Tea with a Side of FUD
by Mark Wilson, Editor
April 15, 2009
The inanity of so-called Tea Parties is matched only by the stupidity by which they are backed. Thousands of “working-class” Americans — a euphemism for middle-class people in what used to be called “blue-collar” jobs — will attend such events, protesting President Obama’s budget. This in spite of the fact that the vast, vast majority of those in attendence will receive tax cuts from the budget that they’re protesting. Or perhaps they don’t want repairs made to the infrastructure that hasn’t been overhauled in forty years. Seriously, guys, it’s been that long. And that’s what is costs to have roads, electricity, water, sewage, and so on.
No taxation with representation! Wait, what?
The events are being billed as “grassroots,” meaning they formed spontaneously and were organized by the people who are attending them. The opposite of “grassroots” is “astroturf,” a movement that is designed to appear as though it is spontaneous — to give it greater credibility — but is in fact organized and planned by The Usual Suspects: think tanks, high-level political pundits, and lobbyists. It’s also a credit to how out of touch these same strategic planners are with contemporary culture that they use “tea-bag” as a verb, blissfully unaware of the kind of laughter it engenders among those of us in the know. (Parents, ask your kids.)
Yes, these Tea Parties are just such an event. Republicans have become the party of “no way, no how” in the explicit sense that they both do not want Democrats to have their way, but neither do Republicans have an alternate plan of attack. Two weeks ago, they unveiled their own “budget proposal,” which was full of grandiose talk but very, very short on actual numbers. These faux-organic “tea parties” are only the latest in Republicans’ embrace of what the online community calls FUD, which stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. FUD is a marketing technique (what else?!) used to make consumers think nasty things about the competitor’s product. FUD almost never comes with verifiable evidence; rather, it is couched in vague, shadowy terms, coupled with equally veiled threats. Microsoft used it two years ago when it publicly claimed that the open-source (and often free) operating system Linux infringed on hundreds of its patents — but never mentioned a single one of those patents by name. Microsoft’s aim was to make IT executives wet their pants with the implicit threat of litigation against any company who might employ Linux instead of Windows. Of course, it was an empty implicit threat, but that didn’t stop Microsoft from digging to the bottom of their bag of dirty tricks to try.
So, too, is it with Republicans. And amidst the tea-bagging, their only response to a cogent plan that will hopefully bring the economy back and provide much-needed renovation to long-neglected public works is … drumroll, please: tax cuts for the wealthy! And not just the wealthy, but the super wealthy. The kinds of people who actually look like Rich Uncle Pennybags (that’s the official name of the Monopoly guy; look how much you’re learning today!). Senator John Kyl of Arizona would like to destroy the estate tax, which will be on vacation during 2010 (expect a lot of wealthy old people to “die” suddenly!) and then return in 2011 to its pre-2001 enforcement levels; namely, a $1 million exemption and a 55% tax rate for everything above that. Sen. Kyl’s plan is to increase the exemption to $10 million and decrease the non-exempt tax rate to 35%. Kyl has billed this as a way to stimulate the economy, since wealthy people will be able to invest in the economy with the additional money they’ll get to keep. Or something.
In this regard, Kyl is either willfully stupid or believes the rest of us to be willfully stupid. In no way will de-clawing the estate tax “trickle down” to the rest of us. The millions and millions of dollars upon which taxes must be paid at the time of inheritance are not located in Scrooge McDuck’s money bin; they’re locked in real estate, which will remain in the family for generations to come. That means no sale. And that means no trickling. (And, to debunk the “double taxation” bromide that is frequently put forth to criticize the estate tax, if the real property has been in the family for generations, that means it’s never been sold, and if it’s never been sold, it’s never been taxed. At all. The same goes for financial securities like stocks and bonds.) By some estimates, the government will lose $65 billion in tax revenue over 10 years if Kyl’s dreams were to come true. Balanced against that would be the financial gain of one hundred people. Yes, 100 people throughout the entire country would benefit from Kyl’s proposal. Out of 300 million, 100 people — that’s fewer than the number who audition for American Idol – would personally benefit from this legislation. And they are 100 of the super-richest people in the country. Pity them and their billions of never-taxed dollars, locked away in swaths of property.
