Only recently have some tea party groups spotted land, organizing themselves under the new body National Tea Party Federation. One would expect such an organization to release a detailed statement about its members’ shared political positions, beliefs, goals, etc.

Instead, only three unifying concepts were announced: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — all vague terms overused by any corporate Republican. It seems, then, that there is still much work to be done in organizing and channeling the national Tea Party “movement.”

Because the three unifying ideas are so vague, special interests will fill in the blanks when needed. For example, does a “constitutionally limited government” allow the economy to be dominated by giant corporations? Does “fiscal responsibility” mean that the U.S. should spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on foreign wars? Does “free markets” mean that Wall Street should be allowed to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants? The answers to these questions, according to the National Tea Party Federation, will all be YES!

How can we be sure? The website announcing the new federation lists a number of Tea Party “allies” and “support groups.” Many of these groups are corporate-dominated front groups such as Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity — two groups who’ve relentlessly promoted the Tea Party movement with massive resources. Not listed as an “ally” is the super-rich Koch family, which has also poured giant resources towards boosting the Tea Partiers. Fox News and other corporate media outlets, too, are non-official Tea Party “support groups.”

What are the goals of these corporate groups? Profits for corporations, at whatever the cost to the rest of us. And because they all subscribe to corporate ideology, the investments in the Tea Party come with strings attached. So what do the corporations and super-rich want from the Tea Party in return? Glenn Beck gives the most specific answers to this question.

Beck is a right-wing populist who supports the Tea Party via his television show on Fox News. At the same time, he dedicates much of his time to “educate” his supporters as to who their enemies are. In no particular order: Obama, labor unions, working class organizations like ACORN, “progressives,” “social justice” advocates, and “socialists” and “Marxists.” For Beck, all of these constituencies are the same and equally involved in an absurdly complicated conspiracy to “destroy America.”

The fact that this fanatic rant is being broadcast internationally is very telling, hinting that Beck’s corporate sponsors have crossed the political Rubicon onto territory dominated by the extreme right wing.

Beck, along with his other right-wing colleagues, are reviving the putrid American tradition of Communist witch hunts and McCarthy-style red-baiting. Such tactics are used in times of social unrest, where the corporate elite needs both distraction and excuses for persecuting anyone who challenges corporate rule.

Beck’s attempt to denounce labor unions — especially the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — and other working-class organizations as “Marxists” and “extremists” is not an accident. Some sections of the U.S. corporate elite view these groups as having too much power, especially in the context of the still-continuing Great Recession.

For example, U.S. corporations are intent on continuing — and even expanding — foreign wars, low taxes for the wealthy, and when needed, further bank/corporate bailouts. These policies are incompatible with the current expenditures on social services, education, and Social Security and Medicare — thus the gigantic and expanding U.S. deficit.

There has been enormous talk in the corporate media about dealing with this problem by cutting back Medicare and Social Security (Obama’s health care bill reduces Medicare by $500 billion). Likewise, Obama’s education plan, Race to the Top, is designed as a massive attack on public education. Social services in general are also being targeted.

The strongest defenders of these social programs are the groups that Beck routinely denounces. Unions and progressive groups are viewed by the corporate elite as obstacles, which need to be weakened or removed so that a solidly corporate agenda can be pursued. Beck is preparing public opinion to accept any harm that may come to labor and progressive groups — by individuals or the government — by routinely condemning them as America’s enemies.

Beck’s preaching can be referred to as a form of “fascist ideology.” The most defining element of fascist movements and governments is their destruction of working-class organizations: both Mussolini and Hitler outlawed and smashed the labor unions and Left organizations, allowing their own corporate sponsors a conflict-free environment to make profits.

Fascism becomes a social force when society is ridden with class conflict, when income inequality soars, and when corporations and the working class and the unemployed cannot find a stable equilibrium during prolonged economic crisis. Fascism comes onto the scene to aid the very wealthy with brute force, while creating new organizations and political parties to pursue a radically right-wing path outside of the existing political structures (Tea Partiers seem split between forming a new party or attempting to further radicalize the Republicans).

One way that Beck helps the super-rich is by confusing the word “property” and “wealth redistribution.” Beck never ceases to explain that progressives and socialists want to “redistribute wealth,” while always ignoring the fact that there are two types of wealth: the corporate wealth of the very rich and the insignificant/non-existent wealth of the majority of Americans. Many Americans would agree that the “property” of the giant corporations and Wall Street could be “re-distributed” to the working class, or better yet, run as public utilities for social need, not for private profit. Such confusion is only one way that Beck mis-educates and sows confusion and fear for his corporate donors.

Fortunately, labor activists and some union leaders are starting to catch on to the danger that Beck and the corporate sponsors of the Tea Party represent. For starters, labor unions and progressive groups are organizing a tax day protest — not in opposition to the corporate media-advertised Tea Party tax day protests, but above it. For example, the Tea Party anti-tax protests are simply “against taxes.” Instead, unions are demanding that we “tax Wall Street.” Labor’s message is superior; it takes sides, whereas the Tea Party’s vagueness is its weakness.

This weakness must be further exploited. A tax day protest against Wall Street is a positive message, but it’s not enough. A campaign must be waged by labor to demand massive job creation, to be paid for by the rich and corporations. If specific demands like these are raised in mass demonstrations, the Tea Party’s blathering against “government” in general will seem far less inspiring.

Also, labor taking the streets with its own demands will compel the Labor Movement into opposition to the Obama administration and its own corporate backers — something some labor leaders resist like the plague or like the fear of entering the unknown. But such a break is necessary if organized labor is to receive mass support from working people in general, since right-wingers like Beck earn populist points by pointing out Obama’s corporate-friendly policies like bank bailouts and corporate health care.

The sooner that labor becomes an independent force in national politics, the more difficult the Tea Party will find in gathering popular support. The extreme right is only in its infantile stage of development. This growth will be stunted if labor wages a strong campaign in the streets for jobs at the expense of the rich and corporations. Waging a half-hearted campaign will have the exact opposite effect.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action. He can be reached atportland@workerscompass.org.

Other articles of interest from Workers Action:

• The Danger of Right Wing Populism
• How Liberals Strengthen the Right Wing
• What the Economic Crisis Means for Us and How to Defend Ourselves

Articles about socialism from Workers Action:

• Workers Action Statement of Principles
• Why Join Revolutionary Socialist Party
• The True Nature of the Revolutionary Marxist Party and Its Common Distortions
• Join Workers Action!

If one looked at the signs that were carried by the majority of the participants, messages were being sent that were impossible to disagree with: tax money should not be given to banks and corporations. Of course. Ordinary people should not have their taxes raised through higher sales taxes, and additional taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, property, or gas. Right on.

Since the protests had the hidden hand of the right wing pushing them along (Fox News), the mainstream liberals felt the need to respond. It was pitiful. Instead of addressing the above concerns of average people, the Democrats tried to explain all the good that government does with our tax money, such as provide social services, build roads, put out fires, etc. Although true, this avoidance of the essence of the debate was a sad attempt to bolster Obama’s popularity, along with the corporate controlled Democratic Party in general.

The right-wing is promoting the protests for three reasons: 1) Criticizing Obama’s Wall Street bailouts gives them a lot of political credibility, which they are sorely lacking at the moment. 2) As the population in general becomes radicalized by the ever-worsening economy, the right-wing is attempting to channel this energy by appearing to be the “radical” alternative to the corporate two-party system. 3) the right-wing’s puppet masters, the super rich, are angry that Obama is reversing the Bush tax cuts and want to make sure that they are not taxed any further — they are thus quietly hiding behind and benefiting from the anti-taxation “movement.”

There is only one way to stop the right-wing from gaining momentum from such populist campaigns. As the recession deepens, sensible solutions need to be proposed that benefit specifically working people, who are having their services cut because of budget deficits, etc., while having their taxes increased to fill some of the gaps.

Demanding that ONLY banks, corporations, and the super wealthy pay for this crisis with increased taxes and that ZERO future bailouts take place is a solid foundation for a working-class movement — it would instantly deflate any right-wing attempt at populism.

This debate with the right-wing cannot be won with an “all taxes are good” argument. This is the surest road to defeat. The right-wing strengthens itself by glossing over class differences in these types of debates; it is up to working people and the labor movement first and foremost to be boldly specific about the issue: we want the colossally rich to pay for the crisis. After all, they were the chief beneficiaries of the financial bubble that is now crippling the economy. Labor can lead the way in mobilizing people in massive public actions that would assure this result.

This means, at the very least, returning to the pre-Reagan tax code, which taxed the top income bracket (the super rich) at 70 percent versus 17 percent today. It also means demanding that state tax laws be drastically changed in the same direction. [For more information, see Dorothy Brown's March 8, 2009, New York Times Editorial on America's two tax systems.-Eds.]

Finally, if people would like to attend a protest that is not vague about its motives nor heavily promoted by the right wing, international workers day is on May 1st, and demonstrations are being planned throughout the country. Somebody will inevitably have to pay for the economic crisis, and if we are quiet it will be us.

How is this to be explained?

If you ask a self-proclaimed progressive why he or she admires a particular conservative pundit, you’ll most likely receive a list of “progressive” positions:

• Against the Iraq War
• Against free-trade (especially NAFTA)
• Against Globalization
• Against the bank bailouts
• Against the Federal Reserve
• Against restrictions on civil liberties

At first glance, then, members of the Left feel obliged to open their arms to these strange bedfellows, who feel more like first cousins than traditional enemies. If, however, one looks under their gleaming progressive garments, an unreformed wolf emerges.

Who are the wolves in question? 

A short list may include: Ron Paul, Craig Paul Roberts, and Pat Buchanan.

A quick biography of each person is necessary to put their politics in the correct context, especially since none of the three have renounced their political past.

Ron Paul is a long time Republican congressmen in the House of Representatives, while at the same time being a self-professed Libertarian — the party in which he ran for president in 1988. Paul is extremely religious, strongly anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and incredibly anti-immigration (he regularly refers to immigrant workers as “the illegals”). Paul once famously stated “that 95 percent of the black males in Washington, DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” In ’92, Paul was an advisor for Pat Buchanan’s Republican Presidential campaign and more recently ran for the Republican nomination in 2008. Paul became a true name brand when, in 2003, he voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

Craig Paul Roberts is primarily an economist, and in that capacity was chosen to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan. While in this position, he played a critical role in implementing the 1981 Tax Act, which was the first of two tax cuts — under Reagan — for the super rich to the tune of a 42% reduction, while overall taxes for the lowest tax bracket were raised 1%. Roberts has only fond memories of the Reagan administration. Roberts too has Libertarian leanings and has served as a “Distinguished Fellow” for the Cato institute, a right-wing think-tank. He has been a severe critic of President Bush, which gives him credentials with liberals. His syndicated column circulates widely over the internet.

Pat Buchanan is an old school Republican having gained notoriety for being a close advisor and speechwriter for Nixon. During the Reagan years he served as the White House Communications Director, where his principal task was to garner support for the US-backed military intervention in Nicaragua. Buchanan is a proud co-founder of the infamous “culture war” rhetoric of the right-wing, which primarily pits white US Christians against anyone else, especially immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims, and “Zionists.” For this, Buchanan has earned the praise and influenced the ideas not only of Christian fundamentalists, but white nationalist groups (Nazis), who regularly post links to him — as well as to Ron Paul — on their websites. Like Paul, Buchanan has solid links to the ultra-right, theocratic Constitution Party. Buchanan, like the above two, has earned praise from liberals for being against the Iraq war, while being staunchly anti-“neoconservative” — all three refer to themselves as “real” Conservatives.

The right-wing populist formula is a simple one, and the above three — and to a lesser degree CNN anchorman Lou Dobbs and billionaire Ross Perot — have mastered it.

As Wikipedia states: “The strategy of right-wing populism relies on a combination of ethno-nationalism with anti-elitist (populist) rhetoric and a radical critique of existing political institutions.”

The question remains: how does the strategy of right-wing populism interconnect with the above list of “progressive” political positions?

The most crucial link between the two is the concept of nationalism. Nationalism applied to economics has serious implications. In practice, economic nationalism equals protectionism: placing taxes on goods entering the US or subsidizing US corporations for better market performance. If one is against globalization and free-trade, while staying within a capitalistic framework, protectionism (nationalism) becomes the only real alternative.

But protectionism comes with a price. Not only the inevitably higher prices of inflation, but subservience to corporations within the US national borders. If a large US corporation is a poor competitor on the global market, its owners quickly become rabid advocates of protectionism. Likewise, if a worker advocates protectionism, whether consciously or not (such as some argue in favor of the idea of “fair trade””), they are essentially aligning themselves with the fate of “their” native corporations versus “foreign” ones. The worker is thus left without an independent political perspective, and is apt to view foreign workers as opponents, the same as US corporations view their foreign competitors.

