Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Tea Party (TM) Brand

Expand Messages
  • Dan Clore
    News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n39/getting_a_grip Getting a Grip The Tea Party(TM)
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:

      Getting a Grip
      The Tea Party(TM) Brand
      by Michael I. Niman

      Whose Tea Are We Drinking?

      There’s a growing, media-generated consensus that, for better or for
      worse, the Tea Party is enjoying a meteoric ascendancy and is on the
      path to taking over the country.

      I watched the news on TV. I saw the anchors gushing over Carl Paladino’s
      landslide victory in the New York Republican gubernatorial primary. I
      read about the upset Tea Party victories in Delaware and Alaska’s GOP

      Still, despite the victories of a few high-profile, chest-thumping
      fire-breathers spewing a disparate potpourri of ideological
      contradictions, there really is no Tea Party.


      This thing we call the Tea Party is a loose, acephalous—meaning headless
      or leaderless—loose association of individuals. Acephalous movements
      range in ideology from the pro-personal recovery Alcoholics Anonymous,
      to the pacifist Rainbow Family, to the Critical Mass bicyclists
      movement, to the murderous array of al Qaeda terror cells. Like the Tea
      Party, these movements share an anarchist, nonhierarchical
      decentralization—indestructible because there is no organization to
      destroy or co-opt. As individual movements, they may or may not share
      any other values.

      There is one major way, however, that the Tea Party differs from most
      every acephalous social or political movement across the globe. Other
      acephalous movements matured into what they are today by evolving a
      consensus regarding shared values and ideologies. The Rainbow Family,
      for example, is committed to modeling a cooperative, nonhierarchical,
      utopian society by creating spontaneous, nonviolent, city-sized
      Gatherings around the world. Critical Mass cyclists unite to gather
      enough bikers in one mobile mass as to dominate traffic and celebrate
      the viability of cycling. Alcoholics Anonymous comes together as a
      supportive, healing community fostering recovery from one particular
      addiction. Al Qaeda coalesces around a shared fringe religious doctrine
      and tactical belief. We can easily identify what these different
      movements stand for, what their shared beliefs and values are.

      Crazy Carl

      The Tea Party, by contrast, does not have a set of shared beliefs and
      values. Early descriptions of the Tea Party focus on core libertarian
      beliefs in limiting the role of government and, in turn, limiting taxes
      and the size and reach of government. Under this big umbrella, lots of
      folks identified themselves as Tea Party—and perhaps the Tea Party
      actually existed for a minute as a coherent movement.

      Today, the Tea Party’s most visible symbol is Carl Paladino, now
      internationally famous for his upset landslide New York State GOP
      primary victory. The national media’s obsession with his candidacy
      promises to keep him in the news for at least the rest of this year’s
      election cycle.

      Contrary to wanting to limit the role of government, however, two of
      Paladino’s core campaign promises involve expanding the power and scope
      of government. One Paladino promise entails expanding the reach of
      eminent domain, the power of government to seize private property,
      including property seizures based on the ethnicity of the owners. Though
      eminent domain historically has been opposed by conservatives, Paladino
      promises that, if elected governor of New York, he will use eminent
      domain to seize private property currently under development as an
      Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan.

      The second Paladino expansion of government involves a promise to set up
      a system of what he calls “Dignity Camps” for welfare recipients. Arbeit
      Macht Frei.

      The contradictions embodied by Paladino are stunning. He’s a
      multi-millionaire whose fortune was bolstered by fat government
      contracts, subsidies, and tax breaks. Yet he campaigns under an
      anti-“ruling class” banner, calling for less of the very government that
      continues to enrich him at the expense of taxpayers. He brands himself
      as an insurgent running against both Democratic and Republican party
      establishments, yet, in his hometown of Buffalo, he remains one of the
      largest donors to both establishment parties.
      Stunning contradictions

      Around the country, some Tea Party activists claim their party stands
      for protecting abortion and reproductive rights, while other Tea
      Partiers claim it stands for criminalizing abortion and other forms of
      birth control. Tea Party spokespersons counter each other, claiming the
      party stands both for and against gay marriage, for and against “Don’t
      ask, don’t tell,” for and against the separation of church and state,
      for and against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so on. Some are
      adamantly against racism, while others speak the language of white

      These contradictions challenge the very notion that the Tea Party exists
      as anything more than a vapid banner available for any opportunist to
      co-opt. The Tea Party’s ideological vacuum stems from the fact that,
      unlike the established acephalous organizations cited above, it lacks a
      history. It never had the chance to evolve organically over years and
      reach some sort of consensus defining a core set of shared ideologies
      and values. Where the Rainbow Family and Critical Mass ideologies state
      that no individual can speak for these movements, in the case of the Tea
      Party, it seems anyone and everyone can take the liberty to speak for
      the entire “movement.”

