We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Friday, September 17, 2010

The misguided reaction to Tea Party candidates

by Glenn Greenwald from Salon

This liberal blogger tries to explain the hostile reaction from conservative members of the US ruling class to the Tea Party winner, Christine O'Donnell, in the recent Republican Party primary election in Delaware over an establishment Republican candidate, and some rumblings about Sarah Palin.  

Greenwald argues that classism is the source of this reaction by the ruling conservative elite.
...these Tea Party candidates differ not in their views but in their untrained, unsophisticated style of expressing those views.  They just haven't been groomed yet to comport themselves with Ruling Class mannerisms, which is what is causing most of the consternation. 
No doubt this does contribute some to the hostile reactions, but I believe that there is a much bigger factor operating here. As I have argued before (see this and this), and citing the article in the New Yorker as evidence, the ruling class has created the latest right-wing attack dogs in the forms of the Tea Party and Fox News; but there is concern now among the ruling class that the beasts are a little too wild and need to be "brought to heel" in order to better serve their class rule. Thus, as I wrote in Part 2:
I was initially quite surprised by this magazine's exposé of the right-wing in the US because the latter have been operating this way for several decades without a peep from any establishment sources.

But after further reflection, I offered the explanation posted in yesterday's article review which essentially argued that the liberal-wing of the ruling class and the more established capitalist class as a whole are concerned about the growing power and influence of the right-wing. (One must not equate the liberal-wing and the right-wing with Democrats and Republicans--the latter are pretty much inter-changeable.)

As seen by the mainstream of the ruling class, the growing influence of the right-wing over the citizenry represents reckless political behavior given the current delicate condition of the economy and the treasury-draining, never-ending wars in the Middle East. Thus I see this article in a leading ruling class publication as a call to opinion shapers and decision makers within the US to put the brakes on what they see as dangerous right-wing activities that could be destabilizing for capitalist rule.
Thus, what you see now is that the politicos are answering that call to restrain the right-wing dogs in order to avoid provoking a militant class war from below. They much prefer the more subtle, sophisticated, and hidden class warfare from above. Right now they are happy with the charming pseudo-populist in the White House to divert attention away from their attacks on working people. Of course, they want to keep the attack dogs, but on a shorter leash until such time as they really need to use them.