I question whether the 1% hijacked a grassroots effort - or whether they funded it and helped it grow, but don't really have control of it. Without the tea party, the Republican party MIGHT now be in control of the Senate. With everything still horrible in the economy in 2010, the Republicans were poised for huge gains.
I think that Schumer's idea to try to split the wealthy from the grassroots is interesting, but I think back to Obama's (most maligned) comments on guns and GOD. Many in the grassroots are there, not for economic issues, but because they see their world (or even the idealized 1950s world) fading away - and they perceive their lack of success as due to policies that favor minorities - including "illegals" and women over white males. Beyond economic issues, On social issues, they see that we have won on every front -- civil rights, women's rights, gay rights etc. What we see as victories that improve the rights of those who had been denied basic rights, they see as destroying the social fabric of the country. This may be why many of these people really are against us.
I think Obama's speech on inequality and the fascinating idea that parallel things are said by Pope Francis (completely independently and in NO WAY coordinated) might reach some of the people. This and - strangely - ACA might move people. For three years, the Republicans have gone overkill on the evil of ACA and how it will destroy the country. Needless to say, that is not what people are or will be seeing. In states where it is implemented as designed, it may be cumbersome or still more expensive than some would like, but is nowhere near what they were told. I suspect that many, who benefit, might consider that they were lied to and might figure out why.
Speaking of inequality moves people from seeing the people competing with them for crumbs as the cause of their not getting ahead to seeing that the system is rigged and most of the fruits of the economy are going to a very very small group of people. One question is whether people can really come to see this.
In the US, at least in the 1970s when I left college, there was a lot of evidence that people's values and votes matched the economic status they aspired to, not where they were. A strong belief in upward mobility leads to things like a recent poll where 51% said that hard work - rather than advantages played a bigger role in people becoming rich. In truth, the US has less mobility than most of Europe and if you look at the economic status of people in their 30/40 vs their parents at the same age, you see only a few rise or fall drastically.
If people saw that advantages have more impact than how hard people work, they might be less willing to buy into the Republican idea that higher taxes "punish" the wealthy and that it is unfair to tax an estate before it gives millions to a small number of heirs. I suspect a factor in this is that the people who first come to mind as rich are people who actually did do something - Gates, Jobs, Buffet --- and not the people like the Koch brothers who inherited millions.
The article speculates that the tea party grassroots are with us on issues like extending unemployment benefits and helping with student loans. I wonder if the first step should be getting them to join us on ISSUES, rather than focusing on POLITICS and getting them to vote or identify with us. Imagine if these people targeted their representatives to move on these issues - then they could pass with votes from both sides. Personally, I question this as the tea party representatives, loved by these people, are votes assumed by the Republican leadership as "nos - for good reasons - that's how they have always voted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
