Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tea Party radicalism is misunderstood: Meet the “Newest Right” (You're richer than average, he says)
Salon ^ | October 6, 2013 | Michael Lind

Posted on 10/07/2013 6:24:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Our sense of the force currently paralyzing the government is full of misconceptions -- including what to call it.

To judge from the commentary inspired by the shutdown, most progressives and centrists, and even many non-Tea Party conservatives, do not understand the radical force that has captured the Republican Party and paralyzed the federal government. Having grown up in what is rapidly becoming a Tea Party heartland–Texas–I think I do understand it. Allow me to clear away a few misconceptions about what really should be called, not the Tea Party Right, but the Newest Right.

The first misconception that is widespread in the commentariat is that the Newest Right can be thought of as being simply a group of “extremists” who happen to be further on the same political spectrum on which leftists, liberals, centrists and moderate conservatives find their places. But reducing politics to points on a single line is more confusing than enlightening. Most political movements result from the intersection of several axes—ideology, class, occupation, religion, ethnicity and region—of which abstract ideology is seldom the most important.

The second misconception is that the Newest Right or Tea Party Right is populist. The data, however, show that Tea Party activists and leaders on average are more affluent than the average American. The white working class often votes for the Newest Right, but then the white working class has voted for Republicans ever since Nixon. For all its Jacksonian populist rhetoric, the Newest Right is no more a rebellion of the white working class than was the original faux-populist Jacksonian movement, led by rich slaveowners like Andrew Jackson and agents of New York banks like Martin Van Buren.

The third misconception is that the Newest Right is irrational. The American center-left, whose white social base is among highly-educated, credentialed individuals like professors and professionals, repeatedly has committed political suicide by assuming that anyone who disagrees with its views is an ignorant “Neanderthal.” Progressive snobs to the contrary, the leaders of the Newest Right, including Harvard-educated Ted Cruz, like the leaders of any successful political movement, tend to be highly educated and well-off. The self-described members of the Tea Party tend to be more affluent and educated than the general public.

The Newest Right, then, cannot be explained in terms of abstract ideological extremism, working-class populism or ignorance and stupidity. What, then, is the Newest Right?

The Newest Right is the simply the old Jeffersonian-Jacksonian right, adopting new strategies in response to changed circumstances. While it has followers nationwide, its territorial bases are the South and the West, particularly the South, whose population dwarfs that of the Mountain and Prairie West. According to one study by scholars at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas:

While less than one in five (19.4%) minority non-Southerners and about 36% of Anglo non-Southerners report supporting the movement, almost half of white Southerners (47.1%) express support….

In fact, the role that antigovernment sentiment in the South plays in Tea Party movement support is the strongest in our analysis.

The Tea Party right is not only disproportionately Southern but also disproportionately upscale. Its social base consists of what, in other countries, are called the “local notables”—provincial elites whose power and privileges are threatened from above by a stronger central government they do not control and from below by the local poor and the local working class.

Even though, like the Jacksonians and Confederates of the nineteenth century, they have allies in places like Wisconsin and Massachusetts, the dominant members of the Newest Right are white Southern local notables—the Big Mules, as the Southern populist Big Jim Folsom once described the lords of the local car dealership, country club and chamber of commerce. These are not the super-rich of Silicon Valley or Wall Street (although they have Wall Street allies). The Koch dynasty rooted in Texas notwithstanding, those who make up the backbone of the Newest Right are more likely to be millionaires than billionaires, more likely to run low-wage construction or auto supply businesses than multinational corporations. They are second-tier people on a national level but first-tier people in their states and counties and cities.

For nearly a century, from the end of Reconstruction, when white Southern terrorism drove federal troops out of the conquered South, until the Civil Rights Revolution, the South’s local notables maintained their control over a region of the U.S. larger than Western Europe by means of segregation, disenfranchisement, and bloc voting and the filibuster at the federal level. Segregation created a powerless black workforce and helped the South’s notables pit poor whites against poor blacks. The local notables also used literacy tests and other tricks to disenfranchise lower-income whites as well as blacks in the South, creating a distinctly upscale electorate. Finally, by voting as a unit in Congress and presidential elections, the “Solid South” sought to thwart any federal reforms that could undermine the power of Southern notables at the state, county and city level. When the Solid South failed, Southern senators made a specialty of the filibuster, the last defense of the embattled former Confederacy.

When the post-Civil War system broke down during the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the South’s local notable class and its Northern and Western allies unexpectedly won a temporary three-decade reprieve, thanks to the “Reagan Democrats.” From the 1970s to the 2000s, white working-class voters alienated from the Democratic Party by civil rights and cultural liberalism made possible Republican presidential dominance from Reagan to George W. Bush and Republican dominance of Congress from 1994 to 2008. Because their politicians dominated the federal government much of the time, the conservative notables were less threatened by federal power, and some of them, like the second Bush, could even imagine a “governing conservatism” which, I have argued, sought to “Southernize” the entire U.S.

But then, by the 2000s, demography destroyed the temporary Nixon-to-Bush conservative majority (although conceivably it could enjoy an illusory Indian summer if Republicans pick up the Senate and retain the House in 2016). Absent ever-growing shares of the white vote, in the long run the Republican Party cannot win without attracting more black and Latino support.

That may well happen, in the long run. But right now most conservative white local notables in the South and elsewhere in the country don’t want black and Latino support. They would rather disenfranchise blacks and Latinos than compete for their votes. And they would rather dismantle the federal government than surrender their local power and privilege.

The political strategy of the Newest Right, then, is simply a new strategy for the very old, chiefly-Southern Jefferson-Jackson right. It is a perfectly rational strategy, given its goal: maximizing the political power and wealth of white local notables who find themselves living in states, and eventually a nation, with present or potential nonwhite majorities.

Although racial segregation can no longer be employed, the tool kit of the older Southern white right is pretty much the same as that of the Newest Right:

The Solid South. By means of partisan and racial gerrymandering—packing white liberal voters into conservative majority districts and ghettoizing black and Latino voters–Republicans in Texas and other Southern and Western states control the U.S. Congress, even though in the last election more Americans voted for Democrats than Republicans. The same undemocratic technique makes the South far more Republican in its political representation than it really is in terms of voters.

The Filibuster. By using a semi-filibuster to help shut down the government rather than implement Obamacare, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is acting rationally on behalf of his constituency—the surburban and exurban white local notables of Texas and other states, whom the demagogic Senator seems to confuse with “the American people.” Newt Gingrich, another Southern conservative demagogue, pioneered the modern use of government shutdowns and debt-ceiling negotiations as supplements to the classic filibuster used by embattled white provincial elites who prefer to paralyze a federal government they cannot control.

Disenfranchisement. In state after state controlled by Republican governors and legislators, a fictitious epidemic of voter fraud is being used as an excuse for onerous voter registration requirements which have the effect, and the manifest purpose, of disenfranchising disproportionately poor blacks and Latinos. The upscale leaders of the Newest Right also tend to have be more supportive of mass immigration than their downscale populist supporters—on the condition, however, that “guest workers” and amnestied illegal immigrants not be allowed to vote or become citizens any time soon. In the twenty-first century, as in the twentieth and nineteenth, the Southern ideal is a society in which local white elites lord it over a largely-nonwhite population of poor workers who can’t vote.

Localization and privatization of federal programs. It is perfectly rational for the white local notables of the South and their allies in other regions to oppose universal, federal social programs, if they expect to lose control of the federal government to a new, largely-nonwhite national electoral majority.

Turning over federal programs to the states allows Southern states controlled by local conservative elites to make those programs less generous—thereby attracting investment to their states by national and global corporations seeking low wages.

Privatizing other federal programs allows affluent whites in the South and elsewhere to turn the welfare state into a private country club for those who can afford to pay the fees, with underfunded public clinics and emergency rooms for the lower orders. In the words of Mitt Romney: “We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”

When the election of Lincoln seemed to foreshadow a future national political majority based outside of the South, the local notables of the South tried to create a smaller system they could dominate by seceding from the U.S. That effort failed, after having killed more Americans than have been killed in all our foreign wars combined. However, during Reconstruction the Southern elite snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and succeeded in turning the South into a nation-within-a-nation within U.S. borders until the 1950s and 1960s.

Today the white notables of the South increasingly live in states like Texas, which already have nonwhite majorities. They fear that Obama’s election, like Lincoln’s, foreshadows the emergence of a new national majority coalition that excludes them and will act against their interest. Having been reduced to the status of members of a minority race, they fear they will next lose their status as members of the dominant local class.

While each of the Newest Right’s proposals and policies might be defended by libertarians or conservatives on other grounds, the package as a whole—from privatizing Social Security and Medicare to disenfranchising likely Democratic voters to opposing voting rights and citizenship for illegal immigrants to chopping federal programs into 50 state programs that can be controlled by right-wing state legislatures—represents a coherent and rational strategy for maximizing the relative power of provincial white elites at a time when their numbers are in decline and history has turned against them. They are not ignoramuses, any more than Jacksonian, Confederate and Dixiecrat elites were idiots. They know what they want and they have a plan to get it—which may be more than can be said for their opponents.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: affluent; cruz; extremists; rich; shutdown; teaparty; teapartyrebellion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
Michael Lind (born April 23, 1962) is an American writer. Currently Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., Editor of New American Contract and its blog Value Added, and a columnist for Salon magazine. Lind was a guest lecturer at Harvard Law School and has taught at Johns Hopkins and Virginia Tech. He has been an editor or staff writer at The New Yorker, Harper's Magazine, The New Republic and The National Interest. Lind has published a number of books on U.S. history, political economy, foreign policy and politics as well as fiction, poetry and children’s literature.

Lind was born in Austin, Texas, a fifth-generation native of the state. He graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with honors in English and History (Plan II). In 1985 he received an MA in International Relations from Yale University and a JD from the University of Texas Law School in 1988. Lind moved to Washington, where after working as Assistant to the Director of the U.S. State Department’s Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs in 1990-91 he became Executive Editor of The National Interest from 1991-94. From 1994-98 he lived in Manhattan and worked for Harper’s Magazine, The New Republic and The New Yorker. In 1998 he became Washington Editor of Harper’s Magazine and moved to Washington, where in the same year he, Sherle Schwenninger and Walter Russell Mead co-founded the New America Foundation with Ted Halstead, with whom Lind co-authored The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics.

