Common Ground for Tea Partiers and Liberals

We are accustomed to thinking of the US political spectrum as a linear spectrum from left to right and the need always to have a center-left coalition or a center-right coalition in order to elect Congressional majorities or to pass legislation. In this framework, left and right are polar opposites in terms of political philosophy. But what if the political spectrum is not a straight horizontal line but is shaped like a horseshoe?

In this configuration, one can imagine a political polarization that is not left-right but is top-bottom based on economic class instead of political theory. The Tea Party representing the far right and socialists representing the far left both have strong populist sentiments, and both are angry that both major parties are effectively controlled by wealthy elites.

The Left has long feared Big Business and Wall Street and has tried to use government to check their power to exploit the lower economic classes. 

On the other hand, Tea Partiers identify Big Government as the biggest threat to their interests.  However, I suggest they react strongly against any powerful institution that intrudes negatively into their lives.  They are anti-Wall Street and were very upset at the 2008-09 Bush-Obama bailout of the financial system.  They are anti-free trade and very suspicious of MNCs and foreign companies and people, which our increasingly open borders largely benefit.  And, despite their anti-government rhetoric, they are strongly in favor of Social Security and Medicare. They seem to feel that their lives are getting worse, not better, and that, rather than having control over their own lives, they are being dictated to and victimized by powerful people and institutions. They feel alienated from these shadowy forces and exploited by them--and that's not so different from how liberals feel.

Update on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 12:40PM by Skeptic

My argument here is confirmed by a research paper from Princeton, which I link and quote from in More on the disproportionate political influence of the affluent.

Update on Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 10:59AM by Skeptic

Here is liberal Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio saying he and libertarian Congressman Rand Paul of Texas tend to vote the same way on staying out of foreign wars, against free trade agreements, and against corporate welfare. (Rachel Maddow’s interview of Sen. Brown comes after the bin Laden porn stash story.)

Update on Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 01:45PM by Skeptic

It looks like Sarah Palin is trying to redefine the political divide in a similar way. As reported by Anand Giridharadas in NYT:

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

. . . .

 “This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

H/t Charlie for the link.

Comments

[jazzbumpa]

skeptic -

I'm skeptical. You've identified certain, very specific areas of overlap. But the fundamental differences in world view between teabaggers and deep, fundamental, and numerous.

Teabaggers like Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and accept without question all of their pronouncements.

Progressives recognize that government is the only entity with the heft to stand up to trans-national corporations. Teabaggers are against socialized medicine, but want Medicare untouched. Bit of a perception problem, I'd say. Much of what they "know" is the
opposite of reality, and they are totally immune to facts and data.

Cheers!
JzB