Lindblom-inspired speculation

Here's a thought-in-progress: Suppose that the vitriol and anger that almost all agree is a big part -- in the view of most, too big a part -- of our political discourse of late is the semi-conscious consequence of a dim sense that the Radical View Lindblom speaks of is sensed by many of our citizens. I'm wondering if, at some fuzzy level, a large fraction of our population suspects that our system is no longer the proud republic it once was, the shining city on the hill that Reagan spoke of, and that the "powers that be" -- be they banks or members of Congress, or special interests (other than the gun lobby) -- do "govern" in a way that mimicks the brutush yet subtle processes of repression that the Radical View pointed to some thirty years ago.

I will confess that my initial -- and still dominant -- view of the Tea Party is that its populism and sense of indignation are misdirected in as much as they are targeted on Obama and the Democrats now, though many would add George W. Bush's brand of borrow-and-spend fiscal policy as alien as well. The problem, in my mind, with such thinking is that it is tone-deaf on the workings of crony capitalism -- i.e., unregulated, untaxed, unproductive wealth creation that occurs at the expense of genuine free enterprise where liberty is preserved and enhanced and economic wellbeing is maximized. That kind of free-market fundamentalism is far from the realities of Wall St and the big banks today. Concentrated corporate power is as big a threat --if not bigger -- to individual liberty and equal opportunity than so-called Big Government. To be sure, government has grown in a Big Brother kind of way over the past decade, but the growth has been in Homeland Security and Defense, areas that conservatives generally have few problems with. Corporate political power is no longer as invisible as it once was before the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United. US corporations are said now to control between two and four trillion dollars in cash, waiting to see where investment opportunities will present themselves -- in our out of the country -- in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in 2008. Were they to invest in US-based businesses, the stock market would rebound and, provided that the financial system began to loan money to small business again, it's possible that economic growth would exceed 3% over the next year, making a reduction in the unemployment rate a real possibility before the 2012 election. Now, the Tea Party has been silent on the threats to liberty posed by this concentration of wealth; indeed, they were largely opposed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the superrich.

What is the view of others on this basic question? Is it possible that the Radical View -- stripped out its Marxist origins -- is one that intuitively appeals to the many voices that have gravitated toward the Tea Party? If so, how should the two major parties respond to this? I'm wondering what others make of the views that many have of our politics these days? Is it fair to surmise that they don't buy the benign, common benefit society conception of the Conventional View?
Does that mean they have a dim suspicion that the Radicals are right?

Finally, having watched the Tucson Memorial tonight, I'm wondering what the view is of President Obama's remarks. He had a tough challenge, and by most accounts, his speech struck the right tone. Thoughts?