At first glance today’s American Tea Party Movement appears to have little if anything in common with pre-Civil War American slavery or the philosophy of White Supremacy that supported it. The Tea Party does not advocate slavery, and they don’t openly espouse overt racism.
Yet I would argue that the ideologies underlying both have so much in common as to be virtually considered two versions of the same thing, operating at different time periods. They are both led by politically powerful and wealthy far right wing interests that use their vast influence and a strategy of divide and conquer to convince a large segment of naïve Americans to aggressively support their far right wing policies, even though doing so is not in their best interests.
SLAVERY AND THE IDEOLOGY OF WHITE SUPREMACY
The impotence of anti-slavery sentiment in pre-Civil War United StatesIn the pre-Civil War days, a small minority of wealthy slave owners exerted so much political power on U.S. government policy that the idea of abolishing slavery was never considered a legitimate part of mainstream political dialogue until a bloody Civil War opened up the opportunity to consider it and act upon it – almost 90 years after the founding of our nation. Many of our Founding Fathers were adamantly against slavery. John Jay, co-author of the
Federalist Papers, and the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,
wrote:
It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.
Patrick Henry wrote: “I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil…. If not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery.”
Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence in June 1776. Though he was a slave owner himself, Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration was very critical of slavery – consistent with other attributes to human rights and decency expressed in that document. But the power of the slavocracy was too great, and they successfully insisted upon revision of about 20% of Jefferson’s original draft – effectively deleting all critical references to slavery.
Because some members of the U.S. House of Representatives (
led by former U.S. president John Quincy Adams) insisted upon making slavery an issue for discussion in Congress, slave owners in the U.S. House pushed through the infamous
“gag rule” in May of 1836, which essentially prohibited slavery as a topic of discussion in the House by specifying that: “Petitions involving slavery would be automatically tabled, without any reference to committee, without any printing, without any member having to make a tabling motion, and without any response”.
Though the “gag rule” was finally repealed in 1844, mainstream politicians still would not dare openly speak about abolishing slavery. The best that mainstream politicians could do was to form the Republican Party, which in 1856 nominated their first presidential candidate, John Fremont, who campaigned largely on a
promise to end slavery in the territories (but not in states where slavery already existed) of the United States.
Fremont finished a strong second to the Democratic nominee, James Buchanan.
Four years later the Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln, who rode anti-slavery sentiment in the North to a landslide electoral victory in a
four candidate race. Though privately Lincoln had
expressed strong anti-slavery sentiments throughout his life, he always limited his
public anti-slavery views to prohibition of the
extension of slavery to American territories – never to the
abolishment of slavery where it already existed. Such was the power of the slavocracy. Even so, Lincoln’s election to the U.S. presidency in 1860 precipitated the secession of the American South from the United States, which led directly to the American Civil War within weeks of Lincoln being sworn in as president.
The end of slaveryIn January 1863, Lincoln’s
Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves residing in parts of the South that were still rebelling against the Union. With the Union victory in early 1865, and the elimination of most slave owners from political power, Congress was able to pass the
13th Amendment to our Constitution in 1865 (which abolished slavery), the
14th Amendment in 1868 (which granted citizenship to and provided basic civil rights for the former slaves) and the
15th Amendment in 1870 (which gave them the right to vote).
What accounted for the power of the slavocracy?How was it that a small minority of wealthy slave owners were able to maintain the institution of slavery in the United States? Southerners constituted a minority of the white voting population in the ante-bellum United States. Only
26% of Southerners owned any slaves at all. And most of those owned only one or two slaves.
But the slavocracy managed to spread the ideology of White Supremacy throughout the South, and it was embraced by the good majority of Southern white men and women. A major psychological process at work in the spread of this doctrine was what is today often referred to as “right wing authoritarianism”. This process was described by the psychologist Bob Altemeyer in his book, “
The Authoritarians”, which describes “right wing authoritarian followers” as being highly submissive to authority figures and willing to attack other people in the name of their authority figures. This is how Altemeyer describes their submission to authority:
Authoritarian followers seem to have a “Daddy and mommy know best” attitude toward the government. They do not see laws as social standards that apply to all. Instead, they appear to think that authorities are above the law, and can decide which laws apply to them and which do not – just as parents can when one is young.
