Mediaboss Marketing

There is a direct lineage between the Occupy Wall Street movement, the enormous and historic contribution that Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersMoral outrage shrouds reality of Russian hacking case Left wing protests only strengthen the Right Sanders, Occupy Wall Street and the liberal Tea Party surge MORE (I-Vt.) made in the 2016 presidential campaign, and what some call the progressive Tea Party movement that, along with other Americans, has besieged Republican officeholders at town meetings across America.

The Sanders campaign for president was a defining moment in American political history one that has continuing impact on his work in the Senate today, the creation of groups such as Our Revolution that supports his agenda, and Sanders's coming role in the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 presidential campaign.

The continuing power of the Sanders movement results from the fact that not only did he inspire a large number of citizens to participate in politics, but revolutionized campaign finance by inspiring small donors. Those donors broke the old politics paradigm of seeking large contributions and special interest money that usually paid for consultant-driven negative television ads.

In 2016 Sanders inspired, motivated and organized a continuing political movement based on progressive ideas, institutional reform and the kind of dramatic change that voters hunger for.

Before the Sanders campaign, there was the Occupy Wall Street movement, and today, there is the so-called progressive version of the Tea Party movement reminiscent of the movement that brought conservatives and Republicans to power beginning in the 2010 midterms.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which I strongly supported and continue to support, was a frontal challenge to the power exercised by the 1 percent, who do so at the expense of the 99 percent who are the heart and soul of America.

The mistake many Democrats made, including the Obama White House, was that they felt threatened by Occupy Wall Street. After all, President Obama was not elected in 2008 to name Timothy Geithner, a close ally of the largest financial institutions of the world, as his Treasury secretary. But Obama did.

The mistake Occupy Wall Street made understandably so, but still a tactical mistake was to respond by rejecting involvement in electoral politics.

Sanders and his campaign filled this gap, brought together grassroots action and direct political involvement, and brought large numbers of new people into politics who remain active and engaged in politics today.

The continuing Sanders movement embodied by Our Revolution is critical to the future of American politics, and the so-called liberal Tea Party movement is similar and also important by forcing Republican officeholders to publicly answer questions they would rather duck at town meetings.

With two critical elections approaching in 2018 and 2020, it is important to fully understand and act on the differences between presidential elections and midterm elections just as I mentioned in my last column on the anti-Trump wave that could define the midterm elections in 2018.

In the 2020 presidential election, Democrats and all Americans will have the opportunity to elect a transforming progressive president. In the midterm elections, though, the prime directive is to elect the progressive and moderate Democrats needed to put a brake on the power of President Trump and the Republican Congress.

The anti-Trump wave extends far beyond the traditional Democratic base. It includes the huge number of Americans who now realize they will be hurt by repeal or destruction of ObamaCare; the huge number of Americans who are angered and fearful of attacks against a free press; those appalled by the key members of the Trump administration who bear false witness about meetings with the Russians who attack our democracy; and those who reject the "swamp" in Washington that has actually gotten worse, since a number of Trump officials embody the special interests of political "swamp" Trump falsely claimed he would drain.

Democrats and progressives have an opportunity in 2018 to restore and widen our traditional coalition, maintain the momentum of the Sanders movement, inspire voters who stayed home in 2016, and end the one-party monopoly of power that the GOP now holds.

This will require supporting progressive Democrats and also supporting moderate, red-state Democrats, and, above all, finding new and appealing challengers to take the fight to Republicans in every district and state across the nation.

Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Chief Deputy Majority Whip Bill Alexander (D-Ark.). He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He is a longtime regular columnist for The Hill and can be contacted at brentbbi@webtv.net.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:
Sanders, Occupy Wall Street and the liberal Tea Party surge - The Hill (blog)

March 1, 2017 AtlantaIf this was a Trump-era reprise of the tea party, it was a distinctly less energized one than eight years ago, when a horseback Paul Revere delighted a huge crowd of self-described patriots outside the Georgia Capitol.

On Monday in Atlanta, veteran tea party organizers were among about 150 people who gathered to wave placards, including one depicting fake news media personalities with their hair on fire while President Trump smiles in the background.

On Feb. 25, Mr. Trump had tweeted, Maybe the millions of people who voted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN should have their own rally. It would be the biggest of them all!

But the Atlanta rally, though festive, portrayed an oddly subdued optic for a president who has repeatedly measured his popularity not by polls but by crowd sizes. Similar events in Louisiana and Colorado, part of a wave of some 70 "Spirit of America" rallies this week, also had only modest attendance in contrast with the large, rowdy crowds that have turned out to protest the Trump administration.

While the largest gatherings are expected Saturday, the relatively small turnout of these pro-Trump rallies so far underscores concern that the largely white, middle-class conservatives who led an insurgency against the Washington establishment have yet to demonstrate as much strength in empowering Mr. Trump and other outsiders now that they're in government.

In some ways, that's only natural, say experts.

Protests, even rallies, are tactics by people feeling disenfranchised the tea party worked largely because the Democrats had the White House and Congress so it makes sense now that the resistance [to Trump] movement is the one gaining traction, says University of Maryland sociologist Dana Fisher, who studies social movements and civic participation. So it seems a bit of a rookie move to call people to go to the streets to support you when you have all the power, because that strategy is hard to be successful at.

But those allied with the tea party movement defend the somewhat counterintuitive bid by the tea party movement to essentially "make the establishment great again after spending the bulk of eight years knocking it down. We are now in a position to be a positive working force for this country, says B.J. Van Gundy, a former state GOP vice chair.

Eight years after at least 30,000 people took to the streets and 1,000 tea party groups bloomed in the wake of President Obamas election and the 2008 Wall Street bailout, the tea party can in many ways claim not just Trump the bull-in-a-china-shop outsider who speaks of a leaner American government but a broader ideological victory. It has transformed the Republican Party while pushing the Democrats to the margins of power, except in the big cities.

Yet the mood at Mondays Atlanta rally was less euphoric than defensive.

Tea Party Patriots founder and national political coordinator Jenny Beth Martin said complacency could lead to disappointment for conservatives, given a rising opposition tide. We cant just step back and expect Trump to make it all happen by himself, she says.

To tea party leaders like Georgia state Sen. Josh McKoon, the movement's message is relevant not just in support of Mr. Trump, but also the continued necessity to keep both parties honest.

After all, he says, the tea party rose up as a Republican insurgency and succeeded even as similar movements on the left, including Occupy Wall Street and the Bernie Bros largely failed, at least electorally.

This push to protect basic rights for Americans is not controversial, and the vast majority of people are with us, says Senator McKoon. But they need encouragement. This goes deep, and its beyond any single party.

Nevertheless, the tea party and Trump, some activists admit, are hardly a perfect fit. Trumps policies threaten to drive up national debt, which the tea party sought to slash. And his administration has vowed to reassert federal authority on states rights issues like marijuana legalization.

At the same time, We cant have purity tests when it comes to politics, says Mr. Van Gundy, who helped usher tea party candidates into the Georgia legislature. Trump is headed in the right direction on a lot of things.

After Trumps speech to Congress on Tuesday night, the Tea Party Express issued a statement saying that their usual annual rebuttal to the president's address wasn't necessary because Trump essentially did their work for them.

President Trump delivered an eloquent address, where he clearly and deliberately laid out his conservative vision for America, the statement said. "It should now be clear to everyone that the Tea Party movement is more than rallies and protests. We have arrived in D.C., through our elected representatives, to fulfill our mission and finally rein in government."

Indeed, political scientists say the sparse attendance at Trump rallies underscores that theres not much energy on the right, because their grass-roots are kind of satisfied O.K., we got our guy in there, and weve got Congress while the reluctant Trump voters are trying to absorb all this and figure out what it means, says Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz. Meanwhile, [many Republicans] dont realize they might be in trouble.

In Georgias hotly contested Sixth Congressional District, for example, Trump beat Hillary Clinton by only 1 percentage point, a potential problem since its a conservative-leaning suburban district.

Add the galvanizing effect of constituent town halls on many voters, and that's created an opening for Jon Osoff, a 30-something Democrat with what the Daily Beast's Patricia Murphy calls an economy-first pragmatism buttressed by unqualified support for liberal causes.

Conservatives in office find themselves pressured by town halls, and the trouble such voter discontent may spell for 2018 midterm elections.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California, usually a conservative bulldog, pushed for a substantial investigation into Russian election interference despite Trump's dismissal of such claims as unfounded. In a recent US News & World Report piece, Yale University political scientist John Stoeher saw in that decision aa sign of concern about a looming pushback at the voting booth. Mr. Issas district, Mr. Stoeher pointed out, is on the outskirts of Los Angeles and ... dramatically favored Clinton.

But now that the populist movement spawned by the tea party finds itselfin power, critics would be remiss by reading too much into low attendance at such events, political scientists say.

More telling is whether a revived tea party can turn itself into a relevant counter-movement to what Ms. Fisher, the University of Maryland sociologist, says is a building resistance from the left to the new Trump establishment.

Counting numbers does tell you some things, including that getting 150 people out to support an incumbent administration on a Monday is a fair amount, says Michael Heaney, a political sociologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The key thing is that its an opportunity for people to talk to one another and build a political organization. Its really about how these rallies feed into their ability to plan future events.

Continued here:
Tea party's bid to 'make the establishment great again' - CSMonitor ... - Christian Science Monitor

This presents a crucial test to the tea party movement that has reshaped American politics since 2008. The most obvious challenge is that Trump has chosen to leave Social Security and Medicare alone, two of the biggest components of the federal budget and two prime targets for conservatives like Speaker Paul Ryan.

Trump is going to assure Congress that the draconian cuts to domestic programs like the Environmental Protection Agency, reductions which tea party Republicans love, will balance out the huge increase in military spending. But the reality will be different.

President Ronald Reagan learned in the early 1980s that cutting government programs is extremely hard in practice. When Reagan slashed income taxes and boosted military spending, promising to balance the budget with domestic cuts, he failed. Reagan also backed away from cuts to Social Security and Medicare when he faced a political backlash for trying.

In the end, deficits skyrocketed in the 1980s. Reagan faced a Democratic House. Yet we have seen that Trump is already learning how hard it is to cut government, even in a moment of united partisan control, as he backs away from eliminating increasingly popular parts of the Affordable Care Act. In his speech to Congress, he also promised to move forward with a $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which surely won't sit well with fiscal conservatives in his party.

Finally, this increase in military spending is a significant expansion of the federal government. While tea party Republicans might want to distinguish national security from the rest of government, in reality if they swallow this proposal they are revealing that conservatism really is about what kind of government to support, not whether big government is bad.

Tea party Republicans insisted that they would be different and for much of the time that they have had representation in Congress since 2008 they have been true to the word. They have been an intensely ideological coalition, insisting on a commitment to purity on policy that left the Obama administration deeply frustrated and tied up in knots.

Added to all this is the curveball that the president threw when he announced that he is open to immigration reform that would allow a large number of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country. Despite his continued attacks on undocumented immigrants in his address, the mere mention of a proposal to liberalize policy is anathema to many Tea Party Republicans who represent constituencies that are sympathetic to hardline anti-immigration sentiment.

The Republicans went to great lengths to fight Obama on spending cuts. When Obama sought compromise, they stood their ground in the budget battles of 2011, threatening to send the federal government into default. Hawkish Republicans were equally frustrated with their tea party colleagues when Congress could not reach agreement on spending in 2013 and as a result of the rules put into place in 2011, forced the implementation of budget sequestration that imposed caps on military and not domestic spending.

When Republican leaders like former Speaker John Boehner showed that they were willing to give even an inch to the Democrats, the tea party toppled them from power.

The current Speaker, Paul Ryan, has built much of his career around promising tea party Republicans that he would move forward with "entitlement reform" (meaning Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts) despite the political risks. He has been a zealot on this issue and hoped that this moment of unified government would offer an unprecedented opportunity. A frustrated Speaker Ryan, who said after the election that Trump had a "mandate," has now warned: "I've been a big time entitlement reformer for a long time because if you don't start bending the curve in the out years, we are hosed."

By supporting Trump, tea party Republicans would also put themselves on the record as being in favor of big increases in certain kinds of government spending.

Tea party Republicans will soon discover that President Trump's budget doesn't really add up. They will be receiving numbers from a Republican administration, which generally is sympathetic to their goals on most major issues, that will contradict their promise to the reddest constituents that they would hold firm on the anti-government cause. Jim DeMint, the former South Carolina senator, said, "America cannot wait any longer before we get serious about balancing the budget."

Trump is putting the Republican Party in a difficult spot at a moment of united government that could easily have turned into a period of triumph. If tea party Republican members of Congress swallow what the President has sent them, they will quickly reveal to their supporters that they are as craven and opportunistic as anyone else in Washington. They will place themselves at risk to be "tea partied" out of office and they will greatly damage their own credibility with the electorate in the coming election cycle.

If they hold to principle, as they did under President Obama, then the Republicans as a party will be facing a dangerous moment. A Republican President, who has shown that he doesn't have much loyalty when it comes to people getting in the way of his success, will be facing off against a huge portion of the congressional Republicans. The Freedom Caucus, with about 32 votes, has the numbers in the House to tie up the administration.

Will Republicans unite and make the most of their control of Congress and the White House? Or will many of them remain true to their small government philosophy and risk war with a White House that wants to reshape Washington?

Continue reading here:
Trump's huge challenge to the tea party - CNN.com - CNN

This presents a crucial test to the tea party movement that has reshaped American politics since 2008. The most obvious challenge is that Trump has chosen to leave Social Security and Medicare alone, two of the biggest components of the federal budget and two prime targets for conservatives like Speaker Paul Ryan.

Trump is going to assure Congress that the draconian cuts to domestic programs like the Environmental Protection Agency, reductions which tea party Republicans love, will balance out the huge increase in military spending. But the reality will be different.

President Ronald Reagan learned in the early 1980s that cutting government programs is extremely hard in practice. When Reagan slashed income taxes and boosted military spending, promising to balance the budget with domestic cuts, he failed. Reagan also backed away from cuts to Social Security and Medicare when he faced a political backlash for trying.

In the end, deficits skyrocketed in the 1980s. Reagan faced a Democratic House. Yet we have seen that Trump is already learning how hard it is to cut government, even in a moment of united partisan control, as he backs away from eliminating increasingly popular parts of the Affordable Care Act. In his speech to Congress, he also promised to move forward with a $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which surely won't sit well with fiscal conservatives in his party.

Finally, this increase in military spending is a significant expansion of the federal government. While tea party Republicans might want to distinguish national security from the rest of government, in reality if they swallow this proposal they are revealing that conservatism really is about what kind of government to support, not whether big government is bad.

Tea party Republicans insisted that they would be different and for much of the time that they have had representation in Congress since 2008 they have been true to the word. They have been an intensely ideological coalition, insisting on a commitment to purity on policy that left the Obama administration deeply frustrated and tied up in knots.

Added to all this is the curveball that the president threw when he announced that he is open to immigration reform that would allow a large number of undocumented immigrants to remain in the country. Despite his continued attacks on undocumented immigrants in his address, the mere mention of a proposal to liberalize policy is anathema to many Tea Party Republicans who represent constituencies that are sympathetic to hardline anti-immigration sentiment.

The Republicans went to great lengths to fight Obama on spending cuts. When Obama sought compromise, they stood their ground in the budget battles of 2011, threatening to send the federal government into default. Hawkish Republicans were equally frustrated with their tea party colleagues when Congress could not reach agreement on spending in 2013 and as a result of the rules put into place in 2011, forced the implementation of budget sequestration that imposed caps on military and not domestic spending.

When Republican leaders like former Speaker John Boehner showed that they were willing to give even an inch to the Democrats, the tea party toppled them from power.

The current Speaker, Paul Ryan, has built much of his career around promising tea party Republicans that he would move forward with "entitlement reform" (meaning Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts) despite the political risks. He has been a zealot on this issue and hoped that this moment of unified government would offer an unprecedented opportunity. A frustrated Speaker Ryan, who said after the election that Trump had a "mandate," has now warned: "I've been a big time entitlement reformer for a long time because if you don't start bending the curve in the out years, we are hosed."

By supporting Trump, tea party Republicans would also put themselves on the record as being in favor of big increases in certain kinds of government spending.

Tea party Republicans will soon discover that President Trump's budget doesn't really add up. They will be receiving numbers from a Republican administration, which generally is sympathetic to their goals on most major issues, that will contradict their promise to the reddest constituents that they would hold firm on the anti-government cause. Jim DeMint, the former South Carolina senator, said, "America cannot wait any longer before we get serious about balancing the budget."

Trump is putting the Republican Party in a difficult spot at a moment of united government that could easily have turned into a period of triumph. If tea party Republican members of Congress swallow what the President has sent them, they will quickly reveal to their supporters that they are as craven and opportunistic as anyone else in Washington. They will place themselves at risk to be "tea partied" out of office and they will greatly damage their own credibility with the electorate in the coming election cycle.

If they hold to principle, as they did under President Obama, then the Republicans as a party will be facing a dangerous moment. A Republican President, who has shown that he doesn't have much loyalty when it comes to people getting in the way of his success, will be facing off against a huge portion of the congressional Republicans. The Freedom Caucus, with about 32 votes, has the numbers in the House to tie up the administration.

Will Republicans unite and make the most of their control of Congress and the White House? Or will many of them remain true to their small government philosophy and risk war with a White House that wants to reshape Washington?

See original here:
Trump's huge challenge to the tea party - CNN.com

It's tempting to compare widespread, influential movements to the Tea Party's formation in 2009. It was done in 2011 with Occupyand in 2015 with Black Lives Matter.

Now, the 2017 protests against President Trump's administration are being benchmarked against the Tea Party movement, with observers wondering if a durable political movement will form, elect a congressional class of protest representatives in 2018 and resist the Trump administrations policies for the next four years.

While it is too early to answer those questions with any precision, the volume of protests thus far this year suggest it is a worthwhile one to consider. To do this, two important dimensions of the tea party are worth considering.

First, from its earliest days, the Tea Party was defined by bold imagery and clear symbolism. The immediate naming of the movement and use of images, such as the coiled "Don't Tread on Me" snake, alluded to popular notions of American history. These communicated an easily understandable political message of personal freedoms and liberty.

And, while many of the strategies used by the Tea Party were directed at opposing President Obama at every turn, the movement's messaging suggested broader ambitions for political change and an overhaul of Washington.

Second, the Tea Party wasn't limited to clever messaging. One of the most interesting aspects of the Tea Party protests of 2009 and 2010 was the association with the formation of a vast network of new organizations, some formal and others informal or virtual.

These organizations quickly formed and then drew loyal members. Based on the best recent data, membership in the major Tea Party organizations expanded rapidly from 2009 to 2012, but continued to grow, though at a slower rate, through 2015. As a result, the Tea Party has been a durable political movement, able to rely on this national network of organizations to mobilize voters to support candidates and a largely conservative policy agenda.

Thus far, it is hard to see the clear messaging or the organizational formation associated with the Tea Party in the 2017 protests.

To be sure, the Women's Marches in January drew millions of supporters of women's rights, likely more than the Tea Party protests in 2009 (Erica Chenoweth maintains excellent original data at theCrowd Counting Consortium). Subsequent protests supporting immigrants and voting rights and opposing the refugee executive order have regularly attracted large crowds. The recent round of town halls held with members of Congress also seem to be drawing record numbers of constituents.

While many of these protests are targeted at the president, a unifying message or image has not set. Given the variety of concerns expressed from reproductive rights to immigration policy to healthcare to LGBTQ rights this may not be a bad thing. Yet this recent period of protest doesn't yet have the common and consistent messaging as the Tea Party did.

Additionally, while the crowds have been record-breaking and hundreds of civic organizations have been involved in the careful planning of each event, there does not appear to be the same creation of new organizations as we saw in 2009 with the Tea Party.

Now, we are just two months into 2017, and at this point in 2009 few of the Tea Party organizations had moved beyond a quickly designed website. Nevertheless, if new organizations were essential to the Tea Party's influence, that has not yet defined what is happening today.

In 2009, many commentators focused on whether the Tea Party was a truly authentic grassroots movement or a manufactured Astroturf one. I've argued in the past that it was both: an expression of real concerns by citizens organizing around kitchen tables and in local town halls, as well as a well-orchestrated communications strategy supported by major political money.

In 2017, I suspect the same could be said of the recent protests. To be successful, political movements need money and people. Political success comes from organizing and effective strategy.

The important question today seems to be not whether the protests are Astroturf or grassroots, but whether they will build the durable institutions needed to be sustain political action over the next four years.

Following the direction of the Tea Party is one option, but not necessarily the only way forward for protesters.

Heath Brown is an assistant professor of public policy at the City University of New York (CUNY), John Jay College and the CUNY Graduate Center. He is the author of "Tea Party Divided:The Hidden Diversity of a Maturing Movement" (Praeger, 2015).

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See the original post:
Do anti-Trump protests really compare to 2009 Tea Party ...