tea party

'The very thing we feared is in office': Tea Party conservative tears into Trump

During Barack Obama's presidency, the Tea Party was a major force in right-wing politics — often frustrating both President Obama and then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) at the same time. Tea Party Republicans routinely accused the conservative Boehner of not being conservative enough. And even though Obama made a point of seeking centrist positions and reaching out to GOP lawmakers, members of the Tea Party were unreceptive.

But in an article published by the Washington Post on Halloween 2025, reporter Naftali Bendavid stresses that the Tea Party of the Obama years no longer exists thanks to President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

"The movement tore across the country with an energy new to American politics — its activists shouting at lawmakers and holding frenzied rallies to demand balanced budgets, an end to deficit spending, sharp tax cuts, fealty to the Constitution and a reined-in presidency," Bendavid reports. "This was the Tea Party movement, which punctuated its arrival 15 years ago with the election of 2010 — a moment that seemed poised to rewrite the rules of American politics. Yet just a few years later, the Republican Party was captured by the MAGA movement and President Donald Trump, whose agenda, to some Tea Party pioneers, is the opposite of theirs and which dominates the party today."

Although Democrats held the U.S. Senate in the 2010 midterms, Republicans flipped the U.S. House of Representatives that year in a massive red wave that Obama famously described as a "shellacking" for Democrats. And one of the prominent Tea Party figures who entered the House in January 2011 was then-Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Illinois), who only served one term (Rep. Walsh is not the singer from rock band The Eagles).

These days, Walsh is an outspoken Never Trumper. After leaving the GOP and becoming an independent in 2020, Walsh expressed his disdain for Trump and MAGA by joining the Democratic Party earlier this year.

Walsh told the Post, "We feared government tyranny. We feared a strong executive. We feared oppressive government, any president who would take a flamethrower to the Constitution. Now, the very thing we feared is in office."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) told the Post, "I think (the Tea Party has) largely been supplanted by something else. We aren't organized around ideas anymore. We're organized around a person."

Read Naftali Bendavid's full report for the Washington Post at this link (subscription required).


Emails reveal plan by swing state election officials to disrupt the vote

Even though voters aren't going to the polls for several weeks, there are already a slew of conservative groups organizing to sow doubt about the result in one particular battleground state if Republicans suffer a loss.

The Guardian recently reported on a trove of emails it obtained detailing efforts by a collection of MAGA-aligned organizations aiming to undermine election results in Georgia should Vice President Kamala Harris defeat former President Donald Trump in the critically important swing state. Several far-right groups — including Tea Party Patriots and the Election Integrity Network — are working with election officials in several Georgia counties who are sympathetic to their cause in an effort dubbed the "Georgia Election Integrity Coalition."

The emails, which were obtained via public records request from watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and shared with the Guardian, show how election deniers in positions of power throughout Georgia are hoping to disrupt efforts to certify the 2024 election if Harris prevails. One of those election deniers is David Hancock, who is a member of the Gwinnett County Board of Registrations and Elections.

READ MORE: Election officials fear 'conspiracy pushers' may disrupt vote certification in swing states

The effort appears to date back to January, when an unnamed website "admin" sent an email to members linking to an article by the United Tea Party of Georgia (UTPG) entitled "Georgia Democratic Party Threatens Elections Officials." That article described how an attorney with the Democratic Party of Georgia sent a letter to election officials in several counties reminding them that certifying an election wasn't discretionary and that failing to do so could result in legal action.

What likely prompted that letter was election officials in Cobb, DeKalb and Spalding Counties refusing to certify the 2020 election in Georgia, which President Joe Biden narrowly won by less than 12,000 votes. UTPG called it "Orwellian to demand that election officials certify an election even if they have unanswered questions about the vote."

CREW discovered that the unnamed admin who wrote that UTPG article was indeed Hancock, who the Guardian described as an "outspoken election denier." On the same day the article was published, Hancock wrote: "All right – I finished the article and posted it."

