by AndrewMc | 4/15/2009 08:01:00 AM
Today is the day that millions upon millions of Americans will spill into the streets, follow the throng down to the local street corner, drop an envelope in a box, and file their tax returns. Well, except for those who filed online, I suppose.
Some smaller subset of Americans will also gather to hold what they are calling modern-day tea parties.
I'll refrain from making crass sexual innuendo (I will, seriously.), and I will refrain from pointing out the pseudo-spontaneous nature of these protests.
I'm not going to get into how this is really not a populist movement, but rather something being fed and promoted by the GOP, and the same people who screwed the country for the past eight years. And I won't point out that despite what Republican mouthpieces say, populist organizing isn't new (except maybe to them).
I'll not mention the nascent racism of the movement, or how most Americans aren't much bothered by their current tax burden. I'll also steer clear of pointing out the crass hypocrisy of Republicans protesting government spending.
After all, it's not OK to make fun of crazy people (free subscription required).
I won't do all that because it's all been done, quite competently.
So, what's left?
Well, there are some historical parallels. After all, the original Boston Tea Party wasn't exactly spontaneous. It was prompted by a group of elites angry at being out of power in the then-colonial structure. In particular the Tea Act was intended to drive smugglers out of business, and those smugglers were New England elites. So, in some ways the corporate masters pimping the modern "tea protests" aren't much removed from the smugglers of the 18th century.
A colleague, perhaps given to hyperbole--perhaps not--said to me the other day that the new far-right movement reminded him of the Nazis. Bracing myself for a weak "them damn fascists" kind of thing, I was surprised at his comparison, which harkened back to the early 1930s. In the early days both were regarded as kind of nutty, they only appealed to a small portion of the population, and both had the backing of some wealthy patrons. They also controlled some portions of the media. Like any analogy it has its limitations, of course, but let's remember that we cannot dismiss the current tea party as not having historical precedent whatsoever. Only time will tell what that precedent is, though.
Some smaller subset of Americans will also gather to hold what they are calling modern-day tea parties.
I'll refrain from making crass sexual innuendo (I will, seriously.), and I will refrain from pointing out the pseudo-spontaneous nature of these protests.
I'm not going to get into how this is really not a populist movement, but rather something being fed and promoted by the GOP, and the same people who screwed the country for the past eight years. And I won't point out that despite what Republican mouthpieces say, populist organizing isn't new (except maybe to them).
I'll not mention the nascent racism of the movement, or how most Americans aren't much bothered by their current tax burden. I'll also steer clear of pointing out the crass hypocrisy of Republicans protesting government spending.
After all, it's not OK to make fun of crazy people (free subscription required).
I won't do all that because it's all been done, quite competently.
So, what's left?
Well, there are some historical parallels. After all, the original Boston Tea Party wasn't exactly spontaneous. It was prompted by a group of elites angry at being out of power in the then-colonial structure. In particular the Tea Act was intended to drive smugglers out of business, and those smugglers were New England elites. So, in some ways the corporate masters pimping the modern "tea protests" aren't much removed from the smugglers of the 18th century.
A colleague, perhaps given to hyperbole--perhaps not--said to me the other day that the new far-right movement reminded him of the Nazis. Bracing myself for a weak "them damn fascists" kind of thing, I was surprised at his comparison, which harkened back to the early 1930s. In the early days both were regarded as kind of nutty, they only appealed to a small portion of the population, and both had the backing of some wealthy patrons. They also controlled some portions of the media. Like any analogy it has its limitations, of course, but let's remember that we cannot dismiss the current tea party as not having historical precedent whatsoever. Only time will tell what that precedent is, though.