      A cantankerous one-year-old

      The Tea Party has a birthday: February 19, 2009. And it has a founder:
      CNBC wonk Rick Santelli. On that day, standing on the floor of the
      Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Santelli launched into a televised diatribe
      against the Obama administration’s proposed, and as yet mostly
      unfulfilled, promise to aid homeowners facing foreclosure. Arguing
      against government help for “losers’ mortgages,” he called for a Chicago
      “Tea Party” to be held in July.

      His tirade went viral on YouTube, and within one week, there were 40
      disparate Tea Parties around the country—but no coherent, unified
      message. In April 2009, more than a quarter million Americans
      participated in tax day Tea Party protests, and activists from all
      around the political spectrum claimed the populist discontent as their
      own. By July, angry protesters claiming to be from the Tea Party started
      disrupting district meetings held by Democratic members of Congress. On
      the first anniversary of Santelli’s rant, a group calling itself the
      “Tea Party Nation” organized a for-profit “Tea Party Convention,” with
      promoters charging self-proclaimed Tea Party representatives $549 a head
      to attend, and paying Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak.

      With its demonstrated selling power, the Tea Party brand became both a
      coveted political asset and a perpetually sensationalistic headline for
      a sound-bite-rich, substance-free corporate media culture. By the summer
      of 2009, it seemed as if we were in the middle of a Tea Party
      revolution, only there was, as there is today, still no coherent or
      easily identifiable Tea Party. There was just noise, particularly from
      radical right-wing media sound cannons like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
      and their host of less-talented impersonators.
      Charles, right, and David Koch, the multi-billion dollar bankroll behind
      the Tea Party movement.

      Bankrolling the party

      Into this fray stepped the multi-billionaire brothers David and Charles
      Koch, whose combined fortune is only bested by those of Bill Gates and
      Warren Buffett. Together, the Koch brothers fully own Kansas-based Koch
      Industries, identified by Forbes as the second largest private company
      in the US, operating subsidiaries in oil refining and distribution,
      lumber, agribusiness, chemicals, ranching, finance, paper, and mining. A
      University of Massachusetts study named Koch Industries one of the
      nation’s top 10 air polluters. Greenpeace calls the company a “kingpin
      of climate science denial,” with the brothers and their business
      interests allegedly outspending Exxon/Mobil in support of the climate
      crisis denial propaganda industry. This includes funds for
      anti-environmental think tanks, junk science, foundations and political
      greenwashing groups.

      The Kochs are central to the Tea Party story. Through their political
      lobby, Americans for Prosperity, they dominate the Tea Party brand
      through the funding and organization of Tea Party branded events. For
      example, the brothers are currently spending, according to public
      campaign finance records available online at the California Secretary of
      State’s website, $1 million dollars underwriting a California ballot
      initiative, Proposition 24, aimed at repealing that state’s
      groundbreaking environmental regulations curbing carbon emissions.
      Included in their propaganda arsenal are a series of so-called Tea Party
      rallies in support of Proposition 24.

      Useful window dressing

      The Tea Party appears to be useful window dressing in this otherwise
      anti-populist effort to roll California’s popular climate change
      legislation back to the dark ages. Likewise, manipulation by other
      corporatist groups similar to Americans for Prosperity seems to have
      successfully hijacked the Tea Party brand in service to just the sort of
      entrenched oligarchy one would logically expect a populist movement to
      unite against. Carl Paladino’s victory in New York typifies this
      cooptation of populism in service to power.

      All of this recent history serves to contextualize the infant Tea Party
      as something other than the populist. acephalous movement its boosters
      and the mass media claim it to be. Yes, it’s acephalous, but it has no
      coherent ideological foundation to support it. Hence, rather than truly
      being leaderless, it seems to have been hijacked by a progression of
      self-proclaimed, or media-anointed, leaders and spokespeople. Its short
      history has proven that its mantle is up for grabs, ready to be snatched
      by whoever writes the fattest check.

      Trashing the brand

      Riddled by contradictions, and claimed by adherents of divergent
      political and cultural beliefs, the Tea Party isn’t really a movement at
      all. It’s just another brand projecting itself across the media torrent.
      Like the Nike or Apple brand, it stands ready to serve and market
      whatever product its stamped upon. Unlike running shoes and tank-tops,
      or iPhones and iPads, opposing political ideologies can’t be marketed
      under the same brand.

      Eventually, when the Tea Party starts winning elections, and its diverse
      constituencies realize who they’ve elected, the party will be over. In
      its wake will be a Republican Party split in two, with social
      conservatives on one side and fiscal libertarians on the other.

      Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at
      Buffalo State College. His previous Artvoice columns are available
      globally through syndication and archived at mediastudy.com.

      Dan Clore

      New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
      My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
      Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:

      Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
      in charge on this island?
      Professor: Why, no one.
      Skipper: No one?
      Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
      -- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.