Nothing pleases the billionaire shareholder more than hearing that union officials are working together with management towards better “market competitiveness.” This strategy of owner/worker cooperation has been proven decidedly bankrupt for workers, who are blamed for the uncompetitiveness of “their” corporation, and thus punished with wage and benefit cuts, as is happening currently with GM workers, as well as with many others.

It must also be emphasized that, under capitalism, putting up trade barriers is a serious international matter. The countries whose goods are being excluded likewise put up trade barriers in retaliation, and goods and raw materials that were once freely traded (relatively) on the world market must be attained through other means. This complete breakdown in international relations, itself beginning with the breakdown of the world economy, logically leads in the direction of war. The right-wing populist clearly understands this, but is driven to economic protectionism not by choice but by the corporate interests that he ultimately represents.

Why does right-wing populism emerge at all?

In normal times, when capitalism is functioning without crisis, there is little room for the far right. When capitalism does enter crisis, the political parties subservient to corporate interests evolve accordingly. This is why both the Democrats and Republicans have been veering to the right for decades; it represents the deterioration of American capitalism’s global position, which is related to the inability of US corporations to maintain their past rates of profit. When an economic crisis intensifies, as it is now, not only does the ruling class require a new political path, but a new vehicle too.

In the 1980’s, when Japanese and European corporations successfully “caught up” with many US companies, Pat Buchanan prophetically remarked that “there was a political vacuum to the right of Reagan.”

Buchanan and the other right-wing populists strove to fill that gap. Foreseeing that the so-called neo-conservative movement in the Republican Party was headed for utter failure (because of losing two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), the right-wing populists began a campaign of radical rhetoric, denouncing everything within the existing two-party system. They are not against wars in general — since they happily supported the war in Afghanistan — but against, as Obama put it, “dumb wars.” As the economic crisis deepens, the rhetoric of the ultra-right will continue to radicalize likewise.

This anti-government speechifying can resonate in the ears of many workers, since they have a valid deep-seated suspicion of the two-party system, not to mention the many other institutions the rich use to rule over the
majority — the Federal Reserve, CIA, electoral college, the judicial system, the police, etc.

And while the far right says they are against most government institutions, they are primarily against business regulation, public education, the social safety net, and against whatever else that reduces the profits of the corporations they serve. And this is where the different groups of the far right — Libertarians, Constitution Party, “real” conservatives, etc. — sing a hymn together in perfect harmony.

They loudly condemn government to the masses, while quietly idealizing both the market economy and “private property” to their corporate backers. Private property is, to them, not the home you live in, but the giant corporation owned by an individual or small group. In their idealized society, there would be no limit to the mega-employers greed for profits: no minimum wage, no social security, no workers’ protection, no social safety net, etc. The majority of people would naturally rebel against this, requiring the “free-market” idolaters to quickly reestablish all the old, “repressive” institutions.

Since the right-wing has ultimately the interests of the rich in mind, they must resort to radical rhetoric to secure a mass base, while distracting their followers away from the source of their seething anger – capitalism. This is the same reason that they pander not only to religion, but also to ignorant racists by focusing on immigration, condemning both homosexuality and Islam, while ranting against “multiculturalism.”

Unfortunately, the radical rhetoric has fooled a great many workers into supporting the cause of the right-wing populist. This rhetoric, combined with the poor education many schools and unions provide — since the union bureaucrat benefits from the status quo — not to mention the limited perspective of most progressive organizations, makes large sections of the working class especially vulnerable to these radical appearing ideas.

The need, therefore, to be able to distinguish between the political essence of Left versus Right is fast becoming critical. As the recession deepens, the far Right will use their rhetoric and large donors to gather strength. Unmasking their “progressive” positions for what they are is paramount if their true role in support of their capitalist masters is to be exposed. No alliances can be made with this dangerous group.

Below the progressive phrases of the ultra right lie class interests, and explaining the fundamentally opposed relationship between worker and owner is crucial if we are to prevent their ideas from developing a mass base capable of being transformed into fascist reaction.

Workers should not adopt the ideology of their employers. We need one that is radically different in essence, not only in appearance. Luckily, such a perspective already exists, and is ultimately the only path that strikes at the root of capitalism — socialism. Workers do not need owners, managers, or bureaucrats; we are capable of running society ourselves.