Great article Mike! A movement must move in lockstep, with no variation in opinions amidst its members. And a movement must not let anyone speak for it (although the obvious question that comes to mind is: who would have the authority to stop someone who did?)
Oh, and both Critical Mass and Rainbow Family are great examples of REAL and AUTHENTIC movements! How did you arrive at those two so quickly? I think you do a great job of pointing out that, for something to be a movement, it must be both completely ineffectual and totally marginal. I mean, obviously there would be no distortion and co-optation of either of these REAL movements if their members were making significant impacts on the state and national political makeup. But either way, they’re not.
Let's not forget that hypocrite Carl Paladino too, right? Can you believe he has political opinions about shrinking government when he, himself, has done business with the government? I bet he has a driver's license and uses public streets too. What an asshole!
And thanks for having the gall to observe the ugliness that the mainstream media is so eager to shy away from, namely those "speaking the language of white supremacy". I'm not sure if this article is a first draft or if you have a follow-up article to explain this charge in more detail and to name specific names, but I'm sure you have got good solid evidence that there is a whole faction of the Tea Party that is essentially dissimilar from the KKK. Can't wait to see it!
Also, great job pointing out the presence of private money being used in support of the Tea Party. It's important for people to know that all movements must share key characteristics and positions with anti-consumerist leftist movements like, well, the Rainbow Family and Critical Mass, in order to be legitimate. It doesn't really matter that an integral thread of the Tea Party is full-throated support of free enterprise. What matters is that the Tea Party must be understood through the undeniably correct Marxist worldview that all private money transforms any ideology into one that preserves bourgeois social order. Duh! Stupid tea baggers!
And finally, thanks for leaving out the obvious conclusion to be drawn from your article. I mean, if the Tea Party isn’t really a movement, then we would just have to face the fact that a large number of Americans are simply dissatisfied with the current ruling political party. That would be tough to explain wouldn’t it? I mean, we all know that the GOP sucks, but why would people overwhelmingly reject the Democrats in fewer than 2 years from them taking control of both the legislative and executive branch? People must simply be uninformed. Or stupid. Or bigots.
I don’t know. I’m sure you’ll think of something.
Next story: The Top 10 [Censored] Stories of 2009-2010
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 primaries.
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.
Leaderless
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 supremacy.
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.
Reader Comments (posting new comments is closed!)
|
Dan R 30 Sep 2010, 08:10
Jeff in Cleveland 01 Oct 2010, 07:05
Dear Dr. Niman, Please notice Dan in the letter below your column as he is a member of your illuminated audience that cherishes such a sad piece. Dan states "Tea Party faction essentially dissimilar to the KKK", "stupid tea baggers", "uninformed, stupid, bigots". That's what he got out of this piece? I do cringe at news reports from some Tea Party gatherings over nasty posters and rants. I think it's embarrassing as an American. On the other hand trying to represent these fringe antics as the sum of the Tea Party is a dangerous mistake in the calculation of your enemy. The Boston Tea Party took place over extreme taxation by the British Parliament in 1773. The Tea Party movement protests over high taxes and big government. They don't want President Obama, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi. I object to your saying the Tea Party does not stand for anything.
Peter A Reese 01 Oct 2010, 08:07
Let me take this opportunity to attack you personally and professionally as the insidious Islamo-Socialist purveyor of Sharia Law which you are. Having gotten that off my chest, you make an interesting point. Without any ideologic concensus, the Tea Party is whatever you want it to be. One size fits all, a name in search of a landing place. Reminds me of the old joke about the definition of Unitarianism: You can believe in anything you want, as long as you are not sincere. Also interesting to note that there is only one Tea Party candidate in NYS, Dave DiPietro in SS-59. Paladino chose to run under the Taxpayer banner, a brand preferred by Steve Pigeon and his devotees.