Several of the email's recipients include election officials who tried to decertify election results in Georgia, like Republicans Michael Heekin and Julie Adams of the Fulton County Board of Elections, Debbie Fisher in Cobb County, Nancy Jester in DeKalb County and Roy McClain in Spalding County. Hancock urged them all to share the article in a February email, writing: "I think the message needs to get out, so share as you feel led."

READ MORE: 'Ripe for abuse': GA elections chief now allowing anyone to cancel a voter's registration

Adams, using her TeaPartyPatriots.org email address, sought to coordinate voter fraud messaging with the group in a separate email. The group has hosted election deniers at their meetings, including Cobb County Republican Party co-chair Salleigh Grubbs, who successfully got the Georgia State Board of Elections to adopt a rule making it easier for counties to refuse to certify election results. Another featured speaker was state election board member Dr. Janice Johnston, whom Trump mentioned by name during an August rally in which he praised Republican election board members as "pit bulls" who were "fighting for victory."

The core argument of election deniers is that "widespread voter fraud" tarnishes the legitimacy of election results, requiring a delay in certification to conduct an investigation. However, as the Washington Post reported, there is no such thing as widespread voter fraud. Loyola Law School-Los Angeles professor Justin Leavitt found that out of more than one billion ballots cast between 2000 and 2014, there were just 31 instances of provable voter fraud. And in several Republican-controlled states including Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Texas and Virginia, voter fraud investigations dating back to the 2020 election only yielded 47 convictions.

According to the Guardian, Democrats have pointed to court cases in Georgia dating back to the 19th century showing that county election boards' certification duties are "ministerial," and not discretionary. Even Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger — a Republican — reportedly instructed a member of his office to remind county election officials that refusing to certify election results could subject them to legal proceedings.

Click here to read the Guardian's report in full.

READ MORE: GOP voter fraud prosecutions only yielded 47 convictions out of tens of millions of ballots: report

Group that created Tea Party dissolves over split between 'MAGA and Never Trump factions'

Freedomworks, which served as the primary hub for the conservative Tea Party movement of the late 2000s and early 2010s, is now closing its doors for good. Its leader blames the group's demise on the division within the GOP centered around former President Donald Trump.

Politico reported Wednesday that Freedomworks is shuttering after two decades in operation. Adam Brandon, who is Freedomworks' president, attributed the closure of the group to irreconcilable differences between the more libertarian-leaning faction of the Republican Party and the far-right, pro-Trump faction that has since taken over the GOP and dominated mainstream Republican orthodoxy.

"A lot of our base aged, and so the new activists that have come in [with] Trump, they tend to be much more populist," Brandon told Politico. An internal document Politico obtained included a quote from Brandon in which he said "[Freedomworks] staff became divided into MAGA and Never Trump factions."

READ MORE: (Opinion) In retrospect, it's clear that the Tea Party was a nascent fascist movement

"Now I think donors are saying, ‘What are you doing for Trump today?" Freedomworks board member Paul Beckner said. "And we’re not for or against Trump. We’re for Trump if he’s doing what we agree with, and we’re against him if he’s not. And so I think we’ve seen an erosion of conservative donors."

According to a former Freedomworks staffer, Brandon often had to toe the line between appeasing the MAGA movement while staying true to Freedomworks' conservative libertarian roots. In one instance, the group tweeted in support of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' so-called "Don't Say Gay" law, and publicly cast doubt on the veracity of 2020 election results.

"[Brandon] let a bunch of right-wing nutjobs turn FreedomWorks into a MAGA mouthpiece because there was money and eyeballs in it," said the staffer, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. "If that becomes the case again, he’ll repeat history."

After the death of Freedomworks, Brandon hinted at launching a new organization aimed at libertarian-leaning, politically active younger voters among the millennial and Gen Z age groups. He added that he was hoping for a fresh start to "get away around all the baggage [associated with FreedomWorks]."

READ MORE: Mike Johnson has supported a radical 'far-fetched' movement to 'remake the Constitution': report

Freedomworks was launched in 2004, after the Koch-backed Citizens for a Sound Economy split into Freedomworks — chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) — and Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which was chaired by far-right billionaire David Koch. Both Freedomworks and AFP laid the groundwork for the Tea Party movement, which launched in 2009 in opposition to then-President Barack Obama's administration.

While the Tea Party was initially regarded as a grassroots, populist movement, both Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity were revealed to be supplying the movement with professional training sessions and well-funded protest efforts that led to the 2010 midterm Republican wave election.

"When Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, FreedomWorks studied how he did it and then copied him," read a Guardian report from 2009. "They set up a ning site, a Facebook-like platform that allows members to talk to each other without having to go through the parent body. The result was explosive."

Click here to read Politico's full report.

READ MORE: MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk calls MLK 'awful' and deems Civil Rights Act 'a huge mistake'

Trump Campaign Co-Chair Sentenced to 20 Years for Trafficking Minors and Sexual Abuse

Tea Party leader and former Trump campaign chair Tim Nolan has pled guilty and received 20 years in prison for human trafficking, reports Cincinnati.com.

Keep reading...Show less

Trumpism Is Ingrained in White America: When He Goes, It Will Remain

The author Tom Wolfe once wrote: “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.” He was reflecting a consensus, shared by public and scholars alike, that far right politics is a European phenomenon, at odds with “American values”. It is a conviction so deeply held that it has left the US blind to reality.

Keep reading...Show less

We Are Living in Perilous Times - And Yet There Is a Promising Movement Afoot

“The system is rigged!” is now an angry, bipartisan cry, intensifying as Trump bows to big-donor interests and deepens distrust of government.

Keep reading...Show less

A Billionaire-Backed 'Movement' Is Dangerously Close to Calling a Constitutional Convention

A billionaire-backed “movement” is dangerously close to calling a constitutional convention of states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. If realized, it would be the first constitutional convention since the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, which replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution.

Keep reading...Show less

Where Did $1 Million Go? Michele Bachmann Is in Hot Water If She Can't Answer the Question

Former Minnesota congresswoman and Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann may no longer grab headlines for her wacky floor speeches, but that doesn’t mean federal elections officials have forgotten about her — or the more than $1 million in campaign cash they say is now mysteriously missing.

Keep reading...Show less

'We Are Relearning Democracy': 5 Ways the Anti-Trump Movement Is Energizing Political Action

When the Women’s March descended on Washington, D.C., the day after the Presidential Inauguration on Jan. 21, 2017, its size wasn’t the only point of contention. Many skeptics wondered what good a march could do, even if collectively it was the largest march in recorded history. As with almost all political action these days, the burning question was whether it would make any difference.

It’s worth pausing to reflect on the severe sense of political skepticism that has become not only commonplace, but also expected, each and every time any progressive movement attempts to engage in any political action in this country. One of the reasons for this is that public protests and marches seem to translate uneasily into concrete political outcomes.

As Moisés Naím wrote in The Atlantic in 2014, “The problem is what happens after the march.”

This criticism, of course, was the common tactic used to discredit the success of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) as a movement with impact. Despite the fact that basically everyone on the planet knows the notion of the 1 percent thanks to OWS, the commonly accepted idea is that public protests go nowhere.

Naím argues that “Behind massive street demonstrations there is rarely a well-oiled and more-permanent organization capable of following up on protesters’ demands and undertaking the complex, face-to-face, and dull political work that produces real change in government.”

That’s where Indivisible comes in. Indivisible began as a guidebook to help empower anti-Trump resisters so they could take their energy and translate it into concrete political change.

Well, actually, it began in a bar.

Similar to many of us who sought to drown our sorrows after the election, married couple Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg found themselves at a bar in Austin, Texas, drinking and wondering what could be done to stop Trump.

But, unlike the rest of us, Levin, Greenberg and colleague Sarah Dohl had some specific ideas. Levin and Dohl had worked for Congressman Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, when the Tea Party launched in 2009, and they witnessed firsthand the effectiveness of that movement. They noted that Tea Party protests worked even in the context of a president who had majority support. They figured that the combination of Trump’s weak mandate and unlikeability had to make him an easier target for political resistance than President Obama had been.

So they took the best, most effective tactics from the Tea Party and marshaled them for a step-by-step guide to bring down the Trump platform. They posted it on Facebook and figured their moms and a few friends would like it, and that would be it.

But the guide went viral; web traffic crashed the Google document. So they created a website and worked with a core team of others to develop their plan into something that could really steer local groups.

As Dohl shared with me via email, as of March 21, Indivisible had 18.47 million page views, 3.03 million unique users from every state, 2.02 million downloads/views of the Indivisible Guide, and 2.97 million searches for a group, meeting or event. They currently have 5,802 verified groups, with at least two in every congressional district.

As a point of comparison, the Tea Party spiked at about 1,000 local groups.

And we also now know that the Tea Party may have appeared to have been a grassroots movement, but it was actually orchestrated and funded by Big Oil, Big Tobacco and the Koch brothers.

Meanwhile Indivisible really did start as an organic upsurge, helped, in part, by the fact that the guide caught the attention of noted public figures like Robert Reich, Rachel Maddow and George Takei.

And yet, as Indivisible has been gaining in visibility and success, it has been hounded by another common criticism of leftist action: that its members are paid and that it is not authentic. White House spokesman Sean Spicer recently called the liberal activism at rowdy congressional town halls a “very paid, Astroturf-type movement.” They have also been accused of being funded by George Soros.

Levin has countered that the group is “is very much led on the ground” by activists who are determined to take action against Trump and is not under the sway of any one donor or group.

What perhaps is even more noteworthy is that despite both Spicer’s and Trump’s efforts to discredit Indivisible, it is not only gaining momentum, it is continuing to accumulate examples of measurable success.

In one noteworthy example, Indivisible urged its supporters to take advantage of the congressional recess that occurred during the week of Feb. 17-26, during which time members of Congress often hold town halls back home. They issued a step-by-step guide to help members use these town halls to great effect, especially in cases where the lawmaker was nowhere to be found.

In some cases “concerned” individuals launched campaigns to locate their “missing” representatives. For example, missing posters featuring Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., were posted around his California congressional district. Missing notices for Rep. Paul Cook, R-Calif., were posted on milk cartons within his district and posted to the @WhereIsPaulCook Twitter account using the hashtag #prayforpaul, and a tongue-in-cheek candlelight vigil was held to mourn his absence and urge him to return home to his constituents. Other town halls were held with empty chairs, empty suits, or even a chicken standing in for the missing politician.

And while some skeptics will start listing the various ways that Indivisible won’t measure up to the sort of meaningful political resistance we need in the wake of the Trump debacle, here are five reasons why this movement is making a difference.

1. Strategy

Unlike the Women’s March or OWS or any number of other spontaneous political action groups we have seen, Indivisible is founded on the idea that political change requires a clear strategy. Its number one goal is to “demystify congressional advocacy.” Its second goal is to support local groups trying to use their political toolkit.

Billy Fleming, co-author of the Indivisible Guide, put it this way: “We’re really good at demystifying Congress in a way that can be used by all of their different members to take the most effective action possible.”

As Bob Burnett, a member of Indivisible Berkeley, explained it to me during a phone interview, the goal is to help the public “relearn democracy,” which means that much of the focus is on skills and tactics that work.

The website is filled with how-tos, action guides and scripts. It helps take the mystery out of the political process and allows engaged citizens to turn their passion into political change.

2. Complementarity

Indivisible counteracts previously accepted ideas about political action that make assumptions that specific forms of activity are more effective than others. It does not pit one form of organizing against another. Instead it has built a platform that complements the initiatives of a given local group, whether they are planning marches, sit ins, call banking, or, as in one case, a die in to protest changes to health care

While they do work to encourage leaders to coordinate their initiatives with local media and social media, Indivisible helps their groups to develop these ideas in ways that are reactive to local circumstances.