In the slave-owning South the wealthy slave owners were the authority figures – those whom the right wing authoritarian followers looked up to as the voice of authority. The slavocracy justified their ownership of and cruelty towards their slaves essentially by painting them – and all black people – as subhuman. Being subhuman, they were not conceived of as being deserving of the human rights accorded to white people. Though slavery benefited only a minority of Southerners, the slavocracy was able to influence enough non-slave owning, right wing authoritarian followers with their propaganda that they were able to exert vast political power throughout the whole country, until they lost it with their ill-conceived war.
THE U.S. TEA PARTY MOVEMENTToday’s Tea Party primarily advocates reduced government spending, reduced taxation, and reduction of the federal budget deficit. If they see any conflict at all between reduced taxation and a reduction of the federal budget deficit, they don’t say much about it. They also claim to be motivated by strict adherence to an “originalist” view of the Constitution of the United States, though that claim appears to be no more than a rationalization to support their extreme right wing views (more about that later).
Parallels between today’s Tea Party movement and the ideology of White Supremacy in the antebellum South Just as White Supremacy ideology was propagated and led by the slave owning class, today’s Tea Party movement is
led by the American oligarchy – indeed, they are funded by it. Just as slavery did not benefit the good majority of white people in the ante-bellum South, the policies advocated by today’s Tea Party do not benefit the good majority of Tea Party members – rather they operate
against their interests. And as with slavery, the real purpose of the Tea Party movement is to provide economic benefit to a small minority of very rich and powerful people.
Of the three primary goals advocated by the Tea Party movement, as noted above, the one that is of primary importance to the movement is the reduction of taxes. The reduction of government spending is simply the
means used to enable more and more tax reduction. Their focus on the federal budget deficit is simply a vehicle to rationalize reductions in government spending, which is what enables the wealthy to pay less money in taxes. That is why you’ll rarely if ever hear a Tea Party member acknowledge the conflict between massive tax reductions and balancing the federal budget.
More specifically, what is primarily important to the movement’s leaders (and therefore to the movement’s followers as well) is the reduction of taxes
on the wealthy – and anything else that benefits the wealthy. That is why you’ll rarely if ever hear a Tea Party member complain about a tax reduction plan that provides the vast majority of tax relief for the wealthy. That is why, for all their emphasis on reducing social spending, you rarely if ever hear them complain about massive corporate subsidies as a matter of routine federal policy, and why you never hear them complain about deregulating corporations as a means of enhancing corporate domination over the American people. That is why you don’t often hear them complain about the trillions of dollars that we spend on our military. And to the extent that they protest against taxpayer bailouts of irresponsible and wealthy Wall Street banks, that protest is minimal compared to their protest against government assistance to the most vulnerable members of American society. They know where their bread is buttered.
Indeed, their
first national protest, on February 19, 2009, was against a government plan to refinance mortgages for ordinary Americans. Well, they needn’t have worried. William Kuttner, in his book, “
A Presidency in Peril – The Inside Story of Obama’s Promise, Wall Street’s Power, and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future”, contrasted how Obama’s solution to our housing crisis, his so-called “
Making Home Affordable” program, helped Wall Street compared to how it helped ordinary Americans:
The contrast was all too vivid – several trillions in loans and loan guarantees for the banks, and a grudging $3 billion for the homeowners who had been the banks’ victims. As a consequence of the administration’s half measures and failure to move boldly, the mortgage foreclosure crisis is continuing to drive millions of Americans from their homes, depress housing prices… and retard the recovery… Refinancing underwater retail mortgages is comparatively easy. It just requires political will.
Hypocrisy and ignoranceThe slavocracy relied on the myth of White Supremacy to justify their status and agenda. The oligarchy that leads and funds the Tea Party movement today
justifies their agenda to a large extent on their strict adherence to an “originalist” interpretation of our Constitution. That’s why they sometimes refer to themselves as Tea Party “patriots”.
But what does an extreme antipathy to any government action meant to benefit ordinary Americans have to do with an originalist interpretation of our Constitution? The Tea Party is against government efforts to help our most vulnerable Americans obtain health care. They are against public education. They are against government help for Americans who are in danger of losing their homes because of the irresponsible behavior of Wall Street banks. They are against government efforts to help reduce unemployment and promote recovery from the worst economic crisis we’ve experienced since the Great Depression. What is so patriotic about being against all these things? And on what basis do they claim that these views protect our Constitution?
