IS THE "TEA PARTY" REALLY A POPULIST MOVEMENT?

@msolga,

Well, it actually had the support of Howard and part of the Lib/Nat coalition. I think Howard shamelessly capitalised upon the reactionary surge for which One Nation provided a focus and a voice leading up to the 1996 election....he never had actually to come out and endorse them, but I think he surfed into power by cleverly supporting that wave.

I also think the Murdoch media did the same thing...without ever clearly coming out in support. I don't think we have a mainstream paper media prepared to behave as outrageously as Fox does, and I take your other points.

I wish the US had the same restraints about shamelessly supporting such a movement....

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Howard initially (publicly, anyway) rejected Pauline Hanson & her racist politics. Remember, she was originally a Liberal candidate ..:

Quote:

Pauline Hanson's One Nation was formed in 1997 by Pauline Hanson, David Oldfield and David Ettridge. Hanson, an endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Oxley at the 1996 federal election, had been disendorsed by the party shortly before the elections due to comments opposing "race-based welfare," made to a local newspaper in Ipswich, Queensland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Nation_%28Australia%29

However, as you say, he clearly saw benefits for the Liberal Party by adopting many elements of her right wing populist agenda. Ever the opportunist.

Quote:

I also think the Murdoch media did the same thing...without ever clearly coming out in support. I don't think we have a mainstream paper media prepared to behave as outrageously as Fox does.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, Deb. To me, there was nothing like the extent of the blanket coverage (& approval) of Hanson at the time in Murdoch's Oz media outlets (compared to the Tea Party on FOX News right now). I saw Murdoch's agenda more in terms of supporting whichever side did "the right" thing by his Oz media empire (which was Howard & the Libs at the time) , rather than enthusiastically supporting an overtly racist agenda. Though clearly he wasn't too concerned about how exactly he achieved that. Wink

1 Reply

@msolga,

Well, I don't know as we disagree all that much.

Yes, Howard rejected her while he could still be held publicly accountable for her...he refused to reject her once he could use her sentiments without being held publicly accountable for her.

I already acknowledged the difference in what the Murdoch media were prepared to support publicly in Oz vs what they can publicly foster in the US.

My take on that is that there is not a sufficiently large market in Oz (largely due to the smaller population?) for Murdoch to profit from the loony right, while the loony right in the US is big enough to ensure him good returns.

Do we differ all that much?

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

Do we differ all that much?

Not that much, Deb.
Just on the extent of his media outlets supporting the policies of One Nation, compared to the situation in the US now.

0 Replies

I'm not sure if One Nation is an international effort, but there is a American org by this name, and it had a very large (though poorly covered) rally here in DC a few weeks ago.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Art, the Australian version of One Nation was a purely an Australian invention.

Count your blessings. Wink

0 Replies

Is there a thread about (or a link, please, to) the Jon Stewart rally in Washington today?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Butrflynet posted this thread link here earlier today, McTag:

http://able2know.org/topic/161507-1

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Speaking of rallies .. I see there's one in Washington, to restore sanity tomorrow! .........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/29/midterms-jon-stewart-rally-washington

Sanity? The information on which your opinion is based is second-hand at best. It also unreliable, biased, and downright incorrect, as posters with actual first-hand access to the data have already told you on this thread. Observing that you reach rather strong conclusions - "sanity"?! in no way constitutes a "shooting the messenger" response, as you consistently take it. It's an objective observation, with which you will agree if you think about it for a moment. Unless your definition of sanity has no connection with demonstrable facts, in which case you would perhaps post your idiosyncratic definition.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

That's what it's been called, I believe, High Seas. I didn't invent the title myself.:

Quote:

Jon Stewart rally - live updates

The Daily Show host is holding a 'rally to restore sanity' in Washington DC to counter the conservative resurgence in the US midterm elections. Follow live updates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/30/jon-stewart-rally-restore-sanity?intcmp=239

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

It also unreliable, biased, and downright incorrect, as posters with actual first-hand access to the data have already told you on this thread.

Now that's what ya call ironic humor.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Now that's what ya call ironic humor.

Ironic, as opposed to what other kind of humor?

1 Reply

@msolga,

If you're quoting from some source, it's customary to place the quote (verbatim) in quotation marks and name the source. Otherwise it appears to be your own opinion and readers not inclined to be impeccably polite (as I, for one, have invariably been with you) might accuse you of plagiarism Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Everyone else appears to know what this rally is about.
I didn't think it needed any introduction to any of you.
Yikes, it's in your country (in your national capital) , not mine. Wink

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Pathetic . . . except that applies here, too.

0 Replies

@msolga,

This is exactly what you wrote - linked on the first comment I made on this page - with bold added:

Quote:

Speaking of rallies .. I see there's one in Washington, to restore sanity tomorrow! Smile
Will any of you be there?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/29/midterms-jon-stewart-rally-washington

You will please note that the article you linked is entitled "Jon Stewart rally promises fun, but some hope for more".

The title and subtitle nowhere mention the word "sanity" or the verb "restore". You obviously added this as your own opinion, not placing it in quotation marks, which technically constitutes plagiarism. The term does appear in the body of the rather long and tedious article; it appears once, with "insanity that has swept America" (no, really? any backups for this?) appearing once as well. You choose to adopt wording of a leftist rag, that is your privilege, but you really must learn to distinguish between facts and opinions before you adopt them as your own - and make clear when you're quoting someone else.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

This is exactly what you wrote - linked on the first comment I made on this page

Yes, & people knew what I was referring to.
It isn't my responsibility if you didn't ..
This is getting plain silly, High Seas.
Why not just leave it?

1 Reply

@msolga,

Great idea!!!

More rallies for sanity, I say.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
This is exactly what you wrote - linked on the first comment I made on this page

Yes, & people knew what I was referring to.

I'm sure the subset of people who mistake opinions in leftist rags for facts, knew what you were referring to - but nobody else Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

(High Seas, you might not quite see this right now , but I am actually being quite gracious here. Seriously. I am actually trying to let you off the hook, but you seem determined to hang yourself!)

1 Reply

IS THE "TEA PARTY" REALLY A POPULIST MOVEMENT?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know