They emphasize that they are not the leaders of the movement and that local groups are taking ownership of the resistance to Trump’s agenda themselves. Their goal is to complement those initiatives by offering key tactics that work. Thus they offer a new model for political organizing that falls between a leadered and a leaderless revolution. They offer guidance and help share best practices across all of their registered groups.

3. Indivisibility

The Indivisible founders knew that, like the Tea Party, they needed to create a unifying theme to their platform. Thus, they specifically chose a concept that pits them directly against the divisive, racist and angry tenor of Tea Party tactics: indivisibility.

And yet, following the Tea Party playbook, they advocate two key elements in their action plan: 1) Focus on your local member of Congress who wants reelection, and 2) focus your energies on a defensive approach that is purely anti-Trump. While Dohl explained to me that their platform has a progressive vision, Indivisible is clearly aimed at welcoming anyone and everyone who wants to stop Trump. Their unifying quality is their desire to reclaim the nation from a Trump platform that is “built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption.”

This emphasis on “indivisibility” has allowed them to sidestep the division between supporters of #DemExit or #DemForce and it has allowed them to bracket concerns over whether the DNC needs to be reformed or abandoned. While some critics will be quick to jump on this issue, I’d argue that it makes more sense to recognize that this neutral stance allows Indivisible to support a range of anti-Trump positions.

It has also allowed them to welcome members of #RedStateWoke, a hashtag launched by Indivisible Oklahoma to highlight the many Republican voters who are “waking up” and embracing the anti-Trump platform.

Because the movement is tactical but not policy driven, its goal is simply to demand responsiveness in those elected officials who are currently in office or else shame them so thoroughly that they won’t be reelected.

And the tactic is working across the political board. Burnett told me that Senator Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., was “scared” after media attention to an empty-chair town hall where she was “missing” in front of more than 2,700 attendees. And Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has been the subject of a number of Indivisible actions, including the die in mentioned above, has apparently begun a noticeable shift in policy toward the left.

4. Laughtivism

While Indivisible has borrowed key tactics from the Tea Party in support of an anti-Trump agenda, there is one major difference in their strategies. Where the Tea Party traded on anger, fear and hysteria to freak out their members, Indivisible mobilizes its members using laughtivism.

This difference may well be one of the most significant distinctions between Indivisible and the Tea Party and the one that has the ability to have the most political impact. Indivisible leaders are encouraged to find ways to bring media attention to their efforts by using irony, humor and wit.

Unlike the angry, scary rhetoric of the Tea Party that sought to get support through fear, Indivisible is seeking support using satirical activism — “missing” labels on milk cartons and on posters, chickens at town halls to represent “chicken” leaders, cardboard cutouts of members of Congress, empty suits and empty chairs. By combining serious political action with the fun of satire and irony, Indivisible is not only helping get attention to their initiatives, they are also tapping into the powerful potential of laughtivism.

As Srdja Popovic explains, laughtivism helped bring down Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, so we have reason to think it should help with Trump. But more importantly laughtivism “breaks fear and builds confidence,” thereby creating a political mindset that can inspire revolutionary change and mobilize collective action.

Dohl explained that while the Indivisible team encourages these sorts of creative initiatives, the founding members are continually surprised by new and innovative ways that their members are using humor to political ends.

5. Storytelling

In the wake of the first “fake news”-elected president, no one needs reminding that politics today is all about controlling the narrative.

Thus Indivisible takes storytelling as a central component of its tactics. It encourages local groups to develop relationships with local media, to operate Twitter and Facebook pages and to always take pictures and videos at any event.

One Indivisible group in Colorado tells the story of how they took a meeting with their congressman, Mike Coffman, R-Colo., where he snuck out the back door, and turned it into a viral media event.