That’s just one example. Here’s another: the highest marginal tax rate, which Republicans insist must be lowered, lest “small businesses” and entrepreneurs pack up their suitcases and haul off to Ireland so they can take advantage of the tax breaks there. This in spite of the fact that, under President Reagan (who is Hercules, Jesus, and Steven Seagal combined into a bacon-wrapped taco shell), the highest marginal tax rate was 50%, and that it was 91% under President Eisenhower. From 1993 to 2000, arguably one of the longest periods of unrestrained growth in this country, the highest marginal tax rate was 39.6%, and we ended the fiscal year 2000 with a $128 billion government surplus. Are you still laughing, Laffer?
And so, on go the great masses of “grassroots” conservatism, led by their Fearless Leaders as much as they ever were. The fact remains that the Republicans are now, more than ever, the party of pointless obstructionism, perfectly ready to block any Democratic proposal — no matter how it may help the country — without putting forward a viable counter-proposal, all in the name of politics. By obstructing Democrats’ plans, they can, in 2010, point to a lack of progress on the Democrats’ part and say, “See? They did nothing for you in the time they were in office!” They expect voters’ memories to be so short. But isn’t that the card they’ve always played: the Ignorant of Spades? Their success has lain in their hope beyond hope that “working-class” Americans believe every word of what Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh say, and praying that those same Americans don’t look out the window and see that those words are the opposite of reality; namely, that the Republicans have been tea-bagging them for years.
Regarding the Tea Parties, I believe as Americans we all have a right to gather and protest. Just because you don’t like the particular cause doesn’t mean the protest is stupid, and I think you purposely miss the point. Most conservatives are intelligent enough to understand taxes are required for the proper governing of the nation. Most conservatives will also agree that the government has gone well beyond it’s constitutional mandate. We live in a constitutionally limited republic – the federal government has enumerated powers, with all other powers belonging to the state. It is very difficult to read the constitution, and then justify the extent of government spending that BOTH parties participate in. The Republicans – no longer a conservative party – spend just as fast and furiously as Democrats…but the quadrupling of the deficit spending suggested, and the take-over of banks (some of it FORCED), and the forcing of money on states that in some cases said they don’t want it…that ought to scare any American, which is why for the first time in my life a conservative protest occurred across the entire country. It was truly a remarkable and historic event, whether you agree with the policy or not. There were probably quite a few people in Boston those many years ago that were content with paying the tax on tea and didn’t see what the big deal was…
Regarding “Republican” tax policy, I’ll be very happy to use your argument against you. You say, “From 1993 to 2000, arguably one of the longest periods of unrestrained growth in this country, the highest marginal tax rate was 39.6%, and we ended the fiscal year 2000 with a $128 billion government surplus.” You MIGHT want to check the record books, because from 1994 to 2000, the Republicans had control of the House and Senate, and therefore the budgets, and tax policy, were a conservative republican policy. Bill Clinton signed Republican legislation into law, and the country prospered.
Engaging article.
A few points:
These events were media staged and pathetic, not historic. I read today that Governor Perry of Texas even talked about secession. The governor of the second largest state in the country, holy cow.
On the argument here about the 1990s, I don’t believe that either Bill Clinton or the GOP Congress had much to do with the prosperity of the 1990’s–my understanding is that it was largely related to pent up demand from the fall of the iron curtain, new technology that led to demand in many hard to reach places, and several other factors including deregulation, which ironically enough is a big cause of the current deep recession. These policies of the GOP Congress, President Clinton, President Bush II, and Allan Greenspan are largely to blame for the current mess we’re in. The funny thing is that we all look back at these 1990s politicians with glee, when they in fact set things in motion to create the circumstances and structural deficiencies that led to this mess. I’m a big believer in behavioral economic theory, and this is a perfect example of how poorly the choice architecture was designed by the federal government to let the perfectly irrational people screw themselves. Those who were the heroes of the 90s and 00s (D and R alike) all have pie on their faces.
The sad thing about this opinion piece is that there is nothing new about it; it’s straight out of the Democrat talking points. The Nancy Pelosi “AstroTurf” label, and referencing left-wing blogs as legitimate information sources.
