What to do about Obama?

[Simon_Jester]

They'll dig in to an extent, one which I don't feel qualified to estimate, but we have to ask: if we're engaged in a collective turning against the Democratic Party by the left edge of the party's support base, how many Democratic senators will suffer the same problems in 2012 that Obama is facing?

The Republicans only need to flip three seats in the upcoming Senate elections to flip the Senate (if they take the White House), and if Democratic base voters are following the Uraniun Strategy of punishing Democrats by not voting for them, I'd worry about them getting what they want, given that thirty-odd seats will be up for grabs.

[Bakustra]

So what are the major policy differences between the Congressional Republican leadership and the Obama administration? Examples of substantive differences in most of these five areas:

The Economy
Disastrously large.

The official Republican party line is, de facto, that all regulation of business is bad, all taxation of business is bad, all public organizations devoted to protecting consumers from corporations are bad, and so forth. The Bush administration was content to allow these things to exist and settled for removing a few pieces of the network. The Obama administration and 2008-10 congressional Democrats removed a few pieces and added some pieces. The congressional Republicans of 2010 and on would happily destroy the system, egged on into doing it by the Tea Party. Just ask Eric Cantor.

The official Republican party line is opposed to any serious expenditure of government money to stimulate the economy in any way, or to maintain infrastructure such as schools and highways in a time of fiscal crisis. Unchecked, this leads to further economic decay.

Wrong. The Republican leadership is exactly the same people that were there under Bush. Do you really think that they'll behave any differently in power in 2012 or 2016 than in 2000 or 2004? In addition, the leadership of both parties are, in their actions, focusing on austerity and the budget rather than jobs. They both are, at best, holding the belief that a rising tide inevitably lifts all boats, and, at worse, unconcerned with the employment of people. Do not mistake the attack-dog of the Tea Party, no matter how slipshod its chains, for its owner, the Republican leadership.

Defense
Relatively minor.

The Republicans would continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on roughly the same level as Obama, adopt similar policies on detention of terrorist suspects and assassinations, and so on. Do you want to know why? Because ultimately, ever since the recession of 2008, the 'War on Terror' has not been anywhere near the front of most Americans' minds. Everyone has domestic policy issues that come first. Thus, there is no incentive for either party to stand out by taking a different policy on foreign wars, because it doesn't gain you anything.

No one gives a shit if the Republicans talk about bombing Iran, because Americans care more about the recession than about bombing Iran. No one gives a shit if the Democrats talk about not bombing Iran, for the same reason.

We concur here.

Social Welfare
Disastrously large. See above.

There is a large bloc of Republicans who want to eliminate the programs that hold the poorer parts of the country together at a time like this. Just ask them if you don't believe me. Democrats may not be doing much to improve social welfare, but if you can't see the difference between "does nothing much for" and "actively calls for the destruction of," you need to get your eyes examined.

The actual leadership, regardless of what they believe, are only willing to take small actions against social welfare at once. Such as calling for cuts to "entitlements" to balance the budget. Obama has been willing to go along with that and accept that framing. In terms of the leadership, they are again on the same page as to what action to take, regardless of their motive. The Tea Party and other libertarians are not in control of the Republican Party. If they were, things would have progressed very differently in this last year.

Fiscal Policy
Disastrously large. See above.

Republicans want to balance the budget, or say they do. The Tea Republicans have shown many signs of being willing to crash the national economy to do that (see the default crisis last month; you were watching that, right?). This balancing of the budget would predictably come by cutting the entitlement programs. The consequences of that, under these economic conditions, are bluntly obvious.

This is the worst possible time to try to balance the budget- the recession artificially depresses tax income, while a larger fraction of government spending than normal is needed to keep people alive. While many Democrats talk about balancing the budget, they have shown far more willingness to do this by raising taxes on the rich (which causes less harm), or to defer final balancing until the economy comes back.