Indivisible is also vigilant regarding the various right-wing tricks that can be used against progressive activists: “Right-wing activists and media use stealthy tactics to delegitimize progressive groups, creating secret recordings of group meetings or off-the-cuff statements by their members.” They also know that any anti-Trump resistance will face negative spin from the White House and right-wing media outlets.

The idea is that if they have a highly visible counter-narrative, they just make the right look inept when they go after them. While they offer tips on how to counter negative press, their main goal is to frame the story from the start.

Naím argued that the problem with the political efficacy of protest is that most movements lack an organization ready to engage in the “complex, face-to-face, and dull political work that produces real change in government.”

Indivisible is teaching us that real change in government doesn’t have to be either complicated or dull. And it is showing us that political change can launch from the streets or from the corner bar.

Keep reading...Show less

The Anti-Trump Resistance Is Much Bigger than the Tea Party - And It Has to Be

The anti-Trump resistance is not like the Tea Party, to which it is frequently compared. It’s much more serious, despite repeated denials in the mainstream media. True, it lacks a misleading, self-important moniker, and it’s only been around a few weeks or months, rather than years. But the Women’s March brought out more than 4 million people to more than 900 events on all seven continents. Tea Party protests on Tax Day in 2009 were an order of magnitude smaller in total, with the largest of them in the 10,000 range. Tea Party town halls didn’t gain steam until the August 2009 congressional recess, followed by the 9-12 rally that September, relentlessly hyped by Glenn Beck on Fox News, and falsely touted to have drawn 2 million people. It was really more like 70,000, as Nate Silver explained.  

Beyond all those particulars, the Tea Party was far more driven by outside money, organization and media promotion than the anti-Trump protests today. The Tea Party grew from more than 20 years of Astroturf organizing, financed largely by Big Tobacco, as well as Koch Brothers organizing, specifically employing the “Tea Party” brand since at least 2002. What’s more, its level of popular support was always more limited as well, rarely rising above 30 percent. It never represented a majoritarian point of view.  

Even within the GOP itself, non-Tea Party Republicans opposed Tea Party ideas on some of its core economic thinking, as Greg Sargent highlighted in January 2014 (“The Tea Party and the Hammock Theory of Poverty”). Most tellingly, Tea Party Republicans (and GOP leaners) overwhelmingly opposed raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 65 percent to 33 percent, while non-Tea Party Republicans and leaners overwhelmingly supported it by precisely the opposite ratio. The Tea Party represented an isolated minority that was wildly out of step with the rest of the country but wielded extraordinary power within a severely dysfunctional party and political system. There has been no comparable polling on the anti-Trump protests, but President Trump’s approval ratings remain well below 50 percent, so opposing him is clearly a majoritarian position.

The Tea Party’s power came from the ability of an organized anti-government minority to wreak havoc in an already long-gridlocked system. They basically don’t believe in governance, and our democracy is fragile enough that they have been able to start dismantling it, though nowhere near as rapidly or radically as they’d like. Anti-Trump protesters want to block the president’s agenda, clearly. But they’re definitely not anti-governance. To the contrary, they support significant enhancements in the effectiveness, responsiveness and scope of government to meet the challenges of the 21st century. They also embrace a much more diverse range of identities and confluence of movements.

It’s harder to build than to destroy, so the anti-Trump movement has a more difficult job before it, made even harder by the structures of American governance, the many veto points, and the enormous money power of the 1 percent. Facile comparisons that ignore these asymmetries misrepresent political reality, and serve to make the anti-Trump movement’s work even harder than it already is.  

While many mainstream pundits have equated the two movements, conservatives muddle things even more. A typical example is Rep. Raúl Labrador of Idaho, a House Freedom Caucus leader, who recently described the Tea Party as “a large group of people that organically got together eight years ago,” because they were upset with the Republican establishment as well as with President Obama. As Jane Mayer made clear in her book “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” there was nothing organic about it:

Thomas Frank, author of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”, had stopped by to see an early Tea Party rally in Lafayette Square, across from the White House, in February 2009. “It was very much a put-up job,” he concluded. “All the usual suspects were there, like Freedom Works, ‘Joe the Plumber’, and The American Spectator magazine. There were also some people who had Revolutionary War costumes and ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flags, actual activists, and a few ordinary people,” he said. “But it was very well organized by the conservative groups. Back then, it was really obvious that it was put on, and they’d set it up. But then it caught on.” Frank argues that “the Tea Party wasn’t subverted,” as some have suggested. “It was born subverted.” Still, he said, “it’s a major accomplishment for sponsors like the Kochs that they’ve turned corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets.”

Make no mistake, it was a remarkable accomplishment, if one that also cost a lot of money. But it took the disastrous failures of the Bush administration, which destroyed the broader conservative brand, to provide an opening for the more radical Tea Party brand to catch on. The Democratic establishment has failed as well — though not as spectacularly, and not around a clearly articulated and agreed-upon ideological identity. But that failure reached a new crisis point with the election of Donald Trump, which in turn led to the anti-Trump movement. Here we can see one true point in common: Like the Tea Party, the anti-Trump resistance is a response to the failures of both parties.

Another symmetry is the influx of new activism and newly created organizations, alongside older, more established ones. Writing for the Hill recently, Heath Brown, author of a book about the Tea Party, argued that the Tea Party displayed “two important dimensions,” which he claimed the anti-Trump movement lacked: First, “bold imagery and clear symbolism,” and second, “the formation of a vast network of new organizations,” numbering around 1,000, citing the work of Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson. Brown’s first point is valid, though it actually illustrates my thesis about how deeply asymmetrical the two movements are. The Koch brothers’ organizations have been fooling around with that imagery, symbolism and faux history since at least 2002, and even before that in embryonic form.

But the second point is simply false. First of all, by 2012, the number of Tea Party groups had declined to 600, Skocpol said, though she considered that “a very good survival rate.” In contrast, today new anti-Trump groups are quickly growing. The Indivisible Guide website has a geographically organized directory of groups, that “are wholly independent; they are listed provided they agree to resist Trump’s agenda, focus on local, defensive congressional advocacy, and embrace progressive values.” Within 50 miles of my home in Los Angeles, there are 238 groups listed, of which 66 begin with “Indivisible” in their names — the bare minimum of new organizations. But that’s just L.A., what do you expect? Well, there are at least eight identifiably new groups within 50 miles of Omaha, six in and around Boise, Idaho, and 19 within 50 miles of Paul Ryan’s home district in Janesville, Wisconsin. And that’s just groups affiliated under one umbrella. There is no doubt that the Trump resistance is forming new organizations at a high rate, just as the Tea Party did — only much faster.

But the similarities are not as important as the differences, which can only be fully appreciated in terms of the much broader, long-standing asymmetry of American politics, laid out in detail by Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins in their book “Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats“ (my Salon story here). In a nutshell, the Tea Party represented a re-visioning of conservative politics in the wake of George W. Bush’s disastrous presidency, in line with the traditional ideological nature of the GOP, with its historical emphasis on who is a “true conservative,” who is most pure, most “principled,” most extreme, etc. Given how thoroughly Bush’s conservative project had failed, a complete makeover was imperative.

In contrast, the anti-Trump protests reflect the diverse nature of groups particularly interested in specific sorts of policies, rather than the ideologies used to justify or explain them. That diversity plays a much more significant role in the Democratic Party, and the broader political culture around and beyond it. The fragmentary nature of the Democratic coalition — as well as inherent tensions with its affluent funders — has created a very different history of relations between the party establishment and its activist base and the larger populations they represent. At the same time, the core policies that these activists push for have much broader support than the policies that conservative activists push. It is only in the realm of broad ideology, and the rhetoric spread around it, that conservatives can hope to gain majority support.

For example, as I pointed out in July 2015, Bernie Sanders embraced a full-throated progressive agenda that had very high levels of popular support. The “Big Ideas” poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute generated a long list of policies supported by 70 percent of the public or more, all of which were generally in line with Sanders’ agenda. They ranged from universal pre-K (77 percent) to an end to gerrymandering (73 percent), to debt-free college at public universities, a $400 billion annual infrastructure jobs program and Medicare buy-in for all (71 percent each).  

This magnitude of support for progressive policies is one side of the fundamental asymmetry of American politics, and a clear source of strength for progressives courageous enough to rally behind them. One root cause of this asymmetry was first uncovered by Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril in their landmark 1967 book, “The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion,” which found that half the population qualified as ideological conservatives, based on questions about government interference and individual initiative, while two-thirds of the population were operationally liberal, supporting an activist federal government when asked about specific programs or responsibilities — stable or increased federal government spending on education, housing and urban renewal, adoption of Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare proposal, and the government’s responsibility to fight poverty.

In the last section of their book, titled “The Need for a Restatement of American Ideology,” Free and Cantril wrote:

The paradox of a large majority of Americans qualifying as operational liberals while at the same time a majority hold to a conservative ideology has been repeatedly emphasized in this study. We have described this state of affairs as mildly schizoid, with people believing in one set of principles abstractly while acting according to another set of principles in their political behavior. But the principles according to which the majority of Americans actually behave politically have not yet been adequately formulated in modern terms …

There is little doubt that the time has come for a restatement of American ideology to bring it in line with what the great majority of people want and approve. Such a statement, with the right symbols incorporated, would focus people’s wants, hopes, and beliefs, and provide a guide and platform to enable the American people to implement their political desires in a more intelligent, direct, and consistent manner.

As I’ve noted before, that restatement was never mounted. If we’d had it, it would have sounded a lot like Dr. Martin Luther King’s call for the Poor People’s Campaign, or like Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, almost the opposite happened: Conservative ideology gained ascendency within the political class, pushing the country’s politics to the right. Racist reaction against the gains of the Civil Rights Movement played a significant role as well. More broadly, we can point to the more complex historical processes — of which increased economic inequality is just one highly significant example — associated with the turn toward a disintegrative, conflictual trend in American society, as described in Peter Turchin’s “Ages of Discord,” which I reviewed here last October. Those trends should peak sometime after 2020, providing an opening for more integrative, prosocial forces to gain traction — which is why there could still be a chance for that hoped-for restatement.

But as long as conservative ideology retains such a hold, there’s a strong tendency even for progressives to present their policies in a framework that reflects conservative assumptions, at least implicitly. Such an ideologically impaired presentation inevitably weakens progressive arguments, giving credence to all manner of false arguments. This is precisely the legacy of neoliberalism, as advanced by Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1980s and ’90s, which was challenged repeatedly among both parties during last year’s election campaign.

To her credit, Hillary Clinton evolved in a much more progressive direction over the course of the campaign, but the lasting impact of neoliberal ideology goes far beyond any one political figure. The struggle to overcome that lasting impact will be one of the most important determinants of whether the anti-Trump movement ultimately succeeds — not just in stopping Trump, but in solving the festering problems that gave rise to Trump in the first place. In the best-case scenario, it will finally succeed in crafting “a restatement of American ideology to bring it in line with what the great majority of people want and approve.” It seems like such a simple, straightforward and obvious thing to do.

Keep reading...Show less

Sean Spicer Reveals His Total Detachment From Reality in Bonkers Statement About Protesters

In an all-out rejection of Donald Trump and the Republican agenda of xenophobia, racism, misogyny, and generally screwing the country over with financial and environmental regulatory rollbacks, millions of people nationwide are protesting. Organic protests are erupting daily at the offices of our elected representatives, airports, anywhere and everywhere. Republican Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner casually mentioned he believed the people turning up at his office and Colorado-area protests were "paid protesters." So did a Tennessee state senator, who provided evidence that was easily debunked and became an internet joke.

Keep reading...Show less
@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.