Turin 01 Oct 2010, 18:30
Most so-called movements, these days, aren't really movements. They are trademark-dominated fads whose only purpose is to generate grist for the mill of consumerism. A true capitalist society would not depend on manufactured populism as either a way to sell its products, or as a redundant thermometer for them. That is probably the best explanation as to why Paladino is just another punchy third-party vote-stealer, like Ross Perot, who made his fortune by doing business with the government. OTOH, something "organic", as Niman and his ilk use the term, simply means *trash*. If you aren't, essentially, anarchist, yourself, with a deep disdain for conventional knowledge and (especially) for formal education, then, you really can't be organic. For example, let's look at the Lexington Co-op on Elmwood Ave. Your typical liberal would probably be quick to cite this organization as organic. But, Is it? Or, Is it just another Ben & Jerry's Icecream? Where's the dividing line between corporate and populist? Sure, Lexington Co-op has pleasant ambiance with it's soft, darker interior - unlike the harsh, brighter interior of Tops. But, then, so does Wegmans. Is Wegmans organic, too? Does the fact that it traces it's roots to locality and family make Wegmans organic? I wouldn't say so. LC's merchandise certainly seems organic, in nature - barring any fact checking into the suppliers. I think it's pretty cool that if I pay for a membership, for the discounts, then they will refund that to me if I move. But, Does that make it organic? What about it's location on the trendy, college Elmwood strip? Is that more of an organic endorsement or would it be more of a commercial endorsement? Perhaps, a better question to ask is whether, or not, in LC's wake, another co-op would form to fill the void? If so, then, Why aren't there more of them in Buffalo? Why only in a specific kind of retail area that cynical target-marketing would easily designate as being a perfect spot for such an enterprise, with liberal college kids, typically more "flush" with money than others immediately entering the work force after high school? I don't see it happening. I've heard of some crappy little co-op kinds of enterprises - or farming projects - starting up on the east side, but, I doubt that they went anywhere. Obviously, in this society, that which is "organic" requires some type of corporate sponsor in order to survive ...if not, to initiate it. That qualifies as being acephalous, but, How organic is it? Or, if it is a question of *degree*, then, How acephalous can something be while still being organic? I agree that these tea parties are bad jokes, and circus publicity, designed to allow for the venting of the trash with money who can only inchoately feel that they are being manipulated by the powers that be. But, I think that this idea of being "organic" needs more clarification. I would call LC organic, only by virtue of - at least, some - of its products. But, What about it's business structure? And, What about its customers? Even if I were hostile to all of their aims, I would still shop there for the products. Probably, so would plenty of others in the area. If we don't share the same common ideology, then, Does this organic storefront represent a movement of shared values? Or, Is it just another kind of namebrand for anyone? And, While it's true that this can easily result in the split of the Republican party, the "organic" Democrats aren't all that monolithic, either. So, What will you get? The Democrats who turned Republican because of racial issues, will still keep voting Republican. They will keep staging their empty protests; which, will remain empty because their talk radio leaders have - from the beginning - made it foundational that their listeners should be hostile to all expressions of populism and people movements. The jerks have been held in check since the early 90s. All they've wanted, all along, was a movement that would start moving, in some way, while their icons have been laughing all the way to the bank ....Lmao.
Brad Froman 04 Oct 2010, 08:51
It is obvious which side of the Tea Party fence Mr. Nimon is on. In our lifetime, we've never seen such a huge number of the people of this country express their outrage in such a spontaneous, unorganized way. Most of these people have never gotten involved in politics before, but are rising up and speaking out against an overreach of their government and demanding that it not continue. Mr. Nimon, can you name one movement, that was not a political party, in the last 75 years that has been able to effectively get as many candidates elected, or through a primary, as the Tea Party? They have made an impact on America and have establishment politicians shaking in their shoes. It is okay to dismiss them as unorganized and leaderless. They could care less. But to deride them and write them off as crazy like you do is to ignore the powerful force they have been at the polls -- and will continue to be in the upcoming election, at least. They may never organize as a party, but you have to admit that because you and every other elite, pundit, and political groupie out there has been making fun of them for as long as you have, they have, and are, making a difference in the direction of this country.
Jason 04 Oct 2010, 14:15
Is it better to have a coherent Ideology, instead of a varying one based on central principles? In other words, must we all agree 100% in order to form a political movement? I think it's sad that the lock-step mentality is being pushed by this reporter. Either side of the spectrum, as long as you all agree, eh? If you agree with the core beliefs of reducing government, then the tea party is the ONLY viable choice. Conservatives want to expand government for warfare, and Liberals want to expand it for welfare. Both are mindless options which have been shown to destroy economies (and both kill people, too - look at the soviet union). Paladino isn't perfect, but the alternative is much worse. Where is the attack piece for Cuomo? Oh yeah, it's artvoice, they must know best who should be in charge. /s p.s. Ron Paul is the true voice of the Tea Party, but I guess Santelli was easier to smear than a veteran, M.D., Author, Father, Congressman...etc.
Turin 05 Oct 2010, 05:22
Niman definitely gets some credit for having this one right. Look at the feathers flying, here, over this big non-issue. The tea party isn't any more real, or relevant, than the plot of an anime flick. It's not even an actual "party", per se. They're stuck borrowing that from the semantics of the slogans. They can't even get *that* organized. ...As usual, the un/half-educated idiots of the suburban middleclass cannot tell reality from fantasy in those issues nearest and dearest to their hearts. Lmao.
