The Tea Party Vs. The Anti-Iraq War Crowd
A few years ago, I remember reading a post on Daily Kos where kos himself was talking about activism, protesting and opposition to the Iraq War. If I recall correctly, it was during the time when Cindy Sheehan made a splash for wanting to know "what noble cause" her son died for, and much like Michael Moore's ill-fated quest to talk to the CEO of GM, Sheehan wanted to ask this question of then-President George W. Bush.
Anyway, kos pretty much concluded that the old-fashion protesting (of the 60's and 70's) doesn't have the impact it once did, and a new formula is needed. It was hard to disagree with him at the time; after all, netroots organizing was gaining steam and the media barely covered Sheehan after five or six months (although she did find a home at Moore's site).
(I should mention that early on, Sheehan and those who started to follow her represented two simultaneous groups: people who opposed the Iraq War and people who disliked Bush's policies. Sheehan had done what many -including elected Democrats- could do: put a face to the opposition.)
Naturally Sheehan's presence meant the Rush Limbaughs and Fox News of the world had to attack her as a nut or a camera-obsessed wannabe celebrity or both. Sheehan's personal life suffered, but her resolve allowed her to press on. It wasn't until she decided to run against Nancy Pelosi that some Democrats and progressives started to shake their heads.
I mention this because now with Barack Obama in office, the right has their own version of the Sheehan-led crusade (or they would, if it wasn't backed by ex-GOP operatives): The Tea Party. they are essentially made up of people who oppose the current President and/or his policies. The difference is that there's no Cindy Sheehan; no individual to identify the group.
In a sense, it may explain their longevity, despite their list of political failures. In Sheehan's case, the cause could be killed or silenced if she was out of the picture. With the Tea Party, their are so many factions and off-shoots, you can't tie every flub and fuck-up to the brand; they'll just chalk it up as the actions of "rogue operatives" or "liberal infiltrators" trying to derail their good work.
Another possible explanation could be the subject itself: as the new outlets decided to report on the war less and less, the figures personifying various points of view found their roles diminished. On the other hand, a crappy economy and high unemployment is harder to gloss over because it happening here and not on another continent. And as long as the Tea Party uses the simple and flawed formula of "Bad Economy + High Unemployment = Obama's Policies" then they'll be considered newsworthy.
Still, going back to my first paragraph, it doesn't fit with kos' statement: by all accounts, the feeling back then was that old-fashioned protests were "out of style" and giving way to a more tech-savvy way of forming opposition. It wasn't long ago that conservatives thought that they could use Twitter to make a political comeback, afterall. If this is all still true, what has really been keeping the Tea Party, who are also doing the old-fashion protesting thing, alive?
Anyway, kos pretty much concluded that the old-fashion protesting (of the 60's and 70's) doesn't have the impact it once did, and a new formula is needed. It was hard to disagree with him at the time; after all, netroots organizing was gaining steam and the media barely covered Sheehan after five or six months (although she did find a home at Moore's site).
(I should mention that early on, Sheehan and those who started to follow her represented two simultaneous groups: people who opposed the Iraq War and people who disliked Bush's policies. Sheehan had done what many -including elected Democrats- could do: put a face to the opposition.)
Naturally Sheehan's presence meant the Rush Limbaughs and Fox News of the world had to attack her as a nut or a camera-obsessed wannabe celebrity or both. Sheehan's personal life suffered, but her resolve allowed her to press on. It wasn't until she decided to run against Nancy Pelosi that some Democrats and progressives started to shake their heads.
I mention this because now with Barack Obama in office, the right has their own version of the Sheehan-led crusade (or they would, if it wasn't backed by ex-GOP operatives): The Tea Party. they are essentially made up of people who oppose the current President and/or his policies. The difference is that there's no Cindy Sheehan; no individual to identify the group.
In a sense, it may explain their longevity, despite their list of political failures. In Sheehan's case, the cause could be killed or silenced if she was out of the picture. With the Tea Party, their are so many factions and off-shoots, you can't tie every flub and fuck-up to the brand; they'll just chalk it up as the actions of "rogue operatives" or "liberal infiltrators" trying to derail their good work.
Another possible explanation could be the subject itself: as the new outlets decided to report on the war less and less, the figures personifying various points of view found their roles diminished. On the other hand, a crappy economy and high unemployment is harder to gloss over because it happening here and not on another continent. And as long as the Tea Party uses the simple and flawed formula of "Bad Economy + High Unemployment = Obama's Policies" then they'll be considered newsworthy.
Still, going back to my first paragraph, it doesn't fit with kos' statement: by all accounts, the feeling back then was that old-fashioned protests were "out of style" and giving way to a more tech-savvy way of forming opposition. It wasn't long ago that conservatives thought that they could use Twitter to make a political comeback, afterall. If this is all still true, what has really been keeping the Tea Party, who are also doing the old-fashion protesting thing, alive?
Comments