After
more than forty years in power, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie
faced the imminent overthrow of his autocracy.1
Rebellion had spread throughout the country and engulfed the Royal
Palace. At the height of this unprecedented wave of defiance, the
Emperor's response was also exceptional. When he learned of the
conspiracy against him, the Emperor didn't order the usual brutal
crackdown. He simply nodded and remained silent.2
Opposition
forces began arresting Selassie's servants from the Palace. “Whenever
they arrested someone, they immediately announced that they had done
so in the name of the Emperor, and right away they would
emphasize their loyalty to His Majesty.”3
The Emperor would thank them for their service, praise their loyalty,
and defend them against those who questioned their allegiance.4
The
emperor craved control. As a former servant said, “His Venerable
Majesty wanted to rule over everything. Even if there was a
rebellion, he wanted to rule over the rebellion, to command a mutiny,
even if it was directed against his own reign.”5
He acted as if he,
not the opposition forces, were making the decisions. He knew his
time was up. Behind a veneer of strength, Selassie capitulated to the
opposition's every demand until his Palace was empty and he was
imprisoned.
In
modern American politics, an analogous fight for control by the
powerless is being waged by the lower classes within the Tea Party
movement. While there are certainly many differences between a dying
autocratic regime and a segment of a burgeoning right-wing political
group, they share a common nexus. Both have, in the face of growing
desperation and impotence, supported the motives of groups with
antithetical interests in order to hold on to some semblance of
power.
The
Tea Party has emerged as a formidable political force in the U.S. The
movement espouses the ideas of the far-right, mixing Friedman
economics, Christian fundamentalism and conspiracy theories into an
ostensibly cohesive platform. But its primary issues involve the
economy and the role of government. It favors the elimination of
social welfare programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
It champions unfettered capitalism, and has called for the
elimination of whole federal agencies like the EPA and the NLRB. The
Tea Party's favored policies promise to usher in a period of
unprecedented concentration of wealth, and expansion and
consolidation of corporate power. It threatens to eviscerate the
rights of the working class and minority groups, and undermine the
very tenets of American democracy. We cannot underestimate the
seriousness of such a movement gaining political legitimacy.
The
Tea Party's supporters are generally considered white and well-off,
and this is partly true. A New York Times poll showed that more than
half of its supporters earn $50,000 or more annually, with 20%
earning at least $100,000.6
This element, the Tea Party elite, wants to exact more concessions
from the welfare and regulatory states so as to elevate its status
and fortify its wealth. The best way for the more affluent members of
the Tea Party to achieve such gains is to adopt a corporate-friendly,
anti-government platform.
The
rest of the Tea Party, however, are from the middle and lower
classes. They, the Tea Party Proletariat, echo the same pro-corporate
and anti-government stances as their wealthier counterparts, yet
stand to gain very little (and more likely lose a great deal) by
supporting such policies. The question then is, “Why?” Why does
the Tea Party Proletariat support a movement whose platform is so
clearly against its own interests?
It
must be stated at the outset that the Tea Party is anything but a
grassroots movement. The group emerged after the 2008 economic
collapse, and rose to prominence amidst a power vacuum in 2009.
Barack Obama had just been elected, the economy was still
floundering, and Congress was orchestrating another bailout. Given
the severity of the downturn, and the fact that the White House and
Congress were controlled by large Democratic majorities, a policy
approach similar to FDR's “New Deal” appeared imminent. At a time
when a leftward shift in policies seemed inevitable, the Tea Party
entered. They, not liberals and progressives, hijacked the populist
energy and public anger during this time of crisis, and swung the
political pendulum to the right.
The
Tea Party was not, however, an organic cooperative of malcontents.
Its birth resulted from a variation of the “Shock Doctrine,”
which Naomi Klein documented in her 2007 book. A severe
economic crisis – the “shock” – created an opportunity to
remake the American political sphere. And that is exactly what
happened. Funded and coordinated by powerful conservative activists
like former Congressman Richard Armey and the Koch Brothers, a
faux-populist movement filled the political void amidst the downturn
and prevented a more logical liberal policy shift.7
The movement's momentum continues,
with a large swath of Tea Partiers now occupying seats in Congress.
