My response to David Ignatius' WaPo piece...

[markpkessinger]

David Ignatius has a column in The Washington Post titled: "Around the world, rage against the elites". Based on the title, I read the article expecting to agree with it. But then I came to this line:

"The Tea Party movement may wear conservative colors, but it arose as a protest against elites in Washington and on Wall Street who were seen to be profiting at the expense of everyday people."

Here was my response, posted in the comments to the article:

Mr. Ignatius writes: "The Tea Party movement may wear conservative colors, but it arose as a protest against elites in Washington and on Wall Street who were seen to be profiting at the expense of everyday people."

What utter historical revisionism! The Tea Party was a movement by elites against government's attempts to help working people. Indeed, it was Chicago Mercantile Exchange trader Rick Santelli who is widely credited for launching the movement, in his rant from the Exchange floor against the President's proposals to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Who can forget Santelli's vomitous stream:

"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages? This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"

Santelli wasn't the least bit concerned with helping "everyday people." He was merely concerned that he and his fellow one-percenters might have to pony up more by way of taxes (despite their rates already being at a 50-year low). Indeed, Santelli wanted to preserve the veneer of legitimacy of a system whereby banks gave mortgages they shouldn't have given, because, although they had the ability to verify whether the mortgages were good risks, they knew as soon as the mortgage was issued the large investment banks would relieve them of the risk, whereupon the investment banks would slice and dice those same mortgages into mortgage-backed securities and, with the collusion of the ratings agencies, which would then be sold as AAA-rated investments to retirements and pension funds of ordinary folks. Santelli's rant totally ignored that reality, instead preferring to lay the blame for the underwater mortgages solely on homeowners. Whatever else the Tea Party came to embrace, and whatever fears and bigotries it eventually came to capitalize upon, it started as a one-percenter insisting on the legitimacy of a system which led to one of the biggest redistributions of wealth from the bottom to the very top. The movement was ultimately the brainchild of far-right elements within the Republican Party whose primary obsession was to prevent any tax dollars being spent on the health and welfare of those whom they see as "the great unwashed."

That is why, Mr. Ignatius, the Tea Party has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with the Occupy Wall Street protests, and why the Occupy movement speaks with a moral authority the Tea Party can never hope to approach.

[Vincardog]

1. Well said and too true

[Luminous Animal]

2. Excellent response!

Even DUers forget how the Tea Party started and what it's principle rallying cry was.

[Roselma]

3. That is wonderful! Thank you for writing that.

My husband just needed to be reminded about the tea party himself. He said it was people striking against the elites. I showed him the Santelli youtube video. He said, "oh...I forgot that." People are forgetting that the tea party is a movement of the true elite to prevent government from helping citizens. That is why the tea party railed against help for citizens with mortgage problems, railed against a stimulus which might help people, railed against health care that might help people. AND that is why, once in office, tea party Republicans tied up Congress and did not act on plans in the jobs front. They DO NOT WANT to help citizens. They WANT to assure that the rich don't have to pay more in taxes.