Tea & Crackers | Matt Taibbi reports on the TeaParty for Rolling Stone Politics

I hope Matt Taibbi is getting a book deal.   brilliant, merciless.

“In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American  revolution, one that will “take our country back” from everyone they  disapprove of. But what they don’t realize is, there’s a catch: This is
America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change. (…) it’s only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders
will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP’s campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation.”

Tea & Crackers | Rolling Stone Politics.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Tea & Crackers | Matt Taibbi reports on the TeaParty for Rolling Stone Politics

  1. This is very interesting, given that Stanley Fish just wrote a column in the NY Times online, saying “we” educated elite Democrats shouldn’t dismiss the Tea Party faction.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/antaeus-and-the-tea-party/?scp=2&sq=tea%20party&st=Search

    I thought it ironic however, since Fish belongs to that elite of the elite, an academic opinionator. But the news in the RS article isn’t good, either. “…we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change.” My son would agree with this—US democracy offers false choices, the system swallows anyone who tries to change it, etc.; but what hope does that leave anyone who believes in progressive change either?

  2. It’s funny, I was having a discussion with a colleague along these same lines this morning, though it was in reference to my decision to vote for a third-party candidate for CA governor. She mentioned how much Meg Whitman horrifies her and has this extremist agenda. I cynically responded that, while she horrifies me as well, I don’t see her having any success pushing an extremist change-based agenda with such an entrenched legislature. I refuse to vote for candidates who haven’t earned my vote. And, if it means the other side gets elected because I’m not voting for “my side,” well, I remain confident nothing will change.

  3. I’m still confused by the fact that President Obama won so handily with people wanting what he was saying he would do. And then when the Repubes Just Say No to everything and anything he has tried to do there wasn’t a national uprising of indignation, there was and is just silence.

    A lot of the American people said they wanted what he had to offer. Then when it gets blocked just for the sake of defeating Obama, no one raises the roof. I don’t get it.

    • I can’t remember where I read it (you can tell that I read political articles all day long while online), but one writer said Obama’s supporters were lazy, that they expected him to do all the work after the election was over, and that’s how the GOP was able to stop his plans.

      That said, I’d also blame Rahm Emmanuel for favoring conservative Democrats back when he was working for the national committee. The Blue Dogs have done the president no favors and have rendered the Democratic majority in Congress worthless.

      • Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

        I’m afraid that I am lazy a lot of the time.

        And I am not good at getting out and attending things…although I would love to go to the Rally to Restore Sanity in DC on Oct. 30th. But I write letters and emails….and annoy my friends and family daily with political discussions.

        I don’t know. Sometimes I feel like nothing is going to make any difference.

  4. OMG! Matt Taibbi and I were in a fiction workshop together years ago. (Not a politically insightful comment, but I wanted to say it anyway.)

Comments are closed.