Tea Party attendees and health care town-hall protesters share the common belief that the extravagant spending of President Obama and the Democratic Party will eventually lead more people into government dependency…our country’s financial ruin. These are legitimate fears felt by millions of Americans.

We noted that these concerns are legitimate, while also putting them into perspective with respect to what seems to have become enormous anti Obama hatred and spin.  And we suggested contrasting these concerns, with the contemptuous attitude, as said article also pointed out, of those at the top of other perches:

Stepping up the rhetoric from mockery to pure hatred, and absent any evidence, Mr. Olbermann has called the president’s public protesters “worse than racists.” Political activist and comedian Janeane Garofalo colored them “racist rednecks who hate blacks.”

Regarding these “tea bagger” protests, Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald offers a relevant update to a powerful column putting the far right’s seeming obsessive and almost nonstop concern with a relatively small community activist organization into a little bit of perspective;  a column that, some hyperbole therein aside, we somewhat agree with. 

On the teabaggers, and the right and far right, Greenwald’s points below are perhaps a bit  unyielding. But it is still an interesting assessment of the so called Tea Bagger movement itself, as opposed to what the spinners in popular online blogs have turned their own narrative into.  We think there is credibility to this assessment, because again, where was any of this when Bush was President? (see below).  Or is such vehement anger really just about the economic stimulus recovery package, and a health care plan that very few on either side really seem to understand??

[Greenwald] UPDATE II:  The American Spectator’s Joseph Lawler responds by claiming that the tea-party movement is every bit as devoted to combating the extreme corporate influences I highlight here as it is the likes of ACORN (”it is the same right wing that uncovered ACORN’s crimes that opposed the same marriage of state and big business that Greenwald complains about”).  Sorry, but that’s just ludicrous.  I have no doubt that there are people attending these protests who are non-partisan, non-discriminating and principled in their opposition to government corruption, expansion and excesses.  That’s because there’s no real coherent message to these protests; it’s just amorphous anger which likely has numerous causes among the various participating constituents:  Ron-Paul libertarians, paleoconservatives, LaRouchians, Southern race resenters, social conservatives, GOP operatives, standard dittohead liberal-haters, etc.  Each group has a different agenda, often wildly divergent.  The only thing they seem to have in common is that they hate Obama.

The column goes on to suggest:

But look at who the lead supporters are:  Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio generally, business groups led by Dick Armey.  Does anyone actually believe that what motivates them is concern over the excessive, corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations in government?  Please.  They are pure GOP partisans who are exploiting citizen anger to undermine Democratic politicians in order to return the GOP to political power.  It’s nothing more noble or profound than that.  In fact, many of the movement leaders are among the most vocal advocates for unfettered corporate power.

These are also interesting points. But in conjunction with the paragraph above, they seem to mildly conflate e the idea of open marriage between large business and government, with the somewhat separate idea of excessively powerful business’ influence upon government.

We are against both.  Those of whom Greenwald writes seem to be against only the former, and only cry out against the latter when all of the effects have trickled up, and in very patently obvious fashion, from the very bottom to the very top of society, as most of the time they don’t. And most of the time, they are hidden. 

There also seems, perhaps more importantly,  to be an implicit belief on the far right’s part, that true freedom does in fact mean unfettered corporate power. That is, the word “freedom” is confused with just “economic freedom” and even economic freedom that impinges more on others than it provides in rights to the impingers in the first place. Thus, for example, the far right’s hysteria over any sensible regulations that protect everyone’s individual rights against environmental and toxicological harm flowing from the actions of others, while at the same time showing a complete lack of outrage over what was an intrusive, government power magnifiying,  constitutionally violative, overly secretive, non accountable, and somewhat imperialistic Bush government — the same government that, on the other hand, got out of the way when it came to say, sensibly regulating or overseeing pollutants in the air that we all much breathe, hidden carcinogens in the food supply, national security and environmentally destructive reliance upon international oil, other gaseous emissions of excessive greenhouse gases, or that which cause cause these things.

Thus, we have a right to unfettered corporate influence over government, and unbridled freedom to do what we want therein at any hidden cost to all of society, includingfund future generations, and perhaps inherent individual rights therein.  But we dont have an inherent right to stand up and say, hey, be accountable at the same time for fundamental destruction to whole mountain tops, complete ecological systems, a clean food supply, etc., which my children and your children have as fundamental a right to, as we do to plunder what resources we do have in a sort of non sustainable, environmentally destructive, individual health impacting, economic mad scramble.

Greenwald also seems to believe that one’s hypocrisy– particularly that of those on the right, is something which is self apparent.  We suggest it’s not.