Only the Republicans are adamant on the idea of trying to fix the recession with government austerity measures, which laughs in the face of all economic sense- you cannot starve your way out of a crop failure.

The actual Democratic leadership, that is to say President Obama, has been unwilling to push for tax increases or to try and frame it as something more palatable. They gave no fucks about fighting for an end to the Bush tax cuts. None. The Republican leadership cared not one whit for budgetary balance while in power. Once in power again, they might have to pretend to give a damn, but they have no reason to behave differently. While the rank and file of both parties are more sincere in their beliefs, the leadership is not willing to make any serious changes, preferring instead to keep going on how they have been going. To put it bluntly, if you want someone who would fight to repeal the Bush tax cuts, you would not have to unseat Obama, but rather overthrow the entire, Clintonian leadership of the Democratic party. And if those conservatives who sincerely want a balanced budget seek to get one, they would have to overthrow the leadership of the Republican party.

Social Policy
Here, too, the differences are actually relatively minor. Taking one social issue that's been a big deal lately, the economy matters more to most Americans right now than gay marriage does. While the Republican leadership are Neanderthals on a lot of these issues, the experience of the Bush administration does suggest they'll place those issues on the back burner while pursuing their economic agenda- it's easier that way.

And I suspect this makes it easier to avoid uniting the Democratic base by forcing disaffected minority groups back into the Democratic camp. If gays are ceasing to vote Democrat because of disgust, why interfere with that by engaging in serious persecution of gays when there are other items on the agenda to pursue? Republican candidates may talk about federal gay marriage bans, but that's a measure to rally homophobic support, and probably no more to be taken seriously than Obama's promises to hold Wall Street accountable should be.

Social policy as distinct from economic policy is probably not going to change much, because it evolves more slowly and no one is actively bribing the Republicans to do anything on the issue. However, economic policy affects social outcomes: if the poor are fucked by unfunded schools and the end of the social safety net, and black people are disproportionately poor, then black people are disproportionately fucked.

To put it bluntly, Obama has done very little for the social safety net, nor has he done anything to improve education or our approach to it. Race to the Top or whatever is still built on the same framework as No Child Left Behind. Ultimately, the problem is not that the leadership have identical positions, but that they operate within the same framework. They have more in common with one another than with genuine liberals and genuine conservatives- and in a sense, liberals and conservatives have more in common with one another because they hold sincere beliefs while the leadership are willing to lie out both sides of their mouths about what they plan to do and what they believe.

[ThomasP]

I'd love to know what sort of magical process you propose regular people use in order to get their opinions heard over the billions of dollars corporations are dropping into the pockets of politicians for permission to more freely wreck the place for short-term profit. Look at how many people were pissed off about the debt ceiling bullshit, then compare it to what actually happened. That's the future of the US, right there.

I share some (maybe most) of your pessimism, because right now the picture isn't pretty. I'm also not convinced that just voting is enough to make a change.

That said, I'm also inclined to agree with Chomsky's position, which was echoed by Robert Reich in Supercapitalism, that real change has to come from more than showing up every four years and pulling the (D) lever. The machinery of the big parties is so entangled with big money that you can't expect to keep feeding them and see anything happen; it's gotten so bad that the parties themselves are more cause than solution.

The fix is going to have to come from the people -- something like what Obama pulled off in his campaign, with a grassroots movement and perhaps aided by all the social media that the kids love these days. The Democratic Party may become a viable tool for change, but it can only be that if there's a real people-powered movement behind it. As it stands, there is no organization and no real voice to speak up for the citizens.

Being active in advocacy groups and the like, with a bent towards really expanding them and making them viable against corporate interests, would be a good start if there's any real interest in pushing political change.

[Simon_Jester]

Wrong. The Republican leadership is exactly the same people that were there under Bush. Do you really think that they'll behave any differently in power in 2012 or 2016 than in 2000 or 2004? In addition, the leadership of both parties are, in their actions, focusing on austerity and the budget rather than jobs. They both are, at best, holding the belief that a rising tide inevitably lifts all boats, and, at worse, unconcerned with the employment of people. Do not mistake the attack-dog of the Tea Party, no matter how slipshod its chains, for its owner, the Republican leadership.

I don't agree with the underlined passage, and your entire argument hinges on that point.

The Republican Party is not a monolith, not unchangeable. The current tactics of the party are quite different from what we saw during the Clinton years, the last time a Republican congress squared off against a Democratic president. Fifteen years of ideological drift have changed the membership and the leadership; people who were once on the right of the party are now in the center and left. There are real people in the system trying to organize the Tea Party into a base to take control of the party- Eric Cantor being an obvious example.

For you to put so much faith in the intangible bonds of "this is what is in the interests of the Republicans' masters" strikes me as very rash.

The actual leadership, regardless of what they believe, are only willing to take small actions against social welfare at once. Such as calling for cuts to "entitlements" to balance the budget. Obama has been willing to go along with that and accept that framing. In terms of the leadership, they are again on the same page as to what action to take, regardless of their motive. The Tea Party and other libertarians are not in control of the Republican Party. If they were, things would have progressed very differently in this last year.

They are not in control- but they have a lot more power to set the agenda than I'd like, and much of their lack of power comes from the fact that the Democrats still hold the Senate and the White House, which makes Democratic threats to block any drastic changes credible. Even the Democrats are likely to put together a filibuster or a veto if the House Republicans try to pass the "Neuter Medicare Act."

I think that Obama's willingness to compromise 'his' positions toward the right has lulled you into a false sense of security about what the Republican agenda could look like if he weren't there. I do not approve of those compromises, but one of the reasons is that it eases what would otherwise be a very difficult problem for the House Republicans.

Many of them were elected by Republicans who want the country changed in certain ways. If those changes prove impossible due to democratic checks and balances, then the reactionary sentiment is likely to turn on them. By giving them modest doses of what they want in the name of compromise, Obama makes it more likely that they'll be able to hang around and demand more later, further humiliating and weakening his political position, and shifting the agenda further to the right.

But I would far, far rather see American government policy being hammered out between Barack Obama and John Boehner than between Rick Perry and Eric Cantor.

The actual Democratic leadership, that is to say President Obama, has been unwilling to push for tax increases or to try and frame it as something more palatable. They gave no fucks about fighting for an end to the Bush tax cuts. None. The Republican leadership cared not one whit for budgetary balance while in power. Once in power again, they might have to pretend to give a damn, but they have no reason to behave differently. While the rank and file of both parties are more sincere in their beliefs, the leadership is not willing to make any serious changes, preferring instead to keep going on how they have been going. To put it bluntly, if you want someone who would fight to repeal the Bush tax cuts, you would not have to unseat Obama, but rather overthrow the entire, Clintonian leadership of the Democratic party. And if those conservatives who sincerely want a balanced budget seek to get one, they would have to overthrow the leadership of the Republican party.

Again, I am increasingly unsure of the underlined passage. Five years ago I'd have believed it, based on the experience of 1994-95... but the country is more radicalized now than it was then, and the political resistance to "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor" seems weaker and more half-hearted.

I simply do not share your confidence that the Republican and Democratic leadership are secretly identical on these issues, despite the loud statements to the contrary that come out of the Republican Party.

Social Policy
Here, too, the differences are actually relatively minor. Taking one social issue that's been a big deal lately, the economy matters more to most Americans right now than gay marriage does. While the Republican leadership are Neanderthals on a lot of these issues, the experience of the Bush administration does suggest they'll place those issues on the back burner while pursuing their economic agenda- it's easier that way.

And I suspect this makes it easier to avoid uniting the Democratic base by forcing disaffected minority groups back into the Democratic camp. If gays are ceasing to vote Democrat because of disgust, why interfere with that by engaging in serious persecution of gays when there are other items on the agenda to pursue? Republican candidates may talk about federal gay marriage bans, but that's a measure to rally homophobic support, and probably no more to be taken seriously than Obama's promises to hold Wall Street accountable should be.

