Mar
10
David Brooks wrote an article in the NYT comparing the Tea-Party movement to that of the American New Left movement in the 60’s.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.
It was a somewhat disingenuous comparison. Alex Massie offered his two pennies also.
But I have just had the pleasure of reading this brilliant critique of Brooks’ article by Lee Harris at The American and he makes what should have already been an obvious point, that there is little merit in the elites critiquing a populist anti-elite movement.
First he dissects Brooks’ “Wal-Mart hippie” comparison. The New Left were not hippies:
But Brooks is not really comparing the Tea Party movement to the hippie movement of the ’60s. Instead, he is comparing it to the New Left of the same decade. In one respect he appears to have made an honest mistake. In his mind, the New Left and the hippie movement have strangely merged. Members of the New Left “went to Woodstock”—didn’t they? Actually, no, they didn’t. We should not confuse the carefree, frolicking hippie movement of that era with the mirthless and dour New Left of the same period. Hippies were whimsical spirits. The New Lefties were mirthless zealots. Hippies smoked pot and had fun. New Lefties read Lenin and plotted revolution. New Lefties regarded hippies as frivolous and fatuous. Hippies looked on New Lefties as the ultimate downers.
And comparisons between the Tea-Partiers and the New Left are invalid too:
Second, Brooks completely ignores the most striking feature of the New Left—the very quality that distinguished it from the Old Left. The Old Left, in good Marxist fashion, based its revolutionary hopes on the men and women who must work for a living, while the New Left went out of its way to culturally alienate working-class Americans by supporting the Black Panthers, attacking patriotism, insulting the police, and demeaning military service. Drawn largely from major universities, and often springing from privileged and affluent backgrounds, the adherents of the New Left were elitist to the core, assuring that the appeal of the New Left would be narrowly limited to only a tiny segment of the American population. But that is precisely the point at which Brooks’ comparison between the New Left and the Tea Party movement falls to pieces. The Tea Party movement has mass appeal; the New Left did not.
And Harris’ conclusion?
But too many of those currently involved in “analyzing” the Tea Party movement seem to have no genuine interest in grappling with its potential historical significance. They are content to ridicule and scoff at it. They are delighted to draw analogies between the Tea Partiers and various inconsequential fringe movements of the past, such as hippies or the New Left. But no approach could possibly be more counterproductive than a policy of conspicuous disdain. There is no surer way of convincing the Wal-Mart crowd that America really has fallen into the hands of arrogant elitists than to show contempt for working people like themselves. It is one thing to preach to the choir. It is another thing to spit at the congregation.
Harris is spot on. The elites are floundering in trying to understand what it is that the proles are complaining about and that only leaves them one avenue; to ridicule. And the more they fail to engage, the greater the fuel to fire up the populists further. It is the start of a new culture war that has the potential to resonate in future elections.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read in recent times, I strongly urge you to read it in full.
Feb
17
Tea-Party Demographics
Filed Under American Politics | 8 Comments
CNN has polled tea-partiers and we finally get a look at the Demographic make-up of those that support the tea-party movement.
Firstly it should be pointed out that the tea-party movement is still a distinct minority. For example, 0nly 2% of those polled have donated money to tea-party causes whilst only 5% have attended a rally.
But on to the demographic makeup of the movement. Talking Points Memo think it revealing that tea-partiers are more male, more college educated and higher earners than the general population at large but what is noticeable about TPM’s commentary is what they are no longer calling the tea-partiers; a bunch of southern based racist elderly loons because the numbers don’t support that. But first let’s back up a little. “more college educated”? Well that doesn’t fit the pre-conceived ideas that the left have of a bunch of in-bred dimwits does it? Oh well, moving on.
Is the tea-party a southern based movement? No not really. 31% of those polled who support the tea-party movement come from the south. That compares to 29% in the mid-west, 28% in the west and 13% in the northeast. Aside from the NE, that’s a very even spread.
Is the tea-party a predominantly white movement? Well yes, but not really any more so than the American electorate generally. 80% of those supportive are white compared to the 74% who voted at the last election who are white, a fairly even match to the American electorate. It’s true that only 2% of African-Americans support the tea-party movement, much less than their general representation amongst the population, but 10% of tea-party support comes from hispanics compared to 11% of the electorate.
Is tea-party support gained mainly from the elderly? No. And that’s quite emphatic. By far the largest group represented are 30-49 year olds at 40% whilst 18-29 year olds constitute 20% of tea-party support. In fact 18-29 year olds are over-represented in the tea-party movement, they only make up 18% of the electorate.
18-29 years old 20%
30-49 years old 40%
50-64 years old 29%
65 and older 12%
It’s time for the left to put aside their smears about the tea-partiers. What’s that quote they like to use of Daniel Patrick Moynihan?
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Unfortunately for the left, the facts as represented by this poll don’t tally with the liberal spin. The tea-partiers represent a normal cross-section of society except in two areas. They under-represent blacks (hardly surprising given the level of support amongst blacks for Obama) and they under represent urban communities being a movement of the suburbs and rural America.
Feb
16
The Left Are Tone Deaf
Filed Under Uncategorized | 15 Comments
In Indiana, a liberal Democrat, Tamyra d’Ippolito is trying to get the necessary signatures to register as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in that state, replacing Evan Bayh. On her facebook page, she calls for others to support her bid including tea-partiers. Impressive bipartisan outreach? Not so much. The leftist lexicon is letting her down somewhat:
We are calling all people to file signatures tomorrow Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Tea Baggers, everyone with a pulse go to your county clerks office tomorrow before noon in your district.
I think she may struggle to get “tea baggers” on board.
Feb
11
A British Tea-Party
Filed Under British Politics | 35 Comments
Gareth Williams at Ragbag looks at why there hasn’t been a British equivalent to the tea-party. It’s well worth a read and makes for an interesting discussion.
His list of reasons for the lack of a British tea-party are sensible and valid, but I’m not sure it’s an impossibility, I’ve always thought that a blue collar/lower middle-class conservatism would resonate in the UK. That is why I’ve been interested in American conservatism and that is why Sarah Palin always appealed to me. The basis for a tea-party movement is there. Two political parties already exist, in the BNP and UKIP that attract the type of people who would be supportive of a populist conservatism, although both parties have serious failings and people in the UK are increasingly suspicious of the growing power of the state, of our perceived immigration problems and of our creeping tax liabilities.
But three things serve as powerful hiderances. Firstly, the first past the post electoral system and the centralised system of government prevents a new political party from gaining any real traction. Secondly, as Gareth Williams points out, there is no Fox News or talk radio equivalent that would help get the “tea-party” message out. And finally, there is no-one with the name recognition to lead such a movement. So whilst it would be wonderful if it did happen, I think it’s highly unlikely.
Anyways, an interesting read worth your time.
Update: Actually I’ve thought of a fourth reason preventing a tea-party movement. Money. I struggle to see where the money would come from. British business is hardly of the laissez-faire conservative mindset that American small businesses tend to be, and we don’t have the same culture of making political contributions as they are in the US.
Jan
14
An interesting argument from libertarian website reason (authored by William D Eggers and John O’Leary as to why government should not necessarily be antithetical to conservatives. I don’t have time to do this full justice, so I advise you to read it.
The tea-party movement has been excellent at drawing peoples attention to the incompetence and inefficiencies of government. As a form of protest it works well, but it is not a recipe for government. There will always be a need for government, the test for conservatives is not that they eschew it, but that they make it work well whilst keeping the impact on the ordinary person as small as is reasonable. Arguably the most successful Republican in government right now is Mitch Daniels. He is not a tea-partier, but someone who tries to make things run smoothly and cost-effectively. Probably the best electoral performance by a Republican was Bob McDonnell in Virginia. Again, no tea-partier but a pragmatist, and it was that pragmatism that won him the election, not his social conservatism. On the other hand, the one electoral test that the tea-party movement has had was Doug Hoffman in NY-23, a failed test. Republican, need to capture some of the sentiment of the tea-party movement, the need tea-partiers to keep them honest, and I certainly am not being critical of the movement. But it will not work as a doctrinaire electoral movement in it’s own right but needs to be folded in alongside good government conservatism.
