Political Parasitism, Duopolist Propaganda and the Ongoing Hijacking of the Tea Party Movement by the Republican Party

Propagandists of the Democratic-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government aim always to ensure that energies focused on disrupting the reproduction of the ruling Democratic-Republican regime and the political class it serves, are redirected into channels that will bolster the ruling regime and the political class it serves. Of course, political parasitism of this sort is nothing new. It is standard operating procedure for the Democratic and Republican Parties. Consider a recent op-ed by Dan Quayle in the Washington Post, in which the former Vice President exhorted tea party activists not to "go Perot" but rather remain within the confines established by the Democratic-Republican political establishment. He wrote:
So successful is the tea party movement that there is speculation it might launch a political party . . . The emergence of official tea party candidates would be very welcome news in the Obama White House. . . . There's a well-worn path of third-party movements in American history, and it leads straight to a dead end.
At Ballot Access News, Richard Winger remarked in response:
Quayle repeats the cliche that a minor party or independent candidate always injures the major party closest (ideologically) to that minor party or independent candidate. Social science and historical research substantially rebuts that idea.
Obviously, however, the results of social science and historical research are of secondary importance to the propagandist, if they are taken into account at all. Quayle's article must be seen as part of the Republican Party's ongoing co-optation and hijacking of the tea party movement, the goal of which is to ensure that everything changes just enough so that everything remains the same. As I noted back in January, Quayle has explicitly endorsed the co-optation strategy:
Neil Cavuto recently interviewed Dan Quayle and asked the former Vice President about "that whole tea party stuff" and whether it represents a "potent third party." Dan Quayle came right out and said it:
here's the challenge of my Party, is basically to co-opt the populist movement, the so-called Tea Party Folks whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
Obviously, however, such a strategy would be ineffective were it not supported by the efforts of establishmentarian activists on the ground across the country. Grassroots in Nebraska, a group advocating constitutional limited government and opposed to parties as such, documents an ongoing hijacking ahead of upcoming tax day tea party protests:
I am aware of concerns and confusion about an apparent alignment of Grassroots in Nebraska with the Republican Party and AFP (Americans for Prosperity) to organize a Tea Party event on April 15. Please be assured that Grassroots in Nebraska will stay committed to being a truly grassroots group of Nebraska citizens committed to a return to a Constitutional, limited government. When we organize a Tea Party, we will abide by the no political party, no politician policy we’ve had since the beginning . . .

The Republican Party of Lancaster County, AFP Nebraska, and a handful of individuals are attempting to hijack and crush our event and group. There can be NO other interpretation.
Read the rest for the gruesome details. It should be noted in closing that Quayle received a fair amount of resistance to his thesis in an online chat following the publication of his article. His responses perfectly illustrate the position of the reactionary establishmentarian and apologist of the ruling political class:
Manassas, Va.: When is it okay to support a third party when one is totally disgusted with the two major ones? With your logic, both major parties will never be able to be replaced.

Dan Quayle: The two-party system has served America very well. We always have political movements one way or another but the evolution of a lasting third party probably will not happen. . . .

New Braunfels, Tex.: From a fellow displaced Hoosier: Do you think a third party could field candidates at a local level election, gain momentum with city/county victories, and go on to buck the two party system and/or replace one of the existing parties?

Dan Quayle: No.

Like so many duopolist ideologues, Quayle finds it literally unimaginable that Americans would or could liberate themselves from the tyranny of the Democratic-Republican two-party state. He may well be taken by surprise one fine day.

No comments: