4 ms·

"Is the Tea Party a “real” movement, or is it “astroturf”? The speed at which this debate is bouncing around partisan circles is shocking, considering how sil

by jobu 12y ago

"Is the Tea Party a “real” movement, or is it “astroturf”? The speed at which this debate is bouncing around partisan circles is shocking, considering how silly the question is. If a movement is astroturf if some outside force is organizing it, then all movements are astroturf." This seems like a non-sequitur. Grassroots vs astroturf movements differ based on what's in the best self-interest of the majority of it's members. Or in some cases, astroturf means they actually have no members - only PR specialists bombarding politicians and newspapers with letters from supposedly "real people".

randallsquared 12y ago
> Grassroots vs astroturf movements differ based on what's in the best self-interest of the majority of it's members. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you plan to calculate the "best self-interest" of members of a group, and then distinguish by whether the group's aims appear to further the result of your assessment. Is that right?
- jobu 12y ago
  The article is probably right about it being difficult to define what is in the best interests of a large group, but it seems pretty obvious that civil-rights movements are by definition in the best self-interest of the majority of their members. (Think the women's suffrage movement of the early 1900's, the racial equality movement in the 1960s, or the current marriage rights movement for LGBT couples.) The Tea Party seems a little harder to tell. Some are obviously in it for fiscal self-interest (upper and middle class people that want lower taxes). However, there are some in the Tea Party because they fear government intervention even though they obviously benefit from Social Security, Medicare, etc. (At least some of that is caused by fear mongering and twisted truths from Tea Party leaders.)
Millennium 12y ago
But who defines the self-interest of the majority of the membership? Tea Party proponents and opponents, when taken as groups, seem to have very different visions of what constitutes the self-interest of Tea Party members.
the_af 12y ago
The article is arguing that it's legitimate to be concerned about who the organizers are, their motives and their tactics. The only silly question is asking whether there are "outside force" organizers, because that's always true for every movement and protest (regardless of whether the organizers want to operate secretly or openly). It also argues (in this and other points) that it's very difficult to ascertain what the "best interests" of the majority are, and whether there is a cohesive majority at all. For example, it argues that within many anti-war movements there are subgroups with different opinions on tactics and even end goals. IMO, the problem with the Tea Party (which I'm less familiar with) and some so-called "spontaneus and apolitical" movements in my own country, is precisely that they claim to be apolitical, spontaneus (as if ordinary working people one day woke up and decided to start a movement) and outside the political establishment, when in fact the ringleaders and organizers are often the same old politicians operating less openly. They seek the legitimacy they cannot get through votes by pretending it's not them who are organizing the movement/protest, but "the people", and that they just merely support it.
indymike 12y ago
As soon as a group starts having members, there's really no difference between an "astroturf" movement and a "grass roots" movement. Membership is determined by the same exact factors: member support for the movement, effectiveness of the movement in organizing and relative success in getting the message out. It's the difference between a tomato and a tomatoe. Most grass roots movements start with a some funds and a few interested people who get members to join and support their movement so they can afford the PR people and lobbyists they need...
TeMPOraL 12y ago
I have a simple distinction - grassroots = made by people who genuinly care, astroturf = made by liars and cheats. I find it to be a harmful practice with huge externalities - namely deteriorating people's trust in grassroot movements and communities.

by jobu 12y ago

randallsquared 12y ago

> Grassroots vs astroturf movements differ based on what's in the best self-interest of the majority of it's members. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you plan to calculate the "best self-interest" of members of a group, and then distinguish by whether the group's aims appear to further the result of your assessment. Is that right?

jobu 12y ago
The article is probably right about it being difficult to define what is in the best interests of a large group, but it seems pretty obvious that civil-rights movements are by definition in the best self-interest of the majority of their members. (Think the women's suffrage movement of the early 1900's, the racial equality movement in the 1960s, or the current marriage rights movement for LGBT couples.) The Tea Party seems a little harder to tell. Some are obviously in it for fiscal self-interest (upper and middle class people that want lower taxes). However, there are some in the Tea Party because they fear government intervention even though they obviously benefit from Social Security, Medicare, etc. (At least some of that is caused by fear mongering and twisted truths from Tea Party leaders.)

Millennium 12y ago

But who defines the self-interest of the majority of the membership? Tea Party proponents and opponents, when taken as groups, seem to have very different visions of what constitutes the self-interest of Tea Party members.

the_af 12y ago

The article is arguing that it's legitimate to be concerned about who the organizers are, their motives and their tactics. The only silly question is asking whether there are "outside force" organizers, because that's always true for every movement and protest (regardless of whether the organizers want to operate secretly or openly). It also argues (in this and other points) that it's very difficult to ascertain what the "best interests" of the majority are, and whether there is a cohesive majority at all. For example, it argues that within many anti-war movements there are subgroups with different opinions on tactics and even end goals. IMO, the problem with the Tea Party (which I'm less familiar with) and some so-called "spontaneus and apolitical" movements in my own country, is precisely that they claim to be apolitical, spontaneus (as if ordinary working people one day woke up and decided to start a movement) and outside the political establishment, when in fact the ringleaders and organizers are often the same old politicians operating less openly. They seek the legitimacy they cannot get through votes by pretending it's not them who are organizing the movement/protest, but "the people", and that they just merely support it.

indymike 12y ago

As soon as a group starts having members, there's really no difference between an "astroturf" movement and a "grass roots" movement. Membership is determined by the same exact factors: member support for the movement, effectiveness of the movement in organizing and relative success in getting the message out. It's the difference between a tomato and a tomatoe. Most grass roots movements start with a some funds and a few interested people who get members to join and support their movement so they can afford the PR people and lobbyists they need...

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I have a simple distinction - grassroots = made by people who genuinly care, astroturf = made by liars and cheats. I find it to be a harmful practice with huge externalities - namely deteriorating people's trust in grassroot movements and communities.