There is a growing movement of the conservative and libertarian Republicans whose base and locomotive force is driven – and held hostage-by the Tea Party phenomenon. Firstly, this is technically, indeed, truly a "movement," per se. Secondly, make no mistake about it, it is not at all revolutionary or progressive, but, on the contrary, is reactionary (it is backward, obsolete, and irrelevant). Thirdly, it is not at all unique and original – historically speaking, but is historically repetitive (which is partly why it is reactionary, that is to say, in opposition to history and progress, by going back to untenable solutions to problems of the past).
President Obama -and his opposition, in many ways, is historically similar to both historical epochs...those of Abraham Lincoln and Franklyn Delano Roosevelt. Both of the latter presidents arose to the call of great historically necessary challenges caused, in part, by their predecessors (or their reactionary inadequacies), culminating in a bitter struggle and ensuing opposition. The former president was embroiled in a period of a profound economic and moral struggle between that of a dying, archaic plantation system versus that of a newly rising system of industrial capitalism. The plantation system of the South was dependent upon (and reflective of) a traditionally privileged elite, a land-propertied aristocracy dependent upon slave labor, while capitalism is and was dependent upon a wider market of "free labor." Since the formation of the nation, reflected in Thomas Jefferson's original (yet, altered version of the) "Declaration of Independence," there was a battle over slavery. Hence, Lincoln found himself immersed in the long-term moral, social, political, legal, and-more importantly, many would say-economic confrontation of freemen/free labor vs. chattel slavery/slave labor, while FDR faced the Great Depression, where the reality and impossibility of laissez-faire capitalism continuing without an unprecedented regulation and massive state interference via social programs (protection in order to prevent total collapse and mass starvation) came to fruition and were deemed necessary in the aftermath of unregulated capitalism under the Hoover administration.
Even though most historians and economists would agree that FDR saved the nation - making him the most beloved and popular president in the history of the U.S., winning an unprecedented third electoral victory - he had a strong and powerful opposition...the ruling class. Big business hated FDR regulating, "meddling" with their unlimited and unbridled wealth and power, based upon the super-exploitation of labor. "Big government" and "regulation" were the enemies of Big Business. The well known names of J.P. Morgan and DuPont, along with other, lesser known names, such as Prescott Bush (the father of President George Herbert Walker Bush, and the grandfather of George W. Bush) -and the leading organizations of the opposition, the American Liberty League and the American Legion (with William Doyle at the head), led a conspiracy to overthrow the government via a violent military coup, along with plans to assassinate Roosevelt. This did not come to fruition, however, due to General Smedley Butler backing out of the conspiracy of the military coup. Big business (content with Herbert Hoover's "pull yourself up by the bootstrap" individual independence ideology) did not at all like Roosevelt's Economic Recovery Act; the "New Deal," the Social Security Act, taking the U.S. off of the gold standard, etc. These measures, however, truly saved the nation from total collapse and disaster, especially the majority, the masses, the working class of America. FDR's actions were nothing more or less than desperate attempts at solving the contradictions of capitalism, from over-speculation and greed per se to mass unemployment. The Obama administration is this history repeating itself, but it is also that of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War era, reliving the battle cries of the Confederacy, with general bigotry and racism in full bloom within the Tea Party Movement.
Similar to FDR, Abraham Lincoln was also perceived as a savior to working people, especially southern Blacks who were brutally exploited slaves. Lincoln's opposition and eventual assassination reflected a divided nation with a seemingly unified confederacy with emotional battle cries of "secession," "nullification," and "state's rights," immediately following Lincoln's election in 1860. This is type of opposition, complete with slogans and epithets shouted out at politicians in agreement with Obama, is carried on today (or ought I say, "is rearing its ugly head," and resurfacing, once again) within the Tea Party Movement.
So, I submit to the reader, President Obama, actually a Black moderate liberal from the land of Lincoln (the first American Black president), who found himself elected within the next period of a fundamental economic crisis (a second Great Depression, only to be rivaled by the original) – brought on by unbridled greed and de-regulation-had to regulate and predictably bring on the wrath of libertarians and pro-Confederate bigots. His opposition, grounded in the growing Tea Party movement, originally (growing out of the historical Reagan "Ignorantsia"– as opposed to the Intelligentsia ) of "Birthers" who doubted Obama's American birth certificate and accused him of being a Muslim, which – even if it were true, I believe, is still legal in America, began (as with Lincoln) immediately following his election, and was consistently and comprehensively peppered with racism, death threats, Confederate flags, and battle slogans. "Secession," "nullification," "state's rights," "keep the government out of my health care," etc. shout the Tea Partiers. Southerners sought to nullify Lincoln's election, as "Birthers," likewise, sought to nullify Obama's election. Furthermore, as with the opposition to FDR, deceptively false and accusative slogans of "government-run" and "socialism" have constantly plagued Obama, not just by Tea Partiers, but reflecting the entire Republican Party and its elected officials and pundits. The enemy, for Tea Partiers, is not "Big Business," but "Big Government." As with FDR, Obama's regulation (enabling the credit, and thus, capitalist economic system to function at all, in addition to saving over thirty million people who had no health care), was hardly socialism, but, on the contrary, a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem (brought on by the de-regulation of Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush). At the time, socialists and communists were divided between praising FDR for saving the nation and/or condemning him for saving a broken capitalist system from its immediate demise and preventing communism from its immediate inevitability.
Karl Marx referred to this last stage of-state interference with-capitalism as "state monopoly capitalism," a capitalism that has run its predictable and inevitable course from its earlier stages of "competitive capitalism" and "monopoly capitalism." State monopoly capitalism is a stage that requires state control, regulation, and protection of both the ruling class monopolies and the majority of people. So, as with FDR, Obama is hardly a socialist.
What little known/startling facts about the Civil War fit in with the present thesis? From where did most of the leading (and more philosophical, which is to say, intelligent) Civil War historians get their analysis? The leading newspaper circulation at the time of the Civil War was the New York Daily Tribune. A major contributing news correspondent in the U.S. at that time was none other than Karl Marx. His brilliant and meticulous attention to detail reflected in his news analysis. The leading turn-of-the-century Civil War historian, Charles Beard (1927), as well as, later, Arthur Cole (1934), and then, even later, the esteemed team of Carl and Edith Becker, were greatly influenced by Marx and his analysis, as is the most prestigious contemporary (post-Civil War) Reconstruction historian, Erich Foner (1984). Beyond and besides his so-called (an overly-exaggerated) "economic interpretation of history," Marx's analysis (overshadowed by his historical materialism and theory of class struggle) reveals a great deal of profound facts and illusory notions, as they unfolded in the history of the Civil War era. It would do us well to take heed of Marx's news analysis of this period, as it developed dialectically, for it further increases our insight into the fallacious veil of opposition endemic to both Lincoln and Obama.
It is this writer's assessment that the greatest philosopher before Marx was G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel had commented on how history repeats itself. Marx added, "The first time as tragedy, the second as farce." This, I believe, is how I would describe and sum up the opposition to Obama. Marx saw the Civil War as "the Second American Revolution," not from the standpoint of the Confederacy, but that of Lincoln and the Union. The Union, that is, the United States represented both an economic and ethical position of progress, albeit one of capitalist freedoms. The Confederate South, on the contrary, represented the counter-revolution. In addition, Marx poignantly demonstrated how "the South" was really never "autonomous," amounting to little more than "a battle slogan," being "against the will of the people," since there was hardly any democratic majority vote, beginning with the issue of "secession" from the Union as well as a matter of "forcing slavery against the will of the settlers" – e.g., in Kansas, Missouri, and Kentucky, and most certainly pertaining to any attempt at "nullification" regarding Lincoln's duly elected, democratic victory by a majority. At first – and ironically, only South Carolina reflected an honest majority vote to secede from the Union, and then, Texas later joined in. Almost half of the population of Georgia were slaves! Marx, reflecting upon the South as a political-economic system, referred to the southern plantation system as an outmoded economy based entirely upon slave labor and landed property...and an "oligarchy of 300,000." In a letter to Engels, Marx described the entire process, state-by-state, of how undemocratic practices and "terrorism" by minorities brought about secession from the Union, adding, "...incorrectly reported in the English papers. With the exception of South Carolina, there was everywhere the strongest opposition to secession." A real popular vote only occurred in a handful of states; e.g. in Kentucky, only a few thousand voted for secession, whereas 100,000 voted for the Union ticket. And in Tennessee, a little over twice as many people voted for secession (104,913 for, 47,238 against).
There are no obvious intellectual leaders of the Tea Party Movement...why?...primarily because it is not based at all on truth, facts, intelligence, knowledge, education, history, logic, philosophy, critical thinking, etc. In this respect it is not just "the Party of No," nor the self-described party of "hell no," but much like the "Know-Nothing Party." The movement and its leaders are riddled with contradictions. The most celebrated leading speaker for/at the Tea Party functions (that is, most demonstrations and talks) is Sarah Palin, a woman who claimed that she would rather cling to her guns and religion and go fishing and hunting. Statements by these Tea Partiers are reminiscent of the Nazi, Goering, who said "every time I hear the word culture, I want to reach for my gun" (as opposed to Woody Allen, who said "every time I hear the word gun, I reach for my culture"). For the apparent leaders of the movement, such as Sarah Palin ("don't retreat, reload") and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, there is much of this violent call-to-arms and anti-intellectualism (not just non-intellectual pride). Another head of the Tea Party (and "Secessionist") Movement is Rick Perry, governor of Texas. Another, yet more intelligent Tea Partier is successfully opposing Senator McCain in Arizona, but ironically, was a "no show" at Tea Party events (as was the recent Tea Partier who won in Massachusetts...and also a "no show" at the ultimate Tea Party demonstration in Boston on tax day!). These Tea Party leaders like Palin and Perry actually boast and pride themselves on not really knowing much....about history, politics, being intellectual, "too deep." For many of the leaders in the movement, like Perry, Palin, Bachmann, etc., they do not know much and do not want to know much; they do not care to know, and are woefully under-educated individuals. Again, that is precisely what is at the root of this form of populism. It is the new "Ignorantsia." They condemn public education as a failure, and then de-value education per se, "education-for-education sake." Only the "3Rs," along with technology and a strictly vocational preparation (and even that, only in the private sector) is valued, not just by Tea Partiers, but by almost all conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans in general. I believe that many Republicans want to jump on the bandwagon of Tea Party popularity, yet stayed back at a distance (as "no shows" at T.P events) since it did not seem to be a very legitimate movement. However, in the recent evolutionary build-up to tax day, the movement has grown significantly while, at the same time, it has shed some of its obvious racist bigotry and talk of violence. Hence, it does seem to be in the process of legitimization (even though, at the tax day rally, Tea Party speaker Bob Marshall, Republican from Virginia, amped-up the violent rhetoric, once again).
Moreover, at the same time, the Tea Party Movement has also erroneously invoked the name of Thomas Jefferson on many occasions. They selectively and/or ignorantly eliminate the basics for which he stood, including a good, well-rounded, and free public education; against total freedom of trade, e.g., the necessary right of government to interfere with property rights at times, an anti-monopolist and pro-worker stand; his opposition to war, favoring and enacting the embargo against England; his unpopular anti-British/pro-French support in America for his friends, the most radical Leftists of the French Revolution, Robespierre and the Jacobins; his unswerving freedom of as well as freedom from religion, protecting the rights of atheists and others; and many other crucial points in total opposition to the Tea Party Movement. Their lack of education is woeful and their contradictions are many: they like their Medicare and Social Security, but hate anything "government run;" they hate the government ("bailing out") interfering with the banking industry, but desperately love capitalism and the interest-bearing capital of lending and borrowing that it is based on (in order to buy and sell their cars and homes); they hate taxes and Obama's tax plan, yet it is the lowest it has been in a long time (lower than taxes under Republican presidents, especially for the middle class), not to mention one of the lowest tax rates in the world...in the capitalist world; they are confused and selectively choose and actually invent what is constitutional and what is not -e.g., the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and concerning the legality of the federal income tax, Article I, Section 8. (1) of the U.S. Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"); and, thus, the new Tea Party Movement has very little to do with the original Boston Tea Party – the latter reflected a tax imposed by England, causing the slogan, "no taxation without representation," while, in reality, our federal tax/es reflect the votes by our duly elected representatives in Congress.
Similarly, much too much misinformation surrounds all of the American presidents mentioned thus far. For that matter, the same, of course, can be said about Karl Marx himself. Although economics and the historical progress of economic systems were quintessential to his analysis and theories, so was social justice, and progressive reforms – whether or not they led to or fomented revolutions. This is why Lincoln was Marx's friend and why Marx supported him, wholeheartedly. This is also why Lincoln thanked Marx for all of his support. This is also why Marx's American friend, Joseph Weydemeyer, helped Lincoln get elected and re-elected, and fought as a colonel in Lincoln's army against the Confederacy. The correspondence between Marx and Lincoln (via Ambassador Charles Francis Adams) is particularly interesting, both relentlessly seeking freedom and the liberation of all workers, with a premium on and prerequisite of freeing Blacks. It is a boldface lie that Lincoln didn't care or wasn't that interested in freeing the slaves. As Marx points out, Lincoln's pre-electoral speeches, especially his "A House Divided Can Not Stand" speech merely emphasizes holding the Union together so as not to alienate Southerners.
History can teach us much, especially a deep, thoughtful history, a critical-philosophical approach, so as not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. Tragedy does become farcical at a point, and it is this writer's opinion that the Tea Party Movement and the Republicans in general have already surpassed that folly. The real, historical basis for democracy in America began with free public education and the town hall meeting, with freedom of speech – as a process of learning, exchanging rational ideas, not of a mass media TV moment to shout down a speaker, accompanied with fallacious sound bites, and closing down all dialogue (including debate, an intelligent, honest debate of substance). A well rounded education (also called a "liberal education") is the first prerequisite against the ignorance described in this essay, and the opposition to absolutely necessary measures taken by all three American presidents who rose to the occasion in times of crisis (along with many others), Lincoln, FDR, and Obama.
White House Photo
