Posted on 10/30/2013 3:39:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I had a familiar feeling at my first tea party rally. It was a sunny spring afternoon and Boston Common was packed with people passionate for change, excited to hear Sarah Palin speak and having a great time.
It brought me back to my first political rallies, those glorious gatherings devoted to stopping the Vietnam War and demanding racial justice. How thrilling it felt to be surrounded by thousands of people who shared our commitment, joining their voices to demand new policies.
We had flags with peace signs on them. The tea partiers had flags with coiled snakes. We shook our clenched fists in defiance. They shouted "Don't Tread on Me." We mocked Richard Nixon. They ridiculed Barack Obama.
Four years later, I still see similarities between the New Left and the Tea Party Right, but they are darker. These last few weeks have been no day in the park. Body type J: Political movements are seductive for those who yearn to believe. They can wrap anger in nobility and resentment in solidarity. In the sunny fellowship of the protest rally, it feels like the whole world agrees with you.
Movements reinforce their messages by cutting out others. In the ‘60s, we said "don't trust anyone over 30." The tea partiers say "don't trust the mainstream media." Such sentiments make it easier for activists to become disconnected from ordinary Americans and for their movement to go off the rails.
Grassroots movements are easily pulled to extremes by their own enthusiasms and the arguments of their media cheerleaders. Narrow issues become broader critiques of the status quo. Recruits may go into it intending to fix a problem, but later find themselves advocating the overthrow of the government. People get radicalized, especially when change doesn't come quickly enough.
In the 60s and 70s, I watched anti-war liberals grow into anti-government radicals. They resented the liberals - especially liberal Democratic politicians - who wanted the young protesters to cut their hair and clean up their language. "Compromise" became a dirty word. To the radicals, the Vietnam War was just the tip of the iceberg. Underneath lurked a corrupt system rotten to the core, one that was bound to fall. The idea that they might help push it over the edge was exhilarating.
For the tea party's hard core, getting rid of Obama and Obamacare is just the beginning. Even undoing the New Deal isn't enough; they'd like to undo the Progressive Era as well.
Radicals yearn for the cataclysm that will turn the corrupt status quo upside down. I remember academic radicals in Berkeley and Harvard Square saying "the worse things are, the better they are," because political or economic disasters would push the country toward the revolution they sought.
I heard echoes of that this week as the federal government approached the debt ceiling. Bring on the default, let the economy crash, then people will see that America has no choice but to turn its back on these policies and follow our vision.
But ordinary Americans don't want a revolution. They want jobs, safety for their families, a little money in their pockets at the end of the week. They don't want politicians or revolutionaries shutting down the national parks they planned to visit. They don't want their pension checks delayed or their meals-on-wheels not delivered.
The jokers in Washington constantly describe their priorities as "what the American people want." But what ordinary people want is for Washington to stop screwing up their lives with phony crises. To them, the worse things are, the worse things are. If the nation's top politicians can't make things better, at least stop making them worse.
There are differences between the New Left of 40 years ago and today's Tea Party Right. While a few Democratic hawks in Congress faced primary challenges, the New Left didn't put much stock in elections, and didn't have big-money backers pushing their agenda. Nor did they have a well-developed network of radio talk hosts and a leading cable news channel making their case.
The New Left was deftly demonized by the Nixon administration. Vice President Spiro Agnew coined the term "radical-liberal" to tie respectable mainstream Democrats to the scary extremists. It worked. Democrats were hobbled for a generation by their association with the hippie-peacenik-radicals of the far left.
Does a similar fate await the Republican Party? Will the overheated rhetoric and destructive tactics of the tea party faction further discredit a party already facing demographic challenges? It's too soon to tell, but if Republican leaders in Congress can't wrest control of their party's messaging and tactics away from the radicals, it could be a long time before the GOP can win a national campaign.
Where do these people come from? I mean the planet.
Nah, just big money backers like the Soviet Union, Red China, North Vietnam, the Euro-socialist parties...
No, I really don't think condescension toward the Tea Party movement is going to stick. It isn't really a youth party, for one thing. This isn't the first time its participants have encountered politics, for another. They weren't radical before, and if they are now, why?
The author would do well to gather a few facts and reason from them instead of reasoning from a rather poor analogy. But that takes work.
And now the hippie-peacenik-radicals of the far left are Dem Politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.