Ammendment…

I'd like to amend some points made in previous post, namely the question of antigovernment sentiment in America today, the role played by the Tea Parties, and their relationship with the modern Right as a whole.

In my last entry I made this observation:

Of course, the Tea Partiers like to claim that their fight is a philosophical one—Conservatism vs. Socialism—but if the previous eight years of governance by the Right has taught us anything, it is that the Right has generally been more interested in marginalizing and demonizing liberals than in pursuing a true conservative agenda. They may spout out antigovernment views when they are in the opposition, but are too happy to move the full weight of the government to jail antiwar demonstrators of the Left and accuse dissenters of treason. Repression is ok when your side is doing the repressing.

In writing last Sunday's post I had hoped to include quotes from an op-ed I recalled seeing back in April, but had since forgotten its exact name and in what news outlet it was published. I have just rediscovered it, entirely by chance, while browsing the Christian Science Monitor online. Its title should be revealing enough—'Tea party' activists: Do they hate liberals more than they love liberty?
The same can be said for its subheading—A recent ‘tea party’ rally showed lots of anger toward President Obama, but little consistent support for liberty in America.

The article's author, James Bovard—whom I'm guessing is a civil libertarian, given the fact that he is noted for having penned books with titles like, “Attention Deficit Democracy” and “Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty”—describes his findings upon attending a particular Tea Party rally.

Bovard's opening statement:

Many “tea party” activists staunchly oppose big government, except when it is warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding. A movement that started out denouncing government power apparently has no beef with some of the worst abuses of modern times.

This is practically a mirror reflection for my earlier line, "Repression is ok when your side is doing the repressing." I feel that Bovard has given my position ample validation in his findings.

Among Bovard's findings:

Despite its supposed libertarian bent, "the crowd of 300 seemed most outraged that the US government is not being sufficiently aggressive in using its power."

I keep reading…

Ken Timmerman, the author of “Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America” and other hawkish books, declaimed that the US government must take every step to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Mr. Timmerman denounced the Obama administration for being soft on Tehran and urged support for legislation to impose harsh sanctions on Iran. Timmerman previously advocated a US naval blockade of Iran, which he claimed was planning a nuclear attack on the United States.

Running through a litany of President Obama’s greatest failings, Timmerman denounced him for forcing US agents to “stop using enhanced interrogation methods. Has that made us safer?”

“No!” the crowd hollered indignantly.

As my friend Noel has observed on many occasions, the Right's distrust of government usually covers government's role in social services, but not in military or police powers. Bovard makes the same observation and relays it in his report:

There was almost no dissent from any of the 300 attendees. One 50-something man in a faded green T-shirt walked around with a handmade sign declaring, “Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Bring Our Troops Home Now!” He told me that almost no one he’d talked agreed with his message.

Much more in tune with the crowd was the 20-something woman carrying a sign: “PROUD to be the Military Super Power.”

The fact that the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thus far roughly equals the projected cost of the first decade of Obama’s health-care program is irrelevant. Military spending is viewed as holy water by many activists who otherwise despise Washington. While tea party activists rage over Obama’s alleged lies, they ignore the Bush administration’s deceptive justification to attack Iraq.

None of the speakers criticized the warrantless wiretaps that the National Security Agency began during the Bush administration. The feds’ vacuuming up thousands of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a warrant seems to be a nonissue for these folks. Perhaps some tea party leaders hope that Republicans will soon be in position to use such powers to surveil the left.

There are many decent Americans who understandably feel that the government has become too powerful and oppressive. Yet, seeking enlightenment from most tea party speakers is like searching in a dark room for a black cat that isn’t there.(Boldface mine)

Bovard, in this statement, is making no attempt to mask his personal frustrations. Here I'd extend to him my own warning of caution. He can get nowhere by sounding even the slightest bit patronizing, especially when dealing with a crowd that finds unity in a collective distrust of 'elites' with 'establishment' credentials.

But just what are Mr. Bovard's credentials, exactly? A quick check on his his Wikipedia page reveals that his rightist libertarian credentials are impeccable (not sure if I should make that big "L" instead of little "l"). He has made denunciations the Bush presidency from Bush's right, he has been critical of the idea of 'fair trade,' long a staple of liberal/progressive activism, and among his accolades are a "Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association."

Bovard, whether he realizes it or not, is underscoring the dichotomy between the high echelons of the Right—which have now been painted with the 'establishment' banner that they themselves opposed in the Goldwater/Reagan era—and the insurgent movement that composes the Tea Parties. The praise that Bovard has received in the past from influential pundits like George Will and editors of the Wall Street Journal, now work against him.