Dan R 05 Oct 2010, 08:12
I don’t think that’s quite it. It is true that Niman has stirred the pot on this Tea Party thing, but I think that is mostly because the essence of his article is trying to define the movement, party, whatever-it-is, out of existence. Niman’s point seems to be, “I know what a movement is, and this ain’t no movement. Therefore it must be nothing.” But that conclusion does not follow. If Mike believes that the positions held by the massive ground swelling called the “Tea Party” are incoherent, incorrect, or the product of misinformation, then fine. But Mike is going one step further and trying to argue that, because Paladino did business with the state, and because the Koch brothers would stand to materially gain from a particular projection of the tea party’s ideological stance, and because various political leaders and pundits have attempted to co-opt the passion behind the protests, etc. etc. that somehow nothing is really happening and we should all look the other way. This point is best observed in his conclusion. After digging a hole by attempting to explain that the Tea Party is merely fancy, he is stuck with the empirically obvious fact that it isn’t. The way around this contradiction: Branding. What’s great about “branding” is that it solves everything and nothing at the same time. Niman employs it here as a meaningless trope to signal to all the college kids and EV hipsters out there that, by using that language of corporate marketing, they should drop their intellectual guard and deploy the “corporations = bad” understanding of the world to yet another phenomenon. The issue raised by introducing the notion of a brand to the discussion is meaty and could have been an article unto itself, but Mike wants no part of that. Instead of asking, what is it that makes a brand (for example, why can’t we say that Critical Mass or Rainbow Family are brands?), he is perfectly content to use it as a vehicle in the following formulation: “Movements are good. Brands are bad. Tea Party is not a Movement. Therefore, Tea party is a Brand, and, hence, is bad.”
Turin 05 Oct 2010, 16:58
I wish that, before he died, Einstein had worked out another equation. One, that could give us the critical mass for converting centrism back into it's true form of psychological bullshit. The amount of energy released would, no doubt, be best measured in dollar signs. The amount of work done, in government jobs and contracts. Niman's observation is that the head wasn't grown by the body. It was vice-versa. It doesn't represent the body's interests, but has its own interests. Therefore, it is not representative. It is dictatorial. It is also the tail wagging the dog. The movement is baloney. Its constituents are the same easily-lead morons whoring their votes, in every election, to whichever John-politicians do the best jobs programming them to respond to corporate interests. It is the trash vote. Whatever power the trash vote may have, it should not be confused with that of genuine thinking, functioning and self-determining citizens ...nor, respected as such. Or, at all.
Jeff from Cleveland 06 Oct 2010, 07:15
Getting back to reality, I would suppose Jon Stewart's rally in D.C. would have to be a similar thing as discussed here. Just substitute "Jon Stewart's Rally" where you see the words "Tea Party" and all the assigned name calling done here is a perfect fit. I think the self described educated ones have totally outdone themselves. That's laughable!
Turin 06 Oct 2010, 08:44
Lmao ...you have to love it when one braindead centrist debunks another.
Joe 06 Oct 2010, 11:21
I am intrigued by Mike's foretelling of the impending schism between social conservatives and fiscal libertarians; a schism that threatens to balkanize and dilute the Republican Party's power base. While I suspect this may come to fruition, it hasn't yet. In fact, this schism was supposedly in the making in 2004, when social, fiscal, and military conservatives were all purportedly 'united' behind GW Bush. But a singularly defined opponent (John Kerry and gays then, 'big government' and cultural elites now) can serve as a lightning rod that effectively unites disparate ideologues who, despite their differences, see themselves as part of a common cause. In the age of negative politicking, it's not so much what you are for, but what you are against. Certainly the current schism between moderate REpublicans and Tea Party extremists is a more stark division than that of 2004. Still, the Democrats have proven themselves to be remarkably inept at defending themselves by launching a counteroffensive that defines a common set of mainstream values aimed at a broad swath of the electorate, and that portrays the Tea Party as a threat to those values and the social fabric upon which they rest. And if the Democrats are unsuccessful in warding off these challenges, they will find themselves right back where they were in 2004 and 2006, outflanked and outmaneuvered in the war-of-position to define themselves as the populist party of 'the people.' The moment of truth is near....11/2/10 will serve as a benchmark for how we delineate between the public and the private, the local and state and national, the people and the government, individual consumers and market forces, 'our' values and 'their' values, and the mainstream and the extreme.
Dalton Trumbo 06 Oct 2010, 21:11
Thought provoking article, Dr. Niman. However, you included one glaring error. The "Tea Party" does not have a birthday. Ron Paul supporters and Libertarians were having "Tea Parties" prior to the 2008 primaries. They rallied against the corruption and corporate whoring of both the Democrats and Republicans. Repub leaders saw the way the winds were blowing and subverted the movement. Now, the Tea Party is just another wing of Fox News and the Republican neocon douche-baggers. You're a smart guy, Dr. Niman - thought you'd know that!
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v9n39 (Week of Thursday, September 30) > The Tea Party(TM) Brand This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |