New York Times reporter Matt Bai had a long piece Sunday (10/31/10)that argued that Tea Partiers are really the right-wing version of Bush-era MoveOn activists and bloggers (the “netroots”). Bai writes of “the larger forces that unify many self-styled activists on both the left and right,” and suggests that “the recent uprisings on both ends of the ideological spectrum shouldn’t be viewed as opposing trends, but rather as points on the same cultural continuum.”
The only way topull this offwith a straight face is to decide that political beliefs that motivate both groups are not worth inspecting or critiquing. Thus activists who coalesced aroundopposing the war in Iraq are basically no different than Tea Party activists who believe Barack Obama is a socialist. (As the Tea Party activistBai profiles puts it: “He’s a socialist…. There’s no question. He’s a statist.”)
In a more rational media system, one would point out that one group was motivated by an actual policy decision–one that killed hundreds of thousands of people and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The other group believes Barack Obama adheres to a political philosophy that he most certainly does not.
The ability to see these two political movements as being roughly comparable requires the suspension of critical judgment–an example of media “false balance” of the most extreme variety. At one point Bai writes: “Ideology, of course, presents an unbridgeable chasm between the progressives and Tea Partiers.” So does reality. Journalism that seeks to muddy up this inescapable truthdoes a great disservice.
the ed luce piece in the weekend FT drove me mad
I thought Tom Tomorrow did a good job of explaining the differences between MoveOn and the Tea Party, using Goofus and Gallant from Highlights for Children:
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2009/09/08/tomo/index.html
Of course Obama’s not a socialist. His biggest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs — not exactly a bunch of socialists, eh?
More importantly, if Obama was a socialist, he would never have been elected. Why? Because socialists stand for replacing corporate control of the government and economy with control by we the people.
So, if I thought for a second that Obama was a socialist, maybe I could actually support him. As it is, he’s simply doing Bush’s job better than Bush did: presiding over the American corporate empire. (If you didn’t know that already, you need to look at William Blum’s website, which documents the history of America’s “adventures” abroad since 1945.)
I think you are quite wrong when you say MoveOn has opposed the war in Iraq. On the contrary, it seems to me they have not really distinguished themselves from the Democratic party’s own position on the Iraq war.
In this respect, I think the comparison the NY Times makes between MoveOn and the Tea Party is a good one. MoveOn people are basically Democrats, and Tea Partiers are basically Republicans, and neither of two “mini-movements” (as the article calls them) is trying to change the system in a fundamental way.
The Tea Party coalesced around the bank bailouts. It was inspired by a rant from a commentator on CNBC. MoveOn was originally the Clinton supporters who were campaigning against impeachment, not the Iraq War. Both have morphed into broader Left/Right activism (i.e. Bush is a fascist, Obama is a socialist rhetoric) You’d think FAIR could get their facts straight on relatively recent groups like this, especially due to their media relevance…
to:A.Marxist – you’re so right – all politians are owned by the contributions they accept from big corporate money. They always have. Before all this tea party vs. move on movement, we have had lobbyists. Lobbyists are paid by big corporate to “lobby” on behalf of their employer – big business. Everyone talks about getting the politicians out, and start over with new people, but that will never happen as long as corporate greed has their hands in this. The only way we can keep the dialog open and work towards the goals of the local people, not corporate interest. It will be an uphill battle, but one that must be adressed constantly. Now with instant access on the internet, it makes it easier to see where and how these politicians are going. Imagine only twenty years ago, all the back-room deals we never knew about? Well, keep up the good work and keep track of what’s going on.
MOVEon sold out the progressives after the primaries (hell most progressives sold themselves out if they continued to support Obama and not Nader). Later they supported the CorporateCare we “still” have. Well, I mean that everyone else has. For myself I thought they folded quite nicely into the current Democratic political fabric. I have no more use for them than I do the Tea Party morons.
Look we have a perfect opportunity to re-start the medicare for all movement here. We actually have a perfect opportunity to do a lot of things. Maybe even stop these damn wars! With “Boner” in the House Hot-Seat, all we have to do is get Congress on TV (Maybe Keith could do that once we get him re-hired?). The people might once and for all see what has really been going on there daily by the “right’s” obstructionists.
But unfortunately we have only the Democrats as a counter-weight, and they have their collective heads up the corporate arse too…
Only a grassroots movement led not by corporate front groups , but by individuals and perhaps some progressive news outlets (who should quit with the NPR BS)?
Whatever we do it won’t, can’t be “by the book”. Whatever we do has to be something that motivates people. ALL PEOPLE. Not just the Middle Class and the rich, but the poor as well. Theirs are the real stake in this country. Theirs is where freedom and social justice is most tenuous and fragile.
I fine the main difference as being what you support; freedom, social justice and stable economic or instant fix, what’s in it for me and free market. The problems we have today took a long time to get here and will not be solved over night. We as a country have outsource / privatized not only our jobs, intelligence, security and our economy to other counties, we as a nation have also out source our election.
The free market as no rules, regulation or loyalty. Itself regulates, that is why ENRON, World-Com, the financial market and the US government have problems. Demand for goods and services start at the bottom, not the top. Average people employ other people everyday, including business, how ever they may be able to pay them.
We elect people and then only pay attention to our elected official every two or four years.
Lobbyist and corporation are there everyday.
I would like to think Move-on, fair, NPR, etc are there everyday and support freedom, social justice and stable economy.
Peter Hart,
I think you may have missed Matt Bai’s point. If you put the tea party and moveon.org folks on a purely cultural contiuum, with people who are politically active at one end and people who aren’t involved at all at the other, clearly both groups would lie at the active end.
Paul
No, Paul, you missed the point. Entirely. This isn’t the first time Matt Bai said something stupid, and it won’t be the last. It’s the old “equivalency” trope, trotted out again, to avoid any hard look at the motives and actions of a group that one is afraid to examine except in the most superficial way. “Cultural Continuum?” Please–that’s rank bullshit.
P.S.: Thanks for that Tom Tomorrow link, Jim. He’s right on (and very funny) as usual.
Jon Stewart also uses false equivalency, comparing MSNBC to Fox News, and attacking Keith Olbermann for being divisive. This is ludicrous. MSNBC’s evening progressive line-up, though sometimes over the top, is based on facts, while Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republican corporate elites. Is MSNBC trying to do a Phil Donahue on Olbermann, in order to close its pending deal with Comcast?
Why is the tea party so hard for people to grasp?Simple American values built around the constitution, and personal freedoms,with a clear understanding of this governments overstep of its constitutional powers.Come home to the constitution and the tea party vanishes.It is the correct movement to hamper, and stop, a government run amuck.The left and the right live in bed with so many special interests that it is hard to get a grasp. Their values shift like the sand.So far…so far the tea party has not changed its values to some moral equivalency.
From what I’ve seen, the Tea Party are nothing more than the water carriers of corporate interests backed by corporate money. They will ONLY stand up against liberal governments, never conservatives ones. The same tea party members that claim to stand up for personal freedoms now were silent or arguing on the side of the government when it comes to torture, Guantanamo, bombing civilians and tapping phone lines of U.S. citizens without a warrant.