The very first sentence of the U.S. constitution proclaims one of its five purposes to be “to promote the general welfare”. All of those things listed in the above paragraph have the purpose of promoting the general welfare. And indeed, when begun in 1933 as part of FDR’s New Deal, they
greatly ameliorated our economic crisis, set the stage for the
greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history, and created a vibrant middle class. That middle class has been slowly disappearing since the early 1980s, coincident with the ascendance of a somewhat milder version of right wing ideals than is associated with today’s Tea Party movement.
The Tea Party’s deference to our Constitution is just a rationalization to justify their extreme right wing views. Where were they when the many protections provided in our Bill of Rights – freedom of speech, freedom against indefinite detention without due process, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom against cruel and unusual punishment – were under attack?
It is the oligarchy leaders and funders of the Tea Party movement who are the hypocrites. The typical right wing authoritarian follower Tea Party member is usually too naïve or ignorant to qualify for that kind of blatant hypocrisy. An article by Kate Zernike in a
New York Times article
described the general ignorance and gullibility of Tea Partiers:
Nearly three quarters said they would prefer smaller government even if it means spending on domestic programs would be cut. But in follow up interviews, people said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security – the biggest domestic programs – suggesting instead a focus on “waste.” …
Others defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying they had paid into the system, so deserved the benefits. Others could not explain the contradiction.
“I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security,” said Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
The U.S. Tea Party is nothing newThere is nothing new about the Tea Party movement in American history. It is just the latest attempt by the American oligarchy to move our country even further to the right, with the ultimate goal of consolidating their wealth and power. To that end, the well-being of the vast majority of Americans is being sacrificed. The Tea Party is just a cleverly disguised tool for class warfare of the American oligarchy against the American people. As with the defending of the institution of slavery, the Tea Party movement is led by a wealthy oligarchy but relies on an army of naïve and angry right wing authoritarian followers to support their agenda and provide them political power.
The Tea Party was highly successful in their first attempt at electoral politics, in 2010. In the general election of 2010
it is estimated that they won 5 of 10 seats in the U.S. Senate and at least 40 of 130 seats (31%) in the U.S. House. Keep in mind that in many of those races they first had to defeat more moderate Republicans in the Republican primary. Thus the victory of so many Tea Party candidates essentially moved our Congress far to the right of the previous Congress. What explains their sudden success?
In addition to massive funding from the American oligarchy, the ongoing erosion of our democracy played a large role in the Tea Party’s successes in 2010, and threatens to play a continuing large role in future elections. Though we still have the appearance of a democracy, that appearance is misleading. A society in which it is standard practice – and legal – for the wealthy to send lobbyists to their nation’s capital, loaded with cash, to “influence” elected public officials to do their bidding, cannot be considered a democracy in anything but name. As the wealth gap in our country
reaches new highs a vicious cycle is created whereby the wealthy are able to purchase more and more legislative favors and put more candidates into office, thereby increasing the wealth gap even more. Our understanding of this process and its consequences is obstructed by the constant barrage of propaganda from our corporate controlled communications media, as well as our own human fallibilities, especially the natural human tendency to believe what we want to believe. Government and wealthy corporate interests are tied together so tightly in a web of interdependency facilitated by a
constantly revolving door, that in many respects they have become indistinguishable. And they have large and increasing control of our election systems. These are the roots of the corrupt plutocracy that we in the United States live under today.
Thus it is that even with the widespread outcry of Americans (
including even Tea Partiers) against the latest Republican plan in Congress to destroy Medicare, small contributions from large numbers of Americans of modest means are needed to offset the massive wealth of the oligarchy in order to win
a special election for a U.S. House seat in New York. Even if this effort is successful, how is that effort going to be sustained in 2012, when 435 House seats, 33 Senate seats and the presidency will be up for grabs at the same time?
This situation will not change until the influence of money in American politics is substantially diminished – either by criminalizing its use for that purpose (i.e. defining it as bribery) or by finding a way to win elections without much money.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