Dec
17
A Seismic Shift!?!
Filed Under American Politics | 9 Comments
Last week a Rasmussen poll asked the hypothetical question about who people would vote for should a tea-party party exist. It outpolled Republicans:
Democratic Party 36%
Tea-Party Party – 23%
Republicans – 18%
They’ve now shot into the lead in the latest NBC/WSJ poll:
Tea-Party Party – 41%
Democratic Party – 35%
Republican Party – 28%
In truth, NBC are asking a different question to Rasmussen; not “who would you vote for”, but “do you have a favourable/unfavourable view of the respective parties?” But even so, that’s a remarkable ascendancy.
To be honest, I don’t see the Tea Party phenomena being maintained as thoughts are concentrated towards the 2010 election. Once the Democrats get the healthcare fiasco behind them (win or lose), they’ll put forward some sort of jobs bill* which should get them some of their mojo back and Republicans will focus on a unified electoral message that will encapsulate much of the Tea Party philosophy. The Tea Partiers will be pulled in both directions.
But it is yet more evidence of the potential dramas ahead for incumbents of both political parties. Very few Congressional seats will be seen as safe as we head into the electoral season.
* However, if they try an illegals amnesty bill, then that could boost the tea-partiers even more.
Nov
26
Too Good For Words
Filed Under American Politics | 36 Comments
Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann will be two of the speakers at the first National Tea Partry Convention in February:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) will speak at the first-ever National Tea Party Convention this upcoming February.
The announcement of plans for the conservative lawmaker to attend the Tennessee event came from Tea Party organizer Sherry Phillips via Twitter Tuesday.
Bachmann, who has emerged as a champion of the Tea Party movement, will join ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin at the convention for the “purpose of networking and supporting the movements’ multiple organizations principle goals.” Palin will be the “special keynote speaker” at the event, which is taking place at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee.
Wingnut heaven; liberal hell.
On Michele Bachmann. Whatever one thinks of her, she is an excellent self-publicist. She’s really making a name for herself in this Obama age.
Nov
25
Oscar Material?
Filed Under American Politics | Leave a Comment
Somehow I don’t think liberal Hollywood will be giving this film an Oscar:
Who is the person that voices these trailers?
Sep
16
Who Are They Trying To Convince?
Filed Under American Politics | 64 Comments
Jimmy Carter has now jumped on the racism bandwagon. Democrat Hank Johnson has evoked images of the KKK riding out into the night (did someone say fear-mongering?). The Democrat and liberal response to any criticism of Obama has become one of knee-jerk cries of racism. It seems that whenever a liberal blogger or commentator refers to the President in the context of criticism, suddenly he has become the “black President”, something I’ve never seen used in the right wing blogosphere.
Some of the criticism has been racist, either subtly or overtly. Water melons in the White House garden, a blacked out picture to represent Obama amongst the other Presidents and the witch doctor image. But these are exceptions. One of the allegations of racism levelled against the 9/12 protesters was the number of “take back our country” posters. But the left spent the last eight years using that very phrase. Howard Dean, the recent DNC chairman wrote a book entitled “Win Back America”. That particular allegation doesn’t wash.
But leaving the facts of whether or not there is racism explicit or implicit in the criticism of Obama (some but not all by a long shot), I think the more important question, is what are the Democrats trying to achieve by stoking up the race wars as they are? And more importantly, who are they trying to convince? Because at the moment, the answer is not very many people.
In a Rasmussen poll, they asked whether people thought that criticism of Obama was racist.
Only 12% of likely voters thought that the criticism was racist. 67% disagreed. If the Democrats are trying to paint Obama opponents as racist, they are failing miserably. Breaking it down further reveals the impotence of this line of attack:
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans reject the notion that most of the opponents are racist. So do 78% of voters not affiliated with either major party. However, just 39% of Democrats share that view.
Even amongst Obama’s strongest supporters, at best there is parity who do think attacks are racist and those who don’t:
Among Obama’s strongest supporters, those who Strongly Approve of his job performance, 35% say most opponents are racists, 32% disagree and 33% are not sure.
Among African-American voters, 27% say most opponents are racist, 25% disagree, and 48% are not sure.
