The tea bag folks can do tremendous damage to progressive goals as they pull the opportunistic Republicans and Democrats to the political right.
When they moved from an astroturf invention to an actual mass movement it was a significant event.
When elected officials and politicians began to pander to them, that also was significant.
The role of Fox News and right-wing media cheering them on is also significant.
Here are some snips from some of my recent articles:
===
>>Veteran human rights organizers are pushing back against the inside-the-beltway spin that dismisses the rightwing populists as a marginal lunatic fringe whose only danger is to the electoral fortunes of the Republican Party. They say their communities and constituents are experiencing debilitating effects from the backwash of increasing anger and scapegoating.
>>Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center, says these "rightwing activists are creating a climate of fear in immigrant communities."
>>"Democrats need to start addressing the long-term effects of this rightwing populist upsurge," says McAdam. "A lot of people out here are getting their political education through the tea parties, so even when the tea party movement itself collapses, it will leave behind many new recruits for other rightwing groups."
Taking Tea Partiers Seriously by Chip Berlet Progressive Magazine, February 2010 (not yet online)
===
>>Rev. Dave Ostendorf, Center for New Community:
>>"What I am seeing as I crisscross the country is that we are in a similar period to the 1980s," Ostendorf observes. "There is so much political anger and dissatisfaction, but I sense that it is much broader than what we faced in the 1980s. It crosses economic, class, race, and geographic boundaries. The challenge we face is that populist sentiment can go either way, toward right-wing regressive and potentially racist forms of populism; or toward a more progressive movement. That's the dilemma on the table right now."
Angry Voters, Right-Wing Populism, & Racial Violence: People of Faith Can Help Break the Linkages http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religiousright/2218
===
>>Loretta Ross, Sister Song: "What I see as most dangerous short-term consequence of the Tea Party movement and our discourse on it is it is going to re-legitimate discredited ideas. The racialization of immigration policies, which happened at the turn of the century, the same way racial profiling was re-legitimated during the war on terror--all will be resurrected and legitimized. And that is where we who don't use word fascism lightly think that this country is headed."
Tea Party Rides 'Perfect Storm' of Populist Rage http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6156cc8e4be86fb4777b681aaea58b1b
===
>>We now know that fascism is the most militant and violent form of right-wing populism. Alas, far too many people eschew serious contemporary theories of fascism for ideas found in books like Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism-ideas being embraced by an audience that ironically could build an actual mass base for fascism. Already we see ultra-right and neofascist ideologues in the U.S. trying to organize the right-wing populist movement of Tea Party protesters further to the Right toward aggression and violence. It could happen here, but it probably won't.
>>Most right-wing populist movements never become full blown fascist movements; and most fascist movements fail to gain state power. Yet both movements have historically used demonization and scapegoating woven into conspiracy theories and apocalyptic calls for action "now before it is too late." This creates a dynamic that is toxic to democracy, as the named scapegoats suffer the consequences and are attacked first verbally, then physically. This is what I am hearing as I interview immigrant-rights and anti-racist organizers across the American heartland. There are already too many victims.
The Roots of Liberal Fascism: The Book Berlet reviews Jonah Goldberg http://www.hnn.us/articles/122245.html
-cb
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Max Sawicky Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 12:43 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Fascism, right-wing populism,and contemporary research
I haven't done any of Chip's homework. I commend his research, but that won't stop me from offering my ten cents.
It seems that a non-trivial amount of this discussion has been about definitions. More to the point would be the usefulness of a definition. An historical definition is useful for understanding history. If there is some way of classifying political formations in terms of their potential to trend to historical fascism, or something similar and comparably awful in modern form, that would be useful too.
I think it's a mistake to try to extrapolate a movement's future in terms of some intellectual progression, e.g., fascism is for the state, an anti-state movement cannot become fascist. Nazism included an crypto-anarchist tendency (eventually liquidated).
An anti-state movement might become pro-state-sub-two if they see it as the best way to repudiate the state they think they oppose. I don't see a rich vein of political theory underlying the tea-baggers, more a bundle of political and cultural neuroses. They're looking for a Daddy.
Note that at CPAC many speakers bashed the Republican record, then the mob had a collective orgasm when Dick Cheney showed up.
Teabaggers have shown they can mobilize people, so even absent any left agitation they might still do damage on fledgling signs of progressive mobilization. Some time back, there was the pretty nasty vigilantism directed at strikers in Detroit, and recently you have the disruptions of the health care forums.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Chip Berlet wrote:
>
>> There is no connection to the mass base of the Tea Party movement and the
>> potential for fascism?
>
> I know that ideology exists in a non-simple relationship with material
> interest and political outcomes, but the TPers are fiendishly anti-statist,
> esp central-statist. That's the opposite of fascism, if that word retains
> any meaning. They have a lot in common with long-standing traditions in
> right populism, American style. Was that always potentially fascist, or is
> it just that way now?
>
> I know you love to debunk the hoax Mussolini quote, "Fascism should more
> properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and
> corporate power." But corporate power, in the sense that American populists
> use it, isn't the same as corporatism - and corporatism has a lot to do with
> fascism.
>
> But why does the U.S. need fascism? There's absolutely no serious challenge
> to the existing order coming from the left. Precisely what needs to be
> repressed?
>
>> It is like watching a group of botanists discuss the work of Luigi
>> Pirandello.
>
> What's wrong with that? It might be fun.
>
>> This could be a forum for a serious discussion. I look forward to it
>> starting.
>
> There's nothing non-serious about it. You just don't agree with what's been
> said.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk