Organizational correspondences between Tea Party and Al-Qaida

Cultivating Global Strategic Fantasies of Choice (Part #4)

The following exercise is presented to elicit reflection on possible isomorphism between movements which will be the focus of belief or faith in the 21st century. This comparison should not be held to imply that the Tea Party is a source of "bombs", as is alleged in the case of Al-Qaida. However it might be appropriate to consider how the Tea Party movement -- to the extent that it "exists" -- would vigorously support the manufacture and use of bombs in practice, or that it would enthusiastically engage in memetic warfare with the use of "information bombs" (Missiles, Missives, Missions and Memetic Warfare: Navigation of strategic interfaces in multidimensional knowledge space, 2001; Cognitive Ballistics vs. Derivative Correlation in Memetic Warfare, 2009).

The above technique was previously employed in an effort to learn from the dynamics of global issue articulation using, as a first example, the highly controversial and provocative presentation in 2009 by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on the occasion of the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism and Racial Discrimination (Towards a Generic Global Issue Statement: evoking an instructive pattern of unquestionable responses, 2009).

In addition to the above correspondences, it is appropriate to note the radical incitement of their respective "mullahs". In purely systemic terms, is Rupert Murdoch to be considered as the Osama bin Laden of the Tea Party movement?

Main menu

Directions

You are here

Organizational correspondences between Tea Party and Al-Qaida

Comparison of the "non-existence" of Al-Qaida with the Tea Party movement
Tea Party Source: Gary Younge, The Tea Party is not new, or coherent. It's merely old whine in new bottles, The Guardian, 7 November 2010 (Comments)	Al-Qaida Source: Substitutions (in bold) in the text of left hand column -- effectively used as a "template"
The "Tea Party" does not exist. It has no members, leaders, office bearers, headquarters, policies, participatory structures, budget or representatives. The Tea Party is shorthand for a broad, shallow sentiment about low taxes and small government shared by loosely affiliated, somewhat like-minded people. That doesn't mean the right isn't resurgent. It is. But the forces driving its political energy are not those that underpinned its recent electoral success.	"Al-Qaida" does not exist. It has no members, leaders, office bearers, headquarters, policies, participatory structures, budget or representatives. Al-Qaida is shorthand for a broad, shallow sentiment about low taxes and small government shared by loosely affiliated, somewhat like-minded people. That doesn't mean the Islamc fundamentalism isn't resurgent. It is. But the forces driving its political energy are not those that underpinned its recent *popularity*.
The Tea Party is not a new phenomenon. It's simply a new name for an old phenomenon - the American hard right. Over the last two years the term has provided a rallying point for a coalition of disparate groups, most of which have been around for many years.... who vow to resist unconstitutional government "by any means necessary"... [media] listeners who had no unifying identity before.	Al-Qaida is not a new phenomenon. It's simply a new name for an old phenomenon - the *Islamic* hard right. Over the last ten years the term has provided a rallying point for a coalition of disparate groups, most of which have been around for many years.... who vow to resist *unIslamic* government "by any means necessary"... [mullah] listeners who had no unifying identity before.
Having a name helps. It has offered a political identity to a significant number of people who were either not active or might not have understood themselves to be in any way connected. That name has helped reorient the stated priorities of the right away from social issues and towards fiscal ones. But this is no more than the old whine in new bottles.	Having a name helps. It has offered a political identity to a significant number of people who were either not active or might not have understood themselves to be in any way connected. That name has helped reorient the stated priorities of the *fundamentalists* away from social issues and towards *religious* ones. But this is no more than the old whine in new bottles
Most of the characters now closely associated with the Tea Party are not new to rightwing politics. They have just moved from the margins to the mainstream.... These people didn't join the Tea Party, the "Tea Party" term attached itself to them.	Most of the characters now closely associated with Al-Qaida are not new to *fundamentalist* politics. They have just moved from the margins to the mainstream....These people didn't join Al-Qaida, the "Al-Qaida" term attached itself to them.
It is difficult to imagine a candidate earning the Tea Party label who is not against gay marriage or abortion, for the simple reason that no such candidate could exist. White Christian evangelicals still formed one of the most crucial bedrocks of last week's Republican success.... That's far more clout than black and Latino votes combined give the Democrats .	It is difficult to imagine a candidate earning the Al-Qaida label who is not against gay marriage or abortion, for the simple reason that no such candidate could exist. *Islamic fundamentalists* still formed one of the most crucial bedrocks of *recent* success.... That's far more clout than *other believers* combined give *Islamic moderates.*
At first the term Tea Party helped us understand the insurgent, inchoate force that took to the streets last year; now it may be hindering analysis of its more choreographed march to power. For when people ask what the Tea Party will do, talk about Tea Party demands, or lay down Tea Party threats, they mistake (wilfully or otherwise) the Tea Party for a coherent formation with power of cohesive action. It's not.	At first the term Al-Qaida helped us understand the insurgent, inchoate force that took to the hills ten years ago; now it may be hindering analysis of its more choreographed march to power. For when people ask what Al-Qaida will do, talk about Al-Qaida demands, or lay down Al-Qaida threats, they mistake (wilfully or otherwise) Al-Qaida for a coherent formation with power of cohesive action. It's not.
Research conducted over several months by the Washington Post to contact every Tea Party group in the country found that many did not exist. Seventy per cent said they had not been involved in a political event in a year - a year in which the Tea Party was credited with transforming the nation's politics.	*Interrogations* conducted over several months by *secret services* to contact every Al-Qaida group in the world found that many did not exist. *Most* said they had not been involved in a political event in *recent years* - a period in which Al-Qaida was credited with transforming the *region's* politics.
"When a group lists themselves on our website, that's a group," Mark Meckler, a founding member of the Tea Party Patriots, told the Post. "That group could be one person, it could be 10 people, it could come in and out of existence - we don't know."	"When a group *affirms their affiliation, that's a group," Mullah Omar, a founding member of Al-Qaida, told interrogators*. "That group could be one person, it could be 10 people, it could come in and out of existence - we don't know."
This is less of a criticism than a description. Movement-building is hard, messy work that, if it is to be truly at grassroots level, produces uneven results. In that sense it's no different from, say, the anti-war movement, and would have been about as successful were not it for two key factors.	This is less of a criticism than a description. Movement-building is hard, messy work that, if it is to be truly at grassroots level, produces uneven results. In that sense it's no different from, say, the anti-war movement, and would have been about as successful were not it for two key factors.
The first is that the Tea Party has its own "news" channel - Fox - devoted to its growth. It promotes Tea Party demonstrations as though they are events of national celebration and showcases those who pose as its leaders as though they are national celebrities. Second, it has money. A lot of it. When it comes to elections it has the backing of huge amounts of money from private corporations and individuals who are behind institutions... which are run by people with a proven track record of rightwing Republican activism.	The first is that Al-Qaida has its own "news" channel - *word-of-mouth* - devoted to its growth. It promotes Al-Qaida demonstrations as though they are events of *regional* celebration and showcases those who pose as its leaders as though they are *regional* celebrities. Second, it has credibility. A lot of it. When it comes to *initiatives* it has the backing of huge amounts of credit from private foundations and individuals who are behind institutions...which are run by people with a proven track record of rightwing Islamic fundamentalist activism.
The relationship between these organisations and the base of people who call themselves Tea Party supporters is episodic and erratic. They show up in different places where they sense an opportunity for a breakthrough, throw money at it, attract media attention for it, and then see what sticks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires - mostly it makes barely any difference. They have no organic, let alone democratic, relationship with the grassroots that they claim, in some way, to represent. [Leadership]... support is important, but hardly decisive.	The relationship between these organisations and the base of people who call themselves Al-Qaida supporters is episodic and erratic. They show up in different places where they sense an opportunity for a breakthrough, *give credibility to* it, attract media attention for it, and then see what sticks. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires - mostly it makes barely any difference. They have no organic, let alone democratic, relationship with the grassroots that they claim, in some way, to represent. *Leadership*... support is important, but hardly decisive.
It would be too easy to deduce from this that the Tea Party is simply a creation of big business and the rightwing media. Neither, alone, can explain the 50 or so conservative old men who have met at the Nugget Casino in Pahrump, a hard-scrabble town in rural Nevada, every Friday for the last five years, or most of the other groups I have seen around the country. It would also be too naive to suggest that such groups would boast anything other than a marginal presence without big money and media to amplify their voices.	It would be too easy to deduce from this that Al-Qaida is simply a creation of Islamic radical groups and the *fundamentalist* media. Neither, alone, can explain the 50 or so conservative old men who have met.. *at a village tea shop* ...every Friday for the last five years, or most of the other groups... seen around the *region.* It would also be too naive to suggest that such groups would boast anything other than a marginal presence without great credibility and media to amplify their voices.
What we witnessed on Tuesday was not a realignment of American politics but the first real test of the reconfiguration of the balance of forces in the American right. Exit polls show an electorate even more polarised than two years ago...	What we witnessed... *in the recent Afghanistan election... was not a realignment of Afghan* politics but the first real test of the reconfiguration of the balance of forces in *Afghan fundamentalism. Exit polls show an Islamic community* even more polarised than two years ago...

Main menu

Search form

Directions

You are here

Organizational correspondences between Tea Party and Al-Qaida