Sorry the Democrats are a little shaken and scared by a conservative protest, but the truth is over 800 “tea parties” occurred across this nation. I have to say, you have a heck of a lot more respect for the Republican party than I do, because there is no way, and NO EVIDENCE, that some behind the scenes Republicans organized this thing.
In fact, there was a poorly made banner over my little town of Oxford, MI that drew hundreds downtown on April 15th, and the organizers were simply locals that wanted to participate in the event.
This whole thing started because a reporter on the floor of the Chicago exchange went off on live TV one day and said we need a tea party. Sure, radio personalities and cable TV personalities picked up on the concept and talked about it, and of course some corporate interests heard about it an threw money into the pot – just like big names advertise and get behind every left-wing event and blather about it on TV and radio.
I believe the Million Man March got plenty of pre-press and corporate involvement. Was that a problem? Of course not!
But the overwhelming evidence of people that were ACTUALLY INVOLVED with many of the local tea parties is that they were the very definition of grass roots. I know this because I heard interviews with organizers of many small, local events in Michigan that had no previous connection to political movements, other than that they were registered voters.
It is pathetic that in order to try to beat down the message you don’t agree with, you have to tell lies – yes, LIES – about the true grass-roots nature of most of these events. I suspect you did not attend any (I attended 2) and have not spoken to anyone that attended any, or any of the organizers, but instead determined to pick up on the Democrat talking points. It’s sad, because the strength of your argument ought to lie not in attacking the nature of the event, but the content of the message…and you can’t attack the content of the message if your only knowledge of the message comes from other biased reporters, as opposed to actually speaking to individuals that were involved.
Shame! Demockracy.com is capable of better intellectual discourse than this!
Daryl,
Points taken, but most of your points are right out of GOP talking points. For instance, that Chicago Board of Trade rant was not organic at all, but has been shown to be thought up and fed to by the right wing media. It’s all planned, not organic from what I can tell (but I guess this is just a difference of opinion). You may be right that many of Mark’s sources may be biased, but the problem with your counter-argument is that your sources, in my opinion, are just as biased (or potentially even more biased). The GOP has had the dominant media spin machine for the last several decades. Props to them as this is largely why they have won so many elections since 1968. However, the problem is that they are way behind on the internet other new mediums. They dominate talk radio and cable news, but the issue is that the average demographic for talk radio is now 65 years old and cable news isn’t too far behind that. Simply being against something isn’t enough for many younger more idealist people.
Also, what about my points about the GOP and Clinton and Bush, et al. causing this mess and my counter point about your argument about how wonderful the GOP Congress in the 1990s was. You seem to ignore this to go back to your original argument. I’d like to hear your defense of that point, because my argument there is anything but a talking point. I take on both sides (D and R, alike). Let me know what your response is! Let me know your thoughts on the deregulation of the 1990s and the role of the GOP Congress and Bill Clinton, etc. played in the mess that we’re currently in!
Although I can smell your counter talking points a mile away, I love the fact that your posting–you add a lot of needed diversity to our independent site.
Keep the thoughtful comments coming!
No, these tea party events were largely staged. I have no idea if every tea party was staged, but a lot of them were, just as they were simultaneously made to appear to be not staged. As Think Progress has reported, the “tea party” infrastructure was organized by FreedomWorks, Dick Armey’s lobbying group. Think Progress may be a biased news source, but Internet domain registries are not. For instance, look at this whois record for usteaparty.com, a website devoted to such tea parties and designed, as Think Progress noted, to look like it was made by amateurs. The domain, however, is registered to FreedomWorks and not “Citizens for a Sound Economy.” In fact, click on the link on usteaparty.com to go to Citizens for a Sound Economy’s website, and you’re redirected to … ta-da! FreedomWorks!
Also, don’t forget that Fox News was breathlessly promoting these Tea Party activities. I didn’t see such promotion in the so-called liberal media during immigration or Iraq War protests.
And I’m not particularly scared by tea parties, which received an estimated attendance of 250,000 total, throughout the country. During the Dia Sin Inmigrantes rallies in 2006, some individual cities had turnouts of 300,000 people.
[...] to number two on the Amazon best-sellers list, giving the publisher better publicity than the best astroturf viral campaign ever could hope [...]