Social policy as distinct from economic policy is probably not going to change much, because it evolves more slowly and no one is actively bribing the Republicans to do anything on the issue. However, economic policy affects social outcomes: if the poor are fucked by unfunded schools and the end of the social safety net, and black people are disproportionately poor, then black people are disproportionately fucked.

To put it bluntly, Obama has done very little for the social safety net, nor has he done anything to improve education or our approach to it. Race to the Top or whatever is still built on the same framework as No Child Left Behind. Ultimately, the problem is not that the leadership have identical positions, but that they operate within the same framework. They have more in common with one another than with genuine liberals and genuine conservatives- and in a sense, liberals and conservatives have more in common with one another because they hold sincere beliefs while the leadership are willing to lie out both sides of their mouths about what they plan to do and what they believe.

[/quote]Social change is slow because consensus evolves slowly and haltingly. This is especially apparent on civil rights- how long did it take from the first steps toward desegregation to something that we could honestly call de facto equality of the races, even if we grant a free pass to economic inequalities that are still around today?

Education reform is slow because there is no consensus- Americans do not agree on how to administer a school system, and most Americans don't perceive the schools as a big enough problem to demand a drastic solution. Or if they do, they can't agree on which solution: vouchers, breaking teachers' unions, increasing funding over already high per capita levels, curriculum reform... there are a lot of options, and telling the snake oil salesmen from the genuine reformers is a difficult challenge the nation is not ready to tackle.

Absent something that can mobilize masses of citizens, you just don't get rapid changes in social policy. You need a mass movement with an ideal, a new model for the country that's appealing enough to enough people to get them to work hard to build it. The closest the US has to that right now is the reactionary fantasies of the Tea Party, as far as I can tell.

You can call them an attack dog on a leash if you like, but I worry.

[Zaune]

Absent something that can mobilize masses of citizens, you just don't get rapid changes in social policy. You need a mass movement with an ideal, a new model for the country that's appealing enough to enough people to get them to work hard to build it. The closest the US has to that right now is the reactionary fantasies of the Tea Party, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps you need a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party using the same tactics, up to and including the thinly veiled threats of armed revolt if they don't get their way.

[The Romulan Republic]

Absent something that can mobilize masses of citizens, you just don't get rapid changes in social policy. You need a mass movement with an ideal, a new model for the country that's appealing enough to enough people to get them to work hard to build it. The closest the US has to that right now is the reactionary fantasies of the Tea Party, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps you need a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party using the same tactics, up to and including the thinly veiled threats of armed revolt if they don't get their way.

Jesus Christ.

Think about what you just said, shitbag: you're talking about threatening violence against political opponents. About potentially inciting acts based on that rhetoric. About sinking to the level of the fucking Tea Party.

Seriously, go fuck yourself.

[Stark]

People on the board have suggested similar things in the past. It's a shame that people struggle to even imagine a widespread political movement that ISN'T coercive or violent in nature.

[General Mung Beans]

Absent something that can mobilize masses of citizens, you just don't get rapid changes in social policy. You need a mass movement with an ideal, a new model for the country that's appealing enough to enough people to get them to work hard to build it. The closest the US has to that right now is the reactionary fantasies of the Tea Party, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps you need a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party using the same tactics, up to and including the thinly veiled threats of armed revolt if they don't get their way.

As opposed to the far left in Europe who actually do riot when things don't go their way?

[Zaune]

...you're talking about threatening violence against political opponents. About potentially inciting acts based on that rhetoric. About sinking to the level of the fucking Tea Party.

Damn right I am. And do you want to know why? Because unlike everything the Left in the English-speaking world has tried in my lifetime and beyond, their tactics work. To hell with holding the moral high ground, if the Right want to use fear and intimidation as a campaign tool then they can see how they like being on the receiving end for a change.

If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, then I'm sorry you feel that way. But my faith in peaceful protest was broken a long time ago.

[Bakustra]

McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor are all fairly senior and have voting records that are hardly consistent with the Tea Party ideology, but are consistent with what I have outlined; that there is little sincerity within the upper ranks of either party. Otherwise, Cantor would not have advocated TARP and then turned against economic stimulus when Obama entered office, Boehner would not have done the same, et cetera. While they do have opinions that they hold, these are ultimately secondary to the direction the political wind is blowing.

A large part of why civil rights movements made so many gains in the 1960s because of a rapid shift in opinion over a short period of time, namely World War II. Groups such as the WACs, WAVES, WASP, and on the other hand the increased employment of women in industry, allowed women to gain opportunities outside the conventional structure of society and challenged conventional notions as well. The ability of homosexuals and bisexuals to meet other gays in the service is what kickstarted the gay rights movement. Ethnic minorities fought in WWII and acquitted themselves well. Segregated units like the African-American ones, though they fought rarely, nevertheless forced whites to confront their own racism by simply existing and showing competence.

Going back further, the entire nation moved from mostly apathetic on slavery to fiercely abolitionist over the course of a decade at most between Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Thirteenth Amendment. Social change can happen very quickly- but the Tea Party cannot take advantage of that very well. They are a minority of rich, older white people who have not managed to spread very well even in economic tumult. They have no paramilitary wing with which to mount even the ghost of a coup d'etat. What they are instead is an expression of consciousness. They know, subconsciously, that they have been betrayed. Deficits loom, society grows more perverse, et cetera, et cetera. Had they conscious knowledge they would not have been able to be coopted so easily by the Republican party, though that story isn't over yet- they may surprise us all with a general revolt against the leadership.

People on the board have suggested similar things in the past. It's a shame that people struggle to even imagine a widespread political movement that ISN'T coercive or violent in nature.

To anybody advocating the threat of violence, I would suggest looking at what that has gotten the Tea Party: they now are effective boogeymen in enforcing Democratic unity. Well, if you want that on the other side of the aisle, have fun being marginalized and mocked and blamed for all political violence! Oh, and you'll only lose support as time goes by, and nobody will be willing to defend you in the media sphere.

Now, if you want results, you want to be the anti-Tea Party: diverse, peaceful, and actively fighting being coopted by the existing power structure.

[Bakustra]

...you're talking about threatening violence against political opponents. About potentially inciting acts based on that rhetoric. About sinking to the level of the fucking Tea Party.

Damn right I am. And do you want to know why? Because unlike everything the Left in the English-speaking world has tried in my lifetime and beyond, their tactics work. To hell with holding the moral high ground, if the Right want to use fear and intimidation as a campaign tool then they can see how they like being on the receiving end for a change.

If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, then I'm sorry you feel that way. But my faith in peaceful protest was broken a long time ago.

~doublepostin' for effect~

Define work. Have they gotten what they wanted? No. Will they get what they want? Only a little bit. What is their position, politically speaking? A convenient bulldog to enforce Democratic unity and enable the Democratic leadership to express their open contempt for all liberals, progressives, and the like. A potential spoiler for Republican races that nevertheless is energized for getting Republicans power. Is that what you want, but reversed across the aisle?

[Bluewolf]

You know, just as an off topic aside, in one rotten way It's nice that Obama has proved to be this much of a spineless fuckup because it means we can begin to have a convocation about alternatives to the two main parties without people imperialistically defending the idea of voting for either.

[The Romulan Republic]

...you're talking about threatening violence against political opponents. About potentially inciting acts based on that rhetoric. About sinking to the level of the fucking Tea Party.

Damn right I am. And do you want to know why? Because unlike everything the Left in the English-speaking world has tried in my lifetime and beyond, their tactics work. To hell with holding the moral high ground, if the Right want to use fear and intimidation as a campaign tool then they can see how they like being on the receiving end for a change.

If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, then I'm sorry you feel that way. But my faith in peaceful protest was broken a long time ago.

Well, you just insulted the suffering and sacrifices of thousands of peaceful protestors throughout history, most notably the Indian independence movement and the American Civil Rights movement.

Beyond that, Bakustra nailed a lot of what's wrong with your way of thinking.

And at the end of the day, if you surrender the moral high ground, then whichever side wins you end up with thugs in power. I don't want that. So again, go fuck yourself.

[Bakustra]

It's worth noting that the movement for Indian independence included several violent subgroups who engaged in violent resistance against British rule, and, more generally, that violent movements are capable of positive change. However, nowhere in history do we see mere threats of violence being particularly successful; if you are not thought to be capable of being coopted by existing forces, then your bluff is eventually called. If you are thought to be capable of being coopted, then you will be courted and attempts will be made to incorporate you into the existing apparatus.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not denying that violence can bring positive change. It tends to do it at a very high price though, and I suspect that more often, the rebels turn out to be just about as violent and brutal as the people they overthrew.

[ThomasP]

Damn right I am. And do you want to know why? Because unlike everything the Left in the English-speaking world has tried in my lifetime and beyond, their tactics work. To hell with holding the moral high ground, if the Right want to use fear and intimidation as a campaign tool then they can see how they like being on the receiving end for a change.

Unfortunately, the Left in the non-English speaking world has played out this scenario, to ill effect if the history books are anything to go by.

[Bakustra]

Damn right I am. And do you want to know why? Because unlike everything the Left in the English-speaking world has tried in my lifetime and beyond, their tactics work. To hell with holding the moral high ground, if the Right want to use fear and intimidation as a campaign tool then they can see how they like being on the receiving end for a change.

Unfortunately, the Left in the non-English speaking world has played out this scenario, to ill effect if the history books are anything to go by.

Woah, woah, woah. I'm pretty sure that there aren't any leftist movements out there that solely make empty threats, Anglo or non-Anglo.

[ThomasP]

Damn right I am. And do you want to know why? Because unlike everything the Left in the English-speaking world has tried in my lifetime and beyond, their tactics work. To hell with holding the moral high ground, if the Right want to use fear and intimidation as a campaign tool then they can see how they like being on the receiving end for a change.

Unfortunately, the Left in the non-English speaking world has played out this scenario, to ill effect if the history books are anything to go by.

Woah, woah, woah. I'm pretty sure that there aren't any leftist movements out there that solely make empty threats, Anglo or non-Anglo.

I wasn't speaking about empty threats.

[Bakustra]

That's what Zaune is actually proposing, though. Mimicking Tea Party threats without being stereotypically armed and with no intention of carrying them out, as the Tea Party has no intention of so doing.

[ThomasP]

That's what Zaune is actually proposing, though. Mimicking Tea Party threats without being stereotypically armed and with no intention of carrying them out, as the Tea Party has no intention of so doing.

Hopefully, anyway.

But yes, I grok the point; I just thought it was funny that someone would suggest that the Left should advocate violence because it "works better", given the history of Left-wing violence and its outcomes.

[K. A. Pital]

*ahem* I must note for all involved that the Tea Party has not used violence to get into power. It simply hasn't. Or have I missed something?

Violence is a tool of last resort.

[Flagg]

*ahem* I must note for all involved that the Tea Party has not used violence to get into power. It simply hasn't. Or have I missed something?

Violence is a tool of last resort.

No, they just use violent rhetoric and walk around carrying guns.

[Simon_Jester]

McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor are all fairly senior and have voting records that are hardly consistent with the Tea Party ideology, but are consistent with what I have outlined; that there is little sincerity within the upper ranks of either party. Otherwise, Cantor would not have advocated TARP and then turned against economic stimulus when Obama entered office, Boehner would not have done the same, et cetera. While they do have opinions that they hold, these are ultimately secondary to the direction the political wind is blowing.