Fifty percent (50%) of white Democrats reject the charge of racism, but 15% say it’s true.
The truth is, this is a feeble effort to discredit the right. They are convincing no-one, and are more likely to turn off the more independent voters and white Democrats that always disliked the racial divisiveness of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Barack Obama had the right idea, to portray himself as post-racial. That is why he sought to put the Rev. Wright controversy behind him so quickly. And to his credit, Obama has not got involved in this very petty politicking. On this, he is a decent man. It is a shame he is being let down so badly by his party and his supporters.
Sep
14
That’s Worrying
Filed Under Uncategorized | 21 Comments
I find myself somewhat in agreement with Andrew Sullivan.
Sullivan calls himself an Oakeshottian conservative. In brief (and very generalised), Michael Oakeshott believed in a balance between the forces skeptical of government, and the forces who believe government has the power to do good. The two forces balance the excesses of each other. So Sullivan’s response to a dissenting e-mail is interesting. First the dissent:
But with Obama we don’t get change, we get more of the same. More government, just like Bush. A failed Keynesian stimulus driving us ever deeper into debt (and straight out the Bush playbook, with his ridiculous tax rebate of last year). More government in health care (Bush, Medicare expansion). More government in energy policy (energy bill passed under Bush’s watch). I’m all for change, just not for big government.
Part of Sullivan’s initial response corresponds to my developing views:
I also realize that in real politics, you have to construct a solid coalition for all this and make arguments for it consistently (as Reagan did for decades) and have some credibility. But the GOP has been doing he opposite, fighting wars – cultural and military – instead of attending to basic fiscal responsibility and limited government. You cannot just pivot on a dime without some accounting of the recent past.
I know that this will make me somewhat unpopular with those on the right, but the conservative movement has failed in recent times. They idolise Reagan, whilst completely ignoring the very reason for Reagan’s successes; that a consensual coalition is required to enact a non-divisive agenda. This is something the current conservative movement is ignoring.
I have a great deal of respect for the tea-party movement. anytime citizens become concerned and then peaceably engaged is good for democracy. sure there are excesses, some of the signs are hardly likely to persuade waverers, but that is a minority. The majority is a citizenry concerned for their future, worried about losing what they have and suspicious of a power grab by bureaucracies and partisan single interest groups. Sullivan is right to point out that these concerns have come somewhat late, but under Bush, the threat to an individuals autonomy was a lot less pervasive than it is now.
But the tea-partiers are looking to the wrong period in American history. Turning the clock back to Thomas Paine, Common Sense and the revolution is denying the narrative of American history. Reagan had the right idea. He was a post New Deal conservative. Whilst he was suspicious of government, he recognised that government has a function in a civil and ordered society. And the truth is, those protesting in Washington on 9/12 are post new deal conservatives too. I doubt they want the repeal of social security. They rely on their medicare if they are eligible (I know – great society not new deal) and they were brought up in a newly industrialised and prosperous post-war America.
So the protests do have the ability to resonate on a larger scale if they are focused in the right way. And just as importantly, they are essential to the democratic process. And it is on this point that I part with Andrew Sullivan’s conclusions:
The protestors keep saying that they want their country back. Sorry, my fellow small-governmenters, but this country is a democracy, and you didn’t lose your country, you just lost an election. You had your chance for eight years. You blew it, and you lost. What Obama is doing is what he was elected to do. The principled response is not a massive, extremist-riddled hissy fit a few months in, but a constructive set of proposals to build on universal care for a more market-friendly and cost-conscious system in the future. You have to win some political credibility for that; and then you have to beat the man you lost so badly to last year. That’s the civil and civilized way forward for the right. It also seems, alas, to be the one they are currently refusing to take.
Andrew Sullivan is wrong. politics is not a zero-sum game in which the losers of elections should be forced to sit back and wait for their turn to come round again. Winning an election does not give the winner carte blanche to enact any legislation that he wants. All an election win grants, is the right to control the agenda for a while. But politics is a dynamic process that constantly requires all opinions to be engaged. Without that, balance in the political process cannot be achieved. And it is this balance that sees to the needs of all the citizenry.