On 2010-10-27, at 11:18 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Michael Lind is right on the target. "Tea party" just a marketing
> gimmick to re-brand the Repug party after its dismal performance under
> Bush jr. But as Lind aptly observes - it is the same old Repug shit
> wrapped in a different paper.
>
> If this re-branding will produce a balance of power shift in November
> - it will be mainly because it will encourage the repug supporters to
> vote, while the dem supporters will be more likely to stay home,
> discouraged by two years of truly dismal performance of the dem party.
>
> But as Thomas Frank aptly observed in "What is the Matter with Kansas"
> - this whole repug mobilization is just a storm in a tea cup - pure
> posturing to mobilize voters that will have zero impact on what this
> "movement" is promising to accomplish. They made a lot of promises to
> end abortion but accomplished nothing. Likewise, they make a lot of
> promises to reverse the health care "reform" but they will accomplish
> nothing - mainly because what Obama administration implemented was
> originally a repug own plan. And if the tea/repug party activists
> feel betrayed - they will have to live with it. It is not the first
> and not the last time time.
>
> In sum, the upcoming November circus will produce no change in the
> policy course. It is a pure professional wrestling game - posturing
> that has zero impact on everyday life. It does not matter who wins -
> as it has not since the election of FDR.
I agree with your comments, except for your last sentance. Both parties jointly administer the capitalist system, so your statement is correct so far as it goes. For many US leftists who want to see the system replaced, that is as far as it needs to go. But this is a narrow and simplistic view of US politics.
For most Americans past and present, the issue has never been the overthrow of capitalism but its reform, over which there have been very substantial and often violent disagreements between the classes, and where it has mattered which party won. Even in periods like the present, who governs still matters to Americans on both sides because there remain differences between the parties over levels of social spending and taxation, intervention in the economy, and the rights of trade unions, national minorities, women, and other disadvantaged groups which bear directly on their interests. The differences have narrowed, but that is because there are no active reform movements from below to counter the pressures on the Democratic leadership emanating from Wall Street. The reasons why this is so go deeper than the one most commonly offered on the left: that, for various reasons, it has been unable to reach the masses to "explain" why the system should be overthrown. But that is the subject for another post.
Meanwhile, from a Bloomberg poll released today:
"Republicans are seeing their strongest support among men, senior citizens and those with incomes of more than $100,000. Democrats have their strongest support among many of the same groups that helped Obama win in 2008: younger voters, women, those with incomes below $25,000 and non-whites."