Working
class supporters of the Tea Party are victims of the very policies
for which they advocate. They bear the costs of reckless
deregulation; public health risks, unsafe working conditions, untold
environmental disasters like the BP oil spill. They do not benefit
from tax cuts for the wealthy that do nothing to create jobs and
ultimately take money away from vital social programs. And they also
end up on the losing end of spending cuts that eliminate jobs, reduce
investment and stifle economic growth. The effects of such policies
are apparent. Case in point: while sales of luxury goods flourish, a
record 46 million Americans rely on food stamps to purchase their
meals.8
This leads us to the primary
inquiry of this article. Why would Tea Party Proletarians vehemently
oppose policies that are specifically intended to benefit them, and
stridently support those that will do them harm?
One commonly-accepted explanation
is that the Tea Party Proletarians are victims of a sophisticated
propaganda campaign that is intended to manipulate them into
supporting the evisceration of the social safety net while further
enriching the wealthiest people (both human and juridical) in
America. They have been preyed upon, and now channel their rightful
anger and desperation to bolster a radical right-wing agenda.
But
it would be wrong to write off the working class supporters of the
Tea Party as nothing more than a pack of unwitting dupes. Perhaps
some are, but most of them must know, on some level, what's going on.
A likely explanation is that they are desperate for control. In a
country whose political and economic systems are slowly but
systematically transforming its society into a form of neofeudalism,
having a say in one's own oppression may be the only choice one has
left.
At some level, whether conscious,
unconscious, or masked by cognitive dissonance, these people know
that they are the victims of an unjust system. And they must, on some
level, understand that the platform they champion will not improve
their condition. Fighting the good fight – that is, the one for
substantive equality and social justice – has become much more
difficult, and at times feels like a lost cause.
Resistance
to the corporate state and anti-democratic forces will continue. Yet
the current societal power imbalances almost ensure that these acts
will be in vain. Disparities in wealth and, by extension, power are
at an unprecedented level. And with unlimited money flowing freely
and anonymously into elections, and almost always to anti-liberal
candidates, the electoral process is becoming increasingly
undemocratic. Good deeds and good candidates are going to have an
increasingly difficult time
making a difference.
The
Tea Party Proletarians scream at town hall meetings, dress up like
the Founding Fathers at rallies and devote their precious time and
resources to elect Tea Party-approved candidates to public office.
Their energy and theatrics support those with the most power, those
with an unwavering false sense of persecution, and those whose
interests couldn't be more contrary. Like Emperor Selassie, they are,
at a moment of ultimate weakness, supporting the opposition to create
an illusion of their own power. Having
capitulated to the elite class, the Tea Party Proletarians now seek
to control their own demise under a facade of faux populism. They
know that they are powerless, yet they yearn for a sense of control
over their circumstances. Their desire runs so deep that they will
find a way to exert control even if it means presiding over their own
subjugation. In a society that is becoming increasingly undemocratic,
that may be the only power they have left.
1Kapuściński,
R., & Thomas Leiper Kane Collection (Library of Congress.
Hebraic Section). (1983). The Emperor:
Downfall of an autocrat (6th
edition). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
2Id.
at 126.
3Id.
at 129.
4Id.
at 129.
5Id.
at 134.
6“Polling
the Tea Party.” (2011, April 14) The
New York Times.
Retrieved August 9, 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html?ref=politics#tab=9.
7Mayer,
Jane. (2010, August 30) Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers
who are waging war against Obama. The
New Yorker.
Retrieved on August 20, 2011:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all.
8Clifford,
Stephanie (2011, August 3). Even Marked Up, Luxury Good Fly Off
Shelves. The New
York Times.
Retrieved August 16, 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html;
Ellis, Blake (2011, August 4). Food Stamp Use Rises to Record 45.8
million. CNN.
Retrieved on August 16, 2011:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/pf/food_stamps_record_high/index.htm.