I would argue that, for the moment at least, is that the wind is blowing due Tea, at least for Republicans. We have all the evidence of this we could ask for when we look at the race for the Republican presidential nominations. The entire field is engaged in crazier-than-thou contests, except for one or at most two candidates who are trying to carve out niches as the 'moderate guys-' whose stated Republican policies are basically identical to Bush's- this is what they consider moderation.

Everyone is trying to get in as much gay-bashing, science-denying, tax-cut, starve-the-beast rhetoric as possible. And the base that they've been depending on to propel them into office seems to be lapping it up.

Are you that confident none of these people take their own rhetoric seriously? I wouldn't bet anything I cared to lose on it.

They are a minority of rich, older white people who have not managed to spread very well even in economic tumult. They have no paramilitary wing with which to mount even the ghost of a coup d'etat. What they are instead is an expression of consciousness. They know, subconsciously, that they have been betrayed. Deficits loom, society grows more perverse, et cetera, et cetera. Had they conscious knowledge they would not have been able to be coopted so easily by the Republican party, though that story isn't over yet- they may surprise us all with a general revolt against the leadership.

Yes; that's kind of my point. The consciousness of the Tea Party is rising, and has been for three years. We are already seeing new and ambitious Republicans trying to ride that into a position of power.

Eric Cantor is doing it in the House: regardless of what his prior voting record was, he positioned himself at the head of the hardcore pro-austerity anti-tax wing of the Republicans during the debt ceiling negotiations. Even if he didn't mean to do it and secretly thought the ceiling increase should pass, he came a lot closer than any reasonable person would like to crashing the government by touching off a breakdown in negotiations. Boehner isn't innocent of that either.

Bachmann, Perry, and others are doing it in the presidential race, too: even if they're a minority in the country at large, the Tea Party is playing a huge role in selecting the Republican presidential nominee, and with Obama's credibility and political strength foundering, that could give them disproportionate influence in the general election to come.

Now, if you want results, you want to be the anti-Tea Party: diverse, peaceful, and actively fighting being coopted by the existing power structure.

This much I'm on board with- I think the first goal of progressive Americans who like liberty and good government and dislike the rise of anarcho-corporatism in America should be to form interest blocs that can take back control of the 'left-wing' party in the US. Violence is not going to help with that- America is nowhere near bad enough shape to fall easily to revolutionaries of any stripe.

Besides which, bitter experience in the 20th century shows that, as a rule, when it comes to violent overthrow of the political process, the right is better at it than the left...

*ahem* I must note for all involved that the Tea Party has not used violence to get into power. It simply hasn't. Or have I missed something?

Violence is a tool of last resort.

No, they just use violent rhetoric and walk around carrying guns.

Seldom, and honestly no one takes them all that seriously at this point.

To someone who's familiar with the history of real revolutions, I think the idea of a violent Tea Party revolution must seem like a bad joke.

[Ritterin Sophia]

In any case, people have a moral responsibility to try to improve things.

If you actually believed that rather than spouted it as some sort of axiom to give you credibility that would be nice. Instead fucksticks like yourself continue to support Obama who is complicit in the continuation of all the Bush policies and even expanding them, that makes you complicit. If you actually believed that you have a responsibility to attempt to improve things you would not treat voting for third party nominees as 'throwing away' or 'protest' voting, instead you allow yourselves to be treated as guaranteed votes for candidates who don't actually represent your viewpoints because you're a bunch of cowardly twats. Every vote for Obama is another vote for torture, government death squads, and more suicidal economic legislation.

[K. A. Pital]

Tea Party "revolution"? *cries eyes out* Does anyone even use the term like that? As a revolutionary, I cringe when I hear that. In fact, "revolution" is one of the words that has been abused into meaninglessness in the American political language along with "socialism", etc. "Obama revolution", "Bush revolution", "Republican/Democratic revolution". Seriously? Uh...