Lind has examined and defended the tradition of American democratic nationalism associated with Alexander Hamilton in a series of books, including The Next American Nation (1995), Hamilton’s Republic (1997), What Lincoln Believed (2004) and Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States (2012). Lind has also written two books on U.S. foreign policy, The American Way of Strategy (2006) and Vietnam: The Necessary War (1999). A former neoconservative in the tradition of New Deal liberalism, Lind criticized the American Right in Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America (1996) and Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics (2004).

1 posted on 10/07/2013 6:24:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Did he expect to find people on welfare upset about high taxes?

2 posted on 10/07/2013 6:30:32 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Mostly hooey. Back to the drawing board, or better yet, why not actually talk to some tea party groups?

3 posted on 10/07/2013 6:30:45 PM PDT by gspurlock (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We built this nation’s companies, we created its jobs, we fought its wars and we pay most of its taxes. THAT’S who the Tea Party is, Mr. Lind.

4 posted on 10/07/2013 6:33:45 PM PDT by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: TigersEye

Good lord what a load of crap. My poor Michigan ass is a tea partier and that’s just two examples of how wrong he is.

6 posted on 10/07/2013 6:34:30 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
They are second-tier people on a national level but first-tier people in their states and counties and cities.

The elitism just oozes from Lind. Hey Michael, there are no second-tier people in heaven and there are no first-tier people in hell.

7 posted on 10/07/2013 6:39:08 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Two people here who could qualify as poverty stricken if we saw ourselves that way. No excuses or complaints about it. Mom and I attended the first TEA Party rally and still stand on the same ground. I didn’t see a lot of rich neighbors there with us either.

8 posted on 10/07/2013 6:42:01 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Lind has a sneaky way of denigrating the TEA party. His is an effort to defend the parasites that mooch off the TEA party, which is not on the right, but clearly in the middle of those forced to pay the bills of a bullying government.

9 posted on 10/07/2013 6:44:07 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

My neighbor is considerably wealthier than I am and is a 30 year UAW man and he’s a tea partier.

10 posted on 10/07/2013 6:50:09 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This writer claims to resolve "misconceptions" - by adding a whole bunch more.

11 posted on 10/07/2013 6:52:54 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I am surprised that so many big-corp CEOs are lefties instead of TEA Party types. They’re going to go the way of Reardon Steel if this carp isn’t stopped.

12 posted on 10/07/2013 6:56:10 PM PDT by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

what a bunch of absolute malarky

Tea Partiers depriving others? What a crock. Tea Partiers are all about economic opportunity for all This jack off needs to go soak his head

13 posted on 10/07/2013 6:56:36 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick; admin

The word you used is not suitable for this site.

14 posted on 10/07/2013 6:57:46 PM PDT by sgtyork (The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage. Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

A punk demagogue.

15 posted on 10/07/2013 6:58:08 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Just one paragraph and it’s filled with lies and inaccuracies.

“While each of the Newest Right’s proposals and policies might be defended by libertarians or conservatives on other grounds, the package as a whole—from privatizing Social Security and Medicare to disenfranchising likely Democratic voters to opposing voting rights and citizenship for illegal immigrants to chopping federal programs into 50 state programs that can be controlled by right-wing state legislatures...”

GW Bush (and others) proposed privatization of SS long before the Tee Party existed.

He cites no proposed law(s) from the Tea Pary that would disenfranchise any voters.

The current law does not allow illegal aliens to vote. It was put in place long before the Tea Party came into existence.

Not all states are controlled by right wing legislatures (probably most are not).

The author is both a fool and a liar.

16 posted on 10/07/2013 7:02:29 PM PDT by Henry Hnyellar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Henry Hnyellar

“Tea Party radicalism is misunderstood: Meet the “Newest Right” (You’re richer than average, he says)”

All the Democrats in the House and Senate are too.

17 posted on 10/07/2013 7:05:23 PM PDT by Henry Hnyellar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Maybe this is John Walker Lind’s (American Taliban)

18 posted on 10/07/2013 7:07:58 PM PDT by penelopesire (TIME FOR OBAMA TO ANSWER FOR BENGHAZI UNDER OATH!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gspurlock

Admittedly I have wondered about our proclivity to go-it-alone, in regard to generally lax outreach to blacks and Hispanics. I believe the black Baptists of the south are a “gimme”, and also, the tradition of strong family attachments among Hispanics should make them a natural allie to Tea Party concerns. We’re seem to be all crickets on outreach to these demographics, in these neighborhoods.

Cruz is astute and I expect quite able to fold these demographics into at least the basics of our conservative agenda, for a broadened base.

19 posted on 10/07/2013 7:11:02 PM PDT by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sgtyork

What word would you prefer?

20 posted on 10/07/2013 7:12:21 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson