Tea Party Bolshevism, Infiltrationist Strategy and the GOP: How to Provide the Ruling Political Class with an Aura of Legitmacy

At the Whig, Septimus relays an article from the Houston Chronicle on the efforts of tea party activists in the Lone Star State to "change the Republican Party from the ground up." Like their counterparts across the country, these activists have been so deluded by the ideologues and propagandists of the two-party state that they seem to earnestly believe that the solution to the problem represented by the Democratic and Republican Parties is to become part of the problem. The Chronicle reports:
Taking a page from the playbook of social conservatives, the “tea party” movement is trying to change the Republican Party of Texas from the ground up. Tea party activists in the major cities and suburbs across Texas have been recruiting and training candidates for precinct chairs as the building blocks to shift the emphasis of the state GOP from social issues to fiscal restraint by the federal government and individual freedom. “It's going to shock the world,” said Austin Tea Party activist Dean Wright.
Despite Mr. Wright's delusions of grandeur, the level of self-deception required of anyone who believes becoming a petty functionary of the Republican or Democratic Party is a revolutionary act, is indeed truly shocking. Septimus remarks:
A lot of friendly talk in the article from the GOP establishment, who no doubt hope to dupe the Tea Partiers. I wouldn't be suprised if the Tea Partiers end up falling for it. If the GOP was open to changing who they were, then they wouldn't be who they are.
Unfortunately, many, if not most, have already fallen for it. It would be tragic if it weren't so funny. The great irony of the program being pursued by these groups, as I have shown before, is that they have consciously adopted a strategy of infiltration they themselves deride as "radical socialist" and "far left." At American Power, for instance, Donald Douglas has argued that the "Obama phenomenon" is a radical Leninist movement, but that has not stopped him from advocating emulation of the precise strategy which defined that movement. Indeed, tea party activists who advocate the precinct strategy for the infiltration of the GOP proudly tout the fact that it was utilized by the Obama campaign. In an article for the New American on the efforts of these groups, Bob Adelmann wrote:
According to the strategy, all one has to do is to “go to a Republican Party meeting or walk a precinct on behalf of a candidate.” According to Darla who outlined this strategy in detail, presidential candidate Obama used this strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton. She says, “You don’t have to believe me — see the evidence with your own eyes. Search YouTube using the search words ‘obama precinct captain’.” . . . The mantra of the strategy is: “Take the precinct, take the state, take the party.”
The National Precinct Alliance is one of the more visible groups advocating this strategy. Reading their materials, one could be forgiven for wondering if they are in fact nothing more than a Bolshivist front organization. Their explicit aim is to dictate policy by taking over the party's central committee so as to gain control of its politburo or executive committee. In the explanation of their "solution" we read:
Every two years there is an election most Americans are not aware of… the election of our Precinct Executives. The Precinct Executives elect the Party Leaders and the Party Leaders endorse the candidates for office. Hence, the only way Americans can fire the current local county Party Leaders is through the Precinct System by electing like-minded Precinct Executives . . .

It is the Central Committee that elects the members of the Executive Committee. The Central Committee is made up of one person from each precinct in the County. Each one of those members is called a Precinct Executive. The terms "Precinct Executive" and "Member of the Central Committee" are synonymous. This Central Committee meets once every two years where the Executive Committee is elected "by" the Central Committee. If we want to change the people that make policy, it is our responsibility to ensure that our friends have a majority on the Party's Central Committee.

Given that the precinct strategy is explicitly modeled on "far left" "radical socialist" strategy, we might do well to compare the National Precinct Alliance with their historical forebears among the Soviet Communists. From The History Guide:
Like his Populist predecessors, Lenin continued to stress the need for a party vanguard to lead the revolution . . . He lashed out ruthlessly at his opponents with sarcasm and scorn . . . in London, Paris, Geneva, and other European cities, he maneuvered for control over party committees and publications. He condemned [rival factions] despite being outnumbered by them . . . the real danger as he saw it lay with the liberals and bourgeoisie. [Emphasis added.]
Wikipedia describes the structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, noting that the central committee functioned primarily to give an aura of legitimacy to the decisions handed down by the politburo:
According to Party rules, the Central Committee directed all Party and government activities between each Party Congress. Members of the committee were elected at the Party Congress every five years. The Politburo was elected by and reported to the Central Committee . . .

For most of its existence, the power of the Central Committee was limited by its infrequent meetings and large membership, and true power lay with the Politburo. The Committee functioned as a rubber-stamp to legitimise and give an aura of consensus to Politburo decisions. The Committee would meet only twice a year, with sessions lasting one or two days. Special plenary sessions would be held before a major event, such as a new long-term plan or the selection of a new General Secretary. The elections were fa├žades too, with the membership being selected in advance by the leaders. [Emphasis added.]

Despite the structural realities of the Democratic-Republican global warfare and corporate welfare state, one influential document advocating the precinct strategy to take control of the Republican and Democratic Party central committees argues that the "precinct committeeman is the most powerful office in the world." If it is true that the pettiest functionaries of the Republican and Democratic Parties hold the most powerful office in the world, it is no wonder everything is so fucked up.

7 comments:

Samuel Wilson said...

It sounds like you're describing "pseudo-conservatism" on the Richard Hofstadter model, which if I recall right belied its proper backward-looking orientation by adopting modern party methods on the Bolshevik model. Maybe there's a certain strain of American self-styled conservatism that's inherently inclined this way. If so, maybe an entity like the Republican party is its natural home. You might well get the result you really want if these types take over the GOP and drive the majority out and into third parties old and new.

d.eris said...

Thanks for that parallel. I was not familiar with the Hofstadter article you alluded to. Maybe I should begin advocating infiltration of the GOP then ;-)

I started this blog about a year ago under the false hope that the tea party movement represented a break with the two-party political status quo. Given these groups' increasing subservience to the ideology of the two-party state, I may have to declare my independence from this URL one of these days.

AnarchyJack said...

I remember when punk rock was for misfits and losers. Suddenly, the record companies glommed onto it, and from 1977 on (barring Disco), not a band was signed without mohawks and safety pins.

By the mid-eighties, the whole thing was so over-exposed that the mohawk was long-since replaced by the mullet. Heavy Metal was the next refuge of the misfit, but this, too, would be short lived. The rise of the "hair band" invited jocks, cheeleaders and "preppies" into the hood's province, forcing the marginal to move on to Slayer and Metallica . . . until Metallica went top-forty and decided to wear eyeliner.

Alternative? We love it, until it's too top forty. What's left? Death Metal? Sure, why not listen to unintelligible "Cookie Monster" vokills about cannibalism, etc.?

Screw it. What am I? A trend refugee or a man? I am what I am, and no one is going to chase me away from it.

What's happening in politics is really no different. The conservative jocks and cheerleaders just aren't as popular as they used to be, so they're trying on the Tea Party; it's the right-wing's Che Guevara, don't you know. All the cool conservatives in D.C. are wearing it now--like leg warmers or rolled headbands.

I say, let them (metaphorically) walk around in their ridiculous $200 shredded jeans or $100 used Levi's. And while you're at it, you can reap a tidy little profit chapping their asses with your old britches. To put it plainly, keep doing what you're doing: out the posers and the fakes who want to play dress-up with Tea Party clothes.

Don't be too quick to dump your URL, Damon. The cool kids will leave it alone when the next trend catches their fancy

d.eris said...

Good to hear from you Jack. I definitely appreciate your point. For me, one of the strongest arguments in favor of sticking with the tea party theme here is because it is important not to allow ruling party hacks to universally cannibalize yet another piece of the American revolutionary tradition in the interests of some reactionary duopolist program. But then, of course, I may get eaten too. Maybe at least I'll give them some heartburn.

AnarchyJack said...

There's a saying where I come from: the worst thing they can do is kill us; they can't eat us--cannibalism is against the law.

Anonymous said...

The operations of Duverger's Law combined with six decades of homogenization through television(the US has class and racial differences, but no important regional differences) are big stumbling blocks in the way of a true multi-party system.

Nevertheless, the duopoly could be greatly diminished in power via a combination of PR and two-round voting. The first, if implemented in state legislatures, would almost guarantee that minor parties would become players at the state level. The second would eliminate the spoiler effect.

It would easier to enact the above reforms in states with initiative and referendum.

TiradeFaction said...

Good piece (as usual) D.eris. You might want to draw comparisons of the current two party state in the US towards what China has. Many assume that China is a one party state, but will probably be shocked to learn it's in fact, a two party state! Yes, there *is* another party citizens of the People's Republic of China (not to be confused with the Republic of China, which is a different nation, or of the administrations in Hong Kong or Macau), the only problem is, this other party is entirely controlled by the Politburo..so it doesn't do so much good, kind of like our little gettup...

What Anonymous said above last year stands true, it would be easier to enact reforms conductive towards a multi party state if we stick towards a a state level, and pick those states that have initiatives & referendums. It won't be easy, but at least it's possible with I & R.

 
http://www.wikio.com