Here is where the divisions that Rick Perlstein has dubbed, 'Franklins' versus 'Orthogonians' comes to play. Franklins and Orthogonians were the two competing social movements among the student body at Whittier College in the days of Richard Nixon's attendance there. The Franklins represented the well dressed and well spoken movers-and-shakers, while the Orthogonians, led by Nixon, represented the unpolished strivers. Perlstein has argued that this sort of division is applicable to all areas of society, especially in American politics. The establishments of both major parties qualify as Franklins—thus 'elites,' while the upstarts below are the Orthogonians. Perlstein's classic Nixonland makes a convincing case for where this dichotomy exists in other walks of life: In the military, Franklins are commissioned officers, while Orthogonians are enlisted servicemen; and in the media, Franklins are the White House Press Corps, while Orthogonians are beat reporters.

In my last entry, I've laid out my of what defines the political divide. I classify the struggle as between rationalists and irrationalists. I base this on Rick Perlstein's “various elements -- the liberal earnestly confused when rational dialogue won't hold sway; the anti-liberal rage at a world self-evidently out of joint; and, most of all, their mutual incomprehension.” This divide cuts along the traditional liberal and conservative camps. It involves a process of thinking irrespective of political differences. I have proclaimed myself a rationalist thinker, from the left flank. Bovard would there be considered one from the right.

That Bovard is speaking with the conviction of a rationalist who is indeed—to use Perlstein's words—frustrated by "incomprehension" that in this climate "rational dialogue won't hold sway," is evidenced by his disdain for the Tea Party crowd's cultural leanings:

Many of the attendees seemed to hate liberals far more than they loved liberty. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in April showed that two-thirds of tea party members have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, and 57 percent have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. Denouncing big government while approving of President Bush is like denouncing immodesty while sunning oneself on a nude beach. After all, it was Bush who championed the prescription drug benefit for seniors that adds $7 trillion to Washington’s unfunded liabilities.

Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, of course, have been most successful among their party base in their middle-class cultural appeal, as opposed to firm policy awareness. For this reason, Bush was able to survive politically while skirting any consistency in his governing record. Likewise, Palin's influence among the Tea Party crowd lies more in her current rhetoric as a barnstorming activist figure than her history in public office. The two, as Time Magazine puts it find their greatest asset in their ability "to communicate with religious conservatives and Middle Americans."

Bovard finishes his article with the blunt proclamation:

America needs real champions of freedom – not poorly informed Republican accomplices. Either tea partyers should become more principled or they should ditch their Gadsden flags and wear T-shirts of the lobbying group that organizes the rally they attend.

This reminds me of President Eisenhower's decades-old quote: "I don’t think the United States needs superpatriots. We need patriotism, honestly practiced by all of us, and we don’t need these people that are more patriotic than you or anyone else."

The "superpatriots" that Eisenhower was at the time referring to were most likely the John Birch Society and other fellow travelers.

As I have said before, the type of defiant, self-righteousness that Bovard's closing statement touches upon is counterproductive and unhelpful. It highlights the "incomprehension" and emboldens the insurgents.

Thankfully, though, at least some writers are finally beginning to show signs of comprehending. One writer in particular is Time Magazine's Mark Halperin:

FROM: Mark Halperin
TO: Coastal Elites, the Media and Establishment Politicians of Both Parties
RE: Sarah Heath Palin
Don't underestimate Sarah Palin. Yes, she is hyper-polarizing: she sends her fans into rapture and drives her detractors stark raving mad. But she can dominate the news cycle with a single tweet and generate three days of coverage with a single speech (as she did this past Friday in Iowa). Her name recognition is universal.
You are right to complain that she is not offering specific policy proposals and that her inaccessibility to media outlets other than the one that pays her — Fox News — puts her beyond the kind of scrutiny and accountability we have come to expect for our leaders.

But the mistake you are making is to assume that Palin needs or wants to play by the standard rules of American politics. Or that it even occurs to her to do so. Trash her all you want (even you Republicans who are doing it all the time behind her back) for being uninformed, demagogic and incoherent, and brandish the poll numbers that show fewer and fewer Americans think she is qualified to be President. Strain to apply political and practical norms to Alaska's former governor. You are missing the point.

Surely you've come to accept the reality that as a businessperson, Palin is a genius. The gusher of revenue from her speeches, books and television deals sweeps away any doubt that she can brilliantly harness her energy, charisma and popularity into a moneymaking bonanza.

But what you need to appreciate is that the same dynamics of supply and demand that Palin has cleverly exploited for financial gain also make her inimitably formidable as a political force.


I'd say more, but I think that my point based on everything written above is self-explanatory.

Once again, I've been burning the midnight oil.

From Ithaca, NY
This is Joe the Mailman

Goodnight and…