than street protests, its organizing platform was to use the internet to sign up backers and to promote Starbucks kinds of gatherings to calmly discuss issues that would be more supportive of a liberal agenda.
So how has it all turned out?
It's obviously a rhetorical question since we all know that the TP, along with Sarah Palin, has become the voice of the so-called disgruntled voters. In the process, the Tea Party has driven the mainstream conservative wing of the Republican party farther to the right while, at the same time, eclipsing the establishment GOP as the leading voice of opposition to Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress.
It has succeeded in growing through its frequent street protests which attracted many fellow travelers with their own agendas such as anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-immigration reform. The TP and Palin have also registered some stunning political successes with their own candidates or those they backed winning primary elections against establishment GOP choices. And as the TP has grown, it has increasingly wrapped itself in religious robes and the American flag, aided by cheerleaders such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck so that persons opposing the Tea Party are implicitly portrayed as anti-God and un-American. Within that context, don't forget the Uncle Sam and Statue of Liberty costumes often seen at TP rallies, along with posters portraying Obama with a Hitler mustache or resembling a monkey, presumably to portray his African-American heritage.
Given all this, the counter-organization Coffee Party certainly had its job cut out for it in seeking to restore respect and civility to discussion of policy issues and political campaigning. Unfortunately, the CP's internet/Starbucks strategy never gained the traction necessary to compete with the expanding TP. While reportedly having attracted about 300,000 supporters, the Coffee Party never got on the political radar as a viable participant in the national political dialogue; about 350 people showed up for its national convention last month in Louisville, Kentucky, according to an Associated Press writer. A quiet meeting in a coffee house cannot compete with a colorful, noisy street demonstration for getting media attention.
The Tea Party, Palin, and the American flag were prominently on display at the August 28 Washington TP rally staged by Glenn Beck who wrapped himself in messianic robes as the spear carrier for God. At times it sounded like an evangelist tent meeting. A liberal, pro-Democratic rally just two days ago also drew a large crowd at the Lincoln Memorial. While many organizations were represented, the leading sponsors were some traditional Democratic backers, labor unions and civil rights groups. Their very pragmatic aim was to re-energize the Democratic base and urge those voters to go to the polls on November 2. If civility is defined as the absence of violence and arrests, then both rallies were civil.
So, unhappily, as we go into the last four weeks of campaigning, the high decibel voice of the Tea Party has drowned out the Coffee Party voice of moderation and civility. Check the signs, and maybe the costumes, outside the polling places on November 2. The next question, a non-rhetorical one, is: once we have gotten past next month's elections, will political discourse become more moderate? Not likely. The shift to presidential politics on November 3 will bring another round of noisy polemics from the far right. And if the Tea Party has even moderate success at the polls next month, the noise is likely to get even louder.
About a year later another new movement emerged -- the Coffee Party (CP). It billed itself as an alternative to the TP. It was meant to attract liberals and moderates through recruitment on the Facebook social network. Instead of the noisy and very visible extremism of the TP, its aim was to restore respectfulness and civility to the nation's political discourse. Rather than street protests, its organizing platform was to use the internet to sign up backers and to promote Starbucks kinds of gatherings to calmly discuss issues that would be more supportive of a liberal agenda.
So how has it all turned out?
It's obviously a rhetorical question since we all know that the TP, along with Sarah Palin, has become the voice of the so-called disgruntled voters. In the process, the Tea Party has driven the mainstream conservative wing of the Republican party farther to the right while, at the same time, eclipsing the establishment GOP as the leading voice of opposition to Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress.
It has succeeded in growing through its frequent street protests which attracted many fellow travelers with their own agendas such as anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-immigration reform. The TP and Palin have also registered some stunning political successes with their own candidates or those they backed winning primary elections against establishment GOP choices. And as the TP has grown, it has increasingly wrapped itself in religious robes and the American flag, aided by cheerleaders such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck so that persons opposing the Tea Party are implicitly portrayed as anti-God and un-American. Within that context, don't forget the Uncle Sam and Statue of Liberty costumes often seen at TP rallies, along with posters portraying Obama with a Hitler mustache or resembling a monkey, presumably to portray his African-American heritage.
Given all this, the counter-organization Coffee Party certainly had its job cut out for it in seeking to restore respect and civility to discussion of policy issues and political campaigning. Unfortunately, the CP's internet/Starbucks strategy never gained the traction necessary to compete with the expanding TP. While reportedly having attracted about 300,000 supporters, the Coffee Party never got on the political radar as a viable participant in the national political dialogue; about 350 people showed up for its national convention last month in Louisville, Kentucky, according to an Associated Press writer. A quiet meeting in a coffee house cannot compete with a colorful, noisy street demonstration for getting media attention.
The Tea Party, Palin, and the American flag were prominently on display at the August 28 Washington TP rally staged by Glenn Beck who wrapped himself in messianic robes as the spear carrier for God. At times it sounded like an evangelist tent meeting. A liberal, pro-Democratic rally just two days ago also drew a large crowd at the Lincoln Memorial. While many organizations were represented, the leading sponsors were some traditional Democratic backers, labor unions and civil rights groups. Their very pragmatic aim was to re-energize the Democratic base and urge those voters to go to the polls on November 2. If civility is defined as the absence of violence and arrests, then both rallies were civil.
So, unhappily, as we go into the last four weeks of campaigning, the high decibel voice of the Tea Party has drowned out the Coffee Party voice of moderation and civility. Check the signs, and maybe the costumes, outside the polling places on November 2. The next question, a non-rhetorical one, is: once we have gotten past next month's elections, will political discourse become more moderate? Not likely. The shift to presidential politics on November 3 will bring another round of noisy polemics from the far right. And if the Tea Party has even moderate success at the polls next month, the noise